Reading List

I am not the first to recognize the Virtual Model inaccuracies-- didn't think I was! With the internet, you are always the last to know (think about it-- it's true, at that moment you read it, you are the last until someone else comes along).

This paper, written by engineering students, is all about making the body images more accurate. The abstract reads:

"Computer generated models of the human body generally do not adequately model the complex human morphology. These models therefore do not reflect the anthropometric realities and are not specific enough for commercial use. This paper presents an approach to adjust virtual models through the use of body measurements as obtained from an anthropometric data set. In this approach, the measurements are used to group three-dimensional body scans, obtained using precise opto-electronic measurement devices, into clusters. The virtual mannequins are then adjusted by using the measurements of nearest cluster member. In this way, realistic, accurate virtual mannequins are created."

So this gives me an idea of how complex this could be-- yowza. Using circumference measurements and body types will still be approximate, but at least closer than MVM, to the shape of a person. Plus, my aim is to create more of an assessment of what the future holds for one's health and well-being than the present image. That should be made really clear.

One thing I'd like to do is, once the model has been generated, also generate 5 similar bodies and have the user select what they perceive themselves to look like, to show they might still be wrong. This is similar to what they do on How to Look Good Naked, and I think it sends a powerful message about how wrong people can be.

Another thing I would like to do is somehow show what the body would look like airbrushed on magazine cover-- or at least address that the covers are nothing to compare one to, even the people in the pictures don't look like themselves. Still haven't written my list of tasks... I will though. Parmise.