io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 4:09 PM
Mon Nov 9
21 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
05/12/09
I don't think this means what she thinks it means...
this is clearly an image that has been generated by software...and not that well frankly...
05/12/09
No, I think she's right. (Unless you're trolling.)
The atomic structure is measured directly using AFM, or possibly STEM, and then the areas with the same feedback voltage are given the same colour by some software. This allows you to truly image atoms, or at least their electron cloud. That's how they did the famous IBM one.
05/12/09
but she's implying that these images are not CG but "instead defined by their topography, geometry and symmetry." - no matter how you define them, these structures can't be visualized without software - software that gives them this false colour.
05/13/09
05/13/09
/vfx nerd
05/13/09
my point was intended to ask why this image, the product of software, looks so cheap...if you're using software to visualize data you can do a better job, no nickeling, higher bit colors etc...
/vfx employee
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
03/05/09
03/05/09
03/05/09