




From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@DORSAI.ORG>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:14:51 -0400
Subject: Re: photographing origami models

>
> Is it possible for you to get your film developed where they offer a
> Pictures-on-Disk service?  This way you wouldn't need to get an expensive
> digital camera.

Sure I can do that.

>
> In the past I've been getting my film developed by Seattle FilmWorks.
> Prints and a diskette with my pictures didn't cost much more than regular
> processing.
>
>
Can you take a close-up focused picture of an origami model that ends up being
anywhere from 2 square inches and under in area?
If so, what kind of camera are you using?

--
---
Sheldon Ackerman.......http://www.dorsai.org/~ackerman/
ackerman@dorsai.org
sheldon_ackerman@fc1.nycenet.edu





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:17:34 -0400
Subject: Re: photographing origami models -- digital camera

Sheldon Ackerman indited:

> I was thinking of going digital but the prices seemed way high. And the
> resolutions seemed lower unless I was willing to spend a fortune. I
> also have  no idea if a digital cameral would allow me to take a close up any
> better than a non digital camera.

You cannot use a "normal" point and shoot camera to take close up pictures of
anything, including origami.  To take close up photos, you need a camera with a
"micro" or "macro" (name varies depending on manufacturer) lens.  Those puppies
are several hundred dollars, plus you need a camera back to mount the lens to,
and those are a few hundred.  Micro/Macro lenses hold their value very well, so
you'll not find a super cheap camera used either.

Many digital cameras can do closeup/macro/micro photography without needing any
additional accessories and the advantage is that you can (usually) try them out
in the store.  Just take a few coins with you and see what kinda images (i.e.
how close) you can get of them.  Remember that you are holding the camera with
your hands, so unless it is very bright in the store, you might get some
fuzziness from the motions/tremors in your hands and arms.

Another possibility is a "camcorder"... many of those will be able to do macro
photography.  Then you'd need a video capture board instead of a scanner, to
convert from the video image into a digital one.

Its been a while since I've priced digital cameras, but I would be very
suprised if any of the solutions above are under $300 (US) and those that are
under $500 (US) are probably not very desireable.  I'd love to shown wrong
though!

-D'gou





From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@DORSAI.ORG>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:53:30 -0400
Subject: Re: photographing origami models

> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have an old Olympus OM-1  35mm Camera.  I use a Macro/ 80-200 Zoom lense.
>
> I haven't tried photographing any origami with it, but I will when I get
> home tonight.  (I guess all that beer did have an effect on the old brain
> cells.)
>
> Unfortunately, I won't know the results of this effort for a week or two.
> I have to mail the film away for processing, so I'll have to get back to
> you on how it goes.
>
> If anything good comes of this I just may have to post the pictures
> somewhere.  If this doesn't work, I'll go back to lurk mode.
>
Please let me...us know :-)

BTW THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO HAS REPLIED AND THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO MAY STILL
REPLY.
This is amazing. About 3 minutes after I posted my question, responses
started rolling in!

--
---
Sheldon Ackerman.......http://www.dorsai.org/~ackerman/
ackerman@dorsai.org
sheldon_ackerman@fc1.nycenet.edu





From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@ALOHA.NET>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:57:23 -1000
Subject: Re: photographing origami models

Garry Robertson wrote:
>
> Are there any photography savvy people on this list?
> My question is simple. I hope :-)
> Is there a camera I can buy that would cost under $300 that would allow
> me to take pictures of origami models. Obviously I would want close-ups
> which I can later scan.
> The simpler the camera the better :-)
>
> --
> ---
> Sheldon Ackerman.......http://www.dorsai.org/~ackerman/
> ackerman@dorsai.org
> sheldon_ackerman@fc1.nycenet.edu
>
> Is it possible for you to get your film developed where they offer a
> Pictures-on-Disk service?  This way you wouldn't need to get an expensive
> digital camera.
>
> In the past I've been getting my film developed by Seattle FilmWorks.
> Prints and a diskette with my pictures didn't cost much more than regular
> processing.
>
> Garry Robertson
>
> Surrey, B.C.,
>
> Canada
I have had good success taking pictures of my wife's origami jewelry in
the size you are talking about. I use my old Pentax MX 35mm using the
standard 50mm lens. I shot outside in shaded sunlight using a grey paper
for the background. The colors and details are very true. I also use
Seattle Film works.

Paul
--
<http://www.gotomymall.com/hawaii/origami/>
Origami by Jan website...the Fodor folder





From: DonnaJowal@AOL.COM
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 18:03:14 -0400 (
Subject: Re: photographing origami models -- digital camera

Actually you don't need a very expensive lens to do macro photography.  I used
to do insect photography with a set of extension tubes placed between the lens
and the camera body.  They cost about $15 in a used camera store--of course
that was about 15 years ago, but if you wait until next week if the market
continues on today's course who knows?  There is also a relatively inexpensive
attachment called a bellows, but I don't know how much it is.  Neither of
these types of accessories has any optics so they are less expensive than one
would think.

Donna Walcavage





From: Mike and Janet Hamilton <Mikeinnj@CONCENTRIC.NET>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 18:46:36 -0400
Subject: Re: photographing origami models

>Are there any photography savvy people on this list?
>My question is simple. I hope :-)
>Is there a camera I can buy that would cost under $300 that would allow
>me to take pictures of origami models. Obviously I would want close-ups
>which I can later scan.
>The simpler the camera the better :-)

There are point and shoot cameras that have macro lens capability.  I have a
5-year old old Fuji Discovery 1000 that has a macro setting.  I have taken
lots of close-up pictures of wildflowers successfully.  I have take some
close-ups of origami at conventions.  My problem is getting the lighting
right...

I don't know if the newer version of this camera still have the macro
capability.

