[Origami] Problems with the Tarquin e-book reader

[Hans Dybkjær]

In September 2018 I attended a great OSME’7 in Oxford. As part of the package 
we got the proceedings as an e-book. Very recommendable, e-books are easier to 
read, to search, to annotate, to display for many (in folding sessions), and to 
bring with me when travelling, and the publishers do not use trees to produce 
the copies, and less energy to distribute. Win-win. Thus I seldom buy origami 
books only available as paper. Even if I have the paper version, if the 
e-version is available, I buy that if I want to use it again (Robert Lang must 
be happy - I have bought several of his books twice :-) ).

However, I have some troubles using the Tarquin reader.

A) I have repeatedly to log on to the reader again, with empty username and 
password fields every time.

B) I cannot select and copy text? I am using an iPad with the newest iOS. 

C) For the same reason, I cannot lookup words in a built-in dictionary?

D) It is a different reader than what my other 1500 e-books are in (Kindle).
(This is of course an issue whenever the provider and the reader are not 
independent. Kindle is just a many times larger platform than Tarquin).

E) Somehow, the first volume is not available. 
I am trying to contact Tarquin to sort this out, but the subscription system 
seems fragile, in particular when paired with (A) above.

Does anybody else have similar problems, or more importantly, solutions for 
these?


Yes, I still have many paper books, in fact still more than e-books. And most 
of them have one advantage: they can be folded. Either as book sculptures, or 
cutting out pages and folding them. For Xmas I did the latter with a book of 
old map reproductions, folding the 14-pointed water bomb stars. Adding a silver 
thread and a bit of glitter they became gorgeous Xmas ornament gifts.

Best regards,
   Hans

Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk
Society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Swallow paper airplane?

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 14. okt. 2018 kl. 22.33 skrev Gerardo @neorigami.com 
> 
> 1. The site calls it "swallow paper airplane". Do you know the model by any
> other name? I want to look for other instructions for it and, if it does
> have a different name, it would be very helpful to know.
Similar name in Danish. A slight variation is called “svalehalefly”, swallow 
tail airplane.
> 2. Is it a traditional model? If not, who created it?
It is traditional. I learned 2-3 variations from my father 50 years ago who 
learned those as a child himself, and I have seen several variations shown by 
elderly people when giving open workshops at fairs etc. here in Denmark, often 
old men proudly showing that they also can do paper folding.

This includes both the nose, the cutting off the tail, the wing folding, the 
tail cuts, and the tail insertion. As that is 5 parameters that each can be 
varied more or less systematically, I cannot swear to having seen the exact 
combination displayed in the link, but that does not make it non-traditional.

Two examples are from a 1944 origami book (which my father learned from as a 
child). You can see them in a couple of pictures on my web page here: 
http://papirfoldning.dk/historie/folderier_en.html
under the names of “glider” and “flying swallow”.

In a newer, Danish book, “Air planes” by Erik Rønholt 2012, models 15 - 21 are 
called aerobatic planes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, drone, classical gliders 1 and 2, 
and wasp. A couple of these also occur in his 1990 book “Paper folding” under 
the names air plane 2 and 3.

The book “Play with paper” by Thea Bank Jensen 1956 has another variation, just 
called “air plane”: same nose, but tail cut off along the water bomb base, and 
without the extra, horizontal folds, and without the tail cuts.

Paper folding books in other languages surely contains many of these and many 
more variations. I see some in e.g. Nick Robinson’s books.

To me, all these are “use your imagination” variations of the same 2-3 basic 
water bomb nose air planes, known for the last century.

Best regards,
  Hans

Re: [Origami] New book - Origami Journey

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 11. maj 2018 klokken 08:59 skrev Dasa Severova :
> I would like to inform you that my book "Origami Journey: into the
> Fascinating World of Geometric Origami" is finally alive and available on
> Amazon.com and also on all European Amazons. It was selfpublished through
> Createspace.
Congratulations, it looks very interesting.
Will it be available as a Kindle e-book? I would like to buy it.
Best regards,
Hans

Re: [Origami] copyright question about modification of traditional origami model

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 26. mar. 2018 kl. 06.11 skrev Hadi Tahir
> 
> modified tradiotional origami sampan.
> here is the diagrams: 
> https://haditahir.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/origami-perahu-sampan/

>  a message, that my video infringes someone's copyright 
> (http://www.origami-make.org/origami-boat-large-sampan.php (published on 
> December 1, 2010)) which i have never known before, and asked me to remove 
> the video.

Dear Hadi,
You have a nice site, and I like your diagrams. A cleaner site than the other 
which bubbles over with annoying ads. 

It is a common situation doing simple models, and even more so with simple 
variations over traditional models. I have tried both ways, and managed to come 
to with the other part, except in a couple of cases where I deemed the 
counterpart too difficult to contact and just removed my diagram - in the end 
it is easier to make other designs, even if it was something you were proud of.

You could try to ask back kindly, suggesting that you make an acknowledgment of 
the preceding creation and a link to his/hers site? Maybe even suggest that you 
remove the video and keep the diagram? As he only asked you to remove the video?

By the way, in 2013 I wrote an article for the BOS Magazine 286, “On design 
variations” which included the guideline “Change the orientation of the crease 
pattern on the paper.”, incidentally precisely your case. I propose that 
henceforth I have dibs and copyright on any model obtained from other models 
using this and other techniques mentioned in the article :-)

Good luck,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk
Society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Masu box

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 23. mar. 2018 kl. 17.06 skrev Anne LaVin :
> Historically, rice was measured with small, square wooden boxes - these are
> themselves just called "masu" in Japanese, and as such, "masu box" in
> English is actually a bit redundant. A "masu" just is one of those objects.
Redundant the same way as when we say “kami paper”?

Regards
  Hans

Hans Dybkjær 
Papirfoldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Why did origami become popular in the 1980s ?

[Hans Dybkjær]

>  Wolf Weidner skrev 

> the rise of the term "origami" began in the 1980s [1] 
>  
>  Does anyone have an idea why that is?
Look at the time line. In the fifties Yoshikawa had his breakthrough, the 
societies in USA and Britain were started, and Lillian Oppenheimer coined the 
term Origami for paperfolding. In the sixties, a number of books were published 
in English, and Harbin had a TV series in BBC. 

In the seventies even more books were published in English, including great 
masters like Honda and Katakana. 

In my country, the first paperfolding book in Danish with "origami" in its 
title was published in 1970 (Harbin’s Origami 1) and a number of other origami 
books came out in Danish. 

So I think the critical mass of origami was simply reached in the eighties, 
together with a widespread fascination of Japan.

Even though the Danish market did not top until the nineties. Se the (rather 
complete) list at http://papirfoldning.dk/da/boeger/danskealder.html.

Regards,
 Hans

Hans Dybkjær
Home page: Papirfoldning.dk 
Society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Origami sighting (The Carbonaro Effect- Instant Origami Spray)

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 3. jan. 2018 kl. 19.16 skrev Anna :
> 
> These crane tissues are sold for some years. As you guessed the spray is
> just for effect.
> You can find those tissues with the search word "Origamagic".
> I remember to once have seen a detailed instruction on how to prepare the
> tissue yourself, but can't remember where or how.

Here is how I do it:
- Cut an A4 square (20.8 * 20.8 cm) polyester fabric. 
- Fixate the edges so they do not unravel, I used "Stiffy " for that, just a 
millimeter along the edges; let dry. 
- Carefully fold two flat cranes from 21 cm kami or just plain copy paper.
They must have the same angles etc. 
- Unfold.
- Place the fabric between the two kami layers. Carefully fold all three layers 
into a crane again. 
The thickness of the fabric and the paper is why you want the fabric to be just 
slightly smaller than the paper.
- Place on a flat dish and something flat on top of the flat crane. 
I use two porcelain pie forms of different size so that they can be inside each 
other.  
- Put into oven preheated to 200 celsius for 20 minutes. 
- Let cool completely, e.g. in the fridge.
- Unfold and take out the fabric. Refold.
- Hold in one wing tip and flap hard to unfold the crane.
- Throw it into the air, possibly bashing it up a couple of times, and it 
refolds itself.
 Done correctly, it will refold itself just by throwing it into the air.

You can do this in other fabrics like silk or cotton, but they will not refold, 
and they are not moist resistant, but lose their creases when becoming wet. A 
theatric taylor (if that is what they are called) recommends at least 60 % 
polyester.

You may have to experiment a bit to find the optimal polyester. It should not 
be too thin and soft, a little stiff is fine, but thick is not so good (for 
this purpose).

In the fashion industry similar techniques are employed, often boiling the 
object for an hour instead of using the oven. I find the oven easier to use, at 
least for those smaller objects.

Those fabric cranes and the magical are great for entertaining in a show or 
while teaching. Other models may be used, but the crane works particularly well 
and is a well known and great symbol of origami. I have made e.g. roses and 
birds from silk organza. 

