[HN Gopher] The technology behind Bella Hadid's spray-on dress
___________________________________________________________________
The technology behind Bella Hadid's spray-on dress
Author : Kaibeezy
Score : 125 points
Date : 2022-10-03 17:47 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (wired.me)
(TXT) w3m dump (wired.me)
| Fred27 wrote:
| yamtaddle wrote:
| On fark.com this headline would read:
|
| "The technology behind Bella Hadid's spray-on dress and you've
| already clicked nobody is reading this far"
| q-big wrote:
| > Nobody's reading that article for the technology.
|
| I honestly did read it for the technology.
|
| P.S. It is very plausible that the number of asexual people is
| higher among nerds than in a representative sample of the whole
| population.
| [deleted]
| yieldcrv wrote:
| You don't need to be asexual
|
| and I've seen this moment from the fashion show in a variety
| of publications
|
| Was this really a moment to bring awareness to asexual people
| q-big wrote:
| > Was this really a moment to bring awareness to asexual
| people
|
| The purpose was not to bring awareness (I do not care about
| all this awareness virtue signalling), but to come up with
| a hypothesis for this observation.
| azinman2 wrote:
| I read it too. Didn't even occur to me to sexualize this.
|
| Instead I was thinking, wow that's cool, but the dress is
| actually quite boring.
| saalweachter wrote:
| I did immediately think of /r/mendrawingwomen's frequent
| complaint of "clothing doesn't work that way".
| cantSpellSober wrote:
| It made me realize how strange breast fetishism is when she
| covered her nipples for modesty before having her spray on
| dress applied
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| And even if you're a female-attracted allosexual you can
| still be interested in the technology.
|
| People always used to say nobody actually reads Playboy for
| the articles--except it's clear plenty of people did. My
| mother for one--she read the *braille* version, it didn't
| even contain descriptions of the pictures let alone pictures.
| (Braille versions of books/magazines typically contained
| descriptions of pictures since they obviously can't contain
| actual pictures. With Playboy the omitted the pictorial
| articles entirely.)
| ksenzee wrote:
| not everyone here is a straight man, welcome to the future
| m463 wrote:
| Plausible deniability.
| yalogin wrote:
| For all intents and purposes it acts like a cloth? That means, I
| am hoping, taking it off will be clean and not like removing
| cotton from a rose bush.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| Intriguing. Probably not well suited for models with
| arachnophobia though.
|
| I wonder how strong the resulting layer is. The should straps
| being adjusted in the video show that it's definitely not weak.
| birdman3131 wrote:
| Depends on what variant of arachnophobia they have. Many are
| more afraid of the spiders and not the webs themselves.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| I've never heard of arachnophobia being a fear of webs rather
| than, you know, the actual arachnids. It's utterly bizarre to
| me that that would be GP's first thought...
| turbohz wrote:
| Where there's a web, there's gotta be a spider?
| Tao3300 wrote:
| > integrated with diagnostic devices that can monitor the health
| of the wearer
|
| Wtf? What grim meathook future establishment would involve
| wearing spray-on smart clothes that monitor my vitals? Need to
| know so I don't accidentally go in there.
| scheme271 wrote:
| There's a lot of people that would find that useful. I.e.
| diabetics that need to monitor blood sugar levels comes to mind
| but I'm sure there are other medical conditions were it'd be
| helpful to continuously monitor some vitals. Fall sensors for
| people that are prone to falling and who might need help if
| they fall is also another use case.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| Closets of the future look more like a paint booth?
|
| Step into the booth, press the button. First, the spray-on tan,
| then a quick dry, then spray on clothes.
|
| Step into the booth again at the end of the day to wash it all
| off and recycle it for tomorrow.
| conductr wrote:
| Sherwin-Williams logo and tag line says it all, "Cover the
| Earth"
| hanniabu wrote:
| Sounds great to breath in, have directly on your skin, and for
| the environment
| q-big wrote:
| I also wondered why the model and the person who applies the
| spray-on dress on her do not wear some kind of protective mask
| (like varnishers do for their varnishing work) while the
| spraying work is being done.
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| Maybe it's not toxic, Occam.
| llampx wrote:
| Maybe it is and they didn't wear masks because it would
| take away from the optics.
