1

Research by BU undergraduate students has been recognised at the major conferences and at the global research competition

By Dr Valery Adzhiev, Principal Academic, NCCA, FMC

Involvement of UG students into research is a much debated and somehow problematic topic. A lot of attention has been paid to it in Bournemouth University recently, especially in connection with the British Conference of Undergraduate Research (BCUR) hosted by BU in April 2017. Obviously, such research can be beneficial for students in terms of learning and professional development but is it worth in terms of “real” research related to proper publications and eligible for REF? The concept of Fusion assumes the answer “Yes”. Conferences & Competition: success in Los Angeles Actually, we have a bit to celebrate as two research projects with involvement of UG students were recently presented at two major conferences in Los Angeles with some success. Our small group from the National Centre for Computer Animation (NCCA) attending those prestigious events included two final year UG students Quentin Corker-Marin (the course Computer Visualisation and Animation - CVA, Level 6) and Phil Gifford (the course Software Development in Animation, Games and Effects – SDAGE, Level 6) accompanied by me in the role of an old grumpy supervisor. Both I and Quentin were asked to reflect on that experience from two different perspectives.

Phil Gifford and Quentin Corker-Marin The students were there to present two posters at SIGGRAPH 2017 conference: “Space-Time Cubification of Artistic Shapes” by Quentin Corker-Marin (co-authors and supervisors Dr Valery Adzhiev and Prof Alexander Pasko) and “Interactive Parameterised Heterogeneous 3D

2

Modelling with Signed Distance Fields” by Teemu Lindborg and Philip Gifford (co-author and supervisor Dr Oleg Fryazinov). Another paper “Cubification and Animation of Artistic Shapes” by Q. Corker-Marin, V. Adzhiev and A. Pasko was presented at the ACM SIGGRAPH / Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (SCA 2017) that took place at UCLA just before SIGGRAPH. These were very different conferences. ACM SIGGRAPH / Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation Symposium is a rather small-scale event (about 120 attenders) which has a reputation of a leading venue for R&D in Computer Animation. SIGGRAPH 2017 is the world’s leading annual interdisciplinary event showcasing the latest in computer graphics and interactive techniques. As usual, that was a huge endeavour with 20+ thousands attenders from 88 countries (including a real giraffe named Tiny who made two appearances as part of an animal drawing workshop), over 600 papers, courses, lectures, panels, installations, artworks, Animation Festival, VR theatre, Exhibition, etc. (all that selected from nearly 2,000 submissions from all around the world) and giving a platform to more than 1,800 speakers and contributors.