Enjoy,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk
Society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Butterfly Ball

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 6. dec. 2017 kl. 18.09 skrev Jorge E. Jaramillo :
> 
> On Dec 6, 2017 12:00 PM, Mark Burger asked about the best paper for folding
> the butterfly ball.
I have had great success with tant paper, 75 mm, which comes in many 
tone-in-tone clear color packs and has a nice balance between thinness for the 
butterfly effect when you smack it into the air, and stiffness for the ball and 
for the satisfying sound when it hits the floor.
> 
> I don't have an answer for that but I have 2 more questions.
> 
> Is the "official" name Butterfly Ball or Butterfly Box?
I believe “butterfly ball” or the original “butterfly bomb”, the latter my 
favorite despite some veterans’ connotations to some real bombs during the 
Second World War.
> 
> Who is the author of this model?
Kenneth Kawamura.
You might also see http://papirfoldning.dk/da/ugensfold/2008-42.html and photo 
instructions at http://papirfoldning.dk/da/diagrammer/sommerfuglebombe01.html. 
(In Danish only, sorry).

Regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
Papirfoldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Origami6 on Kindle (was: Langorigami.com 4.0)

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 10 Mar 2016, at 18.01, Patsy Wang-Iverson  wrote:
> Origami^6 came out in December 2015 and is available at a discount at ams.org
> 
> I was told last year that an e-version will be made available, but at a later 
> date than the hard copy. Just sent off a note asking for release date and 
> pricing. Will post the information as soon as I hear back.
I just today realised it is now available electronically from 
http://bookstore.ams.org/mbk-95-1 <http://bookstore.ams.org/mbk-95-1> at $ 79 
for each of part I and II,
as a personalised pdf - and hence also readable on Kindle or most other 
electronic readers. 

So now I can read it, too :-)  
(Without cluttering our home with even more book shelves; hope the next set 
will be available sooner).

Regards,
    Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Stone paper for origami?

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 22. okt. 2017 kl. 00.17 skrev "cafe...@pacific.net" :
> 
> Has anyone used these papers for origami?

I tried something called stone paper, thinking “stone” signaled “resistant to 
fire”. However, it burned happily, clearly containing a fair amount of plastic 
or the like. 

You might use it for boats to go into water. I am not sure how it would perform 
outdoors for a longer time exposed to rain and sun, I would not be too 
expectant, but you might try it out.

Regards,
 Hans

Re: [Origami] On the subject of what constitutes origami

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 2. okt. 2017 kl. 19.06 skrev Dawn Tucker via Origami 
:
> 
>  My question is this: Who decided (and when) that cutting and gluing keeps a 
> folded piece from being called origami? I've got origami books, written by 
> those we consider to be origami masters, venerable Japanese folders, whose 
> instructions include a little snip here, a drop of glue there... There are 
> traditional origami models (perhaps hundreds of years older than those who 
> would question them) that require a small cut or a piece of tape. Why do so 
> many now say those models don't meet the definition of origami, and say so as 
> if it were the gospel of folding? 

One thing about origami that makes it so great for design, is that you put up a 
fixed set of rules, and then try to solve your problem within the confines of 
those rules. The rules challenges you to be inventive. How do I get five petals 
from a square with four corners? How do I make a centipede (with hundreds of 
legs) from a square?

Conversely, you challenge the rules. Who says we must use a square? Use a 
pentagon, or five pieces of paper, for the flower with five petals. Instead of 
using thin, thin paper and complicated crease patterns, use a simple fold to 
obtain a pair of legs and then extend the paper to a hundreds of units long 
strip. At the recent BOS convention I exhibited such a millipede, 1150 legs 
from a 25 mm x 1350 cm strip of paper.

John Smith wrote a brief, but profound article many years ago, “Origami 
Profiles”, http://www.britishorigami.info/academic/jonsmif.php exactly on those 
rule sets.

Last Friday during a talk on origami I mentioned the almost anecdotal 
Babylonian papyrus map, folded as you do with maps. Someone in the audience 
asked when folding paper is origami? Yes, linguistically they mean the same.  
No, intuitively folded paper is not necessarily paperfolding. 

After weaving around with maps and NASA and origami, I came up with that for 
folding paper to be origami, it needs to end up being a model in its own right, 
such a plate, a box, an elephant, a piece of abstract art, etc. Maps and NASA 
do not meet this criterium. However, the DO use origami *techniques*.

Best regards
 Hans

PS: Yes, Golden Venture Origami (or the horrible term, 3D-origami) is origami. 
There is really not any principled distinction between that and other LEGO like 
modulars like the many Sonobe modulars, or the great animals by Max Hulme (also 
on exhibition at the BOS exhibition). 
And no, you don’t need to love folding a particular genre of something for it 
to be origami.

Conversely

Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk
Society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Simon Andersen Diagrams

[Hans Dybkjær]

> Den 13. sep. 2017 kl. 00.56 skrev Dawn Tucker via Origami 
> :
> 
> Where can I find diagrams for this specific bird, designed by Simon 
> Andersen?http://falkbrito.blogspot.com/2012/08/saiba.html
> Thank you in advance for your help!
> Dawn Tucker,O'Fallon, MO

I do not know that particular variant, though I might be able to reverse 
engineer it. 
It seems to be a new member of this series:  
http://papirfoldning.dk/en/simons/mavegokfugle.html
With more text here: http://papirfoldning.dk/ugensfold/2010-16_en.html
including pointers to diagrams for 3-4 of them.
Regards,
 Hans

PS: Simon' origami is free to use, in particular for any teaching, as long as 
it is attributed (cf. the recent discussion on the o-list).



Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk
Society: foldning.dk 

Re: [Origami] Help starting new group

[Hans Dybkjær]

> Den 2. apr. 2017 kl. 18.28 skrev Andrea Plate :

> interest both the local Council on Aging and the Center for the Arts.  I
> could use help designing a program of modulars that I could teach that
> would allow participants to leave feeling successful while adding skills.

> The Center for the Arts program needs to be deeper and move faster.  I was
> thinking of Sonobe and variations as an introductory course, incorporating
> various bases throughout as skill development.
Concerning the Sonobe modules, some people use them for lamps, e.g. 
http://www.sonobelight.dk/m/side.asp?Id=246128. As the modules have many 
layers, you should employ quite transparent paper.
Many modulars lend themselves to quite open polyhedral styles and may also be 
considered for lamps. 
Also consider stepping away from modulars, over to their one sheet neighbors of 
corrugations and tessellations. Look into e.g. Paul Jacksons Complete Pleats: 
Pleating Techniques for Fashion, Architecture and Design, and of course the now 
classic Origami Tessellations by Eric Gjerde.  Both provide terrific, 
sculptural patterns that, once mastered, led themselves to plenty variations 
and experimentation, be it for their own sake or as inspiration for decorative 
surfaces of other constructs. They also lend themselves to other materials, 
such as fabric or metal, if the Arts people are into that. Take e.g a look at 
http://www.garibiorigami.com/. Pleated and cross pleated fabric and lamps are 
examples of corrugations.

Good luck,
     Hans


Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk
Society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] korean cranes

[Hans Dybkjær]

Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk
Society: foldning.dk
> Den 20. mar. 2017 kl. 07.33 skrev Hatori, Koshiro :
> 
> Dear Miranda, jassu and all,
> 
>>> On the Facebook page of the Origami Therapy Association is a message saying
>>> that there's a difference between a Japanese crane and a Korean one.
> 
>> I'm Korean and I also have no idea about the different of origami crane 
>> between Japanese and Korean.
> 
> It is curious. I am Japanese and I do hear about "Korean-style" crane. 
> I googled somewhat and found an instruction video on YouTube:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4BlI8IYkDc
> I have always wondered if it really originated in Korea, and now my 
> suspicion gets a bit stronger.

The distinctive feature of the crane in this video is that the narrowing is 
made via parallel folds in the body rather than corner folds of the head and 
tail.

I know this technique as a "parallel crane", 
http://papirfoldning.dk/da/ugensfold/2010-07.html (sorry about the Danish only 
text) which is a design by Simon Andersen, Denmark. Compared to the video, the 
tail of Simon's parallel crane is folded differently, in a quite striking way. 
Folding instructions by me, 2010, here: 
http://papirfoldning.dk/da/diagrammer/trane02.html

Simon wrote an essay about the difference between Japanese and Western origami, 
using his parallel crane as an example: 
http://papirfoldning.dk/en/simons/simonsiger_2010-07.html

As folding the parallel narrowing is pretty simple, it is quite likely that 
this technique has appeared independently in different parts of the world. I 
like, however, Simon's philosophical take and his asymmetric treatment of head 
and tail.

Regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk
Society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] What book is this?

