My 2019 AGU talks

AGU is a conference held in December each year, about a week before Christmas. AGU stands for American Geophysical Union. It’s more interesting than it sounds, promise! Usually it’s held in San Francisco. I’ve been a couple of time.

This past December, I had three talks at AGU. Two were invited. I felt very special.

To get to AGU, I first took the train from Houston to Los Angeles. It was a very nice train — and it didn’t take so long — and look at all the pretty things I saw along the way.

Then from Los Angeles, I took mostly an overnight bus north. Overnight so I wouldn’t waste a day traveling. The bus literally does run all night long, and at long last, just after sunrise (it was winter, so the sunrise was kind of late), we arrived in San Francisco. I stayed for a week, gave my 3 talks, and it was great.

My talks were all about my Animations with Kids program. For the second talk, I got to show everyone how I teach the kids 3D animation.

My protoplanetary disk in Blender3D

A protoplanetary disk is, in my opinion, a stupid word that means something very sweet … it just means a solar system in its infancy, when it’s still a baby, still developing. But instead of just calling it a “baby solar system” or, to be more regal, an “infant solar system”, they had to christen it with an ugly, long, totally unnecessary name. It makes it sound like a super foreign, enormously complex idea: what else could a protoplanetary disk be, if not something that you can only understand if you spend many years getting a PhD? Really, it’s a pretty straightforward, though! It’s an infant solar system. But the people getting their PhDs in this have to pretend that their research is sooooo complicated and would go over all your heads, and therefore … we’re stuck with a “protoplanetary disk”.

I should make one more note: I said a protoplanetary disk is “sweet”. It’s sweet because it’s a baby in a sense. But they’re not actually all that sweet. They’re like violent places full of collisions.

Any case, I made one in Blender 3D. This right here was the image I tried to mimic. And this is what mine ended up looking like:

protoplanetary disk0062

Isn’t it nice??!! You can see it spinning in animated form here.

The spinning might be a little fast.

I made this 3D model on my own. I mean, there’s not tutorial out there titled, “How to build a protoplanetary disk in Blender”. So I had to skulk around in several different tutorials and get tips from each to figure out how I was going to do this. One of the few times I’ve completely improvised my Blender work when it comes to a more complicated object. Makes me proud when I experiment and do this. One tutorial in particular that got me started on some ideas was this one on making clouds.

Once I got the basic shape, this is what it looked like:

protoplanetary draft 1

It’s got the concentric circles, but it’s a bit too solid.

So I changed the material a bit, tried to make it transparent, and …

protoplanetary draft 2

This made the disk look a little more insubstantial, which is what I wanted. On the other hand, it made it look like there was a stump in the middle. There was actually no stump there, but this particular material, combined with the light source, produced the aspect of one.

So I finally just cut out some of the vertices in the center of the disk. And also, I changed the way I was setting up the light source. At first, I had set up a sun lamp right over the disk, and let it shine down onto the center. But once I carved out the hole in the disk, I got rid of the sun lamp; added an icosphere in the gap left by the hole; gave it an emission shader; and then amped up the strength a whole bunch.

So again, it ended up looking like this:

protoplanetary disk0062
Protoplanetary disk built in Blender 3D.

This is how I got there:

Objects

First, this is what the model looks like in Blender: you can see both the disk and the “sun” in the center.

protoplanetary model

Modifiers:

The disk is just a plane, extruded upwards a bit, with several modifiers on it. Here you see all of them:

protoplanetary modifiers

I added a subsurface modifier between all the others not because I knew what I was doing, but because I saw someone do that in a tutorial. So it seemed like an impressive thing to do.

Here’s what the parameters of the wave modifier look like:

protoplanetary wave

Here is the Displace modifier parameters, along with the linked texture:

And finally the Simple deform modifier. This one was super fun! I tried out the Bend, Twist, Taper, and Stretch options, each in its turn, and it was so cool to see the results.

protoplanetary simple deform

Lighting

Like I said, I added an icosphere to put in the middle of the disk, and then this is the material I assigned it. Simple and straightforward: an emission shader, a yellow color, and a high strength of 100. I deleted all the other lights.

protoplanetary lighting

Disk material

The material to color the disk did not end up so complicated at all. Here are the nodes:

protoplanetary material

World material

For the world material, I used a background image:

protoplanetary world material

The background image I used is located in the description provided for this YouTube tutorial. That particular YouTube tutorial is what I used to make the first animation in this Twitter thread.

Animate the disk

To make the disk spin, there’s two things you need to do.

  1. First, go to the wave modifier and make sure the speed is set to 0. Otherwise, the disk will spin all by itself, and no matter if I turned the speed up or down, it was rotating way too fast.
  2. Now you can manually animate the disk by adding keyframes. Save the position at the beginning of the animation, and then go forwards on the timeline, spin the disk however much you want (press R-shift-z; the shift-z will make sure the “R” for rotate doesn’t cause the disk to wobble up and down), and then keyframe the new position.

And that’s it! My approach to making a protoplanetary disk in Blender.

Scicomm made polished, part 3

I finished a new animated Twitter thread for work. This one is on planet collisions. Woah!

You can see it here. It’s nine tweets in all.

I wrote about getting feedback onĀ  my animated Twitter threads earlier. I was sad because I was told about how bad and unpolished my work was.

