You are browsing the archive for Stuart Dunn.

by Stuart-Dunn

Interesting roundhouse paper

May 5, 2011 in archaeology by Stuart-Dunn

Including a critique of the so-called ‘sunwise’ theory of occupation. It references the work at Butser. This kind of thing forms important background to any reconstruction work we do there.

USING AND ABANDONING ROUNDHOUSES: A REINTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE FROM LATE BRONZE AGE–EARLY IRON AGE SOUTHERN ENGLAND: LEO WEBLEY

It has recently been demonstrated that a number of roundhouses of the early first millennium BC in southern England show a concentration of finds in the southern half of the building. It has thus been argued that this area was used for domestic activities such as food preparation, an idea which has formed the basis for discussion of later prehistoric ‘cosmologies’. However, reconsideration of the evidence suggests that this finds patterning does not relate to the everyday use of the buildings, being more likely to derive from a particular set of house abandonment practices. Furthermore, evidence can be identified for the location of domestic activities within contemporary roundhouses that appears to contradict the established model.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2007.00277.x/abstract

Tags: , , ,
No Comments »

by J Milo Taylor

C.A.A Conference: University of Birmingham: MiPP Paper

April 2, 2011 in archaeology, conference, digital media by J Milo Taylor

COMPUTER APPLICATIONS AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN ARCHAEOLOGY – UK CHAPTER

A paper from the MiPP team was submitted to The Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity (IAA) at the University of Birmingham and the CAA UK Chapter committee invited us to present at the CAA UK Chapter conference 2011. The conference was held at the Institute of Archaeology, Birmingham on the 1st April – 2nd April 2011.

Topics included initiatives within the sphere of archaeological computing, but papers that addressed the following themes were particularly encouraged:

§ Working in a Visual World – From gaming to solid modelling, mobile technology to augmented reality.

Other themes of long-standing interest to researchers and practitioners include:

§ Archaeological computing methods and techniques within the Cultural Resource Management (CRM) environment.

§ Pattern recognition – Finding patterns within archaeological data, site patterning, image recognition, etc.

§ Theory within Archaeological Computing – The application of archaeological theory within the computing environment e.g. post-processual approaches to archaeological computing.

Tags: , , , , ,
No Comments »

by Stuart-Dunn

Forming questions

March 2, 2011 in archaeology, digital media, interdisciplinary, motion capture by Stuart-Dunn

The question about our MiPP project which I’m most often asked is ‘why?’ In fact that this is the whole project’s fundamental research question. As motion capture technologies become cheaper, more widely available, less dependent on equipment in fixed locations such as studios, and less dependent on highly specialist technical expertise to set them up and use them, what benefits can these technologies bring outside their traditional application areas such as performance and medical practice? What new research can they support? In such a fundamentally interdisciplinary project, there are inevitably several ‘whys’, but as someone who is, or at least once was, an archaeologist, archaeology is the ‘why’ that I keep coming back to. Matters became a lot clearer, I think, in a meeting we had yesterday with some of the Silchester archaeological team.

As I noted in my TAG presentation before Christmas, archaeology is really all about the material record: tracing what has survived in the soil, and building theories top of that. Many of these theories concern what people did, and where and how they moved while they were doing them. During a capture session in Bedford last week (which alas I couldn’t attend), the team tried out various scenarios in the Animazoo mocap suits, using the 3D Silchester Round House created by Leon, Martin and others as a backdrop. They reconstructed in a practical way how certain every day tasks might have been accomplished by the Iron Age inhabitants. As Mike Fulford pointed out yesterday, such reconstructions – which are not reconstructions in the normally accepted sense in archaeology, where the focus is usually on the visual, architectural and formal remediation of buildings (as excellently done already by the Silchester project) – themselves can be powerful stimuli for archaeological research questions. He cited a scene in Kevin Macdonald’s The Eagle, where soldiers are preparing for battle. This scene prompted the reflection that a Roman soldier would have found putting on his battle dress a time consuming and laborious process, a fact which could in turn be pivotal to the interpretation of events surrounding various aspects of Roman battles.