[Hans Dybkjær]

> Den 20. feb. 2017 kl. 02.41 skrev Gerardo @neorigami.com 
> :
> 
> https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16864561_1622845987731373_7489932955320734925_n.jpg?oh=ca2887601ae47f912349af2ed5576c22&oe=5948F17C
> 
> https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16681698_1622846237731348_4237320658937901180_n.jpg?oh=65e066bdc1d190ca95aee90fa88899a5&oe=592C0432
> 
> Do you know what book it is?

That is Creative Origami by Akira Yoshizawa. My copy is bought from The Origami 
Center, today Origami USA, and had enclosed a leaflet with an English 
translation. Maybe that translation is still available from their shop or 
somewhere else?
Regards,
Hans


Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk
Society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] The Story of Ligia Montoya - book available

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 14. nov. 2016 kl. 21.00 skrev Laura R :
> FOR THE ENGLISH VERSION (Title: Paper Life): click on this link 
> https://www.createspace.com/6439554   — Add the following discount coupon at 
> checkout: DNL9LDSP. 
> 
> FOR THE SPANISH VERSION (Title: El Angel del Origami): click on this link 
> https://www.createspace.com/6282459  — Add the following discount coupon at 
> checkout: YPVFCHKV. 
The links seem to be switched around. At least I came to the Spanish version 
with the first link, and had better luck with the second. However, the discount 
codes are with the right versions, only the links are switched.

Thanks for your work and offer,
 Hans

Re: [Origami] September update

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 30 Sep 2016, at 16:49, Matthew Green  wrote:
> 
> 
>> When I follow the link, I arrive at a page full of spam links.
>> Has something gone wrong? 
>>   Hans
>> 
> Hans,
> I don’t have any problem with the link - I don’t get any spam, just lots of 
> beautiful origami!
> Matthew
Thanks. I had the problem yesterday. Today it works. No idea what made the 
difference.
And yes, the origami pictures are truly beautiful. Thanks to Meenakshi Mukerji.
/Hans

Re: [Origami] September update

[Hans Dybkjær]

Dear Meenakshi,
> Den 30. sep. 2016 kl. 06.02 skrev Meenakshi Mukerji :
> 
> Just one new design this month.  Please see first row of
> http://origamee.net/creation/cr15to16.html
> 
When I follow the link, I arrive at a page full of spam links.
Has something gone wrong? 
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk
Society: foldning.dk

[Origami] ICFP Origami functional programming contest

[Hans Dybkjær]

International conference on functional programming has a programming contest:
http://icfpc2016.blogspot.dk/2016/08/task-description.html?m=1
This year it is about origami: Take a CP as input and produce a given 2D 
silhouette as good as possible. 

Regards,
   Hans




 Anna skrev 

>Thanks to everyone who pointed me to single piece "box with lid" models.
>Even though some of the models had similarities, none of them was identical
>to my box, most of them are more complicated to fold.
>So I've taken the liberty to draw the diagrams.
>
>You can find the diagrams for my Box with Lid on the Origami Austria
>homepage:
>http://www.origamiaustria.at/en/diagrams.php?lang=2#d41
>
>Nice Greetings
>
>Anna Kastlunger from Vienna, Austria

Re: [Origami] Sobao

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 27 Jul 2016, at 01:00, Gerardo @neorigami.com  wrote:
> The model is the folding box AKA foil box, a traditional model. You can see
> a picture of the model here: http://www.giladorigami.com/origami-Boxes 
> 

> If you're interested in the snack. Here's its entry in Wikipedia:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobao 
Thank you for the reference. The Wikipedia article refers to 
http://invitadoinvierno.com/desserts-pastry/sobaos-from-cantabria/ where a 
video shows how to make the soboa.
In particular, at 2:34 the folding of the box is shown.

I cannot see which kind of paper they use. It looks a bit more sturdy than the 
baking paper we usually use. I assume it should be a) paper suitable for food, 
and b) paper resistant to head at 150-200 Celsius.

Regards,
Hans

[Origami] Translation of Ranma Zushiki?

[Hans Dybkjær]

In the book Ranma Zushiki from 1734, one of the Wood block prints displays a 
number of origami models. Above the picture there is a Japanese text. 
Is there a translation of this text? And does it even say anything relevant, or 
is it a poem?
The picture may e.g. be seen here: 
http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/ranma-zushiki-designs-for-decorative-transoms-493254
It is picture no. 14, or the third last. 

Best regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk
Society: foldning.dk

[Origami] "Reverse fold", meaning?

[Hans Dybkjær]

While reading about origami, I suddenly realized I don't know how "reverse 
fold" is interpreted in English. More specifically, the word "reverse" has (at 
least) two translations into the Danish language:
- "omvendt", a noun meaning opposite, i.e. the result of the move is the 
opposite of what it was.
- "omvende" (or the shorter "vende"), a verb meaning to make something go the 
other way (eventually resulting in something being opposite), i.e. the move 
actively makes the fold become opposite of what is was.

Maybe in English you melt the two meanings together. However, when translating 
literally I need to choose one.
Any thoughts?

The translator of Harbin's Origami 1 opted for "omvendt fold", but most other 
origami books in Danish either avoids calling it anything, or use "knæk" or 
more often one of the specific terms "inderknæk" or "yderknæk" for inside and 
outside reverse folds, respectively. "Knæk" would mean bend, crack, fold, 
crease. Usually, the Danish word "fold" would be used (as in English it is both 
a verb and a noun), but a "knæk" is more forceful and drastic, and hence seems 
useful for this situation.

Regards,
Hans 

Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk
Society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Langorigami.com 4.0

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 10 Mar 2016, at 00:45, Robert Lang  wrote:
> 
> Well, it's now ready to go, so I invite you all to check it out!
> 
> http://langorigami.com
> […]
> There's still stuff to add (more journal articles, I'm planning), 

Looks beautiful and is easy to navigate. Thank you for making the great effort.
Incidentally, I looked up you references and saw that Origami^6 is has been 
available for some time. However, not yet as Kindle. When will that be? 
I’ve Origami 4 and 5 for Kindle, and they are great to read, making notes in 
etc. on an iPad pro, so I don’t really want a paper version if I can get a 
Kindle version.
For some reason I’ve also Origami^4 in paper, and the iPad reading is so much 
easier to read, search (visually, or via text search), make notes in, etc.

Regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk <http://papirfoldning.dk/>
Society: foldning.dk <http://foldning.dk/>

Re: [Origami] crease pattern data structure

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 14 Feb 2016, at 02:12, Robert Lang  wrote:
> 
> -- a Crease is an object with pointers to its endpoint Vertices and
> pointers to the 1 or 2 incident Polygons;
a) In terms of folding sequences, many crease lines are often part of the same 
fold. 
Is et meaningful to represent this, or is it better to let the program compute 
that?

b) The assignment of Mountain, Valley, and Neutral, would that be part of the 
input?
(Neutral are unfolded crease lines, “unused” in the model, but either an 
artefact of the folding sequence or intentionally introduced for their 
decorative effects).

c) Having neutral creases, non-planar graphs become possible, since a neutral 
line may cross other lines in points which will not be a vertex of the final 
model.
Or is it better to represent them explicitly, and then derive the property that 
it does not affect the other crease’s position in the final model?

Regards,
    Hans


Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk <http://papirfoldning.dk/>
Society: foldning.dk <http://foldning.dk/>

Re: [Origami] Mistake in Creative Origami by Kasahara?

[Hans Dybkjær]

> Den 22. jan. 2016 kl. 21.53 skrev Gerardo @neorigami.com 
> :
> 
> I recently received a Spanish copy of Creative Origami (Papiroflexia
> Creativa) by Kunihiko Kasahara. The first chapter is about birds. In it
> there's a page with the diagrams for both the male and female mandarin
> duck. In the book it says that the diagrams on the left are for the male
> mandarin duck and the ones on the right are for the female.
The English paperback edition, fifth printing October 1983, page 29, says 
"drake" (male duck) about the leftmost, and "duck" about the rightmost. And you 
are right to wonder, because it is the male mandarin duck that should have the 
strutting, colorful tail. So unless Japanese mandarin ducks are completely 
different from the imported ones we see in Europe, there is a persistent error 
in the book.
Nevertheless, it is a lovely pair.
Regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk
Society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Flat rectangular models with color change?

[Hans Dybkjær]

(Sorry if you see this twice - I tried to send first time seven hours ago, and 
don’t see it yet.)
On 17 Sep 2015, at 23:42, Gerardo @neorigami.com <http://neorigami.com/> 
mailto:gera...@neorigami.com>> wrote:
> 
> looking for origami flat rectangular models with color change
> are openly taught through the web.
Another example: http://papirfoldning.dk/diagrammer/diagrammer.html?page=iris01 
<http://papirfoldning.dk/diagrammer/diagrammer.html?page=iris01>
(model Simon Andersen, my description)
and the earless versions of: 
http://papirfoldning.dk/en/projekter/kreative-fjaes01.html 
<http://papirfoldning.dk/en/projekter/kreative-fjaes01.html>
(idea Simon Andersen, face builder by me)

Friedrich Fröbel made a series of square, geometric patterns for kindergarten 
use, calling it “folded forms of beauty”. The intention was for it to be a 
framework that lends itself easily to explore new patterns.
See e.g.  Kunihiko Kasahara “Extreme origami”, Sterling, 2002.
Taught on the internet by Leyla Torres here: 
http://www.origamispirit.com/2011/05/windmill-base-variations-video/ 
<http://www.origamispirit.com/2011/05/windmill-base-variations-video/>
in one of her many wonderful descriptions of origami models.

