The Origami Forum

Please, recommend me any of super origami books (models of difficulty like Satoshi Kamiya's or Hojyo Takashi)

Origami Insects I and II, from Origami House. These make Origami Insects and their Kin look like kidstuff...

To be honest, OIATK is the hardest book of those three in terms of the level of folding required, in so far as the number of closed-unwrapped-sinks and finger-bleeding folds. The models have better form in OI1 and especially OI2, as you would expect with c10 years of origami evolution between them.

All three are worth getting, although OIATK is easier to get hold of.

If you like insects, Papiroinsectos by Manuel Sirgo Alvarez is a complex book that many folders have not come across (Publisher Pliega Ediciones). Relies too much on blinzted bases, but still some decent models in it.

Fortunately, I have all this books at the moment
May be smth else?

Try to fold the CPs of the origami tanteidan magazine/convention, like the god of thunder, etc

Shopping in Nicolas Terry´s shop will bring you some nice books especially his own and the one by Roman Diaz are well worth buying because of their originality.

Ok, tnx

Fishgoth wrote:To be honest, OIATK is the hardest book of those three in terms of the level of folding required

The effort and time expended on folding models here (Origami and their kin, Lang) or in Origami insect 2 (also Lang) is not acceptable in relation to their visage. The models are much better in Origami insect 1 (Kawahata, Nishikawa) -- japanese authors make out to figure live objects in better way (see most complex flying cicada of Kawahata, especially its legs exactly as real flying insect).

Disagree here - Lang's flying cicada is anatomically more correct, has longer legs, has antennae, makes better use of the paper, etc.

Origami Insects 2 is a further step up in the evolution of origami insects from Volume 1, and has more realistic creations.

I agree that they take more effort. In terms of the number of sinks and combined box-pleating, they take a lot longer to fold, and are harder to get looking perfect.

Hello!
Fishgoth started serious discussion about cicada. So, I asked my brother for help, because he is a biologist and know almost everything about insect. And due to that fact is very hard to discuss with him. I try to explain some facts about cicada.
Cicada belong to order homoptera and its antennae is so small, that it is almost invisible, see picture.
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g275/ ... zvrchu.jpg

Not antennae, but eyes are meretricious on the cicada's head on the first sight, see picture.
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g275/ ... 345dla.jpg

Cicada has relatively small legs in comparison with stocky body and its legs are embosom to its body, see pictures.
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g275/ ... azboku.jpg
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g275/ ... ennohy.jpg

Cicada has two pairs of transparent wings: bigger wings are not longer than its body and shorter wings are about half of bigger. Its wings are oriented to the front of the cicada, see picture.
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g275/ ... 345dla.jpg

This is enough about real cicada. Now you can compare origami cicada of Mr. Lang and Mr. Kawahata.

Lang's cicada
http://www.langorigami.com/art/gallery/ ... ing_cicada
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/family_ph ... pg&.src=ph

Kawahata's cicada
http://www.giladorigami.com/P_Cicada_Kawahata.JPG
http://spinflipper.com/origami/zoo/show ... ug&pic=176

Mr. Lang personally chosen very bad paper -- his wings are very dark and they are oriented to the botty of the cicada and are very big in comparison to the its body, so his cicada looks like night mare death's head. And absolutely forgot its big eyes!

Mr. Kawahata forms (proporcionally and positionally) in better way wings, legs and head -- no antennae (not important in comparison with big body) and first-sight-visible eyes.

So:

Fishgoth wrote:Disagree here - Lang's flying cicada is anatomically more correct, has longer legs, has antennae, makes better use of the paper, etc.

Not, absolutely not.

Fishgoth wrote: Origami Insects 2 is a further step up in the evolution of origami insects from Volume 1, and has more realistic creations.

Try to look on pages 10-12 in Origami insect 1. There are several insects much more detailed and complicated than insects diagramed in book, but only with CP. And they are very comparable to the Mr. Lang's work in Origami insect 2 or and their kin.
So: Not, absolutely not.

Now I try to explain, why I posted at first, that Mr. Lang do not model life correctly. He is very good in modelling of "dead" objects, for instance cuckoo clocks -- excellent model, or objects with crust -- turtles, beatles etc. -- but as on exhibition (especially insects -- you know, show-case with dead insects on pins) not in live positions.