One aim of MiPP is to conceptualize theoretical scenarios such as this as visual data comprising digital motion traces. The e-research interest in this is that those traces cannot really be called ‘data’, and cannot be useful in the particular application area of reconstructive archaeology, if their provenance is not described, or if they are not tagged systematically and stored as retrievable information objects. What we are talking about, in other words, is the mark-up of motion traces in a way that makes them reusable. Our colleagues in the digital humanities have been marking up texts for decades. The TEI has spawned several subsets for specific areas, such as EpiDoc for marking up epigraphic data, and mark-up languages for 3D modelling (e.g. VRML) are well developed. Why then should there not be a similar schema for motion traces? Especially against the background of a field such as archaeology, where there are already highly developed information recording and presentation conventions, marking up quantitative representations of immaterial events should be easy. One example might be to assign levels of certainty to various activities, in much the same way that textual mark-up allows editors to grade the scribal or editorial certainty of sections of text. We could then say, for example, that ‘we have 100% certainty that there were activities to do with fire in this room because there is a hearth and charring, but only 50% certainty that the fire was used for ritual activity’. We could also develop a system for citing archaeological contexts in support of particular types of activity; in much the same way that the LEAP project cited Silchester’s data in support of a scholarly publication. It boils down to the fundamental principle of information science, that an information object can only be useful when its provenance is known and documented. How this can be approached for motion traces of what might have happened at Silchester in the first century AD promises to be a fascinating case study.

Originally published on Stuart’s Blog: http://stuartdunn.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/mipp-forming-questions/

Tags: , ,
No Comments »

by Stuart-Dunn

Theoretical Archaeology Group Conference: Presentation

January 4, 2011 in archaeology, conference, event by Stuart-Dunn

I gave a presentation on MiPP at the TAG conference in Bristol before Christmas, in the session organized by CASPAR entitled ‘Audio-visual practice-as-research in archaeology’. The crux of the presentation was the present-day MoCap data that we gathered from Sue et al at the site this summer, what we are doing with it, and what we would like to do with it. Currently, in my mind at least, this centres on the typology of movement that we’re developing – reviewing the footage and identifying entities of posture, task, instrument and target, and building links between them. In that sense, it is more of a taxonomy (i.e. hierarchical), rather than an ontology (i.e. flat; relationship-based).  This, I think, could be very illuminating in terms of understanding archaeological practice; but of course we have to avoid be overly reductionist: every archaeologists is unique of course, and we must be clear that the typology is a means of reflecting that practice and representing it in a systematic way, rather than pigeonholing what archaeologists actually do in the field. Also, while preparing the paper, it struck me that among the things we will have to address for DEDEFI purposes are practical questions such as cost (the suits are currently prohibitively expensive for any excavation project to purchase themselves); practicality in terms of staff and infrastructure needed on site (Animazoo had to have a heavy direct involvement in our work at Silchester), ethics and privacy. And, to cull from the presentation before mine, distinguishing the kind of archaeological practice we are interested in from ‘weird practices’; which may have nothing to do with the archaeological process.

As always with these presentations, it was the questions afterwards which were really interesting (although alas I had to leave before the general discussion at the end of the day, as legions of snow clouds closed in on southern England). It was clear, once again, that engagement with other archaeological practitioners is key of MiPP is to be a success; but that a project which is about process rather than material needs  to have its proper archaeological context spelled out if that engagement is to happen.  I suspect, however, that once the second stand of the project – the dynamic reconstructions – are under way and demonstrable in a more final form; this will actually be very much easier. We must also link these processes to current discussions about agency and materiality, as discussed for example by Martin Wobst. Ruth Tringham of UC Berkeley indicated that similar issues had come up in her team’s thinking about process at Catalhoyuck. I was asked what merits the various motion capture systems have over simply videoing the excavators at work in HD: this indicates to me that we need to investigate, document and demonstrate in a very robust way the functionaries that the bvh and .fbx viewers that we are using can bring for panning, zooming, viewing the data from multiple angles in 3D and – critically – linking the data with the archaeological data that is there: these critical advantages over standard video are extremely important for the question of ‘why’, as opposed to ‘how’ do we take MoCap out of the studio. A further functionality which I think we need, which struck me when was reviewing the data earlier this week, is that we need the subject’s line of site to be projected onto the floor surface. This is not obvious in the current footage, and yet it is central to documenting the subject’s relationship with his or her material. Finally, I was asked about capturing the movements of larger numbers of people at the same time. This, of course, was originally envisaged as part of MiPP, but had to be abandoned due to technological constraints. Of course this would open the process up to capturing the pathways of visitors through, and around, sites.

Overall – still much to do, but I sense that some really interesting issues are beginning to emerge.

Tags: , ,
No Comments »

by J Milo Taylor

Realising the Value Spectrum Workshop

October 12, 2010 in event, interdisciplinary, related work by J Milo Taylor

UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX/ UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON JOINT WORKSHOP

Friday 8th October/Friday 9th October 2010

Held at room 312, Level 3, Silvester Building University of Sussex

This workshop was held to reflect on the full range of value that might be created during creative interdisciplinary projects such as MIPP (taken as a case study), and if possible to propose working practices that maximise value realisation from projects of this kind.