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| Non-woven fabric - WO2003104540A2
|
| https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2003104540A2/en
| josephmosby wrote:
| Reading up on the stuff that's actually coming out of the
| can, it doesn't look like there are particles that are small
| enough to actually aerosolize into the air. They tout wool
| and mohair as candidate things that can be sprayed.
| q-big wrote:
| > Reading up on the stuff that's actually coming out of the
| can, it doesn't look like there are particles that are
| small enough to actually aerosolize into the air.
|
| I have my doubts whether breathing the small fibrous
| particles that are contained in the spray won't have some
| unhealthy consequences.
| dqpb wrote:
| Cool. What happens when you inhale it?
| system2 wrote:
| It is made with oxygen releasing nanobots. It increases the
| lifespan of the model.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Also, strength, endurance, cognitive processing, sensory
| resolution and musical taste.
| sp332 wrote:
| But it uses a Crysis-style wheel UI where you only get one
| of those things at a time.
| fpoling wrote:
| Somebody still reads <<Return from the stars>> by Stanislaw Lem.
| Spray-on clothes were part of Lem's version of the future.
| hinkley wrote:
| If I'm not mistaken it also shows up in _Earth_ by David Brin.
| mmcdermott wrote:
| That was my first association as well.
| cwp wrote:
| I thought of "superskin" in Heinlein's _Friday_.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| The same book came to mind, but in the context of
| bodypainting. How long before we can make an inkjet body
| painter--I'm thinking of some print arms that rotate around
| the body on actuators that keep them very close to the skin.
| Careful motion tracking of the body to ensure it's spraying
| the right bit of skin as it moves. (I have a hard time
| imagining a printer that's fast enough to hold a position
| for, not to mention the need to breathe.)
|
| And where exactly does that fall in terms of indecent
| exposure? Make sure the bits that the law requires covered
| have solid patterns at that point, it seems it would be
| legal.
|
| (On the other hand, I have doubts about the practicality of
| wearing body paint in ordinary life--what can be durable
| enough to take what life routinely dishes out, but easy to
| remove? He also missed the fact that people only in bodypaint
| should follow nudist convention and sit on a towel.)
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| > Bella Hadid's spray-on dress uses 3D technology
|
| Okay
|
| Edit: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
| zwieback wrote:
| Yeah, it's a stretch. Applying stuff to your body that then
| cures or hardens is not new but I guess in the past it's always
| been for molds (sculpture, prosthetics) but in this case the 3
| dimensional thing is the direct result, not an intermediate
| step. I would like to see something a bit more than skin-tight
| clothing to call it a real 3D production process.
|
| I do think it's cool, though. My body is too crap to pull
| somehting like this off, sadly.
| [deleted]
| wccrawford wrote:
| Right? I don't see how this relates to "3d technology" of any
| kind.
| cantSpellSober wrote:
| You'd have to get all the way to the fourth sentence:
| The spray-on fabric is applied using the likes of aerosol
| tech, industrial sprayers, and 3D printing
| kitd wrote:
| It's mentioned in the article. 3d printing is one form of
| application, as well as spraying and painting.
| margalabargala wrote:
| I used 3d technology last weekend when I used a shovel to dig
| a ditch.
| intrasight wrote:
| I used 3D technology to make my lunch today ;)
| bowmessage wrote:
| How long did it take? Might have been 4D!
| moralestapia wrote:
| A 3D technology just flew over my house!
| 323 wrote:
| This news item was extremely viral, it was all over Instagram.
|
| It makes sense for Wired to write about this just for clicks,
| (as evidence being linked here). No need to be a submarine -
| those are for un-viral subjects.
| neogodless wrote:
| Came here to see if anyone else was getting a strong Silly String
| vibe. So far, no. It really looks like it to me, except I suspect
| a lot more adhesive (to itself) than Silly String, while
| remaining "not too adhesive" to skin.
| jrumbut wrote:
| Silly string was my first thought because my friends and I used
| to try (semi successfully) to make costumes applying it like
| they do. It worked best with a near empty can when it comes out
| fragmented like in the video.
|
| Now if only we had been more glamorous about it we could have
| beaten this company by 30 years!
| Promyvion wrote:
| From the article: "Originally, the spray-on dress started with
| a can of silly string. "I thought I could create a mist,"
| mentions Torres in a 2013 TED Talk. "That was the eureka
| moment." he adds. The technology can be used in fashion to not
| only create dresses like done on Hadid, but also to repair any
| damaged items."
| einpoklum wrote:
| A pinnacle of waste in the textile-industry. Not is it enough
| that most articles today are produced to intentionally fray or
| come apart after a short-to-medium period of time, now we're
| encouraged to go in the direction of wear-it-once spray-on stuff.
| But - it's "Green" so everything is ok.
| happyopossum wrote:
| TFA mentions specifically that the clothes can be washed and
| re-worn...
| einpoklum wrote:
| Oh, the article says so. Sorry, how could I be so mistaken?
| I'm sure we could use that spray-on dress for many years.
