It’s hard to deny catastrophic canyon formation when you have the evidence right in front of you. Look what happened in Texas a few years ago, as reported by PhysOrg:In the summer of 2002, a week of heavy rains in Central Texas caused Canyon Lake – the reservoir of the Canyon Dam – to flood over its spillway and down the Guadalupe River Valley in a planned diversion to save the dam from catastrophic failure. The flood, which continued for six weeks, stripped the valley of mesquite, oak trees, and soil; destroyed a bridge; and plucked meter-wide boulders from the ground. And, in a remarkable demonstration of the power of raging waters, the flood excavated a 2.2-kilometer-long, 7-meter-deep canyon in the bedrock.The actual canyon was formed in just three days, said Science Daily. Live Science also reported the story, saying, “Some of the most spectacular canyons on Earth and Mars were probably formed in the geologic blink of an eye, suggests a new study that found clues to their formation deep in the heart of Texas.” Such catastrophic floods and canyons that resulted are not unknown in historic times, but what’s new is that geologists are taking note and applying the lesson of Canyon Lake to large, prehistoric megafloods on earth and even Mars. PhysOrg continued, “Our traditional view of deep river canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, is that they are carved slowly, as the regular flow and occasionally moderate rushing of rivers erodes rock over periods of millions of years.” Quoting Michael Lamb of Caltech, co-author of a paper in Nature Geoscience,1 the article said that such is not always the case: “We know that some big canyons have been cut by large catastrophic flood events during Earth’s history.” Lamb went on to explain that there is not often an easy way to tell a catastrophically-formed canyon from a gradually-formed one:Unfortunately, these catastrophic megafloods – which also may have chiseled out spectacular canyons on Mars—generally leave few telltale signs to distinguish them from slower events. “There are very few modern examples of megafloods,” Lamb says, “and these events are not normally witnessed, so the process by which such erosion happens is not well understood.” Nevertheless, he adds, “the evidence that is left behind, like boulders and streamlined sediment islands, suggests the presence of fast water”—although it reveals nothing about the time frame over which the water flowed.Lamb found that process like “plucking” – in which boulders popped up from fractured bedrock became sledgehammers in the current, and headward-eroding waterfalls, led to quick downward erosion of the canyon. He hopes the features witnessed in the Canyon Lake flood will aid in interpreting megaflood evidence on earth and Mars. Here is the abstract from the paper by Lamb and Fonstad:Deep river canyons are thought to form slowly over geological time (see, for example, ref. 1 [Grand Canyon]), cut by moderate flows that reoccur every few years 2, 3. In contrast, some of the most spectacular canyons on Earth and Mars were probably carved rapidly during ancient megaflood events 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Quantification of the flood discharge, duration and erosion mechanics that operated during such events is hampered because we lack modern analogues. Canyon Lake Gorge, Texas, was carved in 2002 during a single catastrophic flood 13. The event offers a rare opportunity to analyse canyon formation and test palaeo-hydraulic-reconstruction techniques under known topographic and hydraulic conditions. Here we use digital topographic models and visible/near-infrared aerial images from before and after the flood, discharge measured during the event, field measurements and sediment-transport modelling to show that the flood moved metre-sized boulders, excavated ~7 m of limestone and transformed a soil-mantled valley into a bedrock canyon in just ~3 days. We find that canyon morphology is strongly dependent on rock type: plucking of limestone blocks produced waterfalls, inner channels and bedrock strath terraces, whereas abrasion of cemented alluvium sculpted walls, plunge pools and streamlined islands. Canyon formation was so rapid that erosion might have been limited by the ability of the flow to transport sediment. We suggest that our results might improve hydraulic reconstructions of similar megafloods on Earth and Mars.Their references included the paper by J H Bretz on the channeled scablands of Washington, and other research on the Lake Bonneville floods, but no work by creation geologists who have postulated rapid formation of the Grand Canyon by a dam breach megaflood. They did not discuss the Grand Canyon in their paper other than to state in the introduction that “Most bedrock river canyons are thought to be cut slowly over millions of years (for example, Grand Canyon, USA, ref. 1) by moderate flows that reoccur every few years.” They did not say whether they agree with that assessment now in light of their work. Lamb and Fonstad described in the paper how it is hard to tell slow processes from rapid ones:It is