For 2014, the CAA conference is in Paris (not Texas). The conference itself runs from 22-25 April. The call for papers deadline is October 31.
They have a list of sessions available.
You have until October 1, 2013.
Digital technologies are driving important changes in archaeology. Despite the increasing acceptance of digital technology in daily life, however, determining how to assess digital scholarship has proved difficult: many universities remain unsure about how to evaluate digital work along side more traditional forms of print publication when faced with tenure and promotion decisions. Recognizing the value of digital scholarship, and aiming to encourage its practice, the AIA offers this award to honor projects, groups, and individuals that deploy digital technology in innovative ways in the realms of excavation, research, teaching, publishing, or outreach.
Criteria for Selection
Nominations of projects and individuals are welcome. Nominations may be made by anyone, including the project director or the principal members of the team responsible for the digital creation. Nominations of collaborative projects are encouraged. At least one member of the leadership team, or any individual nominee, must be a member in good standing of the AIA. Please submit the AIA membership number(s) with the nomination.
Due Date for Nomination
September 15, 2013 Extended to October 1, 2013
With iOS 7 arriving tomorrow, Apple is extending some love to the owners of older iOS devices that have been left behind. New compatibility features, first spotted on Reddit, will now kick into action if you attempt to download an app that is not supported by your current firmware. Instead, the company now asks if you’d like to install the last compatible version, which, for some apps, can be over a year old.
I could have used this during the past summer when I had to reset a first-gen iPad but couldn’t install OmniGraffle.
According to FileMaker there is an issue between iOS 7 (due to be released on Sept 18) and FileMaker Go that affects the creation of a unique UUID number, which has the potential to wreak havoc on databases that rely on that unique number for syncing. This bug hits our own databases, as well as the copy of the database that is hosted at this blog.
Syncing from multiple copies of a database requires that each record have a very unique number. This is more than a straight serial number, since two separate copies of the database can each create a record in the same table which would give them the same serial number. Instead, our database relies on something more specific, a UUID which is generated from several types of information.
This is stored as a custom function to allow all tables in the database access to it.
According to FileMaker, all iOS devices under iOS 7 will return the same NIC address,. This can theoretically return the same UUID for two records if two devices created a new record in the same table at the exact same time.
I am not very worried about this myself. The odds of two records returning the same UUID are pretty small. Also the syncing scripts that I have use items other than the UUID for matching. For instance each new record is given _DeviceCreated and a _DeviceModified fields. Those are set to auto-enter a calculation [Get ( SystemPlatform ) & "-" & Get ( HostName )]. So unless both devices are iPads and are both named the same (which shouldn’t happen), they won’t supply the same data.
If you are worried about this bug you can switch from using the UUID.New function to another of Jereme Bante’s functions named UUID.Random which replaces the NIC portion of the UUID to a set of random numbers. Switching to this function won’t affect your old records and won’t require that you wait for FileMaker to fix FMGo.
This is a practical post looking at the results of two 3d-modeling sessions. The objects I’m working on were excavated in the 1960s as part of the American Excavations at Kenchreai, which Prof. Joseph Rife directs. I had written a little bit more intro in my last Kenchreai post so please see that if you’re interested.
The first model is of object KE 1224 (S 57), a marble paw of a lion or other large cat. Click through to see the entry for the object, along with an embedded model, though I will also link to that directly from this post.
The method I’m using to make the models is photo-based. As in, I take a bunch of pictures and use Agisoft Photoscan to calculate a mesh describing the 3d-volume of the object and then to build a more-or-less photo-realistic texture to “drape” over that mesh. Bill Caraher has recently discussed an article by B. Olson et al. that describes the process.
Here’s a picture of the object on a photo stand:
You can see that I’ve used a styrofoam block to help the paw stand upright, and that there is an offset styrofoam block to help Photoscan figure out the physical relationships I’m capturing in the set of photos I took of this piece. I shot 78 images with my iPhone and used 31 to make the model. Why the iPhone? It’s small, so works well as a hand-held, and has a sensitive shutter “button” that I can trigger without shaking too much. I could perhaps get better pictures with a high-end point-and-shoot but the iPhone works for now.
Here’s the result as shown in a Photoscan screen-capture, with thumbnails of a few of the pictures I took and an indication of which of those I used. No red “no entry” icon means Photoscan incorporated that view.
Cooler than that image, though, is the ability to share the model itself so you, the reader, can rotate it at will. Click on this image to go to the site p3d.in, with the paw shown with no automatic lighting.
Although I said this is a “practical” post, I encourage you to zoom in on the chisel marks by holding down the ‘x’ key. And note the blurred division between intentional marks that indicate fur and the underlying chiseling that also contributes texture. Ancient art was partly a form of craft production and this fragment, when shown in 3D, encourages consideration of that aspect of the piece.
The paw has a broken edge so it wasn’t a great loss to use that to balance it on the stand. KE 235 (L 61) is an essentially complete Late Roman lamp so here the challenge is to get all the way round the object. That being the case, let me say now that I didn’t quite succeed.
I used the same basic process, but this time I suspended the piece using fishing line. Here’s a picture:
Of the 88 pictures I took, I selected 47 to use in making the model. The ones I didn’t use were either very close duplicates or out of focus.
I had to move carefully so as not to make the whole thing shake. But again, I couldn’t really get good pictures from all angles. I was in a narrow space, which didn’t help. But the real problem was that when I got under the lamp to shoot from below the handle end, I was pointing at ceiling lights and getting terrible glare.
Results, as seen in the linked screen capture from p3d.in, are not, however, unusable.
Click through to see for yourself.
When oriented handle at the left and looking at the side, the transition from the shoulder to wall didn’t come out well. And the base under the handle didn’t work well at all. But again, it gives a sense of the shape and surface of the object so I’m willing to share it as part of a discussion about technique. You can learn from my less than perfect attempt. And I do consider this model something of a “floor” in terms of results. Better lighting, particularly the ability to dampen overheads, more space, and more experience should lead to much better outcomes. Stay tuned for those. Though we’ll all have to wait until next year as I’m back stateside now.