Janet Hamilton

mailto:Mikeinnj@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~Mikeinnj





From: Wayne Fluharty <wflu@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:28:00 -0700 (
Subject: Re: photographing origami models

>Are there any photography savvy people on this list? My question is
>simple. I hope :-) Is there a camera I can buy that would cost under
>$300 that would allow me to take pictures of origami models.
>Obviously I would want close-ups which I can later scan. The simpler
>the camera the better :-)

This was "discussed" on the list some time time (in the same manner
that most topics are "discussed" on the list). I don't remember who
started the topic, but a discussion was made about laying your
origami ON YOUR SCANNER, thereby eliminating the need to photograph
it and eliminating the worry about getting "close". The original
"poster" gave his web address with some of the ones that he had done
and I thought they were extremely nice considering the manner in
which they were done. Others didn't think the quality was very good.
I've s-l-o-w-l-y been experimenting with it and trying to get my own
page started (with little success due to time constraints) but I have
some basic scans set-up. My homepage is at:

   www.geocities.com/heartland/ranch/4222

with a link to the origami section, or you can go straight to:

   www.geocities.com/heartland/ranch/4222/origami.html

All I ask is that you keep in mind that I am not a professional at
origami or web page design, but I hope you'll get the idea. I'm
still working at "touching-up" the pictures and cleaning out the
"black fuzz" around the edges. This may work for what you are trying
to do...

Good luck,
Wayne Fluharty
wflu@hotmail.com

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@DORSAI.ORG>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 22:38:00 -0400
Subject: Re: photographing origami models

>
> This was "discussed" on the list some time time (in the same manner
> that most topics are "discussed" on the list). I don't remember who
> started the topic, but a discussion was made about laying your
> origami ON YOUR SCANNER, thereby eliminating the need to photograph
> it and eliminating the worry about getting "close". The original
> "poster" gave his web address with some of the ones that he had done
> and I thought they were extremely nice considering the manner in
> which they were done. Others didn't think the quality was very good.
> I've s-l-o-w-l-y been experimenting with it and trying to get my own
> page started (with little success due to time constraints) but I have
> some basic scans set-up. My homepage is at:
>
>    www.geocities.com/heartland/ranch/4222
>
> with a link to the origami section, or you can go straight to:
>
>    www.geocities.com/heartland/ranch/4222/origami.html

Wow! I did not even think of doing that. Thanks! I will try to check your
page tomorrow and give you some feedback.

--
---
Sheldon Ackerman.......http://www.dorsai.org/~ackerman/
ackerman@dorsai.org
sheldon_ackerman@fc1.nycenet.edu





From: Jane Rosemarin <jfrmpls@SPACESTAR.NET>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 22:46:06 +0100
Subject: Re: Digital cameras

>So before you buy check the pixel resolution of the finished photographs,
>640x800 was totally unacceptable.

We got an Apple digital camera as a giveaway when I bought my Apple
laptop.
Apple has since gone out of the camera business. Anyway, that 640x800
resolution is about what my 16" monitor has, so these cameras are fine
for images that will be viewed on a computer, even full screen size. The
camera hasn't been a major battery hog.

The camera takes closeups, according to my son, the main user. He also
says that Epson makes good digital cameras, but not under $300.

Another suggestion: scanning relatively flat origami directly works
beautifully.

We also have a Nikon SLR with a micro lens, and I suppose this would give
the best results, but again, probably not under $300, even used.





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:07:02 +0100
Subject: BOS supplies back on-line

After some reorganisation, the BOS supplies is now up & running again.
So much so, in fact, that you can now place orders electronically from
our web-site. This system has not been extensively tested, so please
report any problems or lack of clarity to me...

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - all new look!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/





From: Eric Andersen <ema@NETSPACE.ORG>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:27:28 -0400
Subject: Re: photographing origami models

On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Wayne Fluharty wrote:

> ...a discussion was made about laying your
> origami ON YOUR SCANNER, thereby eliminating the need to photograph
> it and eliminating the worry about getting "close". The original
> "poster" gave his web address with some of the ones that he had done
> and I thought they were extremely nice considering the manner in
> which they were done.

Thanks! That was probably me. I have done this with many of the pictures
on my Web site, such as my models from Origami Fantasy:

http://www.netspace.org/~ema/origami/fantasy/

Placing the model on the scanner is great if the model lies flat;
otherwise, it can be a pain to get the image to come out right. I would
guess that this would have a lot to do with the type of scanner. Many of
the models from Origami Fantasy are three-dimensional, so you can see for
yourself.

I ran into a more difficult problem when scanning in the models from
Robert Lang's "Origami Insects". It was difficult to get insects such as
the praying mantis to balance on the scanner, so some of the insects seem
to be displayed at strange angles. Otherwise, I think most of the
pictures capture the interesting details better than a standard could have:

http://www.netspace.org/~ema/insects.html

-Eric :-P

/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\
\   Eric Andersen                                       /
/    Mathematics and Music          ~  ~ __o            \
\     ema@netspace.org            ~  ~ _-\<'_           /
/      Music@brown.edu         ~    ~ (_)/ (_)          \
\=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/
        *** http://www.netspace.org/~ema/ ***





From: Dr Stephen O'Hanlon <fishgoth@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 04:23:10 -0700 (
Subject: Re: Origami Anteaters (and Badgers, now)

>Another animal I have not seen folded (except by me!) is the Badger.
>Does anyone know any different?
>
>Robin Glynn

Have a look at my online one at www.geocities.com/athens/academy/4800

This is a two-tone badger with a white back, and is of intermediate
standard.

An updated version of this page will be appearing soon!

Stephen

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Dr Stephen O'Hanlon <fishgoth@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 04:24:28 -0700 (
Subject: Re: Origami Badger

>Robin Glynn inquired about origami badgers.  I think Dr. Stephen
>O'Hanlon (my apologies if I misspelled any of his name) has diagrammed
a
>badger, and that it's available on his website.  I believe he posted
the
>information to the list a few months ago.
>
>Sonia Wu
>(Florida)

That's quite alright, Sonia. Glad to see I am remembered!

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





From: "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@CROCKER.COM>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 05:53:58 -0400
Subject: Six pointed star box by R. Glynn

Does anyone know where I can find diagrams
for a six pointed star box by R. Glynn? A
friend of mine learned it at the OUSA
convention, and she thought it was published
in one of the BOS magazines, but I've looked
back as far as 1994 and I can't find it. . .

If you like, email me privately at:
mjnaught@crocker.com

Thanks for your help!

Mike Naughton





From: "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@CROCKER.COM>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 05:58:55 -0400
Subject: Rosette made from a rectangle

Another diagram I'd like to locate is
for a rosette made from a rectangle
(dollar bills work great, as well as
2x1 rectangles and similar sizes).
It was being passed around the OUSA
convention informally - basically,
you pleat the rectangle in 16ths
parallel to the short sides, then
fold in half, lock the sides, and
open out into a nice pleated circle.
I think someone said it was invented
by a Brit (Paul Jackson?). . . .