difficult to identify morphologic features in Canyon Lake Gorge that indicate canyon formation during a 3 day event, versus a longer-lived flood or multiple events. For example, inner channels, knickpoints and terraces are often formed slowly over geologic time in response to shifting climate or tectonic forcing, but in Canyon Lake Gorge and other megafloods they must have formed rapidly through intrinsic instabilities in the erosion processes. A narrow gorge is sometimes inferred to represent slow persistent erosion, whereas Canyon Lake Gorge was formed in a matter of days. It is clear that models for the rate of bedrock erosion are needed to calculate the duration of flooding necessary to excavate a canyon of known volume. Although notable progress has been made, there are no well tested mechanistic models of bedrock erosion via plucking during megafloods.They did the best they could to come up with a “semi-empirical theory” of sediment transport capacity to account for the rapid erosion of Canyon Lake Gorge. Apparently it was not the strength of the bedrock that limited erosion, but the ability of the water to pick up and move large blocks: “Thus, it seems plausible that erosion of well-jointed rock by large floods might be extremely rapid, such that canyon formation is limited by the capacity of the flood to transport plucked blocks rather than by the plucking processes itself.” Whether that is the only surprising paradigm shift from this observational example of rapid canyon formation remains to be seen. It may be time to change a lot of western national park interpretive signs.1. Lamb and Fonstad, “Rapid formation of a modern bedrock canyon by a single flood event,” Nature Geoscience, Published online: 20 June 2010 | doi:10.1038/ngeo894.What does he mean this is not well understood? If the secular geologists had been reading the creationist journals for decades, which are way ahead of the curve on this topic, they would not be so clueless. The Creation Research Society Quarterly, Journal of Creation and other peer-reviewed journals written by creation scientists, with field research and PhDs, have for years been talking about the power of catastrophic processes to produce the Grand Canyon and other large earth features in just days and weeks by breached dams and other megaflooding processes. This is nothing new, but the secular journals and news media act like it is. It’s nice for the secular crowd, still awaking from their Lyellian slumbers, to catch the groove finally (better late than never), but how about some attribution? Creationist authors of papers on this subject should get together and walk into Lamb’s office with a stack of their papers on catastrophic canyon formation by megafloods, pile them on his desk, and ask, “Where have you been all this time?” Who speaks for science? Notice what a bizarre situation this is. The secularists have been admittedly clueless for a long time about the power of catastrophic flood geology, while the creationists have taken the lead on the subject. But the creationists have been routinely and summarily ignored, because their opinions are deemed “religious” from the outset and therefore “pseudo-scientific.” One would think that what matters in science is being right. If a creation scientist has a PhD in geology or a related subject, has demonstrated competence in field work and research, and has published his ideas, it should not be an issue what his theology or motivations are – it should matter whether his ideas are reasonable, testable, and fit the evidence. In fact, one’s degree or field work should not even matter. Some scientific ideas that have stood the test of time were not published by people with degrees, or in peer-reviewed journals, or by the other standard trappings of today’s scientific milieu. Philosophers of science recognize that the process of scientific discovery is irrelevant to the designation “scientific.” If a geologist comes up with a theory in a dream that turns out to work, so be it. Similarly, the process of scientific explanation should not be evaluated based on beliefs, memberships, degrees or associations. Darwin and Wallace, you recall, were known mostly for field studies. There may be political, social, and sociological reasons why Lamb and Fonstad did not reference creation literature in their paper, but there is no logical or scientific reason not to do so. “But we have to have institutional standards to keep the crackpots out!” some skeptical gatekeeper will say. Guess what; a lot of them are running rampant inside the ivied walls right now (e.g., 06/14/2010, 06/13/2010, 06/10/2010; follow the links on “Dumb Ideas” for a parade of the shameful). Didn’t a famous Teacher once say to clean the inside of the cup first? Unless modern secularists want to cut out Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Faraday and a host of other great achievers in science because they were Christians and creationists, it’s wrong to exclude today’s creation scientists simply on the basis of their beliefs and motivations. Face it; everybody has beliefs and motivations. Inside the academy, they might include naturalism and defending uniformitarianism. The only way to guard against dogmatism and self-deception is to square off with those having other beliefs and motivations in light of the evidence. And you know, maybe some of the best qualifications for good science come from the Judeo-Christian tradition: honesty, impartiality, humility, and a deep, abiding respect for the truth.(Visited 142 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