> What's important is that the final model ends
> up being rectangular, including a square. Flags have those characteristics
> but I wish to avoid that theme. I'd prefer a geometric model instead of a
> figurative one but you can tell me about them both.
> 
> Does that type of origami have a name? Is there a list of models of that
> type somewhere on the web?

Dave Mitchell calls it “Origami Alfresco: sketching without pen or ink”, at 
least that is the title of his book with many such ones (Watertrade, 2000, 44 
pages).
He describes it as “drawn without pen and ink, using the contrast between the 
white and coloured sides of standard origami paper.i”
Not all his models, many are irregular. The models are pretty simple and 
stylised, focusing on folding sequences that are well suited for performing the 
origami for others.

Kunihiko Kasahara calls it “cube art: painting pictures with origami”. “Cube 
art” was called so because they are made from a windmill-like base with pockets 
so that the flaps that are otherwise tucked away to form the square of the 
painting, may be tucked into pockets of four other square paintings to form a 
cube. Kasahara: “The Art and Wonder of Origami”, Apple, 2004.
Square examples on pp 101-121, 64-65, and more.
The motives are mainly figurative and includes the zodiacs. In the best 
Japanese classic origami tradition, some examples have an actually painted eye 
or such.
pp 70-71 displays geometrical triangular “kaleidoscope” patterns and hexagonal 
“snowflakes”.

Mitchell and Kasahara thus agree on calling the technique “drawing”, 
“sketching”, or “painting” with origami. But not necessarily restricted to a 
rectangular “canvas”.

If you use one-color paper, leaving out the colour change requirement, you get 
“reliefs” rather than “paintings”. Most tessellations would fall into this 
category. Tessellations from semitransparent paper is akin to another art form, 
“glass painting”, in that new patterns/motives may appear when backlighting 
them.

By the way, all of the above books are great reading and folding (the extreme 
origami even a must-own book).

Best regards,
Hans



Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk <http://papirfoldning.dk/>
Society: foldning.dk <http://foldning.dk/>

Re: [Origami] Flat rectangular models with color change?

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 17 Sep 2015, at 23:42, Gerardo @neorigami.com  wrote:
> 
> looking for origami flat rectangular models with color change
> are openly taught through the web.
Another example: http://papirfoldning.dk/diagrammer/diagrammer.html?page=iris01 
<http://papirfoldning.dk/diagrammer/diagrammer.html?page=iris01>
(model Simon Andersen, my description)
and the earless versions of: 
http://papirfoldning.dk/en/projekter/kreative-fjaes01.html 
<http://papirfoldning.dk/en/projekter/kreative-fjaes01.html>
(idea Simon Andersen, face builder by me)

Friedrich Fröbel made a series of square, geometric patterns for kindergarten 
use, calling it “folded forms of beauty”. The intention was for it to be a 
framework that lends itself easily to explore new patterns.
See e.g.  Kunihiko Kasahara “Extreme origami”, Sterling, 2002.
Taught on the internet by Leyla Torres here: 
http://www.origamispirit.com/2011/05/windmill-base-variations-video/ 
<http://www.origamispirit.com/2011/05/windmill-base-variations-video/>
in one of her many wonderful descriptions of origami models.

> What's important is that the final model ends
> up being rectangular, including a square. Flags have those characteristics
> but I wish to avoid that theme. I'd prefer a geometric model instead of a
> figurative one but you can tell me about them both.
> 
> Does that type of origami have a name? Is there a list of models of that
> type somewhere on the web?

Dave Mitchell calls it “Origami Alfresco: sketching without pen or ink”, at 
least that is the title of his book with many such ones (Watertrade, 2000, 44 
pages).
He describes it as “drawn without pen and ink, using the contrast between the 
white and coloured sides of standard origami paper.i”
Not all his models, many are irregular. The models are pretty simple and 
stylised, focusing on folding sequences that are well suited for performing the 
origami for others.

Kunihiko Kasahara calls it “cube art: painting pictures with origami”. “Cube 
art” was called so because they are made from a windmill-like base with pockets 
so that the flaps that are otherwise tucked away to form the square of the 
painting, may be tucked into pockets of four other square paintings to form a 
cube. Kasahara: “The Art and Wonder of Origami”, Apple, 2004.
Square examples on pp 101-121, 64-65, and more.
The motives are mainly figurative and includes the zodiacs. In the best 
Japanese classic origami tradition, some examples have an actually painted eye 
or such.
pp 70-71 displays geometrical triangular “kaleidoscope” patterns and hexagonal 
“snowflakes”.

Mitchell and Kasahara thus agree on calling the technique “drawing”, 
“sketching”, or “painting” with origami. But not necessarily restricted to a 
rectangular “canvas”.

If you use one-color paper, leaving out the colour change requirement, you get 
“reliefs” rather than “paintings”. Most tessellations would fall into this 
category. Tessellations from semitransparent paper is akin to another art form, 
“glass painting”, in that new patterns/motives may appear when backlighting 
them.

By the way, all of the above books are great reading and folding (the extreme 
origami even a must-own book).

Best regards,
Hans



Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk <http://papirfoldning.dk/>
Society: foldning.dk <http://foldning.dk/>

Re: [Origami] Fwd: The name "waterbomb"? (FWD for Yahoo user Laura Rozenberg)

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 14/06/15 04.54, cafe...@pacific.net wrote:
65 years ago, when I first learned origami in first grade at Whittier 
Elementary School in Berkeley California, water bombs were literally 
water bombs.


We folded them, blew them up, filled them with water (not always 
totally successfully) and threw them.


Messy, wet and really fun.
Exactly, except my experience is from Gørslev, a Danish country side 
school some 45 years ago.
Today, when I teach the model children politely fold along, until I 
finally tell them how to use it: then their faces brighten up, eagerly.


The Danish 1944 origami book "Folderier" ("Foldings") calls the model 
"Tærningen" ("the cube"). A few later books do not include the model.  
Not until Robert Harbins "Origami", translated and published in Danish 
1968, it is called "Vandbombe" ("Waterbomb") in origami books, though it 
sadly fails to explain why. My own 2008 book "Origami: Teknik og 
tradition" illustrates a splashed out waterbomb on a wet wall (for some 
reason my wife vehemently objected to being the illustrative target).


In contrast to Gershon (cited earlier in this thread) I've always found 
it great that in origami, the known bombs explode in water or 
butterflies and are pure fun. And yes, I know about there being persons 
objecting to the term "butterfly bomb" due to some soldiers' experiences 
during the now ancient World War II, but these connotations do not exist 
in Danish, so we happily call them "sommerfuglebomber".


Regards,
Hans


Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk
society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Where do you press the traditional frog to make it jump?

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 28/12/14 09.55, Anna wrote:

Jorge E. Jaramillo asked how to make a traditional frog jump.

At minute 3:48 of this video http://youtu.be/rc9lVHvfzMY you see how to
press the back of an Origami frog to make it jump.

That is also one of my favorites, together with the business card frog 
(in one of its many variations) as that is the best use I've found of mine.
Maybe "press the back" should be interpreted as "press the back end". 
What do our English speaking friends say?

Anyway, I agree with Tavin's demonstration and Jorge's statement.
I usually explain to press or flick quickly down at the back edge or end 
of the frog.

See my old photo-sequence of the jumping frog:
http://papirfoldning.dk/diagrammer/diagrammer.html?page=froe03b&lang=en
Jorge wrote:

pressing the "lower step" makes it work fine
I'm sure I have to press the "upper step", that is the behind-most edge 
of the back, not the "lower edge" as in nearest to the ground, as 
illustrated in my photo. But maybe I just misunderstand the reference 
made here.


Happy jumping,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Doing origami with aluminium sheet for embossing?

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 17/11/14 01.28, Gerardo @neorigami.com wrote:

I bought a sheet of aluminium for embossing. It's thicker than aluminium
foil for the kitchen. Who of you have tried origami with these sheets
before?
I once tried folding from beer cans: 
http://papirfoldning.dk/ugensfold/ugensfold.html?page=2011-17&lang=en
While probably your embossing aluminium is more durable, I suspect many 
of the same problems and strengths apply.

1. What tips can you give me when working with it?

The can-metal wears out after just one fold back and forth, so I had to 
avoid precreasing and to avoid reversing any existing fold.