3

The official purpose of the SIGGRAPH Posters is “presenting novel research, art, and ideas to the global computer graphics community based on recently completed work or tentative new approaches” (official video). Note that is not “a student event” – quite a few established academics submit their work to it because it provides a lot of exposure (in particular, in terms of an immediate contact of the authors with attenders, and a lot of real experts are among them), although it has long been especially popular with PhD students who could test their ideas there. UG students’ submissions are accepted not often at all. All the submissions (many hundreds of them from all over the world) have been peer-reviewed and eventually 87 posters were accepted and published in the ACM Digital Library. The "cubist" poster had also been selected (as one of only ten) for presentation in the official "SIGGRAPH 2017 - Posters Preview" video that had been widely shown before and during the event. The students have also participated in the prestigious ACM Student Research Competition (SRC) sponsored by Microsoft. The result was a significant success: first, both posters were selected by “a panel of distinguished judges” (chaired by Deborah Fowler, Professor in the Visual Effects department, at Savannah College of Art and Design, US) as semi-finalists (just seven in UG category); then during the Posters sessions the judges talked to each of those semi-finalists (Phil and Quentin in our case) who had to answer their questions. Three UG students (Quentin among them) were invited into the SRC Final that was scheduled as a regular conference event to make a proper (conference-style) presentation in front of the Jury and the audience. Quentin was awarded with the second place (got the medal and the prize money) which can only be considered as an outstanding achievement. The students have also participated in the prestigious ACM Student Research Competition (SRC) sponsored by Microsoft. The result was a significant success: first, both posters were selected by “a panel of distinguished judges” (chaired by Deborah Fowler, Professor in the Visual Effects department, at Savannah College of Art and Design, US) as semi-finalists (just seven in UG category); then during the Posters sessions the judges talked to each of those semi-finalists (Phil and Quentin in our case) who had to answer their questions. Three UG students (Quentin among them) were invited into the SRC Final that was scheduled as a regular conference event to make a proper (conference-style) presentation in front of the Jury and the audience. Quentin was awarded with the second place (got the medal and the prize money) which can only be considered as an outstanding achievement. How to involve UG animation students into research The project by Teemu Lindborg and Philip Gifford supervised by Oleg Fryazinov had been initiated within “Collaborative Research Project” unit for the final year SDAGE students. That unit assumes that students undertake a research project with a topic in Computer Science proposed by a staff member. Each year at least a couple of papers get published at such conferences as Eurographics (Posters and Short Papers), so it was not surprising that the Poster was accepted by SIGGRAPH. The detailed description of how that unit has been run can be found in the paper “Aiming High: Undergraduate Research Projects in Computer Graphics and Animation” by E. Anderson, V. Adzhiev and O. Fryazinov presented at Eurographics 2016 – Education Papers. Another project “Dynamic Cubist Sculpting” supervised by me was more problematic, and I will concentrate here on its story. There is “Innovations” Unit which CAA and CVA Level 6 students undertake on their final year. Its title precisely reflects its specifics as it was established by Dr Steve Bell, an originator of the Unit: it’s not about research in the traditional meaning, especially

4

in technical terms of Computer Science or Computer Aided Design. Each student suggests a topic s/he would like to explore; usually it is concerned with learning novel stuff in terms of methods and tools that hadn’t been taught in the curriculum. Methodologically it is similar to the “research” (an artefact and a report have to be eventually submitted) but not quite, and of course, there is no requirement to submit/publish a proper research paper because whilst one expects that the student does try some novel methods to produce his/her artefacts, one cannot expect that s/he invent such methods. There is another problematic aspect. I am a member of MAGE (Modelling, Animation, Games and Effects) research group. Even if I have been interested in Computer Art for a long time and produced some artefacts and papers related to that, our research is mainly concerned with a technical side of Computer Graphics, Geometric Modelling, Animation and 3D Printing. At the same time, CAA and CVA students are normally oriented more towards artistic matters (even if they have to master a lot of technical stuff). What is even more problematic in research terms: they do not often consider an academic career, their aspirations are to work in industry and they very much devote their final year to building their professional portfolios allowing to get such a job. No time for anything else! What has helped was the fact that Quentin Corker-Marin was by no means an ordinary student. One should add that I was assigned to be a supervisor of Quentin’s Innovations project not by chance; in fact we had been working together intermittently for two years since first meeting at the math tutorial during his first year but were not able to find a project that would be interesting to him in terms of his artistic and technical ambitions and also interesting to us in terms of our research. Quentin demonstrated a really outstanding potential since his first year here: not very often you find a student with mainly artistic aspirations who is able to read and understand very advanced research papers with non-trivial math that he didn’t learn before. And he did read a lot of our research publications. At the same time he proved to be very good in mastering new software and learning novel techniques. In fact, he is that rare person who, given that he understands what has to be done, is likely to overcome any technical difficulties and deliver the result. “I can do that” is a kind of his catch phrase that he often used to conclude our discussions, and yes, he usually can.

3D printed cubified sculpture.

