If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Scientists reconstruct Richard III's face, only to discover he looks remarkably like a decomposed corpse. Just kidding, he bears a disturbing resemblence to those Guy Fawkes masks   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 64
    More: Followup, Richard III Society, vector field reconstruction, University of Leicester, Guy Fawkes, Dundee, rapid prototyping  
•       •       •

6484 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Feb 2013 at 12:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-05 11:42:33 AM  
news.bbcimg.co.ukt3.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-05 11:50:44 AM  
Yeah, well, that's how everyone looked back then.  Even the women.
 
2013-02-05 12:06:58 PM  
This whole story is fascinating. Richard III gets a bad rap.
 
2013-02-05 12:09:50 PM  
That chin. Chinny chin chin chin.

Chin.
 
2013-02-05 12:12:45 PM  
He looks like a total Farquaad.
 
2013-02-05 12:19:06 PM  
I hear someone gets him a horse, they'll get a kingdom.
 
2013-02-05 12:28:28 PM  
By which they mean that his face had the right shape, but lots of people have faces with the right shape.
 
2013-02-05 12:29:44 PM  

DamnYankees: This whole story is fascinating. Richard III gets a bad rap.


Victors write history.  If you just killed some one who was anointed by heaven to be king you might want everyone to think you had a really good reason
 
2013-02-05 12:31:45 PM  
He looks like he's trying to retain a fart. (But then again - what royal doesn't?)
 
2013-02-05 12:36:48 PM  

DamnYankees: This whole story is fascinating. Richard III gets a bad rap.


shelflove.files.wordpress.com
/good book, hot image
 
2013-02-05 12:40:15 PM  
I always imagined him more like this

www.bbc.co.uk
 
2013-02-05 12:41:41 PM  

oldfarthenry: He looks like he's trying to retain a fart. (But then again - what royal doesn't?)


I seem to recall Japanese royalty had a position in their "entourage" that included someone who's job was to take the blame for farts.

Or was that my old fraternity?
 
2013-02-05 12:42:36 PM  

cgraves67: He looks like a total Farquaad.


news.bbcimg.co.uk4.bp.blogspot.com

That was my thought as well...
 
2013-02-05 12:50:35 PM  
Archaeologist who worked on the skeleton is kinda hot:

www2.le.ac.uk
 
2013-02-05 12:57:24 PM  
I'm Richard III I am! I'm Richard III I am I am!
 
2013-02-05 01:09:12 PM  
Well, he certainly wasn't shaped for sportive tricks or made to court an amorous looking-glass, rudely stamped and curtailed of this fair proportion as he is.
 
2013-02-05 01:15:17 PM  

Scaevola: Archaeologist who worked on the skeleton is kinda hot:

[www2.le.ac.uk image 154x200]


I'd let her handle a bone.
 
2013-02-05 01:16:24 PM  
That's his oh face.
 
2013-02-05 01:30:27 PM  
static.guim.co.uk

i2.cdn.turner.com

Looks like that artist painted pretty accurately.
 
2013-02-05 01:46:00 PM  
(looks both ways)

what hump?
 
2013-02-05 01:46:52 PM  
www.startrek.com
 
2013-02-05 01:48:53 PM  
You know, I get facial reconstructions based off paintings of a specific individual, but what about the ones done on various cavemen or folks there were no actual pictures of like ancient Egyptians and what not? How do they determine how their face looked? Bone structure and basic DNA knowledge can only go so far with our current tech. How do they know someone didn't have bulldog jowls? Or huge bushy eyebrows? Or a fat face? Ear shape? Hair style? DSL's or thin lips? Nose shape? I mean it's cool and all, but I wouldn't put much stock in it unless it's someone specific with an old painting of them lying around like dude in TFA.
 
2013-02-05 02:08:13 PM  
Facial reconstructions are BS.  So much of how your face looks have to do with soft tissue features that aren't reflected in the bone, that you're lucky if you get much of a resemblance to the actual person when they were alive.
 
2013-02-05 02:11:19 PM  

rickycal78: You know, I get facial reconstructions based off paintings of a specific individual, but what about the ones done on various cavemen or folks there were no actual pictures of like ancient Egyptians and what not? How do they determine how their face looked? Bone structure and basic DNA knowledge can only go so far with our current tech. How do they know someone didn't have bulldog jowls? Or huge bushy eyebrows? Or a fat face? Ear shape? Hair style? DSL's or thin lips? Nose shape? I mean it's cool and all, but I wouldn't put much stock in it unless it's someone specific with an old painting of them lying around like dude in TFA.


Your critiques are valid, but the modelers do have a (somewhat subjective) method to their madness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_facial_reconstruction
 
2013-02-05 02:28:23 PM  

Precision Boobery: Hasn't anyone living ever done this to see how close they get?  Get a scan of your skull, 3-D print a model, take it to a reconstructionist (without saying whose it is) and compare the finished product with the original.


You don't even need a living person. Just a dead person who was photographed in life.
 
2013-02-05 02:29:04 PM  

Precision Boobery: Hasn't anyone living ever done this to see how close they get?  Get a scan of your skull, 3-D print a model, take it to a reconstructionist (without saying whose it is) and compare the finished product with the original.


Yes, many many times.
 
2013-02-05 02:52:18 PM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-02-05 03:00:34 PM  
It is a very interesting discovery. Why was the king left on the battlefield instead of moved to some royal church/burial ground?
 
