h a l f b a k e r yNaturally, seismology provides the answer.
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
This is an idea for a website that loads images of sculptures, paintings, architecture, etc. in real size. Most commonly, big things.
Imagine scrolling from the bottom to the top of the empire state building, or the great pyramids! it would take hours and you would truly gain a sense of the thing's
scale. This should be possible in this day and age with computers all powerful and what not.
I don't really know how this would happen, but my guess is that composite images could be laid out on a single page. It would be neat if you could move around the thing, and so this would drastically increase the cost of the project, but would be an inevitable goal.
The right camera for the job
http://news.deviantart.com/article/27174/
576 megapixels [Spacecoyote, Aug 04 2008]
size easy
http://www.sizeasy.com/
Pretty cool. [mylodon, Aug 05 2008]
A Blue Whale, Life-Sized
http://www.wdcs.co....content_pub_en.html
Stumbled across this by accident today. Oddly apposite. [lostdog, Aug 06 2008]
Father Ted's lecture on perspective
http://www.youtube....watch?v=98hO97ky-sA
[Jinbish, Aug 06 2008]
[link]
|
| |
I don't know how well that's going to work out. |
|
| |
The "size" of an artwork on a webpage would depend on the resolution of the computer screen. So "real size" is a difficult claim to live up to online. |
|
| |
I see. Well, perhaps there could be suitable algorithms, users have to input screen resolution first and the images are sized accordingly. Also, there is clearly going to be a zoom function, but the real point is that I want the screen to be able to take up as much area as the real piece does. Heck, it can take up more, magnifying the image, but the real size should always be accessible. |
|
| |
I just want to be able to see the little chips in the marble, specks on the glass. "God is in the details". |
|
| |
Although camera resolutions are getting higher every day, even with the best camera it would still require tons of shots to make the composite image. Unless you scale it, which kind of defeats the purpose. |
|
| |
Also, the amount of bandwidth this would take is insane. Lets consider a more-than-average screen size of 2ft by 1.5ft and a less-than-average resolution of 800x600 pixels. Your example of the Empire State Building, while no longer the tallest building, is an astounding 1,472ft from top to bottom. That would be 981 and 1/3 screens high, a vertical resolution of 588,800px. Judging by the picture I have, the building seems to be 40ft in width, so 20 screens, or 16,000px. |
|
| |
By my calculations then, the picture would have to be at least 16,000px by 588,800px, or with a 3:4 portrait orientation camera, 260 megapixels. The highest-res camera I can find on the internet is the Hasselblad H3DII-50 (a $37,000 camera) with 50 megapixels. With such a camera, it would take about 5,184 (edit: oops, that's 4:3, cropped it would take 144 shots) careful shots to make the composite. Such a picture would also take up GIGS of space and be an impossible load on a server even if the users at home had the time and bandwidth for it. |
|
| |
There is also the problem that it is impossible to detect the physical size of a users screen and would have to rely on the user to supply that information. |
|
| |
But us geeks need a challenge, and frankly this is a cool idea, so +! |
|
| |
The Sistine Chaple is gonna take a while... |
|
| |
Thanks, [normzone] - I honestly thought my computer was broken! where the heck did the [annotate] button go? :) |
|
| |
I would love to be able to see the Sphynx close enough to touch. |
|
| |
That link is for real. Damn. And, yes, it will likely serve the purpose of this idea, to an extent. However, as it only reflects the resolution of the collective images, it will not have the resolution I am stating here. Unless, of course, people start going around taking random pictures of small portions of art, anticipating the usefulness. |
|
| |
Which is funny, imagining all these individually useless images people bring home from vacation, but they know they've shot the final section of the Notre Dame that no one else has in real size resolution and so it matters, yes! But, oh! Someone already got it, damn. |
|
| |
I forgot to mention that this would also break several records simultaneously. |
|
| |
But despite the problems with screen resolution which [jutta] mentions, what do you mean by "real size"? If I go and look at the Statue of Liberty, the Mona Lisa, or Michaelangelo's 'David', they all apear to be about the same size as my computer monitor when I'm sitting a comfortable distance from it. My point is - you never look at things in 1:1 scale so I don't see how doing so on a computer monitor will suddenly give you a "sense of the thing's scale". |
|
| |
But the difference is when you're there you can easily get closer and see the full detail of the object, at "eye resolution". This idea would bring nearly the same experience to the comfort of your desk. |
|
| |
Can you imagine trying to copy-paste that bad boy? The spinning wheel for about 5 days! |
|
| |
You could just display an outline in a vector format. |
|
| |
That would be very lightweight, and you could use this stylistic choice to avoid all the data issues that come with pure photography. |
|
| |
It would be similar to google map's 'map' or 'terrain' view. Maybe, just like Google, let people attach postcards or photos to the various areas they've actually taken a picture of. |
|
| |
I think scale issues could be solved by tuning the image for the user, by measuring dpi of the local screen. |
|
| |
Or just compare things to each other: see link |
|
| |