Instead:
- Study the model to see where the parts should end, and push them 
directly there.
- Locks often require forcing the paper while tucking some flap in. Not 
good. Instead, rely on the metal holding a fold in the extreme, i.e. 
just push it into the position where you need it.
- The exception beeing curve locks, i.e. those where a flap is locked by 
curving the flap perpendicular to the flap. The typical example is the 
outer triangle flap of the traditional drinking cup 
http://papirfoldning.dk/diagrammer/diagrammer.html?page=drikkebaeger01&lang=en


If you study the boat on my page, you will see that while it resembles a 
traditional boat (which is usually folded by turning it inside out, a 
no-go here), it has been modified to comply with the constraints of the 
metal properties.


How thick is your metal sheet?
Some time ago I bought a sheet of copper, thinking the softer metal 
would behave better than aluminium. Unfortunately, this sheet is awfully 
thick, 0.3 mm as I remember. Also, I have not yet tried to fold it.

2. I was thinking about trying to fold Kamiya's Golden Retriever with a
square of that material. What do you think? Is it possible? Would it be
doable with a 25 x 25 cm (10 x 10 in) square?
I don't know the model, but if it can be "pushed together", then yes. 
Maybe modify the folding.

3. I was also thinking that I shouldn't try to waste my time with
precreasing for references. Instead of that I should just try to find the
reference points with a ruler and mark them with a pen with ink for
example. Is that a good idea?
- If landmarks are needed, it is definitely better to draw them than to 
precrease.

4. Should I think about using some sort of instruments for folding it (like
a ball-tip embossing tool for premarking or  pliers maybe)?

- Some kind of scoring may help you control the creases while folding.
How hard to score? You will have to experiment with your sheet.

Best regards,
Hans


Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk

Re: [Origami] What's the right term?

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 04/10/14 20.14, Robert J. Lang wrote:

what do you think we should use
as a short, ideally single-word descriptor, of the object and the person,
and why?
I have also pondered what to call these things, and have no definite 
answers. But at least here are some more words.


For some reason people often make an analogy to music. I do think 
another analogy is better: that of cooking.
- Cooking is clearly an art (don't say it's not, after all we have Noma 
right here in Copenhagen). Even if it is often called gastronomy if you 
think of cooking as an art.

- Cooking can also be seen as a craft.
- Like origami, but unlike music, you are interested in the end result, 
not in the performance.
- Cooking is often presented as performances in tv shows and live. 
However, in contrast to music, but like origami, you would never want to 
wait through and watch the more complex pieces in their entirety.
- The cook invents and designs new meals, applying materials and colours 
in certain sequences that may be reproduced. The cook may invent or 
design new sequences for the cooking process.
- The cook may or may not write down the recipes, and describe how to 
perform them.

- Recipes may be described, lay-outed etc. by other people.
- Cooks may cook according to recipes that are not their own.
- The end result is a physical object, usually of ephemeral nature, but 
can also be more lasting for displays. (Most origami I do is very 
ephemeral as well, lasting only during my 
teaching/folding/performance/design process).
- The recipes may be interpreted in many ways. A master cook may make 
inspired meals from mediocre recipes, and vice versa.
To me, the level of interpretation of origami diagrams is more like that 
of cooking according to recipes than that of playing according to music. 
That might of course just be due to me being a better cook than a 
musician ;-)
Thanks by the way, to Dennis for bringing the notion of interpretation 
into the discussion.
- Some cooks use scientific frontier methods in their cooking (cf. 
molecular gastronomy).
- Great cooks plan ahead and experiment with details of the recipes 
before cooking the actual meal. "Pre-studies".
- The difference between a great meal and a poor meal lies in the 
artistry and technical competence of the cook.


All this brings me to say, that taking in terms by analogy from other 
areas is likely to be awkward. Who would like to call folders for 
"cooks" even if it *is* a great analogy?


The general terms of design, designer, artist, art, and artwork applies 
nicely to origami. Personally I prefer "design" to "composition", even 
if "composition" fits nicely with music, painting, and, yes, cooking.

However, "composition" is something a painting has, not something it is.

In music you distinguish the composer and the musician, and both may or 
may not be artists (trust me, when I play, I'm no where near being an 
artist in its spiritual, intellectual sense; and a very poor one indeed 
in the word's prosaic sense).
The cook, or musician, is the folder. Whether that folder is an artist, 
and the end result an artwork, is more like an orthogonal pretension. 
Just like gastronomy is more pretentious than cooking, even though you 
do the same thing.


The recipe designer, or composer, is, well, the origami designer. A 
design, and a designer, in this sense is an artist, like Erik Mortensen 
in fashion and Escoffier or Bocuse in cooking. "Design" in this sense is 
not cold, but creative, warm, humanistic.


Currently I prefer to use the words "Design" and "designer" of the 
abstract model, and "fold" and "folder" of the concrete model.
I acknowledge Robert's notion that a "model" is often something you have 
on the way to the final result (sometimes even in the sense model = 
original, like when you make a painting of a person). But maybe the 
problem is in insisting on using the same term for the object and the 
actor.

Galen T Pickett wrote:

"Piece" is a perfectly good way to describe the complex nexus of ideas that
model and fold and composition gets at?
and I like that term. Only I have another concern in that I miss a good 
equivalent in Danish; the terms design, art, model, and fold have good 
and plain equivalents in Danish, and though we have a direct translation 
of "piece" ("stykke"), it is a bit off in the sense intended here. In 
Danish it sounds weird to talk about an "origamistykke", even if it is 
perfectly acceptable to talk about a "musikstykke".
Another option for the fold/final concrete model could be "opus" (in 
Danish "værk" or more high-strung "opus"). That might actually catch 
some of the pretension of being "art" that Robert tries to capture; and 
indeed is used by Robert on his own homepage when presen

Re: [Origami] The Perfect Square

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 16/06/14 21.48, Ben Fritzson wrote:

I agree with Tom, but would add that it's only reliable if you're sure of
the current end of the roll.
... I would recommend rolling out (but not cutting) around twice what
you think you'll need and folding the paper back along itself, being sure
to give yourself slightly more than a square's worth.
... Then, use Tom's approach, bisecting one of
the corners that falls on the new fold line.
Almost as how I would do it, except that I like to avoid the diagonal 
fold from the bisection.
Instead I exploit that in the roll itself I have the perfect template: 
Just place the cut-of piece perpendicularly using the roll end as a 
guide, align the end of the paper with one edge of the roll, and fold 
using the other edge as a guide.
If you have got two rolls, and the end is already ok, then just use the 
other roll as a template for the cutting off squares of the first.
This method of using two pieces of paper perpendicular to each other, is 
usually more accurate than folding the diagonal.
For large rolls I do it on the floor (which in our house luckily is flat 
and smooth).
I do this often when cutting squares from A4. If I have to do many cuts, 
I fold over the slip of the first piece, but instead of cutting it off 
here and now, I use it as a template for the rest.


Best regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk

[Origami] Dilbert comic mentions origami

[Hans Dybkjær]

See http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2014-06-04

Regards,
Hans


Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk
society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Samurai Helmet/People- Size

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 27/05/14 15.56, Rosemary wrote:
Would anyone be able to recommend the size of square to make a 
"people-size" ( adults) origami samurai helmet?  Looking to have some 
fun with a class this week.  Thanking you in advance!
In March this year we did a workshop at J-POPCON.dk, a large event with 
Japan-inspired cosplay and anime.
I was wearing our society t-shirt and a samurai helmet: 
http://foldning.dk/blog/2014/04/j-popcon-28-30-marts-2014/20140328_161921/


The helmet was folded from Kraft gift wrap paper. I used a square of the 
full 70 cm (27.5 inches) width of the paper, and I used 2 pieces of 
paper back to back, both because of the colors and because it is 
sturdier. The red/gold was great, and I folded some more for people 
volunteering in the reception and elsewhere.


My head is pretty large (hat size 63 cm = xxl, medium heads are 57 cm). 
I guess such people could do with something a bit smaller, but then 
again many of them are women, and they might have just a *bit* more hair 
than I do :-)
And anyway, the 45 degree angles of the hat means that the size really 
fit well with many smaller heads, too. It did with the extra ones I folded.


It is fun, good luck,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Origami Digest, Vol 96, Issue 15

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 18/04/14 17.47, John Scully wrote:

Dianne wrote:

"One square no cuts no glue seems to be the traditional definition of
Origami someone decided upon at some point in time.
I have not read no tools...but always made the assumption no tools were to
be used."

As far as I know, those "rules" were applied some time in the mid-twentieth
century.  Remember, in Japan Origami, Kirigami and kusadama are all aspects
of the same art form.  And the further you go back to the origins of
origami, the more the lines blurred.


