Archive for July 31st, 2006
By: Cornell University
Poets and novelists often describe hair as “shining” or “shimmering.” Dark hairstyle has a “sheen”; blond hair style ”glows.”
All this comes about because of the complex scattering of incident light off of individual hairs and from one hair to another.
Reproducing this effect in computer graphics has always been a challenge. Computers can create three-dimensional structures resembling hair, but the process of “rendering,” in which the computer figures out how light will be reflected from those structures to create an image, requires complex calculations that take into account the scattering between hairs. Current methods use approximations that work well for dark hair and passably for brown, but computer-generated blondes still don’t look like they’re having more fun.
But now Cornell researchers have developed a new and much quicker method for rendering hair styles that promises to make blond (and other light-colored) hair more realistic.
Steve Marschner, Cornell assistant professor of computer science, developed the new method with Cornell graduate student Jonathan Moon, who will present the work at the 2006 SIGGRAPH computer graphics conference in Boston July 30 to Aug. 3.
“The model that’s been around since the ’80s works for black hair, and a model we introduced in 2003 in collaboration with workers at Stanford gets brown hair right and makes blond hair better,” said Marschner, an award-winning computer graphics expert who specializes in making computer graphics more realistic, particularly in animating human beings. “Using that model with our new work provides the first practical method to use physically realistic rendering for blond hair and still get the right color.”
The problem is that light traveling through a mass of blond hair is not only reflected off the surfaces of the hairs, but passes through the hairs and emerges in a diffused form, from there to be reflected and transmitted some more.
The only method that can render this perfectly is “path-tracing,” in which the computer works backward from each pixel of the image, calculating the path of each ray of light back to the original light source. Since this require hours of calculations, computer artists resort to approximations.
“People do something reasonable for one bounce and then assume it reflects diffusely,” Marschner explained. In other words, he said, they assume that hair is opaque. “In light-colored hair it’s important to keep track of the hair-to-hair scattering,” he said.
Marschner and Moon’s algorithm begins by tracing rays from the light source into the hair, using some approximations of the scattering and producing a map of where photons of light can be found throughout the volume of hair. Then it traces a ray from each pixel of the image to a point in the hair and looks at the map to decide how much light should be available there.
The result, in a test rendering of a swatch of blond hair, appears almost identical to a rendering by the laborious path-tracing method. Path tracing for the test required 60 hours of computation, while the new method took only 2.5 hours, the researchers report.
Marschner now plans to look for better ways to generate the geometric model of hair that underlies the rendering and to simulate realistically the way hair moves. “Tools that generate hair generate random strands in space, and it’s unclear whether the arrangement is realistic,” he explained.
Marschner shared a technical achievement award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 2004 for a method of rendering translucent materials, including human skin, which helped to make the character of Gollum in the “Lord of the Rings” films more realistic. His earlier methods for rendering hair helped to create computer-animated versions of Naomi Watts in the arms of the computer-animated gorilla in the 2005 version of “King Kong.”
July 31st, 2006
By: Lance Winslow rends For 2006
Hairstyle 2006
In 2005 the most popular hairstyles were driven by celebrities, most notably the women actresses on “Sex in the City” and “Friends” and you
could go down about any city in America and see look a like hairstyles. Some younger girls were thinking that in 2006 they might wish to imitate Paris Hilton and Britney Spears hair style, although we may see more of a 1970’s hybrid between these of Paris and Britney and a more layered hairstyle look, like back then. Men seemed to be quite content with the James Bond style, long hair let it go style and emulating the various GQ heart throbs of the Silver Screen in 2005.
In 2006 going bald will be the biggest hairstyle trend, as those who have become enlightened will prove that they do not need to impress anyone with something as silly or ridiculous as a hair cut. For those who do not wish to show their enlightened self, we will see a re-emergence of the Ronald Reagan style hair cut for most men and a few will adopt the “I do not give a damn about you or anyone else” haircut style of shock jock Howard Sterns.