| caseysoftware wrote:
| If this can be de-composed and reconstituted, it starts to look
| like a Star Trek replicator. It could have some wild implications
| for fashion where "yesterday's" style can be remade into
| tomorrow's trendsetting look overnight.
| skc wrote:
| Curious what happens when you sit down and chafe it
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| So this will save me time in getting dressed in the morning.
| mcphage wrote:
| It didn't exactly seem like a _quick_ process...
| uup wrote:
| You'll never have to do the laundry again
| enriquec wrote:
| They used "sprayable non-woven" fabric like fabrican (it was on
| the discovery channel in 2013 apparently:
| https://youtu.be/nKZuPPjoxHQ)
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I'm really interested in how they made this a "dress" and not
| "pants". That is, from the Instagram video, Bella Hadid comes out
| completely naked except for underwear. You can see as they're
| spraying that she's keeping her legs close together, but still in
| the final scene where the assistant cuts the slit up the side,
| the dress then hangs like a "normal" fitted evening gown. I feel
| like they must have skipped over some parts about how they kept
| this "silly string" from getting stuck between her legs.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| It looks like she stands with her legs pressed very close
| together so that there's not really a chance for the material
| to form a pant leg. Towards her ankles it looks like pants do
| start to form but are cleaned up by assistants:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz_ltPAzuJI
|
| I imagine you are correct that there were a few
| steps/techniques not shown in the video.
| intrasight wrote:
| I was wondering if she had a transparent "wrap" on her thighs.
| amflare wrote:
| In the video it looks like one of the assistants sprays across
| the front of her legs, but from the side, so that a lot of
| strands are crossing the gap in her legs. Only then they moved
| around the front and started applying over these supporting
| strands.
| btown wrote:
| Since we are on Hacker News, I will say that this is not only
| a very cool technique in the physical world, it's also an
| amazing pattern to have when writing algorithms: think about
| your "support" and your "feature building" as potentially
| separate passes.
|
| Say you have a bunch of dynamic business rules that you need
| to apply onto a calendar of days, or a canvas of spreadsheet
| cells, or another discrete collection of slots where
| information could go, or even a continuous domain (in all of
| which some type of gap-filling and continuity might be
| desired).
|
| Rather than looping in one pass over your rules, and trying
| to figure out how to simultaneously fill gaps and write
| meaningful information into specific places, it might be
| helpful to first pass over your rules and think "where is the
| support area that might be needed, all of the places where
| some rule or combo of rules _might_ write information. "
| After all, if you're just thinking about support, you can
| trivially combine things, because you're just applying some
| kind of union operation as you go along.
|
| _Then_ you can do another pass, where you worry about order
| and precedence and complex inter-rule interactions, while
| knowing you already have a pre-made "canvas" on which you
| can paint and - in the real-world analogy - play with color
| and texture and all that fun stuff.
|
| Of course, you no longer have an algorithm that can handle
| streaming data, but two passes are still O(N), and the
| resulting code can be infinitely more readable.
|
| (To the mathematicians out there, I do apologize for being
| inspired by, but completely ignoring the nuance of,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_(measure_theory) - but
| I think it's a useful mental model even when generalized in a
| less-than-mathematical way!)
| copperx wrote:
| I love this idea. I've had to make this decision before
| (one or two passes). Now I'll do two passes for readability
| and stick this comment in my code:
|
| // Daddy, chill. Two passes are still O(N).
| 323 wrote:
| Maybe it's both, as in the substance completely fills all the
| available space, like a triangular wedge. We can't really see
| the underneath of the dress.
| conductr wrote:
| If it's like fiberglass you can shoot it thicker to create a
| bridge of webbing, then spray finer material over that base
| webbing and essentially create a fabric
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Her legs were close enough together & the stuff was being
| sprayed at such an angle that it wasn't wrapping around
| individual legs in any meaningful ways.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| They created a traditional design. But that design is what it is,
| because of limits of fabric and construction. I'd like to see
| what could be reimagined using this - strapless, or interlocking,
| or multiple-tiled-pieces, or what? Let's see no more ordinary
| strap-over-the-shoulder sheath dresses.
| happyopossum wrote:
| Strapless dresses are already a thing, and a well worn (no pun
| intended) path at that.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Sure. But how about one made of a crosshatch pattern? You
| know, something creative that couldn't be done (easily) with
| just cloth.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > spray-on sterile bandages from aerosol cans
|
| this sounds very useful so you don't need to have bandages of
| different shapes/sizes in your first aid kit
| spicybright wrote:
| Look into liquid bandages. It's exactly this and is already
| available at every drug store. Comes as a little nail polish-
| style bottle + brush.
|
| It sterilizes and seals, pretty much replacing my whole bandaid
| kit I used to keep in my pocket book.
