E X P LO R AT I O N S I N

AU TO M AT E D

ARTISTIC PORTRAIT

DRAWING

M A S T E R T H E S I S – D I G I TA L M E D I A – S U M M E R 2 0 2 1

BY FELIX FISGUS & JORIS WEGNER

EXAMINERS: DENNIS PAUL & RALF BAECKER

MOTIVATION & CONSIDERATIONS �������������������������������������������������������������������    1

OPERATING PRINCIPLE �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1

PRODUCT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ���������������������������������������������������������������    3

INVERSE KINEMATIC & SIMULATION �����������������������������������������������������������������    4

SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    5

IMAGE PROCESSING�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    9

INTERFACE�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    19

INTERACTION �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    20

DRAWING AS PERFORMANCE���������������������������������������������������������������������������    21

NAMING / BRANDING �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    22

SOURCES ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    23

CREDITS�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    23
 MOTIVATION & CONSIDERATIONS
Inspired by historical drawing automatons
like Maillardet’s Automaton and recent exam-
ples like Patrick Tresset’s Paul the Robot, we
decided to build a robot that draws portraits
of bystanders during events like science or
trade fairs, at science museums and also at
private events, should the opportunity arise.
Instead of providing visitors with regular
photos as a souvenir like commercial selfie
boxes do, our robot makes the creation of the
souvenir image an event in itself. Our machi-
ne is not a black box – it should make its in-
ner workings understandable to the general
audience and fascinate with the way it draws
pictures. Therefore, the technical appeal of
the process would make our robot an ideal at-
traction for STE(A)M-related events (science,
technology, engineering, art, mathematics).
Last but not least, our project should show-
case the technical knowledge and design
skills of both of us to benefit our careers and
probably make some money on the way.
We therefore decided on the following de-
sign requirements:
· A machine that draws portraits depicting
the most important features of a user in a
reasonable timeframe  sion of this approach.
· Compact construction to simplify handling
and transport, but large enough to convey a
certain presence and be an eyecatcher du-
ring events
· Simple setup and use due to self-contained
package, ideally possible without trained
personnel (without us)  if the machine should be able to be shipped
1
· Robust construction to survive use by the
general audience 
· Fascinating mechanism, drawing as event
· Made from as many 3d-printed and off-the-
shelf parts as possible to allow for economical
construction without specialized equipment
__________________________________________________
OPERATING PRINCIPLE
A variety of principles for designing the me-
chanical aspect of the robot were discussed.
The simplest and most robust way to build
a drawing machine is to construct a regular
plotter. While an X-Y-frame (image A) is cer-
tainly a well-proven concept, it could proba-
bly not convey a sense of an ‘engineering
marvel’ at work - the general public should
be well aware, even bored, of commercial 3d
printers using the same principle. 
A variant with an internal X-Y-frame moving
a pen mechanism with magnets was discus-
sed, but decided against. Other variants with
a more mechanical appearance would pro-
bably make the operation of the robot more
eventful. We could also not come up with a
good idea to appropriately power the pen
mechanism without external cabling, which
would have nullified the minimalist impres-
 