I’ve been involved with green building certification programs for about 10 years now, starting with my work with Southface and the Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Association in developing the EarthCraft Renovation program. Since then, I have become a HERS rater, an NAHB verifier, a LEED Green Rater, a BPI Building Analyst, an EarthCraft Technical Advisor, a Green Communities Technical Advisor, and a Building America Builders Challenge verifier (I don’t think I left anything out). In these various capacities, I have certified many single- and multifamily units under most of these programs and, until recently, felt pretty comfortable managing them and explaining the various—and sometimes conflicting—requirements of each to my clients. While I was aware that there were some changes on the horizon, it seems that the upcoming changes in ENERGY STAR and the ripple effect through other programs have taken myself and most others in the industry somewhat off our games.What’s the schedule?ENERGY STAR versions 2.5 and 3 have been in the pipeline for a while, and although I have been keeping up with them in theory, I have not yet taken the time to sit down and go through them in detail, nor have I yet taken the two-day required class for raters. The raters I have spoken to who have taken this class seem to be a frustrated bunch, many having only recently entered the industry looking for a new source of income. The general impression is that the new versions will likely lower the number of builders seeking certification—not good news for the rating industry and the thousands of newly trained professionals looking for business opportunities.I believe it is important to raise the level of performance of our buildings, but the complexity of the new ENERGY STAR, as well as many other certification programs, deserves some reconsideration. LEED for Homes, scheduled for a new version release in late 2012, has not yet shared publicly how the program will relate to ENERGY STAR Version 3, nor has the NAHB Research Center said anything publicly on the subject that I am aware of. EarthCraft House is scheduled to release a new version in March 2011 that will, hopefully, clarify some of the confusion. Right now it is a challenge to know how much work will be involved in certifying future projects, making it hard to provide pricing to potential clients. It’s enough to drive a rater crazy.I don’t need any stinking consensusIt seems to always be a big deal that many of these green programs were developed by “consensus,” supposedly leading to the best outcome, but I fear that I must disagree with this opinion. We need to only take a look at our dysfunctional legislative bodies to see just how effective (or ineffective) we can be when trying to come to a consensus. When we look at things realistically, there are lots of constituencies involved in green programs, each one having its own goals to work toward, everyone compromising, until we end up with something that ultimately pleases very few people and leaves everyone else feeling slightly abused. I do not come to this opinion from experience; rather, mostly as an outside observer of the various committees assembled to create these standards. I am willing to listen to anyone’s opinion to the contrary. While I don’t know that there is necessarily any better way to create a program, I don’t believe that the consensus model (or muddle) brings us the best product. Rather, it brings us one that offends the smallest number of people.Eschew obfuscationOne of my favorite pieces of graffiti—“eschew obfuscation,” which I translate to “avoid overcomplication”—is something I would like to see all the various and sundry green certification programs take as their mission statements. Unfortunately, “overcomplicated” seems to be the key to most programs. If it’s not a long checklist like the National Green Building Standard (NGBS) or EarthCraft House, it’s a dense, interpretation-heavy spreadsheet like LEED for Homes. Even ENERGY STAR, which in Version 2 was pretty straightforward, seems to have become obfuscated, at least for the time being, in Version 3.I’m not sure if there is a better model out there, but I believe, deep down, that there must be a better way. I have always had a theory that compared to a democracy, a benevolent dictatorship (if the dictator was truly benevolent) might be a better system to live under. I get so disgusted by politicians; I think that anyone who aspires to public office should be denied the opportunity. Some as yet unnamed higher power should just appoint people based on merit, with no opportunity for them to decline. I realize that I am being totally delusional, but it’s my blog and I can write what I want, and you’re reading it anyway.So why can’t we just pick the smartest people, sit them down, and tell them to put together the most effective, simplest, and least expensive green building program? If we pick (or someone from above chooses) the right people, we might end up with something that doesn’t continue to drive us crazy. I’m just sayin’.
