Smithsonian Aims To Make Objects In Museum Collection 3D-Printable

PatPending writes with this excerpt from CNet: "With just 2 percent of the Smithsonian's archive of 137 million items available to the public at any one time, an effort is under way at the world's largest museum and research institution to adopt 3D tools to expand its reach around the country. CNET has learned that the Smithsonian has a new initiative to create a series of 3D-printed models, exhibits, and scientific replicas — as well as to generate a new digital archive of 3D models of many of the physical objects in its collection. ... They've got technology on their side — with minimally invasive laser scanners they can capture the geometry of just about any object or site with accuracy down to the micron level."

Comments

When do the lawsuits start?

[sehlat]

Along with the claims that physical objects are copyrighted?

Copyright in sculptures still expires

[tepples]

The estate of a sculptor who died before 1942 has no case.

Reason to get a 3D printer

[Heir Of The Mess]

If they release these models into the public doman this might just be the self justification I need to convince myself to get a 3D printer. They should sell the printers and printer consumables off their website, and give away the models for free.

Re:Reason to get a 3D printer

[artor3]

Please not that. We've been down that road, and we know where it leads. HP will be selling 3D printer "ink" for $100 per microgram.

Re:Reason to get a 3D printer

[laird]

Exactly.

It's interesting to compare Makerbot and its more recent competitor, Cubify, as they do very similar things but with completely different business models, and that makes all the difference.

Cubify is a "consumer" service from a large, 3D printing company from the "enterprise" space, which views their cheap 3D printer as a way to grow their business by adding a content commerce chain, and adding a low cost home printer, so they're primarily focusing on making a commerce-enabled web site for loading 3D models that people pay to access and then print, with DRM, etc. The idea is that designers will put their work into their library because they get paid when people print their designs, which is a competitive, rather than collaborative, space. They also offer higher end printing services (a la Shapeways) using high end 3D printers, so they view the home 3D printer as just the "cheap option", which means that they didn't invest much effort into it (it looks like a rebadged Up! printer) and are not working too hard on making it better, just "cheap and easy" as an entryway for consumers, who they hope will then start buying high end print services. Another constrast, caused by this business model, is that their printer is a sealed device, with supplies sold in pre-packaged cartridges, so you can only buy supplies from them. It's such a closed box that they won't even tell how much plastic is in a cartridge. Their community is currently nearly invisible, though to be fair they aren't shipping their printer until the Fall, so there's not much to do there except create models that people might pay to access in six months.

Makerbot is a Maker/DIY company, focused on their 3D printer as their product, and it's all done in a very open way - their designs are open sourced, anyone can download the designs and manufacture their own, people contribute their own improvements to the hardware and software, which MBI can adopt, competing 3D printer products share many components with MBI, other companies sell replacement parts and even complete "clones" of their designs, etc., so it's a very open, flexible, competitive arena. MBI sells parts and supplies for their printers, but you're free to print your own parts, and to buy supplies from anywhere else that you like, and there are plenty of reviews comparing competing suppliers. Makerbot runs a site, Thingiverse, that is a collection of 3D models, with people actively contributing and collaborating. Of course, if you want paid 3D models, you have to go elsewhere (and you can, no lock-in) but there's a powerful collaborative dynamic in Thingiverse, where designs are contributed by one person, enhanced by others, merged into mash-ups, etc. so there are now so many new posts a day on Thingiverse that it's nearly impossible to keep up. And it's not limited to Makerbot customers - there are people with any kind of 3D printer, from completely DIY RepRaps to $100K Z-Corp printers, all working together and sharing ideas. It very much reminds me of the early days of software, when everyone helped each other out, because the challenge was in figuring this new stuff out and making it work to get something done.

I suspect that 3D printing is fundamentally a creative market. That is, people won't be satisfied just printing what others have designed, because most of the potential of home 3D printing isn't just in being able to print in your home, it's in being able to 3D print things that are uniquely yours. For example, if you want a standard measuring cup, you can easily buy them in a store. But if you want to print your own, in exactly the sizes that you need, with your name embossed in it, there's an easily customizable design (http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:17174) on Thingiverse. And to illustrate the power of open collaboration, that design was derived from someone else's, where I added the printed labels, and someone else can come along and add a handle, or put Stephen Colbert's face onto them, etc., whatever weird and cool thing they want. That is admittedly a

just the outside?

[Sebastopol]

Can the lasers penetrate the insides too, or is the 3D object just a convex hull?

Re:just the outside?

[trout007]

The lasers are just good for scanning what can be seen.

If you want to get inside geometry you need to use a CT scanner.
http://www.asianart.com/articles/ghysels/1.html

Re:just the outside?

[Sebastopol]

Thanks for the incorrect grammar advice, Comic Book Guy.

Your link goes to a Go Daddy parking page

[tepples]

That depends on what a "printed home" is; your link just goes to a Go Daddy parking page. I will tell you this: Architectural works are just as subject to copyright as sculptural works.

Re:Your link goes to a Go Daddy parking page

[alphatel]

Architectural works are just as subject to copyright as sculptural works.

Do architects count as corporations? Because those have "people rights" which are uber.

totally and completely useless

[holophrastic]

my interest in a museum has never been to see a reproduction of an historical achievement. I've no interest in seeing a photograph of the first telephone, nor in seeing a model of the first telephone, nor in seeing a drawing of the first telephone, nor an impressionist painting of the first telephone, nor a spot-on to-the-micron reproduction of the first telephone.

my interest in a museum is to see the first telephone. Not something created ten minutes ago for me to see, but something created ages ago as an achievement.

I could care less about the reproduction. Actually, that's a lie. I'd feel ripped off by it.

Quite frankly, I'd be upset to hear that my country spent good money to create the reproduction, store the reproduction, and hide the original from me.

show me the original, or destroy the original because it can't be shown.