Well, after all my whining and complaining, I did the teacher’s pet, good-girl act of “let me learn from my mistakes” and “take the feedback to heart”. I decided to act all mature and pretend I was happy to be told I sucked. While making the new Twitter thread on planet collisions, I paid attention to the backgrounds and colors I was using. I worked on it for a month, and tweeted it out last Thursday. It was in fact my last act at work before becoming a Coronavirus refugee.

protoplanetary disk0062
This is supposed to represent a solar system in its infancy.

Then I sent this new thread to one of the people who had given me feedback. What do you think now? And in a very cutesy, inspiring turn of events (thankfully), I was told: this looks great! Big improvement! Nice job!

Isn’t that nice?

Further: that the colors and similarities in style between the different animations makes it much more evident that they all go together. That they have a relationship to each other through the color choices or the dark background.

lava flow0071
Lava flow.

You know what, though, I don’t know that I can fully appreciate my own work. I, for example, thought there should be something distinctively consistent in the background for each animation — something I wasn’t able to ensure. But upon receiving my feedback, that was when it first dawned on me that just the simple consistency of a dark background in each animation was enough — nothing fancier than that. So I still have a lot to learn, but it’s definitely nice to receive praise, and I think if I iterate this cycle of experimentation on my part, and feedback from others, I learn little nuggets of insight at a time.

As always, I use Blender3D to make these animations.

Texture vs Point in Blender materials

I discovered a new, tiny detail in Blender3D. It’s a tiny thing that made a big difference.

I was trying to make etches onto a cube with an image — like engrave the image in.

I wanted it to look like this:

puzzle0017

See, nice and clear! However, it was just looking like this:

puzzle0008a

Much less crisp and sharp, and when I went to print it out (the images were for a poster) it didn’t show up hardly at all.

Almost by accident, I discovered what the problem was. Below are two material settings, one for the ‘good’ image and the other for the muddled one:

material texturematerial point

Yes! The only difference was that for one image, the ‘Mapping’ node in the Materials was set to ‘Texture’ (the bad image) and on the other it was set to ‘Point’. And it made all that difference. Amazing, and so, so easy to miss.

Scicomm made polished, part 2

I was bemoaning the apparent lack of polish in my science animations and not quite understanding all the criticisms, but now it’s a few days later, and something has dawned on me.

I remember now reading people’s blogs, and them saying all all their photos are put through pre-sets in Lightroom. Meaning every photo gets a “finish” on it, or something, and it’s the exact same finish for each photo, and that finish will mute the colors all in the same way; or get the brightness of the photo to look the same; or maybe some other stuff, too. So then when you see photos from that person all together, they all have that same sheen to them, so you kind of can tell they came from the same place.

Honestly, does this not also make it boring? So every photo kind of looks the same, one to the next. But if you don’t do this, then your photos look incoherent?

Well, I’m going to try something: for my next animated Twitter thread, I will choose a color palette carefully and stick to those colors throughout the whole thread. And I’ll see if that helps with the “polish” and the “coherence.”

How to make scicomm look polished

They say you should be open to feedback, and of course, of course, yes, yes. But ugh, I so hate being told that something I’ve done isn’t “polished”. I hate hate hate that.

So I met with a designer yesterday, and I showed her this latest Twitter thread I made for work. And yes, after all that work, my animations in the thread weren’t polished, weren’t cohesive. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

So this is the thread… it’s about the crust, mantle, and core of the Earth. Yeah, I think it’s boring, too, but I tried to make it interesting.

So the problems start at the beginning: here is a still from the first animation …

earth xray

… and apparently this is all wrong, wrong, wrong, because the very next animation looked like this:

crust mantle core

And this is all terrible because for both animations, apparently the font I used is not very readable. And because the background for one is a blue gradient and for the second it’s a basic black, it’s not coherent. And then in the first animation, the girl is 2D but the Earth next to her is 3D, and in the second animation the Earth is also 3D, and apparently this is also very disturbing!!

And the first animation also broke all the rules because that square that says “No access” should not have been bigger than the Earth it was covering. The corners should have been inside the Earth. And the black edge is too thick.

I don’t know why. I can’t see it myself that the black edge is too thick and that the corners should have been tucked inside the Earth. But apparently these are the rules you get taught in design school.

And then I was told that people are so used to very slick and polished videos these days, so it’s of utmost importance that all the work looks nice and clean. Aaaaaaaaaaah. I nearly sank into the floor.

I don’t know all these design rules, but I will try two things: I will look for a font that is more “readable” and I will make the backgrounds look the same in all my little animations.

Somehow, I am supposed to get all my animations for a thread looking coherent and put-together like all the photos on this cat-lover Instagram look.

Yes, I do see that those pictures look coherent and pulled together … but I don’t know exactly how to get there myself!!!

Explosions in blender

I need to make an explosion in Blender for work.

First I used this tutorial, which was only 7 minutes long, and I followed it easily and got the result.

But then I decided it looked too cartoonish, so I went for this tutorial, which was 14 minutes long. So still quite short, and for just double the time, it promised something way cooler-looking.

However, I tried it twice, and what I got looked very bad and different from what I was supposed to get. So I gave it up, and decided my result from the first tutorial was not so cartoonish after all.

You can decide for yourself here.

explosion0041
A still from the explosion animation