Fascinating in its simplicity is a plotter using
a floating pen mechanism that is suspended
from motor-controlled ropes above the dra-
wing area (image B). While this principle al-
lows for comparatively large machines with
minimal weight and materials, little is won
 A B
easily and cheaply. The wires or ropes are
potentially flimsy, could entangle easily and
make the setup complicated.   and unique mechanical design.
We contemplated an extreme modification
of this principle that used the wires the dra-
wing mechanism is suspended from for po-
wering it. We considered this a worthy com-
plication to omit the unsightly power cable
running to the pen mechanism from below
as seen in most examples of this plotter va-
riant. A complicated spring-loaded system
of conductive pulleys would transmit power
while trying to prevent entanglement of the
wires during transport. From our research
we also learned that the print speed of such
contraptions is relatively slow and the results
suffer from imprecision and jitter, so we
abandoned this concept for obvious reasons.
In the end we decided on using a five-bar
SCARA construction (Selective Compliance
Assembly Robot Arm). Two fixed motors in-
side the enclosure move the pen mechanism
over four linkages. The whole construction
mechanically resembles two human arms
holding a pen with both hands. We feel that
this principle unites a clearly technical ap-
C D
pearance with organic movements and fits
our goal of giving our robot a fascinating
We accept an inferior robustness of the cons-
truction when compared to an X-Y-frame to
achieve our desired aesthetic. For compact-
ness and as a product design decision, we
chose to use a symmetrical arm setup in-
stead of locating them on one side of the de-
vice (image C/D). 
When designing the actual machine, a lot of
attention was paid to improve the precision
of the mechanism. Besides implementing a
mechanical reduction between the stepper
motors and the arms, the ball bearings in
the elbow joints are also preloaded to redu-
ce slack. The Trinamic stepper drivers in use
provide 1/64 micro stepping, so in combina-
tion this will lead to a theoretical resolution
of ~178 steps per degree. 
Another delicate part is the pen mechanism
for lowering and lifting the pen. If the pen is
pressed onto the drawing surface too much
it might get stuck, if it is pressed too little
it might not draw. To tackle this, we simply
spring-loaded the pen mechanism to push it
down with a constant force.
2
 PRODUCT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
In order to produce an individual robot in an
economical way and make it easy to replica-
te and repair later, we made great use of as
many off-the-shelf components and 3d-prin-
ted parts as possible. Only a few parts have
to be fabricated externally or require spe-
cialized tools for making them, namely the
laser-cut and folded aluminum sheets for
the housing, as well as the stand bent from
stainless steel. The enclosure is strengthe-
ned with standard aluminum extrusions and
houses all components internally.  rotated out of the way when a new sheet of
For easy shipping and a sleek appearance
that doesn’t distract from the drawing pro-
cess, the machine is as flat and compact as
possible. Almost all technical components
are screwed to the removable backside of
the device, allowing for simple maintenance
and wiring. Additionally, this permitted us
to design the enclosure front in a minima-
list and unobtrusive style (almost) without
unsightly holes and screw heads. The remo-
vable stand is slid into the enclosure during
setup and secured with thumbscrews.  rate these components into the overall form
The robust black powder coating of the en-
closure highlights the drawing, the inter-
face elements and the moving parts covered
with cloudy white acrylic during operation.
Furthermore, our stark product design di-
rection and color scheme should not conflict
with corporate identities of business clients,
should the robot ever be deployed at trade
shows or similar.  These steps are described in more detail in
 
3
The square-shaped paper format was cho-
sen for appearing unique in the context of a
physical drawing. Since the ‘shoulder’ joints
of the arms need to be spaced at some dis-
tance from the drawing area, the paper for-
mat allowed us to keep the machine and its
drawing mechanism compact and light – an
upright paper format would have required a
taller enclosure with unused internal space.
During operation, the sheet of paper rests
on the acrylic bar near the bottom of the en-
closure and is held in place with two magne-
tic clamps in the upper corners. They can be
paper has to be inserted.
For capturing the portrait images a Raspber-
ry Pi camera housed in a pivoting enclosure
is used. This way, users can adjust the ca-
mera to their body height. The enclosure is
pivotable in 5 degree increments while an in-
ternal spring mechanism is used to hold the
camera at the desired angle.  
Both the camera and the display of the de-
vice are visible through symmetrical ope-
nings in the upper enclosure. We chose to
round the edges of the cut-outs to incorpo-
language in a more harmonious way. 
Instead of using the touchscreen functiona-
lity of the display, the machine is controlled
with a one-button remote. Akin to a photo
camera, pressing the button lets the user
take a selfie, accept it as a template for the
drawing and start the drawing process.
Holding the button for longer lets the user
repeat steps, stop or go back in the menu.
the interaction section following later. 

