h a l f b a k e r yI think this would be a great thing to not do.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
3d design usually involves someone painstakingly
constructig a 3-
dimensional model consisting of objects, light-
sources and all manner of
texture or material properties to define how light
behaves when bouncing
around the scene.
Once built, a viewpoint is defined, and the whole lot
sent
to the
rendering machine where all the calculations are done
and the scene is
rendered in all its imaginary glory.
What this idea is all about is reversing that process
and taking, as a
starting point, a representation from say,
Caravaggio's "The Calling of St
Matthew", and with all manner of technical wizardry,
reverse engineer the
three-dimensional scene, along with light-sources,
apertures and so-on.
The result would be a (computer) model describing the
set, along with
lighting specifications, which, if realised in the
studio, could be
populated with members of your family or social
circle before taking a
photograph.
That resulting photograph *ought* to be a fairly
faithful recreation of
the original masterpiece, subject to surrealist or
non-Euclidean
tendencies on the part of the original artist. I
imagine sets constructed
from works of the more Baroque masters might require
a small fortune in
expensive lighting, but should yield the most
satisfying photographic
results.
Arnolfini Portrait
https://en.wikipedi.../Arnolfini_Portrait
" ... considered one of the most original and complex paintings in Western art ..." [8th of 7, Jan 15 2019]
VR Van Gogh
https://www.youtube...watch?v=jBOL5yakREA
[theircompetitor, Jan 19 2019]
[link]
|
| |
Surely this is only true if the old masters were striving for a photorealist look? I suspect that much of the lighting in these pictures is impossible in real life. |
|
| |
So I don't think it would work for cubist or abstract images (though
it might be fun to see what got squirted out in these cases) but if as
a human, we respond to graduations of shading and interpret those
inputs as a projection onto a 2d frame of a particular shape, viewed
under particular lighting conditions, then that ought to be
extrapolate-able - yes, it might require specialist lighting
techniques, like barn-door baffles, gel-frames or whatever they used
to use in 30's Hollywood films, to cast light only on the subject's
eyes - some kind of cutout mask - but I'm sure it's got a name - but with enough tools
available to the artificial virtual model builder, it should be possible to recreate -
at least the general mood and dynamics of an image. |
|
| |
I really would like to see this attempted with some of the Vermeer interiors though. |
|
| |
Also, you'd have to fill in a huge amount of missing
information. For instance, you'd have to know that Whistler's
mother actually had a tattoo on her right cheek. |
|
| |
Turpentine and a cloth? Get one of them computer
controlled robot arms and take one layer off at a time. |
|
| |
Johannes Gechler, a Dutch artist in the early 1900's, only
produced about 50 paintings in his lifetime. But X-rays
showed why: he actually painted the hidden parts of things,
and the backs of things, and the insides of things, in
consecutive layers before the final layer containing the
viewer-facing parts of things. You can actually take scans of
his paintings and expand them front-to-back, and you get a
reasonable approximation of the complete scene. |
|
| |
Sounds a bit like Richard Dadd. |
|
| |
"Johannes Gechler" sounds like "Richard Dadd"?? What accent
are you using? |
|
| |
Glad you didn't pick Judith Beheading Holofernes, though that idea and Max's anno make me think of the invisible? How are we dealing with the texture of the wound, the handle of the sword? Is the risk here that we are in "Computer... Enhance" territory here? |
|
| |
// make me think of the invisible? // |
|
| |
Well done. Now, don't think of a pink elephant. |
|
| |
// we are in "Computer... Enhance" territory // |
|
| |
There's nothing in the help file that says you shouldn't propose such things. |
|
| |
"Enhance 57 to 19. Track 45 left. Stop. Enhance 15 to 23. Give me a hard copy right there." |
|
| |
// What accent are you using? // |
|
| |
Norfolk. One protolinguistic metasyntactic grunt sounds pretty much like another. |
|
| |
Basically a special case of photogrammetry then. |
|
| |
//There's nothing in the help file that says you shouldn't
propose such things.//
True. I was only highlighting it as I think that's the most
interesting part - what do we need to teach the computer to
extrapolate wounds, or what the painter's painting looks like
in Las Meninas? |
|
| |
If we take (not literally) an old master painting such as a beautiful Dutch interior scene we can analyse it and attempt to reconstruct a 3D version of the scene depicted. This is a problem to which there are many solutions. So, there is ambiguity in the painting, in the objects depicted, their orientation in 3D space, and how they are lit, and there may be several viable 3D models and lighting set-ups which render to produce a more or less good facsimile of the painting. However, there will always be one 3D model which produces the best solution - both in terms of the accuracy of where things are in the scene and in terms of how accurately they are lit - and this solution will be that the 3D model contains a copy of the painting you are looking at. I.e. Vermeer's painting "Girl with a pearl earring" isn't a painting of a girl with a pearl earring, but is a painting of the painting "Girl with a pearl earring". There's a risk that if you build a system to search for the best solution, it will always find this solution - if you don't want this, you might have to explicitly prohibit it. |
|
| |
What about The Arnolfini Wedding ? <link> Would the reflection in the mirror have to show the graphics team hunched behind their monitors ? |
|
| |
// what the painter's painting looks like in Las Meninas? // |
|
| |
Ah, but that's "context-sensetive", shirley ? |
|
| |
//the reflection in the mirror//
That's not a mirror - it's a lens, with an identical but
mirror-imaged room behind it with two people standing in it with their backs to the viewer. |
|
| |
I'm still waiting for the the Arnolfini Bitterly Disputed
Divorce painting to turn up. |
|
| |
It's on the back of the Arnolfini Wedding painting, didn't you know ? At least, half of it is ... she got half in the settlement, he kept the other half, neither of them wanted the wedding picture so for a long time it was hung with the "front" facing the wall ... |
|
| |
Elon Arnolfini should have had a better divorce lawyer. |
|
| |
Nice, a picture is a thousand models. |
|
| |
this is pretty baked, see link |
|
| |
It'd be fun to feed some of M. C. Escher's impossible staircases and waterfalls into this, just to see it get flustered. |
|
| |