5

He didn’t consider the possibility of an academic career, however he was very interested in innovative and novel ways of realising artistic projects, and that was exactly what we needed to make that particular “dynamic cubist sculpting” project successful. However, it was also a bit of luck that we combined our efforts in that project. “Dynamic Cubist Sculpting” Project Dynamic sculptures created with help of computer-aided design and animation tools and related to a proper artistic style within a particular artistic movement are surprisingly rare. There is a lot of available software but it mainly helps to “sculpt” object in technical terms (adding and removing material, deformations in some locations, etc.). The creating of dynamic art shapes is mostly concerned with traditional engineering and manufacturing practices rather than relying on computer animation methods and tools, although they did start to emerge recently. I was interested in that subject for a long time and last autumn even wrote both a proposal for external funding and for a PhD studentship competition with dynamic cubist sculpting as one of applications of the techniques our group have been developing. So I was pleasantly surprised when Quentin had suggested the topic for his “Innovations” project that was concerned with cubist painting and methods for its rendering. When he agreed to change his initial topic and follow our agenda, I immediately knew that the project would be successful with publishable output because Alexander Pasko and I were sure that our approach was original in terms of concepts and methods. In Quentin we have found a talented student who could contribute into our technical research and convert it into art. The SIGGRAPH venue was planned from the very beginning. UG students have so much to do on their final year that one cannot expect a well-balanced regular work on the project that goes beyond the curriculum; they inevitably work through milestones and deadlines. To make a proper progress in such a project students need to be pushed really hard! The first natural deadline as a milestone towards the final destination was an “Innovations” assignment submission. The next one was preparing the poster for BCUR 2017 that took place at BU in April (many thanks to Dr Fiona Cownie who was so instrumental in involving FMC students into it). Then we only had to properly present the project for submission to SCA 2017 and SIGGRAPH 2017. It was not that easy process – especially for Quentin as his mentality as well as aspirations is of an artistic nature with a strong emphasis on personal aesthetic ambitions. For instance, he didn’t consider appropriate the usual rules of presentations at the scientific conference (especially when there is “a research competition” with a Jury ticking the boxes) that we, researchers, take for granted. We have had a lot of discussions and even long arguing just before the final SIGGRAPH presentation because from his perspective all those apparently mandatory slides (“related works”, “basic techniques”, “research contribution with proven novelty”, “conclusion & future work”) could only distract the audience from the beautiful artistic essence of the project that he believed should be at the heart of presentation. In the end, we did manage to compile a balanced presentation which was then successfully delivered. Could the first place in the competition be achieved? Yes, but I believe that the project was probably considered by the Jury as too artistic as the subsequent entry into another research competition (the winner of SIGGRAPH SRC competition is to go to the “Grand Finals” along with winners in other Computer Science disciplines selected at 24 major ACM conferences). Our “Dynamic cubism” project does divide opinions: some specialists think that not enough “technical contribution” is there (which in our opinion is not true), others praise it very

6

enthusiastically (e.g., one SIGGRAPH Posters referee started his/her review in the following way, not seen by me before: “Wow!” and proceeded “this is impressive in visuals. I am a little fuzzy what does the result mean, but I feel the process is way more interesting”. Another reviewer had stated: “Great concept. Very thorough with the process”.) Now we hope to publish a full-scale paper in a top journal to make it REF-eligible. I hope that experience will be helpful in broadening Quentin’s horizons as an emerging professional working on the edge of art and science. He might be a bit uneasy sometimes about my constant pushing him into the research realm (artists don’t like to be constantly told what to do – even if it is necessary to achieve the specific research results). As to me, I am not going to complaint: I have been very happy to work with a student of that calibre and was prepared to invest a lot more of my time than was required by the official work load for the Unit.

Cubification of an articulated human figure rendered with cubist camera Conclusions So the conclusion is probably trivial: one can make a proper high-class research involving UG students; however, the student should be not only very strong in terms of his/her intellectual and technical abilities; s/he also has to be prepared to invest his/her valuable time during a very challenging final period of his/her education. Obviously, even very strong UG students are rarely able even to come up with a formulation for a research project with possible output in the form of publications eventually eligible for REF because by definition its topic will probably be well beyond their knowledge, and it’s problematic to expect that UG students know what the most up-to-date research challenges are on the agenda.