INVERSE KINEMATIC & SIMULATION
The kinematics of a classic five-bar SCARA
without the extension on one of the arms
seem to be quite complicated at the first
glance. When taking a closer look, it beco-
mes obvious that each arm forms a triangle
which must be solved to calculate the angles
Raspberry Pi with 3,2“
3.5“ display
Light barrier to initialize
arm positions
1-to-5 gear transmission
to increase torque, double
ball bearings
camera enclosure with
pivoting mechanism
Retainers for stand with side
plates to protect the internal
parts during setup
Stepper motors
Aluminium backplate
Main PCB with stepper
drivers, Teensy 32 for control
of sensors and actuators
Phone jack for connecting
the remote release
Aluminium frame
Power supplies, 5V and 12V
of the shoulder joints. Since we know two
points (the shoulder and the position of the
end effector) and the length of all sides, we
have more than enough information to cal-
culate the desired angles with some basic
trigonometry. Since we aren’t by far the first
people using such a geometry for moving
an end effector in a coordinate system, we
4
 could find some helpful papers with highly Left shoulder
optimized equations for solving the kinema-
tic model. All the papers we found provided
solutions for systems where the end effec- Left elbow
tor is in the center of the ‘wrist’, the joint
between the two arms. Building it that way
seemed to be too mechanically complicated,
so we decided to add an angled extension to
the left arm. We extended the kinematic mo-
del by solving the triangle between the left
elbow, the wrist and the tip of the extension.  Wrist
End effector
(right image).

To further investigate the kinematics of the

SCARA principle, as well as for getting a bet-
ter understanding of the relation between
the dimensions of the arms and the resul-
ting operating range, we decided to simula-
te the mechanism. The simulation provided
a two-dimensional representation of the
SCARA and a simple interface for setting the
following parameters:
· Dimensions of the lower and upper arms 
· Distance between the shoulders  SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
· The length and angle of the extension on
the left arm
· Constraints of the minimum and maximum
rotation angles of the shoulders  display for showing instruction pictograms
· Limitation of the angle between the lower
arms to 180 degrees
Beside the possibility of moving the me-
chanism manually with the mouse, a more
in-depth analysis tool helped understan-
ding the interdependencies of the different
parameters. The tool provided information
about the size and position of the operating
range, and the biggest possible rectangle
within this range. Also, the minimum and
maximum rotational angles of the shoulders
are analyzed. All the gathered information is
plotted to a console for further use in the de-
sign process. 
__________________________________________________
A Raspberry Pi 3 is the heart of our drawing
robot. It is in charge of driving the 3,5-inch-
as well as previewing the image of the inter-
nal Raspberry Pi camera. After the user takes
a picture using the wired remote control and
accepts it as a template for the drawing pro-
cess, the Raspberry Pi generates a vector-ba-
sed graphic from the given image. The re-
sulting vertices are transmitted to a Teensy
microcontroller, which then controls the ac-
tuators of the machine through its implemen-

5
ted kinematic model. Each arm is moved by a
stepper motor via a one-to-five pulley trans-
mission. This helps to increase the torque
as well as the resolution of the movements.
We decided to go for an open control loop,
thus light barrier sensors at each shoulder
joint are used for calibration and determin-
ing an absolute position of the arms. After-
wards, the arms can be positioned precisely
by keeping track of the motor’s steps. A pen
with a lifting/lowering mechanism driven by
a servo motor, which is mounted at the tip of
both arms, can be moved along the precal-
culated coordinates.
When the drawing is completed, a solenoid
rings a bell to notify the user. After the user
is guided through the procedure of remo-
ving their portrait and inserting a new sheet
of paper, the robot is ready for the next dra-
wing process.  pared to the commonly used interpreter lan-
We decided to use openFrameworks (OF) as
a toolkit for driving the interface, as well as
handling the image processing. This decisi-
on was made for several reasons: 
· It provides a seamless integration of the
computer vision library OpenCV, of which we
made heavy use for converting the images
to drawable vectors. 
· OF is written in C++, the same language we
used for programing the Teensy, thus we
could stay in the same domain. 
· Many useful functionalities are provided,
such as the ofPolyline object, an implementa-
tion for serial communication, simple multi-
threading, just to name a few. 
· Once compiled we expected our program
to make best use of the limited resources
available on the Raspberry Pi, especially com-
guage Python.
6
 IMAGE PROCESSING

