Shop More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 17, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 21
:iconzarfact:
Zarfact Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Do you thing 3d printing will make handmade items worth more or replace handmade items all together?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconslippymagnus:
SlippyMagnus Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I think eventually, given time and leeway to experiment, we'd be able to outfit the planet with these, and then replace need for handmade stuff, but it would still exist for knick knacks and stuff.

Who would want a steel dragon statue that anyone could get when they could get one carved from wood?
Reply
:iconzarfact:
Zarfact Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Some 3d printers use wood. From my research photography did not kill painting,digital art did not kill traditional art. Im starting to think technology changes but the traditional way of doing things stays the same. 40 years from now some thing to replace 3d printing will be in development anyways.
Reply
:iconslippymagnus:
SlippyMagnus Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Right.

It's not replacing anything, just giving more opportunity to express oneself.
Traditional art is still around, and still really cool, but Digitalized Art is becoming far more popular.

It's easy to use (once you know how) and Traditional art is too, under the same principle, but Digital Art ALWAYS looks stylized towards the taste of the artist. You cannot find an example where the Artist doesn't show it's style in Digital art readily, should they be using Digi-Art
Reply
:icon1sidedownand2up:
1sidedownand2up Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
When it gets going I think you would have to pay to download a file that tells the 3D printer what shape the object is and how much materials you'd need to print it measured in moles (unit of substance not the animal). Materials would come in cartridges and you'd only be able to use materials that would melt at a low temperature or don't need melting first for the printer to use so anything with wood or tungsten in won't work.

Food cartridges with things like chocolate sauce in would be cheap to get, ones with metal and plastic in would cost a fair bit. Those containing fancy things like gold would cost a lot of money.

Some things would have to be illegal for individuals to print, Like guns and money or you'd be able to make enough pistols to start a war with in a week.
Reply
:icondelusionalhamster:
delusionalHamster Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
There's no need to make the 3d-printing of anything explicitly illegal.

As for guns, manufacturing firearms without a license to do so is already illegal in most places, so the same law would apply for 3d printing as well. Same applies to counterfeit money.

Also... why would you have to pay to download 3d models? There's already free printable models available that you can torrent.
Reply
:icon1sidedownand2up:
1sidedownand2up Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I know you can torrent anything digital, including 3D models. To pay for them or torrent them for free would depend on the morals of the user.

I can't foresee the files being like normal model files of the sort you'd open in something like autoCAD then send to the printer. They would be in a proprietary format (or worse, there would be 4 or so proprietary formats and only one will work on a certain brand of printer) that would have stupid amounts of DRM and a serial number unique to the file you have. After you have printed the physical object the file of it would be deleted.

There would also be plugins made for 3D programs that let you turn your own works into these proprietary files so you can sell them that way. After sometime a open format will show up.
Reply
:icondelusionalhamster:
delusionalHamster Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
>> I know you can torrent anything digital, including 3D models. To pay for them or torrent them for free would depend on the morals of the user.

And why should anyone have to pay for a 3d shape? Or more accurately, why should anyone be allowed to say "I own this particular shape, no one can manufacture items of this particular shape without my permission"? That's just absurd. You can't own ideas, and you can't own shapes.

>> I can't foresee the files being like normal model files of the sort you'd open in something like autoCAD then send to the printer.

Actually, that's about how it works for now. Most printers are still DRM-free.

What about when they make 3d-printers that can fully self-replicate? How is anyone going to control how anything is done after that? You can just download the schematics for a 3d-printer, ask your friend who already has one to print it for you, then you can print more printers for your friends etc... that'd be awesome.
Reply
:icon1sidedownand2up:
1sidedownand2up Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Copyrighting shapes like a square would be stupid beyond belief, You'd have to make something totally unique and not copyrighted by someone else to in order to copyright it. But I see your point.

I think the printer would put something like a tiny hallmark into the model printed, so it would be possible to identify a copy.

When you use a printer to print itself you get a "decendant" of it that will be slightly worse than the original at everything, like recording a recording makes the information slightly worse every time. After 5 "generations" of printed printers the newest would be so bad it wouldn't work at all.

Also the printer cannot print anything bigger than its maximum volume, so like stacking dolls each printed printer would be a bit smaller than the last. It would only stop when its not possible to make printers any smaller that still work after taking the above paragraph into consideration.
Reply
:icondelusionalhamster:
delusionalHamster Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
>> I think the printer would put something like a tiny hallmark into the model printed, so it would be possible to identify a copy.

That's not even feasible. How could the program decide where on a 3d object it's suitable to add something? It would need an actual AI that could recognize 3d shapes and could figure out where the "hallmark" would be unobtrusive.

And also, why should printers have a feature like that, when there are already printers that print exactly what you want and nothing else. Who would buy the crippled printers if there are better alternatives?

>> When you use a printer to print itself you get a "decendant" of it that will be slightly worse than the original at everything, like recording a recording makes the information slightly worse every time. After 5 "generations" of printed printers the newest would be so bad it wouldn't work at all.

And why exactly would this be true? It isn't even true of recordings any more, you can make as many copies of copies as you want with digital recordings without any loss of quality. And the situation isn't comparable at all, anyway, since each copy would be made out of the same blueprints, and would thus be identical. If the printer is truly self-replicating, it would have the necessary accuracy to create perfect copies of itself.

The only way your scenario could happen is if they purposedly crippled the printers to make sure no one could make their own printers. But still all it would take would be one self-replicating printer with freely available blueprints, and people can print as many printers as they want.

>> Also the printer cannot print anything bigger than its maximum volume, so like stacking dolls each printed printer would be a bit smaller than the last. It would only stop when its not possible to make printers any smaller that still work after taking the above paragraph into consideration.

Wow, no offense but you really haven't thought this through at all, have you...

Of course you wouldn't print the entire printer at once. You'd print it part by part. How do you think a printer could even function if it was made from one solid piece?
Reply
:icon1sidedownand2up:
1sidedownand2up Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ok, I admit my logic fails awfully at the concept of a 3D printer inception-like scenario . I can't find any faults in your argument.
Reply
Add a Comment: