26 ms·

I remember being quite blown away as a 20 year old during a trip to Paris by some of the paintings in the Louvre and the Musée d'Orsay. I had known many of thes

by lqet 8y ago

I remember being quite blown away as a 20 year old during a trip to Paris by some of the paintings in the Louvre and the Musée d'Orsay. I had known many of these paintings before, from Wikipedia and school books, but it seems to be impossible to capture the effect of an oil painting in a digital or reproduced image, because, as the article describes, an oil painting is essentially 3-dimensional. (I also distinctly remember being shocked by the size of some paintings, especially the crowning of Napoleon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_Napoleon_I#/media/File:Jacques-Louis_David_-_The_Coronation_of_Napoleon_(1805-1807).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_Napoleon_I#/medi...) This painting was printed in many of my history school books, but I was not even remotely aware that is nearly 10 meters wide.)

bufferoverflow 8y ago
It's not impossible, computers have been modeling 3D fluids for a long time. It might be computationally intensive, but definitely not impossible.
- simias 8y ago
  He's talking about reproduction, not modeling. You can model the painting's physics all you want, you still won't be able to make a faithful reproduction on a flat and gamut-limited LCD screen.
  - mrob 8y ago
    With head tracking it should be possible to get close. The thickness changes are small, so the 3D effect is mostly from the uneven light reflection revealed by head movement, not stereopsis.
    - jdietrich 8y ago
      The texture of oil on canvas is extraordinarily complex and subtle. You would need billions of pixels and polygons and trillions of rays to even begin to capture the heavy impasto of Van Gogh or the coarse diffusion of Bacon.
      - cr0sh 8y ago
        > You would need billions of pixels and polygons and trillions of rays So give it 5 years, and you'll have it on your phone... If there's one thing I've learned over the decades about computer technology, it's to never say "impossible" or "never"... Eventually, what you once might have thought to be only in the realm of "big and expensive" inevitably becomes "cheap and commodity" in a far shorter time than you expect.
        HeWhoLurksLate 8y ago
        That was one of the rather unexploited features of the Amazon Fire Phone, which I loved for that very reason. Unfortunately, it didn't see much use, but you could take pictures that could capture depth (created by rotation) and it was so cool.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        Plus you can prerender 99% of the lighting. Or even just take ten million photos from almost the same spot, presenting the one that matches the user's subtle movements.
kqr 8y ago
Oh, yeah, and waves in the water of those hyper-detailed Italian 16th century paintings, or tree leaves -- when lit correctly, you get specular highlights that seriously look like sunlight glistening on there. Blows me away every time. Those paintings are quite low-resolution on average, but it took me a while to figure out how they could add so much resolution where it mattered, and turns out it's because they have an entire extra dimension to vary things in.
arghwhat 8y ago
> (I also distinctly remember being shocked by the size of some paintings, especially the crowning of Napoleon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_Napoleon_I#/medi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_Napoleon_I#/medi...) This painting was printed in many of my history school books, but I was not even remotely aware that is nearly 10 meters wide.) And yet, it's the postal stamp-sized Mona Lisa that gets all the attention... Sure, it's a good painting, but I personally find it to pale in comparison to the other works on display at the Louvre.
- joeberon 8y ago
  How is this relevant or an interesting point? Tourism is tourism. Mona Lisa is famous.
  - zingermc 8y ago
    I'm noticing an increasing amount of rude comments on HN these days. Please, keep it civil.
- nabla9 8y ago
  The painting opposite of Mona Lisa is the The Wedding at Cana. It's one of the most impressive paintings in Louvre (I think it's the largest). I have wondered if they placed it there as a joke. There is over 100 people in the painting being busy and only person looking outward directly towards Mona Lisa is Jesus looking surprised. Mona Lisa is looking directly at Jesus and smirks.
  - arghwhat 8y ago
    Hah, I will now believe that this was indeed placed there as a joke. There are actually a few more people than just Jesus looking out towards Mona Lisa, some with amusing expressions. It is just a rather busy painting, so it can be hard to notice.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  There's a place for both. Rothko's Seagram Murals are bland and unremarkable in the pages of a book, but become utterly overwhelming in person due to their sheer scale. Conversely, Sir Charles Bell's watercolour sketches of battlefield wounds are so affecting on part because of their small size. When stooping over to peer at these pocket notebook sketches, you are transported to a field hospital in Waterloo, standing over the shoulder of Bell as he quickly but expertly records the carnage of war in intimate detail.
kgwgk 8y ago
https://artmyn.com/categories/paintings/ https://artmyn.com/categories/paintings/
- lqet 8y ago
  Extremely interesting, thank you! But my point still stands. Consider this image in ultra high definition: https://artmyn.com/partners/sothebys-newyork/Michele_Marieschi-Venice_a_view_of_the_Grand_Canal/ https://artmyn.com/partners/sothebys-newyork/Michele_Mariesc... If you drag the image around, you notice that the water has different highlight points at different angles. If you would stand in front of this painting, your natural body movement (of even a tree before the window) would constantly change the lighting and almost certainly result in a very natural-looking water surface. I cannot imagine reproducing this digitally without it feeling "artificial" or "forced".
  - taneq 8y ago
    I wonder how well this sensation would be conveyed by viewing a lightfield capture in VR? This is meant to be the sort of thing that that's good for.
jdietrich 8y ago
I can highly recommend John Berger's legendary documentary series Ways Of Seeing. The first episode explores precisely this issue - how our perception of painting is affected by reproduction. It has perhaps the most arresting opening scene of any documentary series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pDE4VX_9Kk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pDE4VX_9Kk
- lqet 8y ago
  Ah, yes, I watched this series a few years ago and just realized that it may have inspired my post above a bit. PS: I just shamelessly throw in another excellent BBC documentary series here: How Buildings Learn, by Stewart Brand [0]. I sometimes see it mentioned here on HN, but it cannot be mentioned too often. If you haven't seen it, please please do. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0
- beat 8y ago
  My favorite painting in the world is Jackson Pollock's Mural, his first major painting. It's owned by my alma mater the U of Iowa. The canvas is 9x20 iirc, just huge. They used to display it in a large central gallery, where you could look at it from more than 50 feet away, or get your nose right up to it. One of the great things about this painting is how it is a totally different experience at different distances. From a distance, the sense of right-to-left motion is palpable. Get closer, and figures seem to pop out of it. But really close, you can no longer see the entire painting, but you can see individual brushstrokes (mostly 3-6" house painting brushes, I think). The subtlety and detail of each stroke is extraordinary. There are patterns across the canvas that are a result of large-scale patterns of strokes - it's almost like cursive handwriting.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    I had a similar experience seeing Summertime Number 9A in the Tate. It just looks like meaningless squiggles when reproduced on a postcard, but in person you can see the structure, the layers of line and shape. You may be interested in this video by the Getty Conservation Institute on the conservation of Mural: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWAbVpkV0jQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWAbVpkV0jQ
scott_s 8y ago
I read a book about the Revolutionary War called "Washington's Crossing" by David Hackett Fischer. The wrap-around cover of the book is, appropriately, the iconic painting "Washington Crossing the Delaware" by Emanuel Leutze (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware_(1851_painting) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Crossing_the_Delawa...). I learned that the actual painting was nearby in NYC at The Met. When a friend visited, I wanted one of my goals was to go to The Met and see the painting. I entered the American Wing close enough to closing time that I worried I may not find the painting in time. I started wandering, turned a corner, and sat dumfounded starting at the very thing I was looking for, sitting 21 feet in width at the end of the hall.