To transform a normal photo into a drawa-

ble format for our automaton, several steps
must be taken. We can roughly divide these
steps into the following categories: Prepro-
cessing, vectorization and postprocessing.
Whilst most of the operations described are
provided by the fantastic OpenCV library,
some of the used algorithms weren’t avai-
lable and therefore had to be implemented
from scratch.  Original
The preprocessing phase conditions the
image in a way that only the necessary con-
tent for the vectorization remains and signi-
ficant edges are emphasized. The first step
is to convert the original photo into a gray-
scale graphic, which reduces the amount of
data and speeds up all following operations,
while still providing more than enough infor-
mation to obtain a good result in the end.
For improving the appearance of significant
edges, the contrast has to be adjusted using
the contrast limited adaptive histogram equa-
lization algorithm. Contrast
This algorithm provides a reliable automa-
ted process to enhance the dynamic range
of the image without introducing gaps in the
histogram.
To achieve better results in the vectorization
phase, the image has to be smoothened wit-
hout losing the crucial edge information. 
A bilateral filter is used to blur the gray to-
nes of the image while still preserving the
edges. Finally, the image is overexposed and
blurred using a median blur with a relatively
small kernel to suppress single-pixel grains.  
Bilateral
Our first attempt to achieve a unique style

9
 Overexposed
and a way to transform the pixel image into
a vector-based format was the so called ex-
tended difference-of-Gaussian (XDOG) algo-
rithm in conjunction with the OpenCV con-
tour tracing method. In simplified terms and
as the name already suggests, the XDOG is
based on a weighted difference of two diffe-
rently strong gaussian blurred versions of the
same image.
While it led to appealing results when all pa-
rameters were set up correctly, we weren’t
able to reliably automate this process due to
the high sensitivity as well as the interdepen-
dencies of the parameters. While the results
were looking nice as binary images, they
weren’t suitable for being traced. For these
reasons, we developed a simpler, yet more
robust process relying on the well-known
canny edge detection.
XDOG
This involved some further preprocessing
in the form of quantizing the image to only
two-bit resolution, resulting in four gray
levels. After testing an adaptive approach
using the k-means algorithm, which divides
all pixels into k equally sized clusters (in our
case four), we found that a linear quantiza-
tion leads to more appealing results.
The quantized image is then fed into a canny
edge-detector which returns a binary image
holding most of the significant edges. Over
the course of our experiments, we realized
that we can improve the edges by applying
the canny algorithm to several intermediate
states from the preprocessing phase, and
combining the results into one edge-image. 
10
 1: Quantized 2: Canny Original

