You're blocking ads, which pay for BlenderNation. Read about other ways to support us.

[non-Blender] The smallest 3D prints ever

12

Artist Jonty Hurwitz has created 3D printed sculptures that require a microscope to see them!

These sculptures by London-based artist Jonty Hurwitz are so small that are impossible to see with the naked eye. They are smaller than a hair and a bit bigger that a human sperm but, despite their size, the level of detail is just insane.

Oh, and if the body of a naked woman bothers you, don't follow the link below.

About Author

Bart Veldhuizen

I have a LONG history with Blender - I wrote some of the earliest Blender tutorials, worked for Not a Number and helped run the crowdfunding campaign that open sourced Blender (the first one on the internet!). I founded BlenderNation in 2006 and have been editing it every single day since then ;-) I also run the Blender Artists forum and I'm Head of Community at Sketchfab.

12 Comments

    • Good point but -relatively- you could also be considered a virtual construction compared to something as big as our planet (macroscopic universe etc). We could be talking about it for hours; that's (one of the reasons) why it's so cool. Great post. (though not Blender related)

          • My words...in the first post! Remember we all consist of a virtually high amount of these small objects similar to those prints ourselves. Even the amount of humans on this earth keeps being somewhat virtual as we are not able to perceive...DimitriC was right, the discussions can be endless! Maybe there is one consistency:
            One being is only able to imagine among its own scale within a percentage smaller or bigger?

  1. These 3D prints are insane, in a positive way of course. This kind of body scan/reconstruction is becoming popular though. I think they use a software called "agisoft photoscan" to reconstruct the body from a set of pictures. The scanner itself is a big set of cameras: I post the following link for information purposes, I'm not connected to it: http://ir-ltd.net/#home

      • Well, it must not be easy to put that on the head of a fly or to balance it on a single hair (tough microscopic forces can help at those sizes) :P

      • I must admit I'm skeptical, at least of the images as presented. My reasons?

        1. The same model of a woman (with outstretched arm) appears on both a hair and the eye of a needle and a neutral grey background, yet the woman appears to be photographed from the exact same angle in all threephotos, just with more blur in the needle shot.

        2. The close-up of the lady on the needle doesn't look right. The bottom of her feet are the same distance from the camera as the surface she is standing on, yet her feet are much less blurred than the surface they're touching.

        3. If you go to this site:
        https://www.dropbox.com/sh/71h6w138n7ypnjd/AABDYGIenEc0zSGv6A8QxJnga?dl=0#/
        you'll see high res images of the same lady again, from the same angle. Three photos of the same model from the same angle with the same "lighting"? Just different levels of blur and different backgrounds? The neutral grey one looks even dodgier in high res:
        https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/OUie64dtgpuw0UPHQkiZpAVjO7Ue6Lm7AubeqrRSGlWoF31sTJOvAPWN6E5O3lNu

        5. There's no mention in the video of moving the sculptures onto the hair or needle to take their photo.

        6. The art work is "lost" due to an accident. The art work is called "Trust" - smells like it might be a cheeky hoax to me!

        My conclusion? The basic photo of the sculptures might be real, but I think for some images they have been composited onto other objects to give a sense of scale.

        I don't think I'm the only one with doubts:
        http://hoaxes.org/weblog/categories/category/Art

        Skev

Leave A Reply

To add a profile picture to your message, register your email address with Gravatar.com. To protect your email address, create an account on BlenderNation and log in when posting a message.