by lqet 8y ago

bufferoverflow 8y ago

It's not impossible, computers have been modeling 3D fluids for a long time. It might be computationally intensive, but definitely not impossible.

simias 8y ago
He's talking about reproduction, not modeling. You can model the painting's physics all you want, you still won't be able to make a faithful reproduction on a flat and gamut-limited LCD screen.
- mrob 8y ago
  With head tracking it should be possible to get close. The thickness changes are small, so the 3D effect is mostly from the uneven light reflection revealed by head movement, not stereopsis.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    The texture of oil on canvas is extraordinarily complex and subtle. You would need billions of pixels and polygons and trillions of rays to even begin to capture the heavy impasto of Van Gogh or the coarse diffusion of Bacon.
    - cr0sh 8y ago
      > You would need billions of pixels and polygons and trillions of rays So give it 5 years, and you'll have it on your phone... If there's one thing I've learned over the decades about computer technology, it's to never say "impossible" or "never"... Eventually, what you once might have thought to be only in the realm of "big and expensive" inevitably becomes "cheap and commodity" in a far shorter time than you expect.
      - HeWhoLurksLate 8y ago
        That was one of the rather unexploited features of the Amazon Fire Phone, which I loved for that very reason. Unfortunately, it didn't see much use, but you could take pictures that could capture depth (created by rotation) and it was so cool.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        Plus you can prerender 99% of the lighting. Or even just take ten million photos from almost the same spot, presenting the one that matches the user's subtle movements.

kqr 8y ago

Oh, yeah, and waves in the water of those hyper-detailed Italian 16th century paintings, or tree leaves -- when lit correctly, you get specular highlights that seriously look like sunlight glistening on there. Blows me away every time. Those paintings are quite low-resolution on average, but it took me a while to figure out how they could add so much resolution where it mattered, and turns out it's because they have an entire extra dimension to vary things in.