3: Canny Bilateral 4: Canny Overexposed

5: Canny Combined

11
These edges are further processed by a thin-
ning algorithm before it can be traced and
converted into vectors. The thinning is nee-
ded to get one-pixel wide lines, so that the
tracer has an unambiguous dataset to work
with. Since the commonly used thinning al-
gorithm, which is based on the difference of
the edge-image and a morphologically ope-
ned version of the same, doesn’t always re-
sult in perfect one-pixel wide lines, an alter-
native had to be found.
After some research we discovered the K3M
universal algorithm for image skeletonization
which seemed to solve our problem and was
presented in a nicely written paper, so it was
quite easy to implement.  vector shapes, which also provides a method
Final result: Canny Thinned
Tracing the image is now a straightforward
process: the first step is to create a map of
the same size as the image and mark each
foreground pixel as an end, junction or line
pixel. Then we can iterate over the map and
look for an end or junction point to then fol-
low the line looking at the Moore neighbor-
hood of each pixel and remove it from the
map once the pixel has been traced. Juncti-
ons are only removed from the map when
they don’t have any more neighbors. The
entire process is repeated until the map is
empty. The visited points between two junc-
tions or end points are added to an ofPolyli-
ne object, openFrameworks’ representation of
for interpolation, thus reducing the number
of vertices and further smoothing the lines is
straightforward.  
For getting more depth in our resulting
drawings, a way of representing different
brightness levels had to be found.
Therefore, we conducted a series of expe-
riments, all utilizing the two-bit quantized
version of the image as a base for different
filling methods. 
Our first approach is a simple crosshatching
algorithm. By iterating over the image in an
angle of 45, 90 and 135 degrees, we genera-
te diagonal and horizontal lines depending
on the gray level of the pixels. To create a
more naturalistic and hand-drawn like ap-
pearance, we also created a derived version,
in which the hatch lines are slightly distorted
using Perlin noise.
12
 Hatch
An even simpler way is to just generate ho-
rizontal lines. The spacing between the lines
is determined by the gray level. The image is
scanned from top to bottom every nth line.
When a foreground pixel is encountered,
a horizontal line will be traced until a pixel,
13
Hatch Noise
which is brighter than the one at the start of
the line, is reached.
To control the density of the lines we came
up with the following formula; n_gray is the
number of gray levels and n_line is the count
of scanned lines:
 255 n_gray
threshold = * 1+ - (n_line % n_gray)
n_gray - 1 2

This leads to a series of thresholds, which 255,… When the value of the scanned pixel is
follow a periodic triangle function. For smaller than threshold it will be identified as
example for a value of n_gray = 4 the series foreground pixel, and can be traced. 
would be 255, 170, 85, 170, 255, 170, 85, 170,   

Hatch Horizontal

14
 The following image is created using the
Delaunay triangulation algorithm, which in
simplified terms is a method for connecting
a set of points to form a grid of non-overlap-
ping triangles. To generate the required set
of points the image is scanned pixel by pixel.
When a foreground pixel is encountered, its
position is stored. The area flagged as non-
scannable is bigger if the scanned pixel is
Delaunay (with underlying points)
15
brighter. Thus, the points are denser in dar-
ker regions of the image, and spread further
apart in light regions. Instead of drawing the
contour separately, points sampled from it
are also added to the set as well, improving
the integration of the contour into the tri-
angular pattern. To keep white space clear,
all lines longer than a certain threshold are
deleted from the results of the triangulation.  
Using a set of points as a base for a style in-
spired us to try the Floyd Steinberg dithering
algorithm. To decrease the number of points,
the algorithm is applied to a downscaled ver-
sion of the image. The resulting points are
then connected to form lines that are as long
as possible. This is done by moving from
point to point and selecting the second nea-
Wiggle Floyd (with underlying points)
rest one. If this distance is below a certain
limit, the point is added to the line, otherwi-
se a new line begins. This leads to a semi-
chaotic pattern, which reflects differences in
brightness only to a limited extent. However,
this alternation between order and chaos
also creates the visual appeal of this method.   
While the methods described so far lead to
16
 more or less ordered structures, we also
wanted to try and create even more chaotic
styles, which appear more man-made, and
disguise the involvement of a machine in the
process of creation. For this, a set of points is
again used as a starting point, generated in
the same way as in the method with the De-
launay algorithm, but this time without the
contour points. This approach of generating
the points has an advantage over the Floyd
Steinberg method. More control over the dis-
tribution of the points is possible, thus the
Wiggle
17
contrast of the resulting image can be better
adjusted.  
From the set of points we derived two simi-
lar styles, both again following the technique
of creating lines that are as long as possible.
The simpler approach is to create the lines
by moving from point to point, but this time
the next point must be within a given mi-
nimum and maximum distance to become
part of the line. The more advanced idea is to
create a unit vector with random orientation
at each of the points, and also calculate the
average brightness of its Moore neighbor-
hood. Then, the vector is extended in both
directions as long as the traced pixels are
darker than the average brightness at the
origin, but brighter than the average minus
a given percentage of the maximum bright-
ness. The higher this percentage is, the fur-
ther lines can advance into darker regions,
especially those originating from brighter
regions. To reduce the amount of very long
lines and also to create a more homogenous
appearance, the maximum length of the li-
Random Lines
nes is limited. When all lines are generated,
their end points are interconnected if there
is another end point within a given range.  
Finally, all generated lines are postprocessed
to improve the speed of the drawing process.
This involves removing lines that are shorter
than a given length, as well as connecting
adjacent start and end points. The last step
is to sort the lines so that the distance trave-
led by the pen without drawing is as short as
possible.
18
 INTERFACE
Before, during and after the drawing pro-
cess, the built-in screen guides users through
the necessary procedures. Since the robot is
supposed to be used by a general audience,
care was taken to make the best use of text
and pictograms to prevent misunderstan-
dings during operation, which could leave
the users frustrated or even have them invo-
luntarily damage the machine.  a larger font size in the given space. In gene-
Since the users will have to stand about one
meter away from the robot to take a pictu-
re, the font used for the instructional text on
screen needs to be of considerable size. In-
19
structional steps are illustrated with animati-
ons consisting of a few frames. A minimalist,
abstract vector style was chosen to be infor-
mative while not distracting the user from
the central drawing process after all neces-
sary steps are understood. 
For longer text-based instructions, the dis-
play switches between the description of the
necessary action (press button) and the re-
sult (to draw) about every second to allow for
ral, commands involving holding the button
are located at the top of the screen, while
commands requiring only a short press are
described at the bottom for consistency. 
 Very long button press Menu with various option for the administrator