The format was loose and exploratory; participants were invited to outline the ways in which their own work and interests mobilise aspects of what we are calling the “value spectrum”. At interval breaks LW developed reflective overviews based on active listening processes. Notes were taken by SJN.

Participants

Caroline Bassett, School of Media, Film and Music, University of Sussex
Stuart Dunn, Centre for e-Research, King’s College London
Ian Grant, Field Leader, Art and Design, Thames Valley University/ PhD student, School of Media, Film and Music, University of Sussex
Carlos Guedes, University of Porto, School of Engineering and INESC Porto
Sally Jane Norman, Attenborough Centre for the Creative Arts, University of Sussex
Julianne Pierce, Blast Theory – Portslade; Inter-Society of Electronic Arts
Ed Steinmueller, Science and Technology Policy Research, School of Business, Management and Economics, University of Sussex
J. Milo Taylor, Research Associate, MiPP project, School of Media, Film and Music, University of Sussex
Lorraine Warren, School of Management, University of Southampton
Kirk Woolford, School of Media, Film and Music, University of Sussex

Coordination: Cécile Chevalier

Tags: , , , , ,
No Comments »

by SallyJaneNorman

MoCap Workshop Write-Up

June 27, 2010 in body, digital media, interdisciplinary, motion capture, related work by SallyJaneNorman


(by Jenna Ng. Originally posted on http://blog.humlab.umu.se/?p=2279. Mirrored here for archival purposes)

I am spending the weekend in Brighton, UK, to attend the Motion Capture Methodologies Workshop, organised by the School of Media, Film and Music, University of Sussex. The event is part of a methodologies workshop series organised by AHeSSC (Arts & Humanities e-Science Support Centre) – led by Stuart Dunn (King’s College London) – and JISC, and in collaboration with the School’s AHRC-funded Motion in Place Platform (MiPP) project.

Spanning two days, the workshop’s presentations broadly fall into 3 categories. The first is a survey of motion capture projects from various research centres and laboratories. For example, Dave Green, from Culture Lab, Newcastle University, presented mocap projects at the lab ranging from artwork (Susan Morris’s orthographic drawings) to collaboration with design companies, while Donald Glowinski (University of Genoa) shared with us the scientific and artistic projects in relation to the EyesWeb project at the InfoMus Lab. Martin White (University of Sussex; photo below) and Ali Kord (Animazoo) showed mocap passages in digital heritage research involving 3D reconstructions, such as virtual museums and the Church of Santa Chiari. David Pirro (Institute of Electronic Music and Acoustics, Graz) described IEM’s Embodied Generative Music project, aimed at furthering the understanding of the relationship between bodily and musical expression. The primary interest in these presentations for me was in seeing the range of mocap projects as well as realising the possibilities of collaboration between universities and corporations. Considering HUMlab’s own research inclinations, particularly with respect to the expanded facilities and possibilities at HUMlab X, the ambit of ideas re mocap technologies was inspiring and thought-provoking.

In the second category, presenters showcased the technical developments of mocap systems. Matt Oughten showed us the various cameras and sensors available from Vicon, including the T-series range and the Vicon Bonita – the latter has a record speed of 240 FPS and is small enough to hold in your palm. DK Arvind (University of Edinburgh) presented wireless, full-body 3-D Orient motion capture systems and their usage in a variety of applications, including flamenco dance, golf swings and yoga. This focus on the technical aspects also complemented the demos in the workshop, giving a sense of the practical to the discourse.

The third category was the most interesting, in which speakers presented their own mocap projects. Helen Bailey (University of Bedfordshire) presented her research on the e-Dance project, including an investigation into telematic bodies by dividing images of dancers into a quarter-grid to which movements were mapped to different bodily parts. Iwona Hrynczenko (Gotland University) described to us her not unambitious project to map a database of expressive gestures, presenting an interesting challenge as to how we might capture not just movement, but also its more elusive elements, such as expression and personality. Luiz Naveda (Ghent University) showed a fascinating study on how samba/dance movement might be notated, considering separate paradigms of gesture as shape and topology, while Carlos Guedes (University of Porto) gave an overview of his research extracting movement for the control of musical processes. Gretchen Schiller (Brunel University) presented several interesting ideas on movement, including the mapping process, memory in kinesthesia, and the stillness/movement dialectic. Kirk Woolford (Sussex) also introduced to us his numerous mocap projects involving dance and photography, as well as an overview, with Stuart Dunn (King’s College London), of the Motion in Place Platform (MiPP) project. Finally, Sally Jane Norman (Sussex), who has been working in motion capture research since 1994, gave an insightful history of mocap research and systems in which she had been involved over the years.