John Smith has made an analysis of the origami space. In "origami profiles"
http://www.nickrobinson.info/clients/smithy/profiles.php
he uses profile diagrams to describe how different folders may define 
their limits of what origami is, and gives his own profile as well as 
traditional Japanese (which includes cuts and glue, as John Scully 
indicates) and a dedicated modular folder.
And yes, the "The red-footed, duck billed Curlicue" is covered by his 
profile spaces.


If you follow the link, you might be interested in other of his 
articles, such as "Origami, art and education" or "Pureland". Please 
note that the individual articles contain further links, even if they 
are a bit subtle to see.


Best regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk
society: foldning.dk/en

Re: [Origami] NO - sorta - Magic folding Crane

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 28/02/14 19.12, Dee and Bob wrote:

http://havepaperwilltravel.blogspot.com/2014/02/origamagic-crane.html

Michael

THIS IS AWESOME! At least to look at - has any one purchased one? At $26 I
don't know that I would want to buy one spur of the moment without knowing
for sure if it works as advertised ...

Dee

Impressive. And I'm pretty sure it works, without having seen it.
After reading this mail, I did this: 
https://plus.google.com/109597063120925150364/posts/D5RA9DWCffX

Not quite as professional, but the principle is there.

Regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk
society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] (no subject)

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 08/01/14 23.15, Linda Mihara wrote:

Does anyone know of a World Record Origami Modular being built?  There are 
several origami animals on the World Record books, but no modular listed.  
Thanks!
The special kind of modulars called 3D origami often needs 200-500 
pieces, and one case used 35.000 modules: 
http://www.origami-resource-center.com/origami-furniture.html#Fumi


However, a candidate for the all-time winner of the most modules are 
probably the business card modulars, among them the Menger's sponge, in 
a project directed by Jeannine Mosely using 66.048 modules. See bottom 
of http://www.origami-resource-center.com/business-card-origami.html


Regards,
Hans


Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk
society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Need a model to make a point

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 03/12/13 19.20, dawn_...@yahoo.com wrote:

I'm looking for a simple model (to teach to a general audience, not to folders) that can 
folded by several different sequences. I'd something that folks can enjoy folding without 
frustration, and when they are finished, think, "That's pretty cool." The idea 
is that there can be more than one way to arrive at the same result. But I would like a 
nice result besides.
What about the traditional lily (aka iris). It can be folded either by 
doing the square base and squash, or by the waterbomb base and squash.
At this point the models look completely different, and yet after the 
petal folds, they end up being the very same model.
Most well-known is the square base approach, such as 
http://en.origami-club.com/flowers/iris/iris/ (arbitrary first result 
from google).
One version of the waterbomb approach: 
http://www.zenhome.it/zen-origami-iris.htm (another arbitrary first 
result from google).


Of course, even folding the square base can be done in many different 
ways, including:
- point to point, point to point, up and squash, turn, up and squash 
(Harbin's method)

- waterbomb and invert (dual method)
- point to point, unfold, turn, side to side, unfold, side to side, 
collapse (precrease method)
- side to side, closed corner down, turn, other corner down, open and 
squash other way (Honda turnabout)
- point to point, guesstimate center, collapse corners, squash flat 
(fast method)


Each method has its merit, pending purpose. Some are easy to teach, or 
easy to diagram, or leaves the right creases for the subsequent folds, 
or are fast, or just fascinating. None is a winner on all points. 
Different folders have their own favorites.


Best regards and good luck,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
society: foldning.dk
homepage: papirfoldning.dk

Re: [Origami] United Star or German Star on Steroids

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 31/10/13 00.35, Kathy Knapp wrote:

Saw this through facebook, and for those who like to fold the German Star / 
Moravian Star, this may be a challenge. 
http://www.cchobby.dk/ide/12042-julepynt-i-papir.aspx#.UnA8E1ED12o.facebook


Yes, I have seen those at a number of hobby exhibitions here in Denmark.
Also, I know a person who weaves similar items from gift wrap band, 
three of them displayed here: 
http://glorigami.dk/en/gallerier/stjerner.html (click the icons top 
right to see the other two).

Best regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk
society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Query Regarding Traditional Crane Models

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 15/08/13 19.56, Gerardo @neorigami.com wrote:

Larry asked if the "flapping crane" was a traditional model.

To my knowledge, there's the "flapping bird" and the "traditional crane".
Both of them are traditional models. Although its folding process is almost
the same, only the one with the thinner limbs is considered a crane, while
the one that flaps is considered a generic bird.
Those two are the most well-known, yes. However, there is also a nice 
flapping crane which combines the two, and I'm pretty sure that is the 
one Larry refers to.
The classic book "The Magic of Origami" by Alice Gray and Kunihiko 
Kasahara, 1977 revised edition 1985, has it as "A more elegant form" of 
the flapping bird on page 86 which is marked "Traditional"; I believe 
they view it as a simple reworking of the crane with a feature from the 
flapping bird, but it is not clear from the text.


Best regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk
society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Turn-over arrow?

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 22/07/13 19.20, Meenakshi Mukerji wrote:

Other than the points already discussed I also make a distinction between "turn over 
laterally" vs "turn over vertically".  The results may be quite different based on 
the symmetry of what you are folding.  So the arrow head may not always point to the next step.  
The purpose of the arrow anyway is not to point to the next step.  Please see what I mean here:
http://www.amazon.com/Origami-Inspirations-Meenakshi-Mukerji/dp/1568815840/

Click "Look Inside: and go to page 5.
You are right, and as Gerardo points out, it is also in Lang's paper. 
But also note that I would always point the arrow towards the next step.
In the horizontal turnover, it points right because the next step is to 
the right, or in the beginning of the next row. However, in the 
free-flowing format where the steps flow around on the page (I like 
those, looks very elegant though some people say they become confused), 
the horizontal turnover points *left* iff the next step is the left 
(well, like Anna I can't say I have seen every diagrammer's take on this).
Likewise, I'm sure I would let the vertical turnover arrow normally 
point down as this is most close to the normal reading direction, but if 
the next step is above the current (some reading cultures have that, and 
in free-flowing format it often happens), I would like let it point up; 
that is, if I would ever use it. More likely I would stick to the to me 
normal one and let people infer intuitively what happened.


Directions are always difficult. Left- and right-handedness come into 
play, as does the pop-in pop-out perspective ambiguity.
In your above-mentioned page 5 (nice instructions, by the way), you 
write "fold towards yourself" for the valley fold: Interestingly, I 
advice origami students to fold *away* from themselves when making a 
valley fold, because they usually fold on a flat surface and I find that 
provides better control than trying to fold towards yourself. And 
describe the mountain fold to mean to turn over the paper, valley fold 
away from themselves, and turn back again; this since you physically 
cannot make a mountain fold on a hard surface, and folding in the air 
(as your instructions linguistically imply) is not precise enough for 
most people and folds. But of course I understand your meaning.


In this sense, except for pinch folds, the mountain fold is an 
artificial construct living in the diagrams only.
Or for that matter, it is the other way round: place the paper on the 
table. Make a valley fold, in any direction, flat. Look at the fold. 
What do you see? The *mountain* fold, i.e. the outside of the fold. Only 
if you subsequently open up the paper, you can see the otherwise 
concealed valley. In this sense all folds are mountain folds...  All 
this just to show that the terms "mountain" and "valley" folds 
themselves are arbitrary labels depending on a specific conception of 
the viewpoint. They only become intuitive because you can see for 
yourselves the position of the paper in the before and after steps.


This is like the concept of arrows on parking signs along the roads. In 
Denmark, a downwards pointing arrow on such a sign means that the 
parking instructions are valid on you side of the sign. This because we 
perceive the sign lying flat on the ground, as if we ran it over. 
However, I have heard that in China (someone confirm or correct me) the 
same downwards arrow means that the instructions are valid on the other 
side of the sign. This because they perceive the sign as if they look up 
on it, as if it was flat on the ceiling.


Best regards and happy diagramming,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk

Re: [Origami] A person that makes diagrams?

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 22/07/13 00.49, Gerardo @neorigami.com skrev:

This might look like a silly question but please bear in mind that English
isn't my first language. How do you call the person that makes diagrams? I
want to be sure because it's part of the copyright page of the book I've
been working on.

I would call it "diagrammer" (my first language is Danish).
However, when giving copyright credits I write e.g.:
Model: Traditional   Diagram: Hans Dybkjær
thus designating the objects in question rather than the acts.

I also REALLY hope you'll help me with my question about the direction of
the turn-over arrow. I want to be completely sure because two people have
given me very different answers =S

Such arrows must always point towards the new situation.

Best regards,
Hans

papirfoldning.dk
society: foldning.dk

[Origami] In memory of Simon Andersen

[Hans Dybkjær]

I'm sad to say that Simon Andersen died recently, only 66 years old. He 
was a great origami artist with a profound insight into paper and 
folding, and he was a good and generous friend. Some of you have seen 
his boxes of charming and original origami models, and may have 
experienced his harsh reactions when he frustrated over you not being so 
totally immersed in origami as he was. I hope it will be his generosity 
and insights that will remain in our memories.


