As shown above is a pattern for a face mask that both conforms and creases to the face. This should, created correctly, decrease the spread of airborne and droplet-borne diseases including the current COVID-19-causing coronavirus and annual influenza effectively. Depending on the material, it should be machine washable.
How to use this pattern
Fabric (tight-knit 100% cotton preferred, such as t-shirt material)
Fastening item (like ribbon or 2 large hair ties)
Scale according to the size of your face. For width, the innermost left line sitting on your nose, the second right line should sit next to the ear within 4-10 centimeters. For height, the arclength of B to C should be the length from the bridge of your nose to the soft part past your jawbone or the direct length of B to C should be about the bottom of the chin to the top of your forehead.
Print and cut the pattern above with the scale desired. I recommend printing a smaller copy with the instructions for reference.
With the red and black lines facing up, trace onto the backside of your desired exterior fabric, flip the pattern, and repeat. We will call these R1 and L1 respectively here forward.
Trim or fold the pattern down one section from the outside.
With the red and black lines facing up, trace onto the backside of your desired interior fabric, flip the pattern, and repeat. We will call these L2 and R2 respectively here forward. (Yes that is correct)
Repeat step 5 if you desire a middle layer.
Cut L1, R1, L2, R2, and any additional panels.
Layer L1, L2, and any additional left panels. Fold and pin L1 onto the surface of L2 along B and C. Use the pattern and gently mark on L2 were the red lines are, such as with pins.
Repeat step 8 with R1, R2, and any additional right panels.
Sew or stitch zig-zag the left panels along B and C, removing pins while pushing as to allow easy operation of your machine.
Sew or stitch straight the left panels along the red lines.
Repeat steps 10 & 11 with the right panels.
Layer left and right panels with L2 and R2 on the outside. Pin L1 and R2 together along A.
Sew or stitch zig-zag along A.
Carefully ladder-stitch any additional panels together.
Carefully ladder-stitch L2 and R2 together along the interior line.
Carefully ladder-stitch L1 E to L2 D around the fastening of choice.
Repeat step 17 with R1 E, R2 D, and the fastening of choice.
Gently wash before use.
And you’re done. The mask will naturally fold along the seams if the face is smaller.
This took about 7 hours of work to make sure it accurately worked as well as followed CDC guidelines and recommendations. This pattern is free to use for personal and non-profit use.
Here are the alpha and beta prototypes I made out of paper.
Substance®️ and Substance Painter®️ are registered trademarks of Allegorhithmic, a subsidiary of Adobe Inc. Minecraft is a property of Microsoft Corporation and Mojang AB, an Xbox Games Studio and subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation. Blockbench is a product of JannisX11.
The use of computer graphics to
speed up work and/or improve visual fidelity in animation has always been a
goal. Rendering has acted as the medium and the in-between for many years,
shifting from very flat drawings to full emulations of reality. In general,
rendering refers to any process of taking collections of data, whether polygonal,
NURBS surfaces or another set, and converting them into the visual idea of real
or three-dimensional objects.
Introduction to Rendering
Most often, we 3D artists see
systems called scanline or rasterizing renderers. This is a baseline engine
designed to draw objects as simply as possible. Taking in object textures,
borders, and order (the raw distance of an object and not its face from the
viewer or camera), these, today, will often act as the base-line between the
artist and the graphics software. A good example to think of this is Maya
Hardware 2.0, also called Maya Viewport Renderer. Shading generally is
rudimentary, based more on surface quality than any existing light source.
The next step up in complexity
in terms of rendering is ray casting. This takes rasterizing a step further by
calculating per-face or per-normal lighting data based solely on angle of
incidence, the angle at which a ray (light in this case) hits an object. Most
often, this value is combined with rasterized data by multiplying the energy
per pixel with the full blast value from the scanline or raster render. This
gives objects more believable volume as it won’t have the turntable effect,
where it appears the lights are static and the object rotates, or the
flattening effect, where objects appear flatter or paper-thin due to uncomplex
or no shading.
At this point in time, we have
reached the final part of rendering. Ray tracing is just ray casting just
several times. Rays of lights do not end once they hit an object in real-life,
and this is the direction ray tracing takes. Instead, rays continue until the
drop below a certain energy level, go a certain distance from the viewer or
camera, or after a certain number of bounces. Ray tracing has progressed from
suggesting the idea of a surface to portraying near realistic volumes.
An important note is most modern
renderers are what are called physically based renderers, where data relates
directly to real-life data. Even more artistic aspects of these renderers are
dictated by realistic data.
Comparison between Pixar
RenderMan and Solid Angle Arnold
Because both RenderMan and
Arnold are physical based renderers, many things will appear the same to an
untrained eye. Other than names, attributes between their basic surface shaders
are mostly the same. RenderMan has a few more lobes, but many of these
properties can be emulated within Arnold using utility nodes or utility shaders.