While helpful in showcasing some of the academic landscape of mocap projects in European universities and the range of its applications, the workshop was, however, almost entirely skewed towards dance and music, reflecting the research interests of the organisers rather than the wide range of mocap work in other areas such as cinema (which, in the wake of Lord of the Rings, Monster House and Avatar, would be, one would think, an obvious area), sign language, gesture recognition, biomedical analysis, surveillance and sports performance analysis etc. Nevertheless, the workshop managed to attract a diverse audience, and the conversations I had with other scholars and academics from different sub-fields were both helpful and thought-provoking – a great conversation I had with Sarah Rubidge, Professor of Choreography and New Media at University of Chichester, on Whitehead and affect was particularly inspiring. The workshop – with kudos to the main organiser Cecile Chevalier – was also well-run and organised throughout, with generously allotted time for lunch (albeit with the ubiquitous and unimaginative sandwiches which seem de rigeur with English conferences) and coffee breaks. Overall, my impression is that such research initiatives bode well not only for work and development in the technology, but also the inter-disciplinary outreach and collaborative potential of academic projects across the sciences and the humanities in general.

4 Responses to “Motion Capture Methodologies Workshop, 25-26 June 2010, Lighthouse”

” Thank you for your swift and heartening report on this workshop, set up as a small-scale, focussed event to highlight a selection of arts and humanities developments involving motion capture. We had no intention – and certainly not the resources! – to provide an exhaustive overview of the motion capture areas you rightly cite as rich development terrain, so this perhaps accounts for the focus on dance and music (not so much a reflection of the organisers’ own research interests, since we’ve also engaged extensively with sectors you mention, as of the research community that generously accepted to contribute time to this initiative). The soft- and hardware demonstrators our presenters brought to share with others during the break/ demo sessions are happily very generic systems overall, widely used beyond the music and dance domains. We published full abstracts and presenter biographies online as early as possible to give a notion of scope and avoid misleading potential attendees at this free event, so hope others were not disappointed. Of course, I’ve nothing to say in defence of the English sandwich though personally I found the fruit skewers wonderfully refreshing in the heat of the Brighton summer! I’m happy we were able to welcome a Umea attendee, as your research and resources are appreciatively recognised, and hope we’ll be able to connect again in future. With best wishes from Sussex, Sally Jane.”
Sally Jane Norman on June 27th, 2010 at 9:00 pm

I enjoyed reading your report, Jenna. I have followed motion capture developments and some of the critical work, but I certainly appreciated the update. I wonder whether motion capture as a technology (or set of technologies) belongs the same ‘dream’ as CAVEs etc. – realism, full immersion, removal of interface etc.
Patrik Svensson on June 29th, 2010 at 10:52 am

Thanks, Patrik! I think it’s a different kind of “dream” – not so much that of immersive realism, but something more affective, transmissive, expressive. I think of mocap as space in a different sense – as created, carved and negotiated by movement (in becoming), as opposed to immersive, dimensional, realistic. I like the idea of dream – there’s a certain ghostliness and uncanniness in movement which renders it similarly dream-like. I want to explore this further! Thanks for the thought.
Jenna on June 29th, 2010 at 11:36 pm

Dear Professor Norman
Again, my sincere apologies for the delay in publishing your comment… as explained, I was not aware that comments on the blog were moderated plus the administration of the blog was overlooked recently as we broke up for the summer holidays.

Thanks very much again for checking in, and for your comment! Of course, the scope of the event contains its own constraints. It would be great to see a large-scale motion capture conference/event, and see how the technology applies across disciplines… might there be something like that in the pipeline from MiPP…? In any case, the workshop was actually very informative for me personally as, not being my fields, I had not thought much about mocap and dance and music, so I learnt a lot, particularly about movement. I think your project is immensely exciting and I am certainly going to be following your work and the MiPP project with great interest.

You’re right – those fruit skewers were great – I took quite a number…! Actually, the rolls and bagels on the second day were pretty good too and a welcome change. :-) Sorry again for the misunderstanding. I look forward to reading more about your work and hope, as well, that we might connect up again sometime in the future. Thanks again for a great and very well-run workshop!

All the best
Jenna
jenna on July 10th, 2010 at 2:04 pm

Tags: , , , , , , ,
No Comments »