News Stories

3D Printer Takes Paper-Based Approach

2.1.2012

[Philip Lelyveld comment: Mcor claims that the cost of maintenance and materials for 3D printers can dwarf the purchase price, which is why they have a service-only pricing model and focused on paper as the printing medium.]

[DesignNews]

It seems like the 3D printing market is throwing out curveballs lately when it comes to technology innovations and price points.

The latest pitch I came across is from Mcor Technologies, a company based in Ireland that bills itself as the only maker of a printer that uses ordinary (A4/letter-size) printer paper, instead of the powdery plastic or resin substances employed by most competitors, to make 3D objects.

You read that right. I said ordinary paper. Before you get too skeptical, check out some of the Mcor Technologies YouTube channel videos. They show that the Matrix 300 3D’s water-based printing process can churn out some pretty impressive-looking prototypes that don’t look or sound like they were produced using paper.  …

The Matrix 300 looks much like one of those big office copiers. A paper stack on the side feeds individual sheets into the printer, where a blade cuts a 2D profile, and each subsequent sheet is attached with a water-based adhesive.

In addition to its unique paper-based approach, Mcor is flexing its muscle with a novel pricing model. Instead of charging a set fee for the printer, the company is giving the printer away for free and generating revenue by charging for a print service plan that can be purchased for one, two, or three years. The one-year plan starts at $18,500 and includes all maintenance fees and unlimited printing. Mcor is offering the Matrix 300 and the service plans in Europe, and it will introduce the model to the US market this year, MacCormack said.

 

Read the full story here: http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1394&doc_id=238107&f_src=designnews_gnews

Aussie Speaker Promises Holographic 3D Sound

2.1.2012

[Gizmodo]

Why acoustic hologram generators and not speakers? I put that question to Joe Hayes, managing director of Accoustic3D, and his claim was that is was essentially “just to put a wedge between us and the other 5,000 speaker makers in the world.” Hayes’ claim is that the sound quality that you’ll get out of Accoustic3D’s speakers “is equal to that which you’ll get from much higher priced speakers.”

As an example, the model that Hayes will first bring to market, the $US999 Emergence 2.1 speaker system is, so he claims, “equal in quality to some systems costing $100,000. Real audiophile stuff for under a grand”.  …

A 2.1 speaker system might not sound that enticing, but Hayes’ claim is that it’s very specific marketing, with an eye towards buyers of products such as soundbars. “The emergence’s hologram makes 5.1 look ordinary, but we will look at a 5.1 system in the future”.

Hayes estimates that the Emergence system should go on sale sometime in May for sale both online and in traditional retailers, with the possibility of a higher power signature series and potentially an AirPlay compatible model down the track in 2012.

Read the full story here: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/02/aussie-speaker-promises-holographic-3d-sound/

 

< PREVIOUS ARTICLES NEXT ARTICLES >

Specification for Naming VFX Image Sequences Released

ETC’s VFX Working Group has published a specification for best practices naming image sequences such as plates and comps. File naming is an essential tool for organizing the multitude of frames that are inputs and outputs from the VFX process. Prior to the publication of this specification, each organization had its own naming scheme, requiring custom processes for each partner, which often resulted in confusion and miscommunication.

The new ETC@USC specification focuses primarily on sequences of individual images. The initial use case was VFX plates, typically delivered as OpenEXR or DPX files. However, the team soon realized that the same naming conventions can apply to virtually any image sequence. Consequently, the specification was written to handle a wide array of assets and use cases.

To ensure all requirements are represented, the working group included over 2 dozen participants representing studios, VFX houses, tool creators, creatives and others.  The ETC@USC also worked closely with MovieLabs to ensure that the specification could be integrated as part of their 2030 Vision.

A key design criteria for this specification is compatibility with existing practices.  Chair of the VFX working group, Horst Sarubin of Universal Pictures, said: “Our studio is committed to being at the forefront of designing best industry practices to modernize and simplify workflows, and we believe this white paper succeeded in building a new foundation for tools to transfer files in the most efficient manner.”

This specification is compatible with other initiatives such as the Visual Effects Society (VES) Transfer Specifications. “We wanted to make it as seamless as possible for everyone to adopt this specification,” said working group co-chair and ETC@USC’s Erik Weaver. “To ensure all perspectives were represented we created a team of industry experts familiar with the handling of these materials and collaborated with a number of industry groups.”

“Collaboration between MovieLabs and important industry groups like the ETC is critical to implementing the 2030 Vision,” said Craig Seidel, SVP of MovieLabs. “This specification is a key step in defining the foundations for better software-defined workflows. We look forward to continued partnership with the ETC on implementing other critical elements of the 2030 Vision.”

The specification is available online for anyone to use.

Oops, something went wrong.