However, one notable difference between the two is the treatment of rays.
Arnold attempts to emulate reality as closely as possible by treating each ray
as the carrier of three kinds of data: hue, intensity, and saturation. This
allows Arnold to create chromatic aberration banding like for a curved glass or
a carved diamond. Compared to RenderMan’s three color system, it takes longer
to render but appears much more physically accurate. As well, since Arnold is
designed with current render packages in mind, it can better utilize the nodes
within its supported packages.
Comparing these renderers, I
personally prefer RenderMan due to its higher level of built-in artistic
controls and improved overall performance. I do not fully understand all the
smaller details that effect their performance, but due to their similarities, the
choice of renderer is purely to the studio’s preference.
Learning the lobes
Diffuse/Base – In general, diffuse makes up the majority of the color of a dielectric (non-metallic) surface. Most often in computer graphics, materials use Lambertian diffusion, where roughness due to nanoscopic structures is consistent. This creates a soft border around the object of grey. However, another important model is the Oren-Nayar or OREN model. Instead of just a consistent nanostructure, Oren and Nayar added a microstructure of V-shaped facets to increase the roughness without greatly increasing computation time. This gives large bodies like the Moon or Mars a more static border. You can read more about these here (at ScienceDirect).
Specularity – Compared to diffusion, specularity makes up the majority of the color of a conductive (metallic) surface. The shift to physically-based renderers has pushed out empirical models, where it is aligned with what is seen and not what happens, but I feel that the understanding of both is important. The Phong model describes the rate of decay in the intensity of a specular highlight. Phong calculated that f(θ,n)=cos^n (θ), which states the result of the cosine of angle theta is taken to the power of n, such that the higher the value of n, the more true reflection takes place. This is similar to both index of refraction and roughness wrapped into one, as it describes visually what occurs. You can learn more about this here (at Siggraph). In physically-based renders, commonly index of refraction and roughness are two separate attributes. Index of refraction (IOR) is the ratio of the speed of light through a vacuum to the speed of light through the medium, which affects the angle of reflection and potentially aberrates the resulting ray when changing mediums with varying values. Higher IOR will appear more chrome-like. Roughness then describes how the reflection is broken up, as its name suggests. You can learn more here (at Britannica). An important note is the Fresnel model, which is a related bridge between IOR and Phong Cosine Power. Fresnel Shape is directly related to, but not, IOR. One can calculate one with the other using the following math equations: R_i (f_0 )≅1+f_0^(1/π) and f_0 (R_i )≅((〖1-R_i)〗^2)/〖(1+R_i)〗^2
Coating – Similar to the specularity
lobe, coating or clear coat describes a supsurface volume covering the surface in
question. Used in conjunction with specularity, a number of materials can be
created with extreme accurancy.
Glass Refraction – Also similar
to specularity, this describes light travelling through a volume similar to
glass or water. This lobe or setting generally cannot be used with other lobes
in a believable manner.
Surface Quality Modifiers – Normal,
bump, and displacement change the appearance of the surface in one form or
another. Normal maps due this by changing the angle of incidence on a surface
to increase fidelity without significantly increasing render-times. Bump and
displacement maps generally act as a height placement on the surface. Bump
becomes a normal-like, not modifying the actual geometry, just the point at
which light hits. While with displacement, geometry is baked and expanded to
match the map in question.
Using the lobes to their fullest
Eyes can be hard to reproduce, being
both surface and volume like. Here I used Substance Painter and RenderMan to
reproduce an eye with only one hour of work.
First, we create the geometry of
our eye, as well as the normal map volumes we will need to bake.
Next, we create the base
material of the cornea and the pupil.
Then, we create the water
coating around the eye.
Finally, we connect our files
into the shader as follows.
I do take time to reflect about myself and the work I have made in recent times; however, I rarely go through and elaborate on paper (or the internet) as to how to improve. Naturally, I’d imagine that it is I will then hold myself more reliable for my mistakes.
In general, I’d say my biggest problem is not time management but good time management without personal accountability. In this sense, I am quite good at getting things done on time, but I also find a way to put it off to the last minute as I know approximately how much time I need to complete a task. This month, I feel this was the essence of my being. I would often only work on my work during lab or a small bit in lecture, but only rarely outside of class. I knew that I had the capacity to complete my work during these allotted times and then didn’t feel the need to do more. I only recently came to this conclusion as talking with some friends about things professors had said to us in the past.
I’d also like to look at the work of done and assess what I did well and what I could do better.
I feel mostly very proud of this little girl character I have been internally referring to as lilgirl.$version. I’m very happy with how she progressed and turned out.
My biggest issue is with how flat her face is. Not to say that no one’s face is as flat as hers as one of my good family friends acted as a facial stand in for her design. It, as a whole, looks very CGI. I am, though, quite happy with how many of her other elements turned out.