7

Another must is a close supervision because UG students are not taught to do methodologically sound research – even PhD students need a year or two to get there. So supervisors have to be prepared to devote a lot more time than standard 15-minute tutorial slots scheduled in the unit timetable. Finally, there is also a small matter of money. To have a proper motivation for research, UG students need to have proper incentives, such as attending global events like SIGGRAPH (some our students go to SIGGRAPHs anyway to work as volunteers using their own money). On this particular occasion, we did manage to find the money at short notice from a number of different sources (the FMC’s QR money, MAGE group research budget, NCCA departmental fund). I am grateful to the Profs. Mike Wilmore, Iain MacRury, Jian Zhang, Peter Comninos as well as to Chris Williams, Brian McNulty and Laura Hampshaw who have helped with that. Perhaps, in future one should consider establishing a special-purpose fund.

Quentin Corker-Marin and Valery Adzhiev

L.A. Diary

By Quentin Corker-Marin This July I was very fortunate to get the opportunity to travel to Los Angeles to present research posters at two conferences at the forefront of computer graphics and animation research. First, at the ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (SCA) which is the premier forum for innovations in the software and technology of computer animation. Secondly at ACM SIGGRAPH 2017 which is one of the largest technology conferences in the world.

8

The work I would be presenting was research on cubism in computer graphics I had done as part of my Innovations unit during the final year of my undergraduate degree at Bournemouth University where I studied Computer Visualisation and Animation. I am very grateful to Bournemouth University for their support in sending me to these conferences where I was exposed to numerous industry pioneers and was able to meet many interesting people, both professionals and students who I hope to remain in contact with throughout my career. In this post I wanted to outline some of the highlights of the trip and talk about what I saw and did during my time in LA. We arrived on the evening of the 27th July and after the exhausting flight we didn’t have the energy to do much more than take a cab to the UCLA campus, where the SCA conference would be held and where we would be staying, check in and go to bed. Due to the jetlag, I found myself awake and unable to sleep at 4AM the next morning and so I took the opportunity to explore the UCLA campus in the cool morning air as the sun came up and before the conference started. Established in 1919 and home to around 45,000 students, the extensive campus took a while to explore and I found myself in awe of the impressive architecture and the scale of the university. When the talks did begin, they kicked off with a very interesting talk from Prof Hod Lipson, from Columbia University, where he discussed his research on robotics, simulation and machine learning. The morning continued with paper presentations on cutting edge fluid simulation techniques. After lunch we had the first session of invited talks where Dr Andy Nealan of New York University gave a very funny and engaging talk about culture wars in animation and games. After this it was time for me and the other poster presenters to do our “fast forward” session where each of us is given a minute to talk and show a video to generate interest in our work for people to come and see us at our posters. The day ended with the poster reception, where myself and the other presenters stood out in the evening sun at our posters as people came and asked us about our work. The next day was mostly taken up by paper presentations on physically based characters, kinematics and machine learning which are subjects undergoing intense study in computer graphics at the moment. In the evening we were invited to a dinner banquet at the UCLA Faculty Center where we were treated to an excellent meal and I was able to talk to some of the other researchers at the conference. After the meal I was invited to a local bar by a group of PhD students where I got to hear about their work and academic life at different institutions across the world. Sunday 30th July was scheduled to be the last day of SCA presentations, due to finish at lunch time. Unfortunately I also had to travel across town to the conference center where SIGGRAPH would be held to set up my poster and I had to miss the final day of talks. I met Phil Gifford, another Bournemouth student presenting a poster at SIGGRAPH, at the second hotel we would be staying at and together. We walked through downtown LA in the hot morning sun to the LA convention center and, as we got near, the building towered over us and we could hear the SIGGRAPH theme playing through the loudspeakers. It was a very impressive moment filled expectation and excitement for the conference. While SCA had been attended by around 120 people who were mainly researchers, SIGGRAPH would be attended by thousands of people who worked in a very diverse range of industries and fields. It would be attended by students, artists and academics

9

and everyone in between and the excitement could be felt as soon as we got near to the Convention Center. After registering and setting up our posters in the exhibition hall, I spent the rest of the afternoon in talks on Physically Based Shading, VFX in Guardians of the Galaxy 2 and an introduction to SIGGRAPH session for first time attendees such as myself.