Simon deeply felt that origami should be freely given and freely used, 
and always loved to analyze foldings and praise great models, whether 
his own great designs or others. But also privately he was generous, out 
of a limited, public pension he would give thousands of Danish crowns to 
those in greater need than himself.


I have written a page to his memory: 
http://papirfoldning.dk/en/simons/mindeord.html
This includes a link to a diagram I made this weekend of a "white bird", 
a pure and simple design that catches the essence of a small bird in 
just a few strokes. Typical Simon. (The diagram is in svg format, will 
only work in modern browsers).


Scattered on these pages you will also find other of his very original 
models. You will see models where the paper itself plays an essential role.


Enjoy, and happy folding,
    Hans


Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.d
society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Our CPs haz been analyzed

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 02/04/13 20.09, Robert J. Lang wrote:

Ken Yamamoto and Yoshihiro Yamazaki have analyzed the statistical properties
of crease patterns by me, Jason Ku, and Satoshi Kamiya in the Journal of the
Physical Society of Japan (free download):

http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/82/044803

Spoiler alert: our CPs are not statistically the same as crumpling.

Whew! Glad we got that cleared up.

(Of course, I know there are many folders out there who would disagree with
that conclusion.)
Well, yes, following one of your more complex crease patterns, the first 
attempt(s) might very well turn out quite indistinguishable from 
crumbling ;-)


I do use crumbling in some origami works, but mainly as a means to 
change the properties of the paper before folding.


The empirical discovery of Yamamoto and Yamazaki that the 
"successive-folding process" leads to a lognormal behavior sounds 
plausible. Intuitively the number of cells is doubled - at least locally 
- with each fold?


Best regards,
    Hans


Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk

Re: [Origami] A strip of paper

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 21/03/13 19.17, Leyla Torres skrev:

The snake shown here is definitively made with a strip:
http://www.origamispirit.com/2012/09/a-temptation-to-fold-paper/

But the double hearts shown here are made with a piece of paper 5:1
http://www.origamispirit.com/2013/01/a-double-origami-heart-for-your-soulmate/

Would you say that this last figure is made with a *strip* of paper?


Relating to the Danish translation "strimmel", I would say yes to both.
For some models I use *strips* of paper made from half of A6 (not A7, 
the other half), that is 52.5 x 14.8 mm, or 1:3.
Also, the *strip* cut of from A4 to get a square, this strip is 210 x 
8.6 mm, or roughly 5:2.


I cannot say how short a strip may be. It might depend on the context, 
e.g. if you have 10 strips of 1 cm paper lined up, the longest being 10 
cm long, and then decreasing in steps of 1 cm, you might argue that it 
is natural to refer to "a set of strips (of 1 cm width)" even if the 
shortest one is only 1 cm and thus a square which in isolation would not 
be referred to as a strip.


Best regards,
    Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Sharing diagram source files

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 20/02/13 02.18, Chris Lott wrote:

But I was thinking
that it would be a really useful learning experience to be able to
poke around with some existing diagram source files...just to see how
they are put together and potentially to avoid reinventing the wheel
with common elements. I'm using Inkscape (and occasionally
Illustrator-- I can't decide which makes more sense for me),
I use inkscape because I found it easier for a beginner (easier than 
illustrator, anyway), after some years of use it technically still 
covers my needs, it's free of charge.

I would be happy to hear you put of a page of references somewhere.

My set of symbols: http://papirfoldning.dk/temp/symbols_origami.svg 
(updated today).
An older example: 
http://papirfoldning.dk/images/diagram/vase05/kinesiskvase-a.svg

And a pretty new example: http://papirfoldning.dk/temp/twistedsquarebowl.svg
(for a book due autumn 2013).
For the latter example, if you open it in Inkscape, you must open the 
layers dialog to unlock the layers.
Note how the English text is in a separate layer. Danish text is in a 
hidden layer, making it easy to produce the diagram in another language. 
Note also that it uses a filter to provide the metallic look of the 
inside (as I intend to use them for candles...). I had to use clipping 
in order to cut off the rough edges; it would be much easier just to use 
the linear gradients I usually apply.


Another very useful source is jo nakashimas youtube videos. At 
http://www.youtube.com/user/jonakashima he has a group of 6 excellent 
inkscape diagramming tutorials (as well as a whole range of other 
origami videos).


Best regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk
Danish Origami Society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Which of this two is the step?

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 16/01/13 16.50, Gerardo @neorigami.com wrote:

The confusion is because I'm taking the symbols (arrows and lines) as the
step, in that sense it would be 2 and 7, but he understands the step as how
the paper is shown, in that case indeed the steps would be 3 and 8.

What do you think? Which of the two options should we leave in the diagrams?

I do understand this confusion. In a sense, the step is the transition 
between the two images rather than any single of them.
When drawing diagrams where each drawing includes folding symbols for 
the next step, my understanding is that the step belongs to the drawing 
that has the symbols and (most) of the explanatory text. That would be 
your "2 and 7" above. This even if the next drawing may have a text that 
refers to the finishing of the step such as "Like this; note how flap A 
now aligns with point B".
I strongly believe that this is conventionally so in almost all diagrams 
I've seen: "Please repeat step 2" would refer to repeating the actions 
described by the symbols and text included with the drawing with the 
number 2, which depicts the model before doing step 2.


However, I have often made photograms, i.e. simple sequences of photos. 
These do not (in my version) include symbols.
In this case, the explanation of the step is placed with the result 
image. For an example in English, please view 
http://papirfoldning.dk/en/diagrammer/Lilje02.html. And then I would 
refer to the result image and its text as the step.
So in this case the "Please repeat step 2" would refer to the text 
accompanying the image that shows the model after doing step 2. Of 
course that image (and the accompanying text) is numbered 2.


You can imagine the confusion I ran into at the time where I added 
symbols to an existing photogram. I had to shift all texts one picture 
"to the left", as it was clear to me that the text would have to be with 
the symbols, and that this would define the step.


This possible confusion of what the step refers somehow blending into 
both the before and after drawings is also reflected in the list of 
advices we all give to beginners: "When you do a step, remember to look 
ahead to the next image".


Hope this sheds some additional light to you question,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk
society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Happy Holidays :)

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 27/12/12 13.28, Sanja Srbljinovic skrev:

On the 10th of December 2012
Croatian Origami Society has been registered.
http://www.facebook.com/HrvatskoOrigamiDrustvo


Congratulations! Maybe we will meet in Zaragoza, or sometime in Croatia.
A happy New Year to you and the Croatian Origami Society,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
chair of foldning.dk, the Danish Origami Society

Re: [Origami] repeat behind symbol?

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 10/12/12 14.30, art & design skrev:
if the explanation is missing, or if you know, you are diagramming for 
conservative folders,  it is necessary indeed, to use the common style.
Except that for the "repeat behind" symbol there is not an agreed 
"common style". Some, like Harbin, use an arrow with a cross-stroke 
repeated the number of times to repeat the fold. Some people prefer this 
(Anna wrote that in the current thread), other people dislike it 
(including myself, and as far as I remember, Lang's seminal paper on 
diagramming symbols): the arrow head indicates movement, many 
repetitions makes it cluttered and difficult to count, and there is no 
natural way to indicate which steps to repeat. For these reasons several 
diagrammers have suggested, and use, a call-out instead, which solves 
all of this and also seems pretty intuitive.


I agree with Evi that the art nature of diagramming allows you (or 
rather: makes it necessary for you) to use whatever symbols work best 
for the art work and readers/folders/users of your diagram.


Best regards,
 Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk
society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] repeat behind symbol?

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 09/12/12 12.18, Nick Robinson skrev:

For some years I’ve been using a symbol for “repeat behind” which has been 
pointed out to me is non-standard! It’s a fold behind arrow with a dash through 
it (and optionally, as shown right) which steps to
repeat).

First thing: I have no trouble understanding your symbol.

The "repeat" symbol seems in general to be one of the least standardized 
symbols. Probably because Harbin's version has been so much criticized, 
leaving us with no natural standard here; I don't like it either. Many 
diagrammers then use som kind of call-out (an often dotted line from the 
point of interest to some symbol or textbox) indicating which steps to 
repeat and how many times, but often leaves the problem of what to do if 
you just want to indicate "repeat this flap" or "repeat behind" in the 
same drawing as the step to be repeated. Montroll solves this by writing 
it in the caption, but what if you would like the drawings to be 
selfcontained?
My take on this has been to make an equally non-standard repeat-like 
call-out that may be decorated with the steps to be repeated (such as 
5-7) and/or the number of times to repeat (such as x2, the number 
includes the original step, i.e. it is the total number of times to 
perform this manipulation).
You may see it here, about 2/3 down: 
http://papirfoldning.dk/temp/symbols_origami.svg
For "reapeat behind" I would just use that symbol, pointing to the point 
of interest, and no decoration. For diagrams with text, I would include 
"repeat behind" in the text as well.


