4 ms·
Simply scanning to a 2D raster image doesn't capture physical qualities of the work, like brushstrokes and how light is reflected, or effects caused by the subs
by DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
Simply scanning to a 2D raster image doesn't capture physical qualities of the work, like brushstrokes and how light is reflected, or effects caused by the substrate/canvas/paper.
(I'm sure there is a scanning tech that can capture most of this detail, but as far as I know its use isn't widespread in most cases of industrialized archival)
- scanny 5y agoGoogle seems to be doing a decent job with whatever they are using [0], it would be nice to see it used elsewhere because like you said it's usually much lower quality. [0] https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-water-lily-pond-claude-monet/nQExbyttj8z58A?ms=%7B%22x%22%3A0.6366747832174228%2C%22y%22%3A0.5444031262765245%2C%22z%22%3A14%2C%22size%22%3A%7B%22width%22%3A0.09149780616472522%2C%22height%22%3A0.04660861032748682%7D%7D https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-water-lily-pond-...
- cratermoon 5y agoFlattening everything physical about the pictures, reducing them to the limited dynamic range of display, and homogenizing them all to the same "average" color palette doesn't strike me as anything more impressive than a printed encyclopedia entry about quantum physics.
- notatoad 5y ago>brushstrokes is there original paintings in this collection? from the article it seems like a collection of photos, and maybe in some cases photos of paintings but not the paintings themselves.
- josephcsible 5y agoSure, but isn't a 2D raster image still better than not being able to see it in any form anymore?