For the women who are afraid to cut it all off we will see longer hairstyle with a flared layered look. Not quite the Farah Facet haircut of the late 70’s but along that lines and this will be taking hold towards the end of 2006, mostly due to Hollywood’s influence on the masses. Think on this in 2006.
July 31st, 2006
Try this for long hair body curls
Here is a hair styling technique, for all you long haired vixens, who want your long hair to look like Jessica Simpson’s.
The beauty of it, its quick, easy and will hold all night. This is such an easy hair styling method, you will wonder why you have never tried it before. “bouncy, sexy, body wave curls” The key to getting the right size curl in your hair is to experiment with roller size, heat and length of time you leave them in your hair.
You could spend hours trying to achieve the kind of bouncy, sexy, body wave curls like these on Jessica Simpson just to have them fall out a few hours later or . . . try this.
• Wash and blow dry hair. Try a volumizing shampoo or hair styling product for extra oomph. Experiment with blow drying hair smooth for a smoother, shinier curl, vs. a rough blow dry for a different type of curl.
• Put hair up in a high (crown of head) ponytail using a soft band or scrunchie to secure.
If you have thick hair, put it up in two high ponytails
• Mist ponytail with a thermal hair styling spray
• Using hot rollers, roll a section of hair, no wider than the size roller you will use, and secure at the base of the ponytail. The rollers will stack on each other by the time your finished.
Experiment with the size of roller for size of curl desired
temperature of hot rollers, a hotter roller makes a tighter curl
how long you leave rollers, determines tightness and durability of the curl
• Take out rollers and let hair cool (you could use a light hairspray here)
• For maximum volume, spray hair upside down, flip up and comb through with fingers
• Bangs or fringe around sides may need to be touched-up with a curling iron
July 31st, 2006
Do you believe this heat wave? Local hair salons must be having a record July helping their clients deal with all the sun damage that is out there.
This morning I went for a walk in a park near home that has a big playground with lots of moms. For the first time today I noticed a very large majority were wearing hats of some kind. Obviously after several days of record breaking sunshine everybody is has given up on care and has opted for protection. A very wise strategy, by the way. I know “What’s the best protection from the sun? . . . a hat”I have posted several summer hair care tip articles lately but no matter who the hair stylists is they will have to admit the the best hair care routines for this time of year is a hat. But if hats are not your thing here is an interesting piece from the CBS 3 Philadelphia complete with video on some great tips for making it through the summer without a hair transplant. Pay particular attention to the advice on hair dryers. Put away those hair dryers until the kids go back to school, your hair will love you for it.
‘’
Summer Hair CareNatasha Brown Reporting
(CBS 3) PHILADELPHIA Lots of us have had a bad hair day on Monday, thanks to the rain. However, if your hair is bad even on sunny summer days, maybe it needs some special care. CBS 3’s Natasha Brown shows you the things that might work for you.
Summer sun is tough on hair. “It definitely gets a little more bleached and dry,” said one hair salon customer, “especially being at the shore, the beach, salt water, the pool, and chlorine.”
Ponytails, pigtails and hats act as quick fixes for some, but sun exposure can leave hair looking limp and lifeless. What do stylists say you should do? “We have a leave-in conditioner,” said Alex Molchazskiy of L’Etoile. “You can spray it on your hair and it protects from the sun.”
There are dozens of new products flooding the market. Phyto Sun Protectant products are one line claiming to offer UV protection. Kiehl’s Leave-In Conditioner is meant to shelter the hair from harmful sun rays. “Use a product that contains a sunscreen, preferably, if you’re going to be out in the sun a lot for the summer,” said Rick Boldini of Sianni Salon.
A lot of stylists swear by these products, but not everyone is sold. Beauty industry author Paula Begoun is skeptical, pointing out that the FDA doesn’t allow hair care products to carry an SPF rating. “If the UV protection is in a product like a conditioner, and you’re in the shower, you’re rinsing those sunscreen ingredients down the drain,” said Begoun. “If you’re putting it on in the form of a styling product, the heat from your blow dryer or flat iron is also degrading the sunscreen ingredients.”