|
| I'll even buy a bunch at a time and give them out to friends.
| It's so useful yet no one knows about it.
|
| (That said, you won't be sealing bullet wounds or giant gashes
| with it)
| fortran77 wrote:
| I wonder if the same technology can be used for an improved
| version of spray-on hair
| causi wrote:
| _can be washed, re-worn_
|
| Ok, then show me that. _That_ is interesting. Show me a painted-
| on body suit after ten trips through the washer /dryer. Who cares
| about some spray-painted model?
|
| _consists of short fibers bound together with polymers and bio
| polymers, and greener solvents that evaporate_
|
| So he shredded fabric and mixed it with paint. Who thought this
| drivel was newsworthy?
| hinkley wrote:
| So... microplastics?
| carnitine wrote:
| Would shredded fabric and paint ordinarily form a dress when
| sprayed?
| causi wrote:
| It will form a layer of glued-together unwoven fabric like
| the one on Hadid's body, yes.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| She took the shoulder straps off after and had them
| dangling. It wasn't attached to her like what your
| suggesting
| function_seven wrote:
| > _It will form a layer of glued-together unwoven
| fabric..._
|
| Yes.
|
| > _...like the one on Hadid 's body_
|
| Absolutely not. If you watched the video, the end result
| was a garment that was not stuck to the wearer. The straps
| were independent from the shoulders. The rest of it flowed
| and fluttered like real fabric, and not like the typical
| "spray on dress" we've seen before. It's not a coating once
| finished. It's a separate thing.
|
| Notice how the fabric didn't cling to her inner legs, but
| bridged that gap instead.
|
| Now I agree that I'd like to see how durable this thing is
| once it's been washed. I'll accept whatever wash method is
| standard for a fancy dress. That is: if it can't be tossed
| into a normal washing machine, but _can_ be handwashed with
| Woolite in the sink, then that 's good enough for me.
| AlanYx wrote:
| I think it adheres somewhat/partially to skin. When the
| assistant slides down the first shoulder strap in the
| video, there seems to be some resistance, as if the
| material was gently stuck to the skin and then lightly
| released/pulled away. That seems consistent with the
| Fabrican webpage, which says that the fibres "adhere to
| each other and to the surface sprayed". I imagine that
| there's a portion of the video not shown where the
| assistant gently tugs other parts of the fabric away from
| the skin.
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| Fabrican's patented spray-on fabric technology
|
| https://www.fabricanltd.com/about/technology/
| iudqnolq wrote:
| That's what this is
| cobertos wrote:
| Any risk of inhaling those fibers becoming an issue in the lungs?
| Wouldn't want this sprayed on me and it found out to have the
| health effects that asbestos does.
| happyopossum wrote:
| Those fibers are pretty large, so yeah - you soundly want to
| inhale them, but it looks like it'd be pretty easy not to.
| bigwavedave wrote:
| All I can think of are the "spray-on shoes" from "Cloudy With a
| Chance of Meatballs".
| m463 wrote:
| What about the makeup applicator device in the 5th element?
| dosenbrot wrote:
| Homer Simpson invented a make-up-shotgun.
| dools wrote:
| All I can think of is the spray on swim suit in Futurama which
| is more or less exactly this.
|
| "How do I look?" "Like a cheap French harlot" "French!?"
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| This was the first thing that came to mind as well. Here's
| the clip link: https://youtu.be/RwGc7Btg-Cs
| tonymet wrote:
| Despite fashion varying over time it tends to become more and
| more revealing.
| somecommit wrote:
| Great, now invent a vacuum working the other way around
| Lendal wrote:
| They mention the obvious medical uses like spray-on casts and
| spray-on bandages, but what about spray-on physical restraints?
| Or spray-on condoms? Get creative, think outside the box.
| conductr wrote:
| I'd rather have a functional web shooter than any practical use
| xwdv wrote:
| A larger version that can be blasted like a foam cannon into a
| large mob could provide for efficient crowd control when you
| need to arrest multiple people at once.
| rodgerd wrote:
| Judge Dredd's riot foam.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| Better than the riot foam they've already tested, I think[1],
| which looks to me just like a huge tank of expanding
| polyurethane foam...
|
| [1] https://www.howitworksdaily.com/experimental-crowd-
| control-r...
| hinkley wrote:
| As with most less-than-lethal products, it's all fun and
| games until you hit someone in the face with it.
| dtgriscom wrote:
| Or, provide for safe sex for all of them at the same time.
| tantalor wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spray-on_condom
|
| > The biggest problem, however, was that the drying process
| took 2-3 minutes before the condom was dry enough to use, which
| was too long to be truly marketable.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-03 23:00 UTC)