If you like, email me privately at:
mjnaught@crocker.com

Thanks for your help!

Mike Naughton





From: Faye Goldman <FayeG@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 07:57:34 -0500
Subject: Re: photographing origami models -- digital camera

Doug Philips wrote:
>
> Sheldon Ackerman indited:
>
> > I was thinking of going digital but the prices seemed way high. And the
> > resolutions seemed lower unless I was willing to spend a fortune. I
> > also have  no idea if a digital cameral would allow me to take a close up
     any
> > better than a non digital camera.
>
.....
> Its been a while since I've priced digital cameras, but I would be very
> suprised if any of the solutions above are under $300 (US) and those that are
> under $500 (US) are probably not very desireable.  I'd love to shown wrong
> though!
>
> -D'gou

I just bought an old-technology Vivitar digital camera (ViviCam 2500)
from an on-
line auction service for $130 including shipping.  It has a Macro lens
that lets
me get pretty close.  Software to connect to Win95 was included.  I
haven't
had it that long, but it took some neat pictures during my last
vacation.  My
main complaint is that it goes thru batteries real fast (4 AA).  For
indoor
pictures an AC adaptor (which I haven't bought yet) will solve the
battery
problem.  If anyone is interested, I will post the Auction Area, but
there are
probably several that would work.

Faye





From: Jose Tomas Buitrago Molina <buitrago@EIEE.UNIVALLE.EDU.CO>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 09:36:37 -0500
Subject: Origami Colombia '98 Updated...
Hello.
This is the second advertisement about Origami Colombia '98. It has
updates like the information about housing and the registration form in
english. I hope see you at the convention!

Good luck,
Jose Tomas Buitrago

Jose Tomas Buitrago

We are invite you to the Colombian Convention, ORIGAMI COLOMBIA '98. It
will be on november 13th, 14th and 15th in Santiago de Cali, Colombia.

We know about you special interest in origami. For the convention and for
us, your participation will be very important.

During the convention you can exchange models, share questions and
practice with many origami people. In addition you will the opportunity
of:
To appreciate and enjoy the wonderful exhibition from colombian and
foreign folder. You could send your models to the exhibition.
To learn very interesting models. All origami levels.
To obtain diagrams of new models and send your diagrams to publicate in
the model collection.
To buy origami related stuff.
And more things...!

This meeting is the second. The last year were about 60 people from
Colombia and overseas.

The cost of the meeting is US$50. This cost includes, snacks, packs of
paper, a button and a attendance certification.

Housing.
There are several rooms at the same place of the convention. They
could be shared. The rooms are for four persons and the cost per
night is US$6.00 person. (limited to 40 persons). There are another place,
a little far (about 15 minutes by bus) and the cost is US$8.00 night. Of
course if you want a better place, there are several hotels in Cali with
different fees.

Teaching
If you want to teach in a formal way during the convention, please tell us
as soon as possible (model or technique, difficult, time) and we put you
in the schedule.

We will have an annual collection of diagrams. If you have diagrams to
share, please send us and we send you a copy of the book.

Further Information:

JOS ARLEY MORENO
Calle 58 7N-68 Cali - Valle
Director
Tel. (572) 6801010

Email:
JOS TOMAS BUITRAGO
buitrago@eiee.univalle.edu.co
http://eiee.univalle.edu.co/~buitrago/asociacion.html

The registration form is in the page:
http://eiee.univalle.edu.co/~buitrago/fichaeng.doc
The form is in Word 6.0 format. You can fill it and return via email to
me.

We are waiting your soon answer. We will appreciate you can spread this
information to everyone you know practice the paper folding.

Best regards,

ASOCIACION VALLECAUCANA DE ORIGAMISTAS





From: Mike and Janet Hamilton <Mikeinnj@CONCENTRIC.NET>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 10:08:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Six pointed star box by R. Glynn

>Does anyone know where I can find diagrams
>for a six pointed star box by R. Glynn? A
>friend of mine learned it at the OUSA
>convention, and she thought it was published
>in one of the BOS magazines, but I've looked
>back as far as 1994 and I can't find it. . .

It's in the BOS 30th Anniversary Convention Book (York, September 1997).

Janet Hamilton

mailto:Mikeinnj@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~Mikeinnj





From: Robby/Laura/Lisa <morassi@ZEN.IT>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 16:09:44 +0200
Subject: Re: Mail volume question

Beth,
At 23.32 29/8/1998 -0400, you wrote:
>unfortunately, there have been just three posts!

UNFORTUNATELY ????

<8-O

Roberto





From: Maarten van Gelder <VGELDER@KVI.nl>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 16:43:26 +0000
Subject: Diagramas added to the archives
Priority: normal

Sy,

> Thanks for your help. I have uploaded 2 models for both pdf, ps formats:
> Pyramid Container (PyraCntn.pdf/ps)
> Open House II (OHouseII.pdf/ps)
>
> They are simple/low intermediate models, which use common bases.

They are in the archives now.

Maarten van Gelder    KVI - Groningen, Netherlands    vgelder@kvi.nl





From: Charles Knuffke <knuffke@SIRIUS.COM>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 17:38:52 -0700
Subject: NO: Origami Typeface

Just received a copy of Adobe Studios "Essentials" newsletter. I think
thenewsletter used to go by a different name before, Image Club maybe, and
offers Adobe Products, Fonts, Pictures, and Clip Art.

On page 39, they're touting a new Adobe Font face called "Origami (tm). Neat
font, serif type, not really sure how to describe it - maybe a cross of asian
and old english influences. Unfortunately, the font hasn't yet appeared on the
Adobe website. I was a little suprised that they trademarked the name, but that
seems to be standard for most all of their fonts.

Interestingly enough, Adobe must know what origami is, since they have a page
with Origami Christmas Tree Ornaments:
http://www.adobe.com/newsfeatures/pdfornaments/main.html





From: Kenny1414@AOL.COM
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 18:41:23 -0400 (
Subject: Re: photographing origami models

Maybe if you took a cardboard box w/o lid, lined it
with white paper, and taped ot poster-tack-stuffed
it to the box (like making a shadow box), you
could turn the box over and lay it on the scanner
and scan the box w/ the origami.

I was thinking of something like the 1-1/2" high
Xmas gift boxes used for shirts and such.