arghwhat 8y ago

> (I also distinctly remember being shocked by the size of some paintings, especially the crowning of Napoleon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_Napoleon_I#/medi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_Napoleon_I#/medi...) This painting was printed in many of my history school books, but I was not even remotely aware that is nearly 10 meters wide.) And yet, it's the postal stamp-sized Mona Lisa that gets all the attention... Sure, it's a good painting, but I personally find it to pale in comparison to the other works on display at the Louvre.

joeberon 8y ago
How is this relevant or an interesting point? Tourism is tourism. Mona Lisa is famous.
- zingermc 8y ago
  I'm noticing an increasing amount of rude comments on HN these days. Please, keep it civil.
nabla9 8y ago
The painting opposite of Mona Lisa is the The Wedding at Cana. It's one of the most impressive paintings in Louvre (I think it's the largest). I have wondered if they placed it there as a joke. There is over 100 people in the painting being busy and only person looking outward directly towards Mona Lisa is Jesus looking surprised. Mona Lisa is looking directly at Jesus and smirks.
- arghwhat 8y ago
  Hah, I will now believe that this was indeed placed there as a joke. There are actually a few more people than just Jesus looking out towards Mona Lisa, some with amusing expressions. It is just a rather busy painting, so it can be hard to notice.
jdietrich 8y ago
There's a place for both. Rothko's Seagram Murals are bland and unremarkable in the pages of a book, but become utterly overwhelming in person due to their sheer scale. Conversely, Sir Charles Bell's watercolour sketches of battlefield wounds are so affecting on part because of their small size. When stooping over to peer at these pocket notebook sketches, you are transported to a field hospital in Waterloo, standing over the shoulder of Bell as he quickly but expertly records the carnage of war in intimate detail.

kgwgk 8y ago

https://artmyn.com/categories/paintings/ https://artmyn.com/categories/paintings/

lqet 8y ago
Extremely interesting, thank you! But my point still stands. Consider this image in ultra high definition: https://artmyn.com/partners/sothebys-newyork/Michele_Marieschi-Venice_a_view_of_the_Grand_Canal/ https://artmyn.com/partners/sothebys-newyork/Michele_Mariesc... If you drag the image around, you notice that the water has different highlight points at different angles. If you would stand in front of this painting, your natural body movement (of even a tree before the window) would constantly change the lighting and almost certainly result in a very natural-looking water surface. I cannot imagine reproducing this digitally without it feeling "artificial" or "forced".
- taneq 8y ago
  I wonder how well this sensation would be conveyed by viewing a lightfield capture in VR? This is meant to be the sort of thing that that's good for.

jdietrich 8y ago

I can highly recommend John Berger's legendary documentary series Ways Of Seeing. The first episode explores precisely this issue - how our perception of painting is affected by reproduction. It has perhaps the most arresting opening scene of any documentary series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pDE4VX_9Kk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pDE4VX_9Kk

lqet 8y ago
Ah, yes, I watched this series a few years ago and just realized that it may have inspired my post above a bit. PS: I just shamelessly throw in another excellent BBC documentary series here: How Buildings Learn, by Stewart Brand [0]. I sometimes see it mentioned here on HN, but it cannot be mentioned too often. If you haven't seen it, please please do. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0
beat 8y ago
My favorite painting in the world is Jackson Pollock's Mural, his first major painting. It's owned by my alma mater the U of Iowa. The canvas is 9x20 iirc, just huge. They used to display it in a large central gallery, where you could look at it from more than 50 feet away, or get your nose right up to it. One of the great things about this painting is how it is a totally different experience at different distances. From a distance, the sense of right-to-left motion is palpable. Get closer, and figures seem to pop out of it. But really close, you can no longer see the entire painting, but you can see individual brushstrokes (mostly 3-6" house painting brushes, I think). The subtlety and detail of each stroke is extraordinary. There are patterns across the canvas that are a result of large-scale patterns of strokes - it's almost like cursive handwriting.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  I had a similar experience seeing Summertime Number 9A in the Tate. It just looks like meaningless squiggles when reproduced on a postcard, but in person you can see the structure, the layers of line and shape. You may be interested in this video by the Getty Conservation Institute on the conservation of Mural: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWAbVpkV0jQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWAbVpkV0jQ

scott_s 8y ago

I read a book about the Revolutionary War called "Washington's Crossing" by David Hackett Fischer. The wrap-around cover of the book is, appropriately, the iconic painting "Washington Crossing the Delaware" by Emanuel Leutze (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware_(1851_painting) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Crossing_the_Delawa...). I learned that the actual painting was nearby in NYC at The Met. When a friend visited, I wanted one of my goals was to go to The Met and see the painting. I entered the American Wing close enough to closing time that I worried I may not find the painting in time. I started wandering, turned a corner, and sat dumfounded starting at the very thing I was looking for, sitting 21 feet in width at the end of the hall.