Thank you, that you red out this text up to here...

Fishgoth wrote:Disagree here - Lang's flying cicada is anatomically more correct, has longer legs, has antennae, makes better use of the paper, etc.

Origami Insects 2 is a further step up in the evolution of origami insects from Volume 1, and has more realistic creations.

I agree that they take more effort. In terms of the number of sinks and combined box-pleating, they take a lot longer to fold, and are harder to get looking perfect.

I agree here.
No matter what one may say, Lang's insects look much better to my eyes than Kawahata's.

Hmmm...... how long did it take you to gather that information?

About the cicada,

Niether Lang's or Kawahata's completely capture the essence of the realy cicada.

Niether of these cicada models have define heads, Ondrej, in this picture, there are anttena. Lang did a good job with the wing proportions. As seen by the pictures Ondrej provided, the little pair should be about as long as the body of the insect (not including the head).
Kawahata's little wings are about one quarter of the total body length and are not correctly proportioned. The body is also a little too wide. The eyes are not there....

Lang's The wings look like they are stuck together, not sure about how they are in real life. the little wings are almost correct in there proportions, but the big wings should be longer.

In the end, who cares? Both these models are far superior to anything we could design, and origami is an interpritational art. There are not exacts, you can never design the "perfect model" completely replicating the living model. Everybody is entitled to there own opinion, and I don't think yall are going to agree, so, oh well.

Aznman wrote:Hmmm...... how long did it take you to gather that information?

Yes, I know, bad time...

Aznman wrote: About the cicada,
... ... ...

Thank you that you red whole text and spent some time to study...

Aznman wrote: Both these models are far superior to anything we could design,

Me absolutely not.

Aznman wrote: and origami is an interpritational art. There are not exacts, you can never design the "perfect model" completely replicating the living model.

Our honor origamist (woman) wrote in her origami book (published for scout group), that origami model must simply figure the essence of the real object (something like this) -- in my personal opinion, the best flying cicada is this traditional model:
http://www.oriland.com/studio/diagram.a ... ada&page=2

I personally like Kasahara's technique -- complex models, which looks like simple catching of essence of the model. They spend some time to fold they and looks like traditional...

And last point of view: the folding ways of models of Mr. Lang are so boring, the same harmonic sinks, visually the same base, no suprising idea, no inventions, only equations... And the way is more important for me than finished model -- that model I will leave somewhere or my wife trash it, so... For example flying hopper of Seiji Nishikawa, it is some kind of magic.

Again so long. I am sorry.

We disagree...

'Mr Lang' has a PhD, and should therefore be addressed as 'Dr Lang', although, having met him, I don't think he'd mind too much.

My doctorate is medical. I am also a qualified member of the Royal college of surgeons. In the UK, such doctors are referred to as 'Mr'. Therefore I could be called either 'Dr Fishgoth', or 'Mr Fishgoth'.

Unless I have a sex-change, which would just confuse things.

Both these models are far superior to anything we could design

I've got quite a few winged insect designs, some on my website, some not. I've also got plenty of diagrams of other peoples winged insects. Some are elegant, some are not. Give yourself plenty of time, encouragement and the challenge of designing something, and the world is your oyster!

Fishgoth wrote: 'Mr Lang' has a PhD, and should therefore be addressed as 'Dr Lang', although, having met him, I don't think he'd mind too much.

Ah, ok, I wasn't sure whther he prefered Dr. or Mr.

Fishgoth wrote: I've got quite a few winged insect designs, some on my website, some not. I've also got plenty of diagrams of other peoples winged insects. Some are elegant, some are not. Give yourself plenty of time, encouragement and the challenge of designing something, and the world is your oyster!

I meant, as of this moment.
I also was not talking about you Dr. Fishgoth.
In retrospect, this was meant more as a generalization. Bassically, I meant that these are both good models.

Some people like differnt folding styles and hence different models. Ondrej likes the traditional look, and there ain't nobody who is going to change that, so, this discussion is therefor acedemic and useless. I end my part in it. (unless I must say something, or I am answering a question directed at me).....