,,
July 31st, 2006
Can you tell anything about a product by reading the ingredient list?
Ingredients or Formulas The simple answer is ‘Not much’. Not any more than you can tell how a cake is going to taste by reading the recipe.
Let’s take shampoo just as an example. Because manufacturers are required by law to list ingredients by there ppm (parts per million), water is usually the first ingredient in a shampoo. Take any shampoo that has water, as it’s first ingredient. Then add 1/4 teaspoon of that shampoo to a gallon of water. If you write a new ingredient list it will read exactly the same. Do you think the shampoo will clean your hair? Will it even lather? Formulations are well-guarded secrets among manufacturers and rightly so. There is no way to tell how a product is going to perform without actually trying it.
As for ingredients that you may be allergic to, you can and should avoid them. But to try and determine how a cake is going to taste by reading the ingredients and without tasting it? Not even a professional baker could do that. All the ingredients are going to tell you are what kind of cake it is.
The following was taken from a mesageboard that was discussing ingredient listings where someone was trying to make a point about the amount of an ingredient in two given products. This was the response given by a person with a Phd in science and the point being made was that there is just not enough information in an ingredient listing to tell if one product is better over another or whether one product has more of an ingredient than another. I hope you find this interesting.
“Here is an example to try to clarify the point I made before:
The FDA requires that ingredients are listed in descending order of most parts per billion (quantity): Here are the actual ingredients for 2 products (shamelessly C&Pd from your earlier post). I have inserted hypothetical parts per billion (ppb) values next to each ingredient.
#11 Medium Auburn Ingredients:AFTER YOU ADD WATER (which is how you use it) WATER 999999045ppb, 2-Nitro-p-Phenylenediamine Sulfate 100ppb; 4-Amino-2-Hydroxytoluene 99ppb; 6-Cloro-2-Amino-4-Nitrophenol 98ppb; p-Phenylenediamine Sulfate 97ppb; Sodium Lauroyl Sarcosinate 96ppb; Sodium Sulfate 95ppb; Sodium Perborate 94ppb; Sodium Silicate 93ppb; Sodium 92ppb; Xanthan Gum 91ppb
Brand X Colour Permanent Haircolour Gel Ingredients: Water 999979210ppb, Cocamide Dea 1000ppb, Butoxyethanol 999ppb, Peg-2 Tallow Amine 998ppb, Alcohol Denat 997ppb, Polyglyceryl-4 Oleyl Ether 996ppb, Oleyl Alcohol,polyglyceryl-2 Oleyl Ether 995ppb, Propylene Glycol 994ppb, Oleic Acid 993ppb, Sodium Diethylaminopropyl Cocoaspartamide 992ppb, Ammonium Hydroxide 991ppb, Fragrance 990ppb, Pentasodium Pentetate 989ppb, Ammonium Acetate 987ppb, P-aminophenol 986ppb, P-phenylenediamine 985ppb, Metabisulfite 984ppb, Resorcinol 983ppb, Erythorbic Acid 982ppb, Methyl Pyrazolone 981ppb, 6-hydroxyindole 980ppb.
Now what is NOT important is if these numbers reflect reality. What IS important is that IF THERE WERE two products with this profile:
1: They would have their ingredients listed just as you originally listed them in your earlier post 2: The TOTAL amount of PPDs in RC would be 198 ppb versus Brand X which has PPDs of 985 ppb. 3. Brand X would have 5 TIMES more TOTAL PPDs than RC even though it lists only ONE PPD on its ingredients list and it is listed further down the ingredients list than RC.
IÆm NOT saying that RC has more PPDs than Brand X or that it has less. What I am saying and what I hope you get from this is that THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION in the ingredients list to be able to tell the amounts of PPDs that RC has compared to Brand X. It IS IMPOSSIBLE to determine.”
July 31st, 2006