The new Cinema 4D integration in Adobe After Effects CC provides a powerful, but simple, 3D workflow. We’ll show you how to get started!For video editors and power AE users who’ve been too intimidated to attempt their hand at 3D in the past, now’s the time. Cinema 4D Lite, now included with After Effects Creative Cloud, is a great introduction into powerful animation and 3D tools. These days it’s not enough to just be a video editor or motion designer. To be successful you need to have a good understanding of both.In this tutorial we’ll go over a few basics for integrating Cinema 4D into your After Effects projects. This roundtrip workflow makes it simple to include Cinema 4D files in AE. Highlights of the tutorial include:Prepping and stabilizing footage with the Warp Stabilizer in AE (see our previous tutorial for more details on stabilization in After Effects)Using the 3D Camera Tracker in After EffectsBasics of Creating Extruded Text in Cinema 4DAdding a Cinema 4D Object into After EffectsSet Ground Plane and Origin in After EffectsAre you using a Cinema4D and After Effects CC workflow?Share your thoughts and advice in the comments below![Best viewed full screen][color-box color=”gray”]This is Evan Abrams for Premiumbeat.com. I’m going to show you really quickly, how in Adobe CC you can stabilize, track, and then put in 3D geometry from Cinema 4D Light. These are brand new features and really simplify 3D work-flow. So, inside of After Effects the first thing I’m going to do is import the footage that we want to use. So here I’ve just called it “footage” and it’s footage of the patio outside of my building. So I’m going to take this and I’m going to drag it onto a new composition. It’ll create a composition of the same frame rate and frame size and duration as that original clip.Now, when I pan through here I want to find the segment that I’ve made specifically for this, and then I’m going to hit ‘B’ to set my work area, and then I’m going to move ahead for this example, hit ‘N’ to set the of the work area, and then I’m going to trim the composition to the work area. Because we’re going to be using a lot of automated processes, we don’t want to be having the software rendering and analyzing unneeded frames. So, you want to trim it off to the size you need.Now, you’ll notice here it thinks frame zero is frame 356, so I’m just going to go in here, change the composition settings, and one of the things I want to change is changing it from the start frame to being start frame zero; and it’s still 91 frames of duration. And then, instead of 23 I want to have that to be an even 24. And we’re going to find out why when we move into Cinema 4D, but it’s just because for now we’re using this because it’s a round number. You could keep it at 23.976 if you want; but then we’re going to be doing a lot of copying and pasting. So I’m just going to move it to 24 because it’s not that noticeable a difference, and hit okay.Now, this is set up to be smoothed out; even though I’ve done as good a job as I could out in the field shooting on a SLR camera using hand-held motion is going to have a lot of shaky jerky parts. So we’re going to use the warp stabilizer VFX, which is new to Adobe CC. The warp stabilizer was around in CS6, but this is an updated version. So I’m going to drag that out and it’s already going to start analyzing.While it’s doing that I’m just going to briefly describe what we’re looking at. So, we’re going to have the result here, which can either be smooth motion or no motion, which will lock it off. You can change the smoothness, and I think 50% is too much. I’m just going to have 5% smoothness, meaning it’s going to be 5% smoother than it was before. The method can be only position, position scale rotation, perspective, or the sub-space warp. And the sub-space warp changes things inside, so these are all linear, so this is just the position; this is position scale and rotation, and perspective starts to pinch and widen the top and bottom.But sub-space warp creates a much smoother look, but it’s not always the look you want. Sometimes sub-space warp makes a lot of mistakes. If you find it’s making a lot of mistakes, you just move up until you get something that looks good. Borders here, basically because it has to expand this a little bit what it’s going to be doing is, if we move to stabilize only, you can see there’s going to be a little bit of black bar, because it is having to move the comp around. So if you do a stabilizing crop, then it is cropping it down to be the aspect ratio, and then stabilize crop and auto scale is going to fit it to there. And then if you use synthesize edges it’s going to make up information