Quentin during SIGGRAPH Posters session I woke up on the 31st July very excited for my first full day of SIGGRAPH and my first of two poster presentations. My morning started with a very interesting talk from Lighthouse VFX, a studio in Syria where they talked about the difficulties of production in a war zone. I was truly humbled and inspired by their story. I also visited the art gallery and saw some fascinating conceptual pieces about autonomy and futility, illustrated by robots doomed to repeat the same repetitive motions over and over until the power went out.

10

I was also able to explore some of the technical demonstrations happening in the exhibition space including one where I was steered through a space by a belt that exploited the “hanger reflex” and some inflatable pads to steer me left and right. The evening was taken up by the Animation Festival, where I got to see the best of this year’s animated projects including some very impressive real time projects by The Mill and Epic Games that were not pre-recorded but rendered live backstage. After this we were taken by shuttle busses to the California Science Center for the SIGGRAPH reception where I fell in with a group of very friendly student volunteers who invited me to eat with them. I met up with Phil, who had met a different group of students, as we left the reception and together our two groups headed to the chapters party, an after party organised by the SIGGRAPH professional and student chapters. It was a great end to my first day at SIGGRAPH and I was amazed by the friendliness of everyone I had met and spoken too. On Tuesday 1st August I spent my morning at the Houdini sessions where Phil and I had coffee and doughnuts with some people from Sidefx and we got to see demos of the latest tools and talks about industry workflow. I then had my second and final poster presentation. Because I had been accepted into the semi-finals of the student research competition, in this session I had to do a presentation to a committee of judges who would then make a decision about who made it through to the finals. I got the impression from their reactions that they very much enjoyed my work and I left the session hopeful about the results that would be published later in the afternoon. I hurried off from the session to go to a contributors social which was an informal lunch for all of the speakers and presenters at the conference. I ended up deep in conversation with a developer from sidefx, talking about their unique development cycle and workflow. I was overjoyed in the afternoon when I received an email informing me that I was in the finals of Student Research Competition. Unfortunately, this meant I would have to miss an evening of talks and socials to prepare my presentation for the following afternoon. The next morning was spent similarly to the previous evening, working on the presentation I would be delivering in the afternoon. I am not a confident public speaker and it was a nervous build up to the presentation. Fortunately, once I started speaking I was able to relax and at the end of the session it was announced that I had come second place in the undergraduate category. The first place prize went to Ana Serrano whose very interesting research was titled “Attribute-preserving gamut mapping of measured BRDFs” and was about adjusting the rendering functions to better fit the printable range of colours of a specific printer. After this I was able to relax and enjoy the Renderman Arts and Sciences fair in the evening, an exclusive event which I had managed to get a ticket for where the Renderman team showed off the latest advances they had made in rendering including a very impressive peak at what the future holds. Thursday 3rd August was the final day of SIGGRAPH and I spent it mostly at the sidefx room where Phil and I got to talk to some of the interns who have been working there, something that I am now interested in looking into in the future. In the afternoon we took down our posters and headed back to the hotel to drop of our things before taking some much needed down time at Santa Monica beach where we had dinner, got to go swimming and went for an amazing free concert on the pier. It was a beautiful end to an amazing week where I got to meet lots of interesting people that I hope to keep in contact with

11

throughout my career. I was amazed by how easy it was to sit next to a stranger and very quickly we deeply engrossed in conversation with them about computer graphic and animation as everyone I met was very passionate about their work. I am especially grateful to Bournemouth University for funding the trip which will stay with me for a long time and I will still be feeling the benefits of many years from now.

L.A. Convention Center