Return to operation

‘Press to take photo’, Arms in idle position

Hold Hold Press Press

Photo, ‘Draw Picture?’

Press
Hold
‘Press to resume, Drawing, ‘Hold to stop’
hold to abort’
Press
Finished drawing

Remove drawing. New sheet inserted?

INTERACTION 5 seconds). The menu provides the options

After a splash screen during startup, an in-
itial instruction screen reminds the admin
to loosen the pin that holds the pen holder
secure during transport. After confirmation,
the servo raises the pen attachment to allow
for proper mounting of a pen in the correct
position. These steps are illustrated on the
screen using a minimalistic animation.  pending on the expected number of users to
After the physical setup and following auto-
matic calibration, the admin uses the main
menu to customize the following drawing
experiences. It is also possible to enter this
menu during regular operation by holding
the remote button a bit longer than the usu-
al user is expected to do (currently around
to shut the machine down, change the inter-
face language, as well as setting the drawing
style. Also, a short instruction on how to
make the machine ready for transport after
switching it off completely is provided here. 
The drawing style choice is reserved for the
admin since the different styles differ quite a
bit in drawing time. They can be chosen de-
keep their waiting times short. 
After a paper is inserted onto the drawing
surface, regular operation can commence. 
Regular operation: While being open to the
public, the display continuously shows a ca-
mera preview, along with basic instructions