to fill in those regions. But that’s only for times when you really cannot withstand scaling. For us, auto scale puts it at 104.3%, and that is within tolerable bounds for me. Basically 110 and higher is too much; 110 and lower is just fine, so that’s kind of our break-even point.And then there are a lot of additional things you can do here in the advanced, such as working out the reduction of the rolling shutter, which happens on SLR cameras. You can change its objective kind of thing here, and all sorts of advanced things. But for most of your work you’ll never have to touch those. You can just bring it on, say how smooth, and then define everything outside of the advanced. So, while I’ve been talking it’s been stabilizing and it’s done a pretty good job of smoothing things out. So now what we’re going to do is go back to our project here and change the title of this from being footage to stabilize, because this is the stabilized footage. We’re going to take that and drag it onto a new comp, and that comp we will be calling camera solve. The reason that we break these things up into multiple comps is because you can’t effectively apply a stabilization and a 3D track to the same comp, because it has to read the pixels off one to make the other; and stacking them is just not an effective way to do that. So it’s best to pre-comp it, so all of the pixel changes it’s making here to stabilize we can then make use of here in the tracking.So, we pull up the 3D camera tracker, and pull that onto the stabilized within the camera solve, and already it’s going to start working. So there are a lot of things you want to tell it to make this easier, and the first is, is this a fixed angle of view, or is it a variable zoom? I used a prime lens, so it’s a fixed angle. And within the advanced you can tell it things like what type of movement are you doing. So if it’s stuck on a tripod and you’re moving it around you should tell it that so it doesn’t assume otherwise. I’m going to say typical because this is hand-held moving around, nothing’s really set. So sometimes this will fail, and when it does fail you want to hit “reset” and just have it give another go. So it’s not that onerous for it to try again, and sometimes it makes mistakes when you start changing settings before it’s done.So, what are some other things in here? We’ve got method used; once it sorts itself out. And then it’ll tell you the average error, and that is how far off or how confident it is that it’s got this thing locked down. And then by tweaking all of your settings you’re going to improve its average error. So basically you want the average error to be as close to zero as possible, but there are areas of tolerance you can put up with just because nothing’s really perfect..So now it’s going to try to solve the camera, and it has put all of these little dots everywhere, and you can see when you mouse over it starts to make a target. And we know this is a good track, because when we put the target out there it seems to align with the ground. So when you scrub through you can see the points are very much stuck to things in the scene, and we’re looking at an average error of .23 pixels, which is pretty good. That’s going to be almost indistinguishable. Ideally you want this to be as low or as close to zero as possible. So, that’s really just the big thing.Now we’re going to add a Cinema 4D object to this scene. So what we’re going to do next is we’re going to go layer new max-on Cinema 4D file. And again, this is new in Adobe CC, but this is how easy it is to just add in a Cinema 4D project. You can import Cinema 4D projects as well if you’d like, but we’re just going to create a new one from scratch. I’m just going to call this ‘titles’, and then it’s going to open up Cinema 4D light right out of the application. So in here you can make some basic things, and I’d encourage you to learn from other tutorials how to make things in Cinema 4D Light, but I was going to show you really quick how to make text. So you go to spline, pull up some text, and then you type into its properties over here, something like Premiumbeat.com; click outside, and you’ve created these splines. And you’re going to create an extrude [nerves], put the text here inside the extrude [nerds] like this, and then it creates this extrusion. Now you’ll save your work here, and then when you go back into After Effects it’s stuck it in here. S\So we’re back in After Effects and the bulk of this tutorial is about After Effects. So the first thing you want to do is make sure that this sticks into your scene. And in order to do that you need to have a camera. And we make a camera by hitting ‘create camera off the 3D tracker’ so it creates a camera that matches the camera we already made. But one thing I’ll show you real quick is that when I hit ‘create camera’ and then we go into the Cinema 4D here and we say, use the comp’s camera, it doesn’t look correct at all; it’s kind of like our 3D thing is floating off over here where it shouldn’t be. And that’s because we have not defined where the origin of the scene is. And the origin is, if