I believe that though standards are a good thing that  in general helps 
communication. However, "standards" should never have priority over a 
clear presentation, some of the clearest diagrams I have seen, are in a 
book from 1944, many years before Yoshizawa became known.

I’m also torn on the fold/unfold. For years I used a line going to the
location then returning. more recently, I’ve adopted the single line
with solid/hollow arrowheads.

This then leaves the issue of where you fold/unfold and it doesn’t
matter which way, such as an initial diagonal. Here, both arrowheads are 
conventionally solid. Is this wasting a symbol and possibly adding an
extra level of confusion? Should I always use “one end hollow”?

I prefer your newer practice with solid/hollow arrow heads and a single 
line, as it provides a less cluttered drawing. I use that myself.
Using two solid heads seems wrong, it sort of declares that you should 
fold both corners rather than declaring that it doesn't matter which 
corner to fold.
Is there any case where fold/unfold must be done from one particular 
side? Of course, one or the other may be more practical, e.g. if most of 
the paper is situated on one side of the crease line.


Best regards,
Hans

Re: [Origami] Beginner's FAQ-like thing

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 11/10/12 07.09, Chris Lott skrev:

That would also be a good definition, though that can be treated with
a few cold beverages :)

I don't know what over folding might be called, but I noticed the last
few times I've taught people that they tend to:

1) want to crease way, way too hard and

2) when folding, say, edges to a center crease they try for perfection
and end up with a fold that is "too tight" or even a little
overlapped, which comes back to haunt them when they are doing a
reverse fold later, etc. In my admittedly limited experience, I find
it's better to purposefully be a little imperfect and err on the side
of a small gap and carefully making a good "point" than over
folding...
These are both something folders need to learn. Though usually I have 
the opposite problem of (1), i.e. beginners make too soft creases and 
fold too casually, too eagerly, faster than they can manage.
In particular for models like the traditional masu box you should make 
sharp creases, as this will make the assembly step much easier, and also 
I find that the model is nicer when the resulting box edges are well 
defined.
The case of too sharp creases are more common with more advanced models 
like masks, though I often tell people folding a traditional jumping 
frog that they should not make the springy folds of the jumping back 
legs too sharp.
You might call this "fold control" or "don't overdo the folds", or "do 
not commit a fold until needed".


I also agree about (2) which is prominent in the traditional crane. Here 
I often explicity tell students to leave up to a millimeter in the tail 
and neck thinning (but still to the point) so that the reverse folds 
come out easily and nicely.
I see this as a different problem, namely that of "anticipating the 
folding sequence" and/or "compensating for the thickness of paper" 
(which is a general issue).


"Anticipation" maybe the more generic term. Understanding what role a 
fold will have later in the folding sequence and in the final model.

Another example, again from the masu box, is the initial book folds:
a) Realise that you only need 1/4 of the fold in each side, so that the 
box ends up with a clean bottom (or lid).
b) Realise that when you assemble the box, these book folds end up as 
mountain folds, so you should turn over the paper before you do them. 
This will also make the assembly easier.


All such issues is not something to pour in at once while folding the 
first model with someone, but to be added gradually as the learners are 
ready.


And back to your original question, yes, a "folding school" vocabulary 
with illustrated exercises would be nice. Also difficult as you would 
have to decide on the folding level and prioritize what order to tell this.
I do believe that if you look around, much of it does exist in different 
places. In my own beginner's book I've tried to include "technique 
boxes" in appropriate places along with the models, starting with the 
elementary "how to make a diagonal fold". And, by the way, instructing 
people in doing careful, sharp creases (as I said above, in my 
experience beginners, at least in Denmark, have more problems failing to 
make sharp creases than the opposite).


Best regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk
society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Akira Yoshizawa books?

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 02/10/12 21.59, Laura Rozenberg wrote:

I will be grateful to receive information about the following books (link to 
pictures below)

http://flic.kr/s/aHsjCk9ZC8


I believe they are early books by Akira Yoshizawa, but as I don't read 
Japanese, can't say for sure. The list complied by David Lister didn't help me 
here because it doesn't have pictures of the covers.

If you know what books they are, I'd like to get the title, author, year, 
number of pages and if it is a hard to get or very rare.

(Disregard the little white paper with inscription #5, it's not attached to the 
cover, it's just a loose paper)


The green one: I have one that is likely to be another edition of that, 
see photo here: http://papirfoldning.dk/images/boeger/Yoshizawa1973.jpg.
The photo of the models is slightly different as "my" peacocks miss the 
head feather, however the model on page 59 is exactly "your" setup.
I bought it 20+ years ago from "The Origami Center" (prequel to OUSA 
Source, I still have the receipt letter signed and greetings Lillian 
Oppenheimer).
What is interesting about my copy, is that they put a quallity-print 
leaflet inside with a complete translation into the English by Itsu 
Suzaki (I dimly remember that was why I bought that specific Japanese book).
And yes, it is indeed Akira Yoshizawa, the leaflet calls it "Creative 
Origami", and the edition of my copy is dated 1973.
I cannot tell if the title is correctly translated, but it fits the 
introduction where Akira Yoshizawa writes about teaching us to do 
changes and variations, in contrast to the traditional origami which is 
"more imitative than creative" (citation).

My copy is isbn 1072-0030-0952. I have no idea how rare or not it is.

Best regards,
Hans

Re: [Origami] The other side of illegal books

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 30/09/12 08.17, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:

On Sep 30, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Juan Carlo Rodriguez  wrote:

Still, because of these and other restrictions (wouldn't you like to have a 
digital copy of, say, Origami 4?), pirates will always abound. I think it's the 
age-old situation, and this is my summary: as long as there is equal access to 
all published works, pirates will continue to exist; and as long as there is 
not equal compensation to the artist from the distribution of their work, 
artists will continue to fight them.

See how the situation is weird and illogical ? Why wouldn't authors fight 
against the publishing industry to make sure their works are available 
everywhere possible ? Either contents creators are thick and don't understand 
what is really at stake, or they prefer posturing, for the sake of posturing. 
Pirates are just useful scapegoats.
Pirates are criminals, not scapegoats. They steal money not only from 
the "bad" publishing industry but also from the good publishers (they do 
exist) and from the authors, and many of the pirates even make money on 
it, either directly, or indirectly by selling ads via the increased traffic.


The question about the balance between publishers and authors (and 
illustrators and designers) is certainly worth a discussion, and I would 
like to hear reasoned ideas of maximizing both the spread of the 
books/diagrams/ideas and the income of creators/authors/..., but the 
arguments (which will involve publishing methods) should not be confused 
with the discussion of piracy (and mind you, "pirates" are nowhere near 
the romanticized Disney image).


Concerning publishing and accessibility I am very interested in seeing 
how the new initiative by OUSA catches on 
(http://origamiusa.org/news/file-downloads-be-sold-source). It will take 
some time for designers and authors to look into how to use it (myself 
inclusive), but if the initiative succeeds it will answer many of the 
issues raised recurringly by many (Jean-Christophe, and myself some 
years ago, inclusive) about the difficult accessibility of many origami 
designs.


Best regards,
Hans


Hans Dybkjær
papirfolding.dk
society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] A more graceful flapping bird

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 29/09/12 17.11, Rachel Katz wrote:

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Clare Chamberlain
 wrote:
... It is not common in Japan, and tends to be viewed as quite ugly or
ungraceful compared to the traditional crane. It is certainly never
depicted in Japanese prints, fabrics and the like.

I think it was Dr. Sakota who showed me the flapping bird with just
the head narrowed. It is more graceful that way and still flaps.


There is a diagram in Trick Origami by Yoshihide Momotani.
You can also narrow the tail: Let the tail point straight back, and 
inside reverse fold between the wing and the tail on each side of the tail.
This variation has a diagram in The Magic of Origami by Alice Gray and 
Kunihiko Kasahara.


Regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk
Danish Society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] on the quest for new materials - Metal

[Hans Dybkjær]

On 16/09/12 13.18, Garibi Ilan wrote:

For more than a year, I looked for ways to conquer metal, maybe
the strangest material to choose for folding.



As far as I know, this is the first and only full metal tessellation, folded
by hand.

Very shiny, and provides uses (such as outdoor) not easily available 
with paper.


I once tried to fold from beer cans the metal of which is very thin 
(http://papirfoldning.dk/da/ugensfold/2011-17.html).
However, it turned out that you can only fold a given crease a couple of 
times before it begins to rip.


Presumably your material is more durable to folding, but will also begin 
to rip, as metal does.
Can you say more about the metal you use: alloy, thickness, how many 
times may it be folded, ...


And yes, I would love to see one of your and Gadi's "paper" reviews 
here. Some result of course will be much different from your normal 
reviews. Complex models? Wet folding?


Best regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
papirfoldning.dk