[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)