With maybe a little adjustment for brightness,
it seems to me that should allow your preferred
angle, w/o damaging the model (depends on the
adhesive, practice on scrap first?), and also
give you control of the background color (leave the
inside of the rim white for "shadowless" lighting,
I would think) (because the couple of times I
tried photocopying thick origami, I put a white
sheet of paper over it, to avoid wasting toner on
a black background).

Aloha,
kenny1414@aol.com    (Kenneth M. Kawamura)





From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@DORSAI.ORG>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 18:53:29 -0400
Subject: Re: photographing origami models

>
> Maybe if you took a cardboard box w/o lid, lined it
> with white paper, and taped ot poster-tack-stuffed
> it to the box (like making a shadow box), you
> could turn the box over and lay it on the scanner
> and scan the box w/ the origami.
Good ideas from all!
Thanks!
If anything works out, I'll certainly post some models on my page.

--
---
Sheldon Ackerman.......http://www.dorsai.org/~ackerman/
ackerman@dorsai.org
sheldon_ackerman@fc1.nycenet.edu





From: Daniel Philip Scher <dps207@IS8.NYU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 19:38:52 -0500
Subject: origami magazine

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone new about a Japanese magazine called "Tan-Ka." I
saw an ad for it in the monthly NOA magazine. Its covers had a number of
impressive models (like a telephone by Kawahata), but I couldn't tell
anything about the content of the magazine. I should learn some Japanese!

 -daniel





From: Susan Dugan <florafauna@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 21:24:20 -0400
Subject: Re: photographing origami models (long)

Sheldon,
There are many nice digital camera's on the market ranging from less than
$300 to more than $24,000.  As an example, almost all of USA Today is
digital and the still photo's from the Superbowl's for the last five years
have been from digital camera's. You get what you pay for.
One I can recommend from use (and I plan to use it in a digital photography
course at Benedict College) is the Sony Mavca D7 2V, cost about $700.00.
There is a lower version Sony Mavca for about $300-400. I have not tested
the lower version, but I spent two weeks NYU and the Origami office in New
York testing the Sony Mavca D7 (which Sony recently replaced with the D7
V2).
What it did the best was Origami closeups under natural light or with an
additional lightsource (not necessarily photographic). The flash on the
first version (not V2) was the pits. Candid's under available light were ok,
the closeup work of the models was great.
The best thing is the camera stores the images directly onto a standard
floppy disk that can be popped out of the camera and placed directly in a PC
or MAC for immediate use.  You can preview the images taken and the
batteries were rechargeable and took two days to run them down. (Steady
shooting).
Excellent for scientific documentation and trade show picture notetaking.
As far as 35mm camera's, many manual single lens reflex are available on the
used market (like Wall Street Camera in NY, when you come for the
convention!). These are very good Canon, Nikon's, Pentax's who are like
older computers, they work fine but don't have all the fanciest gadgets.
Extension tubes or a Macro lens is the way to go, go to your local library,
check out a book on doing closeup photography.
Use a tripod for slow shutter speeds to get the largest depth of field (so
you can see the entire model).
Good luck.
Hobbit

>Sheldon Ackerman.......http://www.dorsai.org/~ackerman/
>ackerman@dorsai.org
>sheldon_ackerman@fc1.nycenet.edu





From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@DORSAI.ORG>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 21:34:39 -0400
Subject: Re: photographing origami models (long)

>
> Sheldon,
> There are many nice digital camera's on the market ranging from less than
> $300 to more than $24,000.  As an example, almost all of USA Today is
> digital and the still photo's from the Superbowl's for the last five years
> have been from digital camera's. You get what you pay for.
SNIP SNIP SNIP
> check out a book on doing closeup photography.
> Use a tripod for slow shutter speeds to get the largest depth of field (so
> you can see the entire model).
> Good luck.
> Hobbit
>
Thanks for the excellent suggestions. YOU sound photography  savvy.
Like Tolkein it can be Hobbit forming :-)

Had you left an email address, this thanks could have been in private email
:-)

--
---
Sheldon Ackerman.......http://www.dorsai.org/~ackerman/
ackerman@dorsai.org
sheldon_ackerman@fc1.nycenet.edu





From: Dr Stephen O'Hanlon <fishgoth@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 04:04:15 -0700 (
Subject: Re: Raptor model

In responce to previous emails :
>
>> Ok, now that that's out of the way, I've got a question. I've just
>> changed ISPs, and I've lost most of my bookmarks and stuff. So, I
can't
>> point you to the web site, but I've just finished folding a
Velociraptor
>> model by stephen O'Hanlon and I've got a question about step 14. Has
>> anyone else folded this raptor and had trouble getting the "spread
>> squash" fold to come out like the diagram shows it?
>
>I think the URL of the site is
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/4800/
>
>By the way, I folded the model.
>I agree that this step is difficult, though I can fold anyway.
>

Nice to see folks are folding my models! The Velociraptor is a two
legged dinosaur made famous by Jurrasic park and was the first model I
diagrammed for others to use (ie, not a dreadful form of shorthand that
only one person on this planet can use...) so the plans you guys have
may not be the most clear.
Step 14 is difficult to describe. Essentially, the flaps are thinned so
that the forelimbs of the beast are formed. The step is really a sink
that is squashed upwards and swiveled a bit, so perhaps a
'spread-sink-swivel' might be a better name for it. I have found that
this step can be ommited, and the layers of paper can be pinched to form
the limb-easier if you are using foil backed paper. While I'm on the
drawing up for it, for the near future, just to wet your appetities

BRITISH ANIMALS
Badger,Rabbit,Deer,Blackbird,Earwig,Grasshopper
FARMYARD ANIMALS
Cow,Pig,Sheepdog,(Tractor + Farmer Piles planned, but not going very
well)
DINOSAURS
Brontosaurus(apato-),Plesiosaurus,Velociraptor,Compy,Allosaur
REPTILES
Crocodile,Tortoise,Iguana,Chameleon
FANTASY
Dragon,Unicorn,Balrog
SCI-FI
PLANTLIFE
Brazilian Prayer Plant,Simple Rose,Vase,Stem
OTHERS
Chesspieces,Lion,Tiger

That should make 31 models and Lots of Chesspieces. I may just get them
on line before Im old and grey...

Laters,

Stephen

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





From: "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@CROCKER.COM>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 08:02:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Digital Cameras

Steve Woodmansee wrote:

> Well here's my personal experience with digital cameras. . . .