20
 on how to take a photo. When the button on
the remote is pressed, a photo is taken. This
is confirmed by a photo flash animation and
a preview of the taken picture. The user has
the choice to have the picture drawn or to go
back and take a new one.  the drawing is finished, the pen has to be re-
At this point, we are not sure whether sho-
wing the actual photo or a vector represen-
tation of the later drawing are advantageous
as a preview picture. The photo would be
displayed immediately and allow for quick
verification. However, it might lead to users
constantly taking new pictures to have de-
tails changed that don’t really matter in the
later more abstract drawing.  __________________________________________________
Displaying a vector representation of the re-
sulting drawing takes a couple of seconds,
since it has to be processed first. This might
prolong the process even further since the
users try to change details. Displaying the de-
tailed vector image on the tiny lo-res screen
is also problematic. Then again, it might stre-
amline the process since the drawn repre-
sentations unfold their potential even with
imperfect photo templates. Not displaying
the vector image would add an element of
surprise to the final drawn result, contribu-
ting to the magic of the process. Hopefully
not an unpleasant surprise, for example
when unforeseen lighting conditions might
confuse the drawing algorithm – situations
that might be avoided when displaying the
result before the lengthy actual drawing pro-
cess. Public testing of the robot will hopeful-
ly reveal which choice proves superior.  drawing. On the other side however, it might
Drawing: While drawing, an unobtrusive
throbber animation is displayed. The waiting
21
user has the choice to pause the process, for
example to adjust the pen position. Pausing
gives the possibility to resume or to abort
the drawing completely – an important fea-
ture in case an impatient user leaves before
adjusted etc. 
Finishing: The machine guides the user
through the necessary steps to remove the
paper and insert a new sheet when the dra-
wing process is finished. A small animation
again helps finding and using the magnetic
paper holders.
DRAWING AS PERFORMANCE
As already mentioned, we want the drawing
process to be an exciting event that cap-
tivates the user and other bystanders. To
achieve this, we were thinking about several
performative elements we could add to the
machine, such as the bell that rings when
the drawing is finished, rounding up the pro-
cess with a certain classical elegance.  
The sequence in which the portrait is drawn
may also play a role. We are yet a bit unsu-
re whether it is advantageous to draw the
contour first followed by the hatching or if
everything should be drawn more or less
randomly. If the contour is drawn at the be-
ginning, it would be easier to grasp for any
observers what and where the machine is
take the tension from the process, because
the subject is literally lined out without fur-
ther surprises.
NAMING / BRANDING

We contemplate to commercialize our dra-

wing robot under a common brand, along
other machines built for public display.
Therefore, we attach importance to the na-
ming of our product and try to keep its per-
ceived value high. One of our ideas is to seria-
lize every drawing and also let the machine
sign it, just as human artists are signing their
artworks. For naming the robot, we tried to
conjure up associations of ancient enginee-
ring, art and wonderous machinery without
sounding too corny (not ‘Leonardo’ etc.).
These are some mostly ancient Greek or La-
tin keywords that inspired us: 

Symboleyo – Drawing 
Pingor – I am being painted 
Delineor – I am being drawn 
Pictor - Painter 
Artis Magica – Engineering marvel 
Piktograph – Probably a neologism 
Scitsaro – sketching 
Synalizomay – Generating machine code 
Zographeo – Depict 
Atos – Wonder 
Periapton – Magic 
Eikon – Picture 
Blepo – Observe 

We like the name ‘Pankraz Piktograph’ at this

point for not being coined or protected al-
ready, its sound and expected findability
with search engines. 

22
 SOURCES

Holger Winnemöller, Jan Eric Kyprianidis,

Sven C. Olsen • XDoG: An eXtended differen-
ce-of-Gaussians compendium including ad-
vanced image stylization

Louis Vathan. B, Hoshila Kumar and Brigh-

ton Issac John. H • Kinematic Analysis of Five-
Bar Mechanism in Industrial Robotics

Lucas Campos, Francis Bourbonnais, Ilian A.

Bonev, and Pascal Bigras • Development of 
a Five-Bar Parallel Robot with Large Work-
space  

Khalid Saeed, Marek Tabe Dzki, Marius Ryb-

nik, Marcin Adamaski • K3M: A universal al-
gorithm for image skeltonization and a re-
view of thinning tenchniques

__________________________________________________

CREDITS

Parts written by Joris Wegner:

Motivation & Considerations
Operating Principle
Product Design Considerations
Interface
Naming / Branding

Parts written by Felix Fisgus:

Inverse Kinematic & Simulation
System Architecture
Image Processing
Interaction
Drawing as Performance

23