2013-02-05 03:01:33 PM  

KawaiiNot: It is a very interesting discovery. Why was the king left on the battlefield instead of moved to some royal church/burial ground?


Because he was killed by a rival who had no desire to legitimate his kingship.
 
2013-02-05 03:06:20 PM  

KawaiiNot: It is a very interesting discovery. Why was the king left on the battlefield instead of moved to some royal church/burial ground?


He was. He was buried in a monestary that was later shut down and its location forgotten, then a garden was built over it, and after that a parking lot.
 
2013-02-05 03:10:23 PM  

KawaiiNot: It is a very interesting discovery. Why was the king left on the battlefield instead of moved to some royal church/burial ground?


The carpark was located over the site where the GreyFriars Abbey, the reported burial site of Richard, had stood until Henry VIII shut down all the monasteries during his creation of the Church of England
 
2013-02-05 03:12:10 PM  

ShawnDoc: Facial reconstructions are BS.  So much of how your face looks have to do with soft tissue features that aren't reflected in the bone, that you're lucky if you get much of a resemblance to the actual person when they were alive.


Based on?

Right.

You're an expert?

On fark.

Give me a f*cking break.
 
2013-02-05 03:22:51 PM  

Tax Boy: [static.guim.co.uk image 460x276]

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

Looks like that artist painted pretty accurately.


Or the reconstructionist cribbed from the portrait for details not present in the skull like eyebrows, skin color and the like. I am assuming we know independently what color his eyes were.
 
2013-02-05 03:28:30 PM  

indarwinsshadow: ShawnDoc: Facial reconstructions are BS.  So much of how your face looks have to do with soft tissue features that aren't reflected in the bone, that you're lucky if you get much of a resemblance to the actual person when they were alive.

Based on?

Right.

You're an expert?

On fark.

Give me a f*cking break.


http://anthropology.si.edu/writteninbone/facial_reconstruction.html
 
2013-02-05 03:34:45 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-05 03:56:55 PM  

macdaddy357: I'm Richard III I am! I'm Richard III I am I am!


I was burred in the car park next door...

/who's got the next line?
 
2013-02-05 04:01:13 PM  

Begoggle:


Oh, I forgot how much he freaks me out.
 
2013-02-05 04:07:28 PM  
So I'm assuming his descendant today Richard LXXIV looks like this.
 
2013-02-05 04:08:05 PM  

theurge14: So I'm assuming his descendant today Richard LXXIV looks like this.


Oh, yeah, first pic in the article.  Welcome to Fark.
 
2013-02-05 04:12:37 PM  

cgraves67: He was buried in a monestary that was later shut down and its location forgotten, then a garden was built over it, and after that a parking lot.


Ooooh, sha la la la!
 
2013-02-05 04:20:45 PM  

rickycal78: You know, I get facial reconstructions based off paintings of a specific individual, but what about the ones done on various cavemen or folks there were no actual pictures of like ancient Egyptians and what not? How do they determine how their face looked? Bone structure and basic DNA knowledge can only go so far with our current tech. How do they know someone didn't have bulldog jowls? Or huge bushy eyebrows? Or a fat face? Ear shape? Hair style? DSL's or thin lips? Nose shape? I mean it's cool and all, but I wouldn't put much stock in it unless it's someone specific with an old painting of them lying around like dude in TFA.


When done manually, they will literally recreate muscle based on attachment points on the skull and other indicators.  From their, they build up skin and fat based on location on the face.  For instance forehead has almost no fat, but cheeks have quite a bit.  How much is an average consent for location.  Somehow they are able to determine nose and lips from indicators on the bone.  Software does the same, just fast.

FTA

Prof Wilkinson said the Dundee team artist, Janice Aitken, only used the portraits of Richard III at this stage as reference for hair style and colour, eye colour, skin colour and clothing.
The team estimated the end result was as accurate as possible.
"Our facial reconstruction methods have been blind tested many times using living subjects and we know that we can expect that approximately 70% of the facial surface should have less than 2mm of error," said Prof Wilkinson.
 
2013-02-05 04:34:31 PM  
Did he sound like Emilio Lizardo too?
 
2013-02-05 04:50:26 PM  
fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-02-05 05:07:40 PM  

oldfarthenry: He looks like he's trying to retain a fart. (But then again - what royal doesn't?)


img.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-05 05:09:21 PM  
They showed his full skeleton on the news. He really DID have a spine abnormality. Suck it, apologists. Where's your god now?
 
2013-02-05 06:11:01 PM  
i759.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-05 08:18:42 PM  

cgraves67: KawaiiNot: It is a very interesting discovery. Why was the king left on the battlefield instead of moved to some royal church/burial ground?

He was. He was buried in a monestary that was later shut down and its location forgotten, then a garden was built over it, and after that a parking lot.


... In a basement with a sign on the door saying, "beware of the leopard"...
 
2013-02-05 08:28:46 PM  

DamnYankees: This whole story is fascinating. Richard III gets a bad rap.


That whole having 2 children murdered to seize the throne tends to color things
 
2013-02-05 08:42:41 PM  
So now what? Is a state funeral obligatory? I'd kind of like to see that.
 
2013-02-05 09:29:39 PM  

Miss Stein: [i759.photobucket.com image 712x458]


Nice catch!
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report