I got a HP PhotoSmart digital camera about six months ago - I don't
have the sales slip handy, but I think I paid about $200 for it, and
I've basically been pretty happy with it. In my experience:

* It takes very nice pictures if there's enough natural light.
Pictures I've taken of my models at home came out great, but
pictures I took of the OUSA exhibit this year came out much darker
than those I took with my regular camera (I wasn't very happy
with the digital pictures).

* I haven't used the camera a whole lot, but so far I haven't
had to replace the battery.

* The pictures work well on a computer screen, but they don't
look good as printouts (if you want hard copy, use a real camera).
In my experiments, changing the resolution of the pictures (varying
the number of pictures that can be stored in memory) didn't seem
to make a great deal of difference in the quality - they all seemed
to come out pretty well.

One further note - when I went to get my convention photos developed,
I discovered that CVS Pharmacy offers the option of getting both
prints and the pictures on a disk (for an extra $5). I tried it, and
I got my "real" pictures as JPEGs, along with a software package that
allowed me to view them (since I have several graphics programs, I
didn't need this, and it didn't really have a lot of features). This
seems like a great deal - you can get a lot of disks for the cost of
a digital camera!

However, I'm still happy with my purchase for one reason: if you're
near your computer, the digital camera allows you to take a picture
and then see the results right away on your computer, so if you're
looking for just the right lighting, angle, size, etc. on a model
the digital camera is handy for that. But if that doesn't matter to
you, use a real camera and get the disks!

Just my $.02 . . .

Mike Naughton





From: Wayne Fluharty <wflu@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 08:04:30 -0700 (
Subject: Re: Kawasaki Roses

>I saw www page on URL
>http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/4222/origami.html.
>And there are 2 kinds of Kawasaki roses. One from OFTC and second
>whitc I know, from origami archive. They looks differently. I can
>fold second one but that one from OFTC looks also great. I' ve seen
>many Kawasaki roses on net and I wondred why "my" rose doesn't looks
>like these on web. What is difference in folding method of this
>roses? Of course, I don't have OFTC :-))))

There are two roses that both go under the name "Kawasaki Rose", one
from the origami archives and one from OFTC. As for the difference,
they are two completely different models. The only similarities are
the name and the "twist" sequence. Having folded both, and because
of there having been several discussions on the list about these two
roses, I was hoping to one day put a survey on my web page that asked
people which they preferred, which ones they have folded, etc...
IMHO, the one from OFTC is more realistic and prettier as well as
being easier to fold, but the one from the web has a better "locking"
sequence in the end and is more "fun" to fold.

Hope this answers your question,
Wayne Fluharty
wflu@hotmail.com

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Michael Belehradek <mbelehradek@CNC.SK>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 09:15:32 +0200
Subject: Kawasaki Roses

Hello

I have got 1 question.
I saw www page on URL
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/4222/origami.html.
And there are 2 kinds of Kawasaki roses. One from OFTC and second whitc I
know, from
origami archive. They looks differently. I can fold second one but that one
from OFTC
looks also great. I' ve seen many Kawasaki roses on net and I wondred why
"my"
rose doesn't looks like these on web.
What is difference in folding method of this roses?
Of course, I don't have OFTC :-))))


     Michael





From: Jeannine Mosely <j9@CONCENTRA.COM>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 09:32:36 -0400
Subject: Re: NO: Origami Typeface
Charles wrote:

   Interestingly enough, Adobe must know what origami is, since they have a page
   with Origami Christmas Tree Ornaments:
   http://www.adobe.com/newsfeatures/pdfornaments/main.html

Before anyone gets excited, the three ornaments are all traditional
origami balloons.  What Adobe has done is create some patterns that
you can print out on a color printer using PDF or Postscript and then
fold into a balloon.  The ornaments feature an angel, a cherub and a
geometric design.

        -- Jeannine Mosely





From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@ALOHA.NET>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 09:37:37 -1000
Subject: Jan's craftfairs on mainland

Hi All,
        I'll be going to the mainland to do 4 craftfairs and would love to see
some of you who may live close by and like to go to craftfairs.  I enjoy
trading models so if this interests you bring one along and pick out
something too.

"Origami by Jan" schedule:

Sept. 5-7 San Jose, CA  Tapestry in Talent Festival of the Arts, booth
F303 (downtown area)
Sept. 19-20 Littleton, CO  Summerset Festival of South Jeffco, booth 82
(Clement Park)
Oct 1-4  Torrence, CA Harvest Festival (Alondra Park)
Oct. 10-11 Pacific Palisades Art Affair XIII (Temescal Canyon Blvd in
Pacific Palisades, off of Pacific Coast Hwy, Between Malibu and Santa
Monica)

We will be back in Hawaii on Oct. 13th.  Aloha, Jan





From: Wayne Fluharty <wflu@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 12:41:20 -0700 (
Subject: My web page

First, let me say "thank you" to those who have responded and made
didn't explain well enough. This is a site that I have been wanting
to do for some time, but have not had the opportunity to spend much
time with it yet. There are still MANY more ideas and things that I
want to do (or at least try) and have only just begun. I would like
to point out that after I saw how many responses and hits to the
page that I have had, that I did make an effort last night to finish
putting in the attributions of who and where the models came from.
Please do not get the idea that what you saw is all there is. I hope
to focus a little more time and energy to it soon and if I am ever
satisfied with it (which will probably never happen) I will repost
the address. The only reason that I said anything now, was that
someone requested information about cameras and scanning and I just
wanted to show what a scanner was capable of.

Once again, thank you to all who had responded to both the list and
privately,
Wayne Fluharty
wflu@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/ranch/4222

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Dennis Walker <d_and_m_walker@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:22:03 -0400
Subject: Re: photographing origami models

Hi all,

        I tried the direct Scanner method on a 3-D model using an upturned
bowl. The inside of the bowl was WHITE!!
        To say the result was disappointing would be an understatement.

        If anyone finds a better way, post it to the list, I'm all ears
(well eyes, but you know what I mean!)

                                        Dennis





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:49:18 +0100
Subject: sign the BOS guestbook

As part of my ongoing quest to learn CGI the BOS web-site now has a
guestbook as well as an on-line supplies order form. Please drop by &
leave a comment!

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - all new look!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/
RPM homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk - now with RealAudio clips!





