Saltar al contenido principal

CLO Centro de Ayuda

¿Cómo podemos ayudarte?

Búsqueda

Chatbot CLO

Comentarios

  • ottoline

     

    It didn't pass the 'lock-in' eyeball test. From where I am sitting technically with state of the art digital fabrics the materials standards are already satisfactory.

     

    Any user these days can integrate a range of material standards (and data) into their fashion pipeline that is simply down to systems effort and for many whom work across many sectors within CG that is already less fraught than opening up yet another new asset integrity issue. Too many vendors jockeying for position and market share through standards is perhaps not a good thing - so sure, it's good to consolidate behind one.  But conversely sometimes solutions that never found traction (in one materials area) can try to find a problem to 'solve' in another -  when none perhaps exists and that makes me concerned that it is simply another layer of not so transparent industry 'sector' lock in being plyed (woven) into the front end of library assets. Once in hard to get out! Not sure this is the right path for fabric materials - yet.

     

    It would make more sense to bolt in fabric 'creativity' with textile mixes (and work with external software vendors like Substance) to explore design detailing, and that would mean using texture maps is perhaps not the way to go as that can limit 'textile' creativity in materials. For example tighter relationships with texture editing partners would be more productive for design exploration. Rather than just digitization of existing manufactured fabrics.

    0
  • odellin

    ottoline

    There's a lot to unpack in your reply (thanks for input by the way) so I'll bullet point a response - hoping to shed light here, not rub anyone up the wrong way. 

    1.  "materials standards are already satisfactory" - Satisfactory isn't how we progress anything, strive to always improve! I'd also disagree that current 'standards' are satisfactory, but being a subjective issue, therein lies the problem. No consensus/standard = disagreement/delay/inconsistency/waste. 

    2. A Pipeline that relies on a system of user 'effort/responsibility' is inherently problematic. The potential for human error aside, data that cannot easily be verified/shared by multiple 3rd parties is unstable data. If any of you designers use Pantone libraries with your factory, you'll know precisely what I mean and appreciate why standards are absolutely critical. A unified standard that ALL users adhere to brings 'integrity', that is the very point of standardized data. 

    3. "Too many vendors jockeying for position" - Vizoo has been refining the scanning process for many years, and has continued to work directly with many brands - notably Adidas. Since Vizoo announced U3M in 2018, there has been no other vendor that has come to the foreground. I suspect the reason why, is because Vizoo as a technology is already integrated into many existing brand pipelines, and they also decided to make U3M open source. If their tech is already the 'standard' in many respects, has a proven track record, and is open source...it's highly unlikely to be bettered. 

    4. Solutions not finding traction and creating problems where they don't exist - A twofold answer here, U3M is a solution - it has already become a 'standard' that is being used in industry and many tech companies have partnered with it and integrated U3M into their platforms. Two direct competitors of CLO - Optitex and Browzwear, both have U3M integration. It works, and it works well. This isn't proof of concept stage. It's already here. 

    5. Your final paragraph I do agree with, partially. Digitization of fabrics to create texture maps isn't ideal from a creativity angle. BUT, you are concerning this purely from a visual perspective. U3M enables raw physics data to be embedded - this is a HUGE time saver and also negates the need for designers/small brands to invest in the expensive equipment needed to scan and analyse fabric. The amount of time I personally spend inside Clo tweaking and fiddling numbers to make my fabric look/drape like the real deal is borderline obsessive and it drives me nuts. If I had access to a digitized bank of twin materials that my factory uses, or access to an open source library that showed me digital samples in use, it would save me endless hours. I could rest easy that the fabrics I'm designing with on my computer are samples based on an industry standard with a very low tolerance/margin of difference. No more guess work and I can concentrate on actually designing. 

    Regarding the creativity aspect though, I do agree. A designer being able to control the actual materialization and create something from scratch (so to speak) is indeed limitless - but then there is of course the issue of a factory being able to actually produce whatever you create. Also, if you're creating cloth from scratch...you don't need to use a standard anyway. It is a new material that you're creating. 

    Two simple ways to look at it:

    If you're designing for real world production, standards are critically important for consistency and a sustainable efficient pipeline. That's true of all production in any sector. 

    If you're designing purely in a creative context, standards are not important so work however you choose! 

    (you can have both ;)

    Just my two cents!

     

     

    0
  • odellin

    ottoline 

    You wrote two really insightful in depth comments/replies to my last post above that were very enlightening, but they're not showing on the thread? 

    Did you delete them? It would be great if you could put them back as they very much added to the discussion and made me question a lot. 

    0
  • ottoline

    I generally delete my comments as a rule after they are sent as a copy goes into your email.

     

    Digital CG design, and sampling is maybe deeper and more advanced than many might appreciate at a schema setup > See this example that illustrates just how removed the proposed standard is when considering that digital also means being able to cross over with real sample production at a textile level.

     

    So would you want a digitizing hardware scanning company to drive physical presets or is the topic much bigger and far deeper when you consider an actual weave off your simulation needs to be made ?

     

    0
  • odellin

    ottoline

    I think you make very salient points and I fully understand your rationale (much better than when I posed the initial question). Although I will say that U3M is open source, so I'm not sure much can be argued about market share and walled gardens/profit. It is more collaborative as a venture.   

    From my own perspective - and I am in no way a technician or have your depth of knowledge on this, I just crave more a more simplified workflow. And by simple I certainly do not mean at the expense of accuracy, quite the opposite. 

    Perhaps I need to accept, that in order to get more exacting digital materials, there is no other option than to invest the time and the money in purchasing/using the technology to measure fabrics myself. 

    Again, speaking personally, I seem to spend more and more time these days doing technical tasks and 'managing' systems than actually designing. It is great to have all this new technology but sometimes I can't help but think that the old way was/is so much more straight forward - pens, paper, real swatches and a pattern room. 

    Is digital just a false economy in the long run? For sustainability and cutting down waste most certainly not. It is essential. But from a creativity and efficiency point for view, does it truly advantage the designer in the concept stages. Is the intangibility of digital fashion always going to remain its Achilles heel....

    Still thinking long and hard about this one. 

     

     

    0
  • odellin

    ottoline

    PLEASE don't delete your last post, you're bang on the money 

    0
  • odellin

    ottoline

    To add, I've had my eye on Weft for a while and this indeed should be where the industry heads - much more 'made to order' approach, and if designers can control this element using familiar software linked to manufacturing, then yes - the 'standard' is almost ready baked in already, its part of the fabric of the software, literally. 

    I'd also throw into the mix Keyshot Renderer who have recently implemented a truly fantastic materialization tool, that allows the designer to create their fabric from scratch pretty much, full control over warp/weft, and applies the design in the live view (vector like quality, not bitmapped image file quality). It's pretty incredible. 

     

     

    0
  • ottoline

    Digital sampling and buying off the visualization results will get traction in fashion as it is way to reduce risk early.

    0
  • odellin

    ottoline

    Fascinating stuff, really. You write well.

    Is there a way I can contact you directly? I own a label that might benefit from your expertise in this stuff. Would be great to talk further about what you do exactly, if that is something you'd be open to.

    Not sure if private messages can be sent on here? 

    0
  • odellin

    ottoline

    Thanks, I have your contact on my email now so I'll drop you a line as soon as I can.

    0
Iniciar sesión para dejar un comentario.