Re:totally and completely useless

[PeeAitchPee]

Wow, you'd make a really terrible archivist.

As someone who works with archivists and preservationists all over the country, every day, I can tell you that whether or not you feel "ripped off" is completely irrelevant to that community of folks. Archivists have two main missions. First and foremost, preservation: keeping the original artifact / object / document / etc. intact and protected, as close to its original state as possible. If this means keeping the original out of bright light, prohibiting flash photography, or even eliminating public access altogether and vaulting it, then so be it. This is becoming more and more of a popular trend in museums, for example at certain branches of the Smithsonian -- high-quality repros of paintings, documents, and photographs are displayed, and the originals are vaulted. Secondarily, access is another goal -- again, so long as the artifact can be protected. The high-profile case of theft of original presidential papers at the MD Historical Society last year has made archivists re-think public access to original artifacts, and sent shock waves through institutions all across the country. Digitization efforts, such as the one in TFA, have taken on an even more important role in terms of achieving the goal of increasing access.

But don't think for a second that archivists value your selfish desire to view an object "in person" over the need to preserve that object, ever.

Re:totally and completely useless

[holophrastic]

no, you misunderstand me. my point is that you're doing neither. archivist want to protect an object so it can be used in future whatevers. if that means hiding from the public, then yeah, do it. but it's for that end goal. if it will absolutely never be used for anything, then there's no point in keeping it.

and when it comes to granting access, your second goal, you need to actually grant access. granting access to something else doesn't count. a sand-printed version of archie bunker's chair doesn't grant the public access to anything. it doesn't show if it was hard or soft, what colour, what comfort, nothing. so it's entirely useless.

archivists, and society in general, need to decide what the end-goal is. if it's to be able to know what was, then it needs to be protected for as long as possible, and studied only with gloved hands by the most esteemed and restricted experts. if it's to share the past with the present, then it needs to be shared. and certainly there's a balance of the two. and I'd be perfectly ok with saying that archie bunker's chair should be preserved until 2050, and then access until it degrades, because by 2055, nobody will care about a television chair anymore.

I think we can all say that pride aside, having the original presidential papers is far less important than what they stood for. they aren't humanity's achievement, they are merely representitive of that achievement. same with archie's chair. and while I'd be dissappointed to hear that there are no originals of anything from 100 years ago, I'd be equally disappointment to hear that we kept everything for 1'000 years without allowing anyone to touch them.

not to mention that there's the issue of scale. for the last 100 years, we've attempted to keep everything. so it 500 years from now, when you're living on venus, are you really going to care than 600 years earlier, a culture-busting tv show's chair is still being protected back on earth?

I love archie bunkers chair. and I treat it with the greatest respect. but in and of itself, it has no value in 500 years.

so what exactly are we saving? for whom and what for? do you really want to ressurect the dinosaurs, sure, there are loads of things that we could learn in doing so. do we really want to ressurect a mayan kitchen cabinet? there's a big difference there. more than one.

and when the cost is to specifically hide archie bunker's chair from the people today who would really enjoy seeing it, or sitting in it. there is undoubtedly more money to be had by selling expensive tickets to sit in that chair than to orbit the planet. there are enough people who would pay over a thousand dollars to sit in the chair. and enough contract law, and insurance, to cover malicious intent.

you can share the present, or you can protect the past, or you can do neither. both just isn't worth it.

possibly obvious... Re:totally and completely usel

[Fubari]

Some (possibly obvious) points; 1) this is about as close to backing up atoms (physical things) as we can get in 2012. Suppose a fire, or nuke, or whatever, takes out the originals (I for one would be grateful to have "just" replicas).
2) The data points & measurements will surely be of interest to historians & scholars.
3) I would love to see the scans in a high rez 3d display; could drive useful virtual reality tech. I don't have days (weeks?) to visit the actual museum. And if I ever do get the opportunity to go, I would love to preview the collection and come up with a short list of what I want to look at in person.
4) Self funding: I suspect the Smithsonian doesn't have as much budget as they might wish. The museum could sell replicas. I wold love to be able buy a nice bit of sculpture or history to display. I'd love to see the patent office do this for some of their old-school "models".

my interest in a museum has never been to see a reproduction of an historical achievement. I've no interest in seeing a photograph of the first telephone, nor in seeing a model of the first telephone, nor in seeing a drawing of the first telephone, nor an impressionist painting of the first telephone, nor a spot-on to-the-micron reproduction of the first telephone.

my interest in a museum is to see the first telephone. Not something created ten minutes ago for me to see, but something created ages ago as an achievement.

I could care less about the reproduction. Actually, that's a lie. I'd feel ripped off by it.

Quite frankly, I'd be upset to hear that my country spent good money to create the reproduction, store the reproduction, and hide the original from me.

show me the original, or destroy the original because it can't be shown.

Gives new meaning to "Museum quality print"

[wisebabo]

I really wish the consumer level 3D printers could match the quality of the ones they're using. (Disclaimer: I've never handled the output from either so I'm just looking at pictures. But the ones shown in the link look much better without any obvious pixelization or should I say "voxelization"?).

Oh well, another 5 years I guess. (Still I'm glad to be living now and not, say, during the middle ages!).

Just to clarify

[amanamac]

these two guys are focusing on many organic items, that in time will degrade. It is a pity that the article did not stress that aspect. Yeah, 3D printing is the new buzz, but being able to document the geometry of things that crumble with time and oxidation is a service that is invaluable.

3d models available?

[macshit]

Anyone know if the 3d models (of those things they've scanned so far) are already available as a download somewhere? It'd be cool throw Jefferson into a render or two...

Physibles

[djh2400]

Excellent! They can use TPB's physibles category.