From: Bugly <amyg@AZSTARNET.COM>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 20:28:49 -0700
Subject: Diagramming and designing

I recently joined this list because I was looking for inspiration in my
work, and there don't seem to be any folders in my area.  The last time I
met another, it was because  he was walking through the halls of my high
school with Robert J. Lang's cicada perched in the palm of his hand, and I
haven't seen him since.  I'm having problems with both proportion on the few
designs I haven't thrown out as failures, as well as diagraming.

My problem with designing stems, as far as I can tell, from not being able
to get a hold of any resources discussing how to work with the square or
other shape (I prefer squares, but am not very strict about sticking to
them) to enlarge or shrink a specific point.  As an example, I made a
gryphon design, but in my opinion the wings are too small, and the head and
tail points are too long.

Diagrams, on the other hand, is a purely physical problem.  I understand
diagraming, and have even been able to teach some of my original designs,
but I can't use a pen or pencil to draw up anything that looks like the
steps I'm seeing in my mind.  I have a mild case of cerebral palsy that
causes this, and while I can fold reasonably well, I don't have the fine
motor skills to even draw a straight line with the aid of a ruler.  My
computer resources are also limited.  I run a Windows 3.1 machine both by
choice and because my parents won't buy me a new machine until next year
when I start college.

My questions are:
        Are there any resources discussing the mathematics behind origami
other than the preface to Peter Engel's "From Angelfish to Zen"?

        Is there a simple way to diagram that doesn't require special skills
or tools?

Thanx in advance.
        Bugly





From: Tom Hill <teh2@FLASH.NET>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 22:30:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Raptor model

Stephen,

> Step 14 is difficult to describe. Essentially, the flaps are thinned so
> that the forelimbs of the beast are formed. The step is really a sink
> that is squashed upwards and swiveled a bit, so perhaps a
> 'spread-sink-swivel' might be a better name for it.

well, you are quite right about one thing, it is hard to describe. I'll
keep folding until I get it. The more raptors the merrier, eh?

> just to wet your appetities
>
> ...
> FANTASY
> ...Balrog
> SCI-FI
> ...,Starship Voyager
> That should make 31 models and Lots of Chesspieces. I may just get them
> on line before Im old and grey...
>

Ok, you've got my attention. Please don't wait until you're "old and
grey", I may be worse than "old and grey" by then!

Fold in Peace,
Tom
teh2@flash.net





From: "James M. Sakoda" <James_Sakoda@BROWN.EDU>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 22:34:59 -0400
Subject: Re: photographing origami models

>Hi all,
>
>        I tried the direct Scanner method on a 3-D model using an upturned
>bowl. The inside of the bowl was WHITE!!
>        To say the result was disappointing would be an understatement.
>
>        If anyone finds a better way, post it to the list, I'm all ears
>(well eyes, but you know what I mean!)
>
>
>                                        Dennis

In order to take a picture of a 3-D object one needs to lift the object
above the scanner and turn it direction to get the right angle of
exposusre, as one would in regular photography.  One device that I have
tried with some success is to use poster putty to place the object on a
cardboard and lay it upside down with the object hanging downward toward
the scanner surface with one side raised two or three inches above the
scanner.  One can then try to get a view of the object at an angle.  For
example, one can try to get a view which includes both the side and inside
of a cup.  James M. Sakoda





From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@OPENCOMINC.COM>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 22:39:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Raptor model

>Dragon,Unicorn,Balrog

Odd you should mention it the Balrog, I never quite figured out quite how it
     was supposed to look.  Though is a rather good Filk song titled "you bash
     the Balrog and I'll climb the tree".  Just thought I would throw that in.
     Song is prob on the net but i

Perry

Paper, scissors, stone.....
Origami, Kirigami, bludgeon....
pbailey@opencominc.com
http://www.afgsoft.com/perry/        <----------Web site, w/diagrams





From: MrsCalbash@AOL.COM
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:18:49 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Rosette made from a rectangle

This sounds like Jackson's dollar bill rosette, published in OUSA's
publication Making More with Money (p.32).  It's a very satisfying model.
Leslie Blanding





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:55:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Diagramming and designing

At 08:28 PM 9/2/98 -0700, you wrote:

>My problem with designing stems, as far as I can tell, from not being able
>to get a hold of any resources discussing how to work with the square or
>other shape (I prefer squares, but am not very strict about sticking to
>them) to enlarge or shrink a specific point.  As an example, I made a
>gryphon design, but in my opinion the wings are too small, and the head and
>tail points are too long.

Most appendages are related to each other (if you were to open your model
up, they should be connected at some point or another). Still, in some
cases, adjusting the proportions of a single point without affecting the
others much is possible. Shrinking is the easiest case - simply shorten the
point with a reverse, sink, ect. Better yet, add some additional detail,
which will gennerally have the same effect.

Lengthening is sometimes possible. Yank at the disproportionate point, and
if there is anything loose, the appendage will lengthen. Readjust the
angles of the creases to converge at the tip of the now longer appendage.

More often than not, the latter will not work (for me, anyway) so you have
to rework the whole model. One solution is to sorten the remaining
appendages (making the short appendage proportionally larger). The more
sophisticated way is to find the vertices (the places on a model where
creases converge) that are critical to the point in question, shift it
over, and reform the folds to converge at your new vertex. this is
acctually easier done than said.

>        Is there a simple way to diagram that doesn't require special skills
>or tools?

Sorry, I might not be much help here, but be aware that there are a lot of
diagrammers out there who eschew the straight line. Try doing some freehand
drawings to the best of your ability, and see how other people take to
them. If you have a decent understanding of how to draw layers, then any
"sloppiness" might simply be percieved as being stylized.

Marc





From: Dr Stephen O'Hanlon <fishgoth@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 05:37:43 -0700 (
Subject: Re: Raptor model and Chess

In response...

>> ...
>> FANTASY
>> ...Balrog
>> SCI-FI
>> ...,Starship Voyager
>> That should make 31 models and Lots of Chesspieces. I may just get
them
>> on line before Im old and grey...
>>
>
>Ok, you've got my attention. Please don't wait until you're "old and
>grey", I may be worse than "old and grey" by then!
>
>Fold in Peace,
>Tom
>teh2@flash.net

Dear Tom,
I'm slowly making my way through diagramming the chess set. You may wish
to see a digital photo or two of what it looks like. Try

www.geocities.com/athens/academy/4800/gallery.html

This page was supposed to be full of photos, but the ruddy batteries on
the digital camera ran out. Never the less, a couple of photos of models
in the offing are there.