Another issue I felt was big was her hair. It feels very thick which was my intention, but also too thick like it is rolled playdough or old gum. I think, in the future, I’d use either a card based or X-Gen hair solution instead.
A character I am much less proud of had its name on the sheet as “Old Solder.” I imagined this anthropomorphic bear character to be a blacksmith, or the character artist was not keen on spelling.
From his face, I think he turned out quite well and he acted a test for me when it came to automating normal map baking issues, which I personally like to call normal burning as it leaves a black stain on the model, an issue that occurs when models overlap themselves. My solution is not finalized but I have made a good start as to how to do it. Here is a Wikipedia article on the general topic of normal mapping for those who need it.
Heading south on Old Solder, and he falls apart pretty quickly. He looks, as described for the little girl’s hair, a piece of playdough. And this was not something that went away, like as can be seen in week one for the little girl, I personally feel it gets worse each week. If granted the time, I would redo the character in a day, but I just don’t feel like that would accomplish much for me.
I did learn though, through these two characters what my preferred method of character creation is. I start with ZSpheres in ZBrush and dynamesh out the character’s general form. From there, I take them into Maya where I costume build the topology for the character. I return to ZBrush, where I will change the geometry to fit my needs. Though, to a degree, that does seem tedious, I think it produces better results.
Character sheet and busts provided by Full Sail 3D Character Development and Creation staff.
All content is created within Maya® and ZBrush® under educational license.
Autodesk® and Maya® are registered trademarks of Autodesk, Inc.
Pixologic® and ZBrush® are registered trademarks of Pixologic
Zachary Yarnot and DualVission do not hold any rights to these owners’ contents.
Zachary Yarnot and DualVission are in no way related to or endorsed by these companies – or creators – or their brands. The actions of said persons are not in any way connected to or encouraged by other mentioned parties.
Polygon totals
-Modelled
– 1538 faces
– 3054 tris
-ZBrush
– 3138560 faces/tris
-Final (Viewport)
– 6130 faces
– 12260 tris
-Final (Arnold Render)
– 98080 faces
– 196160 tris
Vertex totals
-Modelled
– 1521 points
– 1828 UV
-ZBrush
– 1569274 points/UV
-Final (Viewport)
– 6124 points
– 6718 UV
-Final (Arnold render)
– 98074 points
– 100426 UV
Resources used when compared to version 1.5
-Viewport Final
– 8.44% face
– 16.88% tris
– 16.50% Vertex points
– 16.97% UV points
-Render Final
– 135.01% faces
– 270.03% tris
– 264.17% Vertex points
– 253.70% UV points
-Time – 7.31%
All copyrights are held by their respective owners.
All content is rendered within Arnold in Maya® under an educational license. Final processing done in Final Cut Pro X.
Zachary Yarnot and DualVission do not hold any rights to these owners’ contents.
Autodesk® and Maya® are registered trademarks of Autodesk, Inc.
Arnold Renderer is a property of Autodesk®, Marcos Fajardo, and Solid Angle.
Pixologic® and ZBrush® are registered trademarks of Pixologic.
Final Cut Pro X is a software created and published by Apple, Inc.
Zachary Yarnot and DualVission are in no way related to or endorsed by these companies – or creators – or their brands. The actions of said persons are not in any way connected to or encouraged by other mentioned parties.
Project time – 20 hours
Render time – 10 days
Polygon totals – 16541 faces
– 30012 tris
Vertex totals – 15238 points
– 17779 UVs
All copyrights are held by their respective owners.
All content is rendered within Arnold in Maya® under an educational license. Final processing done in Final Cut Pro X.
Zachary Yarnot and DualVission do not hold any rights to these owners’ contents.
LEGO® and LEGO® Minifig™ are trademarked properties of The Lego Group.
Gatorade™ and Gatorade™ Lightning Bolt are trademarked properties of The Gatorade Company, Inc., Stokely-Van Camp, Quaker Oats Company, and PepsiCo, Inc.
Autodesk® and Maya® are registered trademarks of Autodesk, Inc.
Arnold Renderer is a property of Autodesk®, Marcos Fajardo, and Solid Angle.
Final Cut Pro X is a software created and published by Apple, Inc.
Zachary Yarnot and DualVission are in no way related to or endorsed by these companies – or creators – or their brands. The actions of said persons are not in any way connected to or encouraged by other mentioned parties.
All copyrights are held by their respective owners.
All content is rendered within 3DS Max® under an educational license.
Zachary Yarnot and DualVission do not hold any rights to these owners’ contents.
Autodesk® and 3DS Max® are registered trademarks of Autodesk, Inc.
iPhone® is a trademark of Apple, Inc.
Pixel™ is a trademark of Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc.
Zachary Yarnot and DualVission are in no way related to or endorsed by these companies – or creators – or their brands. The actions of said persons are not in any way connected to or encouraged by other mentioned parties.