3 ms·
These types of comments always get under my skin. They took a 45 gigapixel photo of a 350-year-old Rembrandt, I'm pretty sure they didn't shoot it in the exhibi
by robbyking 6y ago
These types of comments always get under my skin. They took a 45 gigapixel photo of a 350-year-old Rembrandt, I'm pretty sure they didn't shoot it in the exhibition hall using "so-called daylight LED lamps."
- the-dude 6y agoI am pretty sure they did shoot it in the exhibition hall, the painting is rather big. Further, the OP actually brings in own experiences, you are merely guessing.
- gilrain 6y agoYeah, because professional museum curators and art restoration teams are well known to just shake their heads at safely moving large exhibits, baffled at the prospect. C'mon.
- the-dude 6y agoIf I were a curator, I would refuse to move a 3.5x4.5 meter painting from 1642 just for taking a picture. It seems like a no-brainer to bring the camera to the painting instead of the other way around.
- whoisjuan 6y agoDude. Here is a photo of the setup. They didn't move it. https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/nightwatch https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/nightwatch Edit: Here is an actual video -> https://www.instagram.com/p/B00YJ7tFbyB/ https://www.instagram.com/p/B00YJ7tFbyB/
- Hinrik 6y agoAs can be seen there, they of course relied on their own lighting as is standard for archival and studio photography.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- fjfaase 6y agoThis talks about an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) scanner, which uses X-rays (not visible light) to scan the painting.
- whoisjuan 6y agoIt's the same scanner setup regardless of the scan that is being done. I don't know about lighting though. Here you can see some of the resulting images from a scan and they are pretty dark, but this paint is dark so who knows. https://youtu.be/l3QlXyZJpgs?t=3513 https://youtu.be/l3QlXyZJpgs?t=3513