Enjoy,
Stephen

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Thomas C Hull <tch@ABYSS.MERRIMACK.EDU>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 08:32:36 -0400
Subject: Origami Science and Art Proceedings

Hi, people!

Good news - OrigamiUSA now has copies of the excellent book
"Origami Science and Art: Proceedings of the 2nd International
Meeting of Origami Science and Scientific Origami", edited by
Koryo Miura

This is a book full of articles (all except 4 are in English) on
origami math, philosophy, education, and art.  Authors include
Lang, Engel, Kawahata, Maekawa, Kawasaki, Fuse, Fujimoto, Palmer,
Barreto, Brill, Jackson, me, and on and on and on!  Much has been
written about this book on this list already, and a full table of
contents can be found on my web page:
http://chasm.merrimack.edu/~thull/SIMOST.html

OrigamiUSA has about 20 copies left, and anyone who wants to buy
one should do so through the HOME OFFICE, not the OUSA Origami Source.
(We have to do it this way because they were specially ordered,
so we can't offer the usual membership discount.  But if they
sell quickly, we may make arrangements to include it in our
Source cataloge.)

The cost is $40 + postage and handling, which is $3 for US
book rate. Other postage and handling charges for overseas or faster than
book rate on request.  You can order via email (info@origami-usa.org) or fax
(212-769-5668) or phone (212-769-5635) or you can even do the old-
fashioned thing and mail a check.

Hopefully this will make it easier for those that are interested
to get a copy of this book (as opposed to ordering one
from Japan).

----- Tom "math books - Yea!" Hull
      thull@merrimack.edu





From: Lisa Hodsdon <Lisa_Hodsdon@HMCO.COM>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:48:04 -0400
Subject: The Traditional Junk---Satisfying? Beautiful?

Michael Naughton's request for the source of Jackson's rosette got me
started folding my way through _Classic Origami_. One of the traditional
models in this book is the Chinese Junk, which I had never folded. Jackson
claims in the introduction to the model (and I paraphrase from memory)
"this model is considered by many to have the most beautiful folding
sequence." If it weren't for this comment, I wouldn't have folded the model
because from the photo I couldn't imagine being impressed by the outcome.
The folding sequence *was* kind of cool, but nothing spectacular in my
opinion. I didn't think that the "sequence of folds was natural." I don't
really know what a Junk looks like, but the model didn't even look like a
boat.

Actually, this was true of a number of models in this book---cool to fold
but not much to look at.

So, I started thinking about two things and I would like to hear your
opinions:

(1) What do you think is the most satisfying model to fold?

  My sense of this is that once you've folded any model enough the moves
start to seem intuitive and satisfying. A model that is initially
frustrating
can become fun and relaxing. (Cranes exemplify this for me.)

(2) Is a cool folding sequence enough?

  Maybe. Sometimes. But I think I'm really more outcome oriented.

Lisa
Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com





From: Chris T Durham <gandalf_15@JUNO.COM>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 10:52:16 -0400
Subject: Re: The Traditional Junk---Satisfying? Beautiful?

I think the most satisfying of ALL models would be Fumiaka Kawahata's
Pegasus. It is a very beautiful and yet challenging(to a degree.) model.
The first time I saw it, I said "WOW!". I think it is one incredible
mpdel all around.

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]





From: Steve Woodmansee <stevew@EMPNET.COM>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 11:37:33 -0700
Subject: Re: photographing origami models

Dennis wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>        I tried the direct Scanner method on a 3-D model using an upturned
>bowl. The inside of the bowl was WHITE!!
>        To say the result was disappointing would be an understatement.
>
I want to see it!!!  Can you e-mail me privately!???

"Peace In Creases"

Steve Woodmansee
stevew@empnet.com





From: mSaliers <saliers@CONCENTRIC.NET>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 11:53:49 -0700
Subject: Re: The Traditional Junk---Satisfying? Beautiful?

> Lisa Hodsdon [SMTP:Lisa_Hodsdon@HMCO.COM] wrote ...
>
> .. opinion. I didn't think that the "sequence of folds was natural." I don't
> really know what a Junk looks like, but the model didn't even look like a
> boat.
>

I liked the model (Harbin's version, anyway).  As a kid, I thought it was neat
how the final form was revealed in the last step.  Also, having sails that could
be "battened" down was a neat feature.  Many Origami designs require a little
imagination or poetic license to see the intent. But as such designs go, the
"junk" is pretty good.  The decorative tabs on both sides are neat (especially
when folded from duo-color paper). The contours of the two prows are suggestive
of forward and aft cabins.  The inner edge suggests a little railing or
guide walk.

In other words, don't "Junk" it yet! ;-)





From: "Wu, Sonia" <swu@BANSHEE.SAR.USF.EDU>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 12:39:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Satisfying? Beautiful?

Lisa Hodson inquired about satisfying/beautiful/cool to fold models.

I like to fold things that will be beautiful or at least interesting,
but also want some of the folding to be "cool."  Much of my enjoyment
comes from  folding from a new diagram and working through some of the
challenges.  On the other hand, since it's the first time, it usually
looks sort of crummy.  I like to put it away then and come back to it
later, re-experience the thrill of victory but producing a nicer model.

Certainly there are "cool moves" that are fun to execute--turning
something inside-out without tearing the paper is neat, for example, or
curling the tail of the traditional shrimp after pleating the paper.
There are also models that give a sense of almost blossoming as they
progress--Vicente Palacios has a model that I think is called a
"rosetta," diagrammed I think in Creacion in Papiroflexia.  It's a
little tiring to fold because of the repetitive moves, but it's so
beautiful to see it take shape that I love it.  Modulars that turn into
boxes or 30-piece balls are similar in this way; toward the end of
folding a bunch of pieces I'm getting grumpy but then the payoff of
getting to assemble the model is looming in the near distance.

Some favorite beautiful/satisfying models:  the Ishibashi Ball, Robert
Neale's Magic Star, Montroll's crab (from one of the Enthusiast books),
Michael LaFosse's horseshoe crab and various butterflies, from his
videos (I've given all as gifts).

Sonia Wu
(Florida)





From: "Charles M. Heron" <cheron@ICHIPS.INTEL.COM>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 14:08:42 -0700
Subject: Re: Satisfying? Beautiful?