we go back into Cinema 4D here, this point here where new objects are created it’s 000 on the [Cartesian] plane; it is at the ground at .0 and that’s where things come in. So right now that’s where this is, and that’s where it expects to be, but we haven’t defined in this scene where that is. So delete that camera, because it was wrong. Go back to our 3D camera tracker and then we’re going to select a bunch of points, and then we’re going to right click. I’m going to say, set ground plane and origin. So it’s going to say, use these points to say where the ground is, and from that we are going to then put a point on there that is the origin. So we say, define that; good. That’s done; now create a camera; perfect. And now Premiumbeat.com is stuck down there on the ground. So that works out pretty well.And it’s actually done a good job of sticking it in there. So it’s pretty firmly where it ought to be. There are a few things that you’ll want to do just to improve how this looks. And one of those is going to be to go into your titles here, go to project, the thing you’ve created, and make sure that its frame rate matches the frame rate of your composition. So go to interpret footage main, and you’re going to want to conform its frame rate to, we said, 24 and then hit return. So now this 24 frames a second comp is matching the number of frames here. And if we go into Cinema 4D again, or Cinema 4D Light, you can see that it’s 0 to 90 frames by default, but if you go edit project settings, you can see it thinks it’s 30 frames a second, so change that to be 24. And then we’ll just change its frames to be 91, just like the comp. Hit save, and we go back here and everything is now lining up, so if you animate something you can count out the frames in the Cinema 4D file and then if you change some things in this project it’llline up for that number of frames.So that’s basically it for the basics of putting Cinema 4D things into After Effects using the new Adobe CC tools. We’ve stabilized footage; we’ve [solved] for the camera, and then we’ve brought in the Cinema 4D file. If you want to get deeper into Cinema 4D though I would totally recommend that you check out other tips and tutorials on Premiumbeat.com. It’s a great resource for all sorts of applications; Cinema 4D included. This is really just the basic overview about how to get things into Adobe After Effects, and to work with them in there. The big thing though, and I’m going to just stress this again, is make sure you’re frame rates and durations match, and also make sure that you’re using the correct cameras and that you set the origin and told the computer where the things are. A lot of frustration in the 3D integration comes from not setting the origin, because the computer can’t know until you tell it.Anyway, I’m Evan Abrams. Thank you so much for watching. Hopefully this has been helpful with getting you started into the Adobe CC and some of the new tools. If you want to learn more about Adobe After Effects and other applications stop by Premiumbeat.com and check out the blog for those. And of course, come to Premiumbeat for all of your royalty-free music and sound effects needs. I’m Evan Abrams; thanks again for watching, and I’ll see you around the Internet. [/color-box]
Families in US enclave in north Mexico hold sad Thanksgiving Google honors food scientist, banana ketchup inventor and war hero Maria Orosa AFP official booed out of forum Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university PLAY LIST 01:29Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university01:35Panelo suggests discounted SEA Games tickets for students02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Dani also posted a photo on her Twitter account a few moments after the procedure, thanking her supporters for their prayers. LATEST STORIES Pussycat Dolls set for reunion tour after 10-year hiatus Brace for potentially devastating typhoon approaching PH – NDRRMC John Lloyd Cruz a dashing guest at Vhong Navarro’s wedding LOOK: Iya Villania meets ‘Jumanji: The Next Level’ cast in Mexico MOST READ “Thank you for all your prayers,” posted Dani on Tuesday. “Love you all.”Dani has been Ateneo’s first-choice libero and has been key to the Lady Eagles as they’ve stretched their winning run to four games after their 0-2 start.As of Wednesday, Dani is the ninth best receiver in the league with an efficiency rating of 26.27 percent.ADVERTISEMENT Thank you for all you prayers!!! 💙 love you all 🤗 pic.twitter.com/ZWOnrWkrzi— Dani Ravena (@ravenadani) February 27, 2018Ateneo libero Dani Ravena will be on the sidelines after she had surgery to remove her appendix.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSWATCH: Drones light up sky in final leg of SEA Games torch runSPORTSLillard, Anthony lead Blazers over ThunderSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutoutOlder brother Thirdy said Dani will be out for almost two weeks to recover from the appendectomy.ADVERTISEMENT Perlas 1, Ato ni Bai rule BVR Puerto Galera leg Read Next Typhoon Kammuri accelerates, gains strength en route to PH View comments