One modular model that I enjoy is the Small Turtle
unit (or something turtle unit..) in Tomoko Fuse's
unit origami book... It's a pretty simple fold,
but there's something about the symetry of the
unit that I like.

-charles





From: Dorothy Engleman <FoldingCA@WEBTV.NET>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 14:42:32 -0700
Subject: Re: Satisfying? Beautiful?

I have Alice Gray to thank for introducing me to Fred Rohm's whimsical
Puss In Boots.

This delightful model has become one of my sentimental favorites.  There
is a truly pleasurable sense of resolution in so many of the folding
sequences.

Puss looks quite fetching in black, living in a purple Boot.





From: Rachel Katz <mandrk@PB.NET>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 15:10:23 +0000
Subject: Re: The Traditional Junk---Satisfying? Beautiful?
Priority: normal

> > .. opinion. I didn't think that the "sequence of folds was natural." I don't
> > really know what a Junk looks like, but the model didn't even look like a
> > boat.
> >
>
> I liked the model (Harbin's version, anyway).
>
> In other words, don't "Junk" it yet! ;-)
>
I concur with the latter opinion. The junk was the model that turned me on to
origami. I still remember when I pulled it out to make it 3/D. I was giving my
baby (now 31yrs old) his 2:00 A.M. feeding and wanted to wake up my husband to
show him. Now I wish I had - maybe he'd be turned on to origami too.

Rachel Katz
Origami - it's not just for squares!





From: "Katherine J. Meyer" <kathy@SILENTWORLD.COM>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 16:24:45 -0500
Subject: Re: The Traditional Junk---what book?

Hi all:

I have heard before, about how cool this last step for the 3-D transformation
     of the
Junk is. It sounds like it would be fun to fold. I would appreciate if someone
     could
tell me what book the Junk model is in and if it is still availble. Thanks

Kathy <*))))><





From: anne roberts <aroberts@FROGNET.NET>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 17:46:38 -0400
Subject: Unsubscribe

Please take me off your list.





From: Sam Kendig <neuro_mancer42@YAHOO.COM>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 18:10:01 -0700
Subject: The Traditional Junk---Satisfying? Beautiful?

     Well, I have to agree with the comment about a model seeming more
natural the more times you've folded it. I learned Eric Joisel's rat
at convention, and wrote a set of diagrams, but soon lost them.
Luckily, I remembered the folding process, and have folded at least
one each week to make sure I don't forget it. The result, besides a
lot of rats, has been that I've come to appreciate the model a lot
more. When I first learned the model, there were two steps that seemed
near impossible. In repeatedly folding them, I have come to find these
steps the most interesting in the model, because while akin to stretch
folds, they have something that makes them unique (I'm not quite sure
what, it's hard to describe in words [or diagrams, for that matter]).
     One of my other favorite models is Kawasaki's rose (the one from
the archives, I don't have OftC). Although the precreasing can become
nearly infuriating, the steps at which you are sculpting the rose
always fascinate me, as the paper quickly turns from being a flat
surface into a detailed rose.

Peace,
Sam
Neuro_Mancer42@yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From: Sjaak Adriaanse <S.Adriaanse@INTER.NL.NET>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 18:46:27 +0100
Subject: Origami sighting

The Learnletter, the email bulletin for the user community of Learn2.com,
the Ability Utility (http://www.Learn2.com), has in its most recent issue
the following text:

>FEATURED THIS WEEK: Learn2 Keep Yourself from Going Crazy on a Rainy
>Saturday Afternoon
>
>It's not going to be summer forever. Soon, it'll be raining again, and
>there'll be times when we'll all be forced to stay inside on the weekends.
>Either you can spend those dreary days on the couch watching television, or
>you can keep yourself entertained with a little help from these 2torials.
>
[snip]
>
>2torial #0646: Learn2 Make Paper Airplanes. More than just a nuisance in
>the classroom, making paper airplanes is an art in itself.
>http://www.Learn2.com/06/0646/0646.html
>
>2torial #0855: Learn2 Make Basic Origami. Once you've mastered airplanes,
>move on to a higher level of paper manipulation with this 2torial.
>http://www.Learn2.com/08/0855/0855.html

Greetings,

Sjaak

Sjaak Adriaanse
email: S.Adriaanse@inter.NL.net
----------------------------------
We perform the miracles
Kate Bush





From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 19:25:46 +0200
Subject: Re: The Traditional Junk---Satisfying? Beautiful?

OK, another one of those opinion polls. They do get discussions started,
though.

On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Lisa Hodsdon wrote:
> (1) What do you think is the most satisfying model to fold?

For me, the most satisfying model to fold is Robert Lang's Hercules
Beetle, because once you've located the center point of the base, the rest
of the model follows logically. I can recall few other models that have
such a wonderful "flow".

Now, the most satisfying model to have folded is quite a different thing.
I'd like to fold a really satisfying Dave Brill Lion; the ones I have
folded so far are more suited for the round file than for display.
(Perhaps I used too small a piece of paper -- 45cm still seem a bit
small.)  Or I'd like to be able to fold Herman van Goubergen's Cat and
Reader like he himself does. After a while, complexity itself is no real
challenge anymore and you (ie. I) start looking for other fields where to
improve -- like natural looks, modelling, displaying etc.

>   My sense of this is that once you've folded any model enough the moves
> start to seem intuitive and satisfying.

No; I think that there really are models with "unnatural" folding
sequences. And you also have to bear in mind that there can be more than
one folding sequence for a given model. An example I know of is Maekawa's
Devil. I know two folding sequences for this model; one by Kasahara (from
Viva! Origami) and one apperently by Maekawa himself (from a Tanteidan
Convention Book). Maekawa's is much more natural and easy to follow than
Kasahara's.

> (2) Is a cool folding sequence enough?

No, at least not for me. I'm very outcome oriented, as the people who have
seen my models will be able to testify. But some models look great and
have an entertaining folding sequence at the same time. ;-)

Yours, Sebastian                                       skirsch@t-online.de
                        /or/ sebastian_kirsch@kl.maus.de (no mail > 16KB!)





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 20:19:16 +0100
Subject: David Petty's site

Following his hint, I revisited Davids site - the new section is an
extraordinary piece of work, listing huge amounts of trad designs with
full details & a picture!

Well worth a visit & well done Dave...

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - all new look!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/
RPM homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk - now with RealAudio clips!
