3 ms·

So in other words, Black 4.0 'just a paint' is imperceptible from Vantablack using human vision, and the Anish Kapoor thing was just a publicity stunt?

by kawhah 3y ago

mrpopo 3y ago
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anish_Kapoor#Vantablack_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anish_Kapoor#Vantablack_contro... It's a reaction to Anish Kapoor's exclusive licensing of Vantablack, regarded as abusive in the art world.
- kawhah 3y ago
  Did you reply to my comment without reading all the way to the end of the sentence?
nabla9 3y ago
No. These numbers are measured perpendicular. Vanta Black has low total hemispherical reflectance below 1% from all angles, others don't.
Xixi 3y ago
Looking at it the other way, Black 4.0 reflects 0.05% of the light, and Vantablack 0.035%. So Black 4.0 reflects about 40% more light. The difference is not that small. On the other hand, Vantablack is highly toxic (similar to asbestos), while Black 4.0 should be quite a lot safer.
- kawhah 3y ago
  Right but 40% of something very small is also very small. If you are experiencing the two blacks in a normal ambient environment around lighting and other non highly light absorbent surfaces, they will look extremely similar.
  - hughesjj 3y ago
    Isn't light (luminosity) perception logarithmic?
    - kawhah 3y ago
      No, the logarithmic effect bottoms out towards the low part of the scale. If you're somewhere very dark, your eye adjusts so that you get back to the middle of the range. But if you're somewhere light and just looking at black paint, it doesn't.
kritr 3y ago
Having seen his exhibit in Venice. I will say, in the right contexts it really does look like a black hole. This doesn’t require limited lighting, just regular room lighting. 3d objects painted with it will disappear into themselves as if it was 2d.
- kawhah 3y ago
  the question is whether or not the same would happen with 'conventional' black paints.

So in other words, Black 4.0 'just a paint' is imperceptible from Vantablack using human vision, and the Anish Kapoor thing was just a publicity stunt?

by kawhah 3y ago

So in other words, Black 4.0 'just a paint' is imperceptible from Vantablack using human vision, and the Anish Kapoor thing was just a publicity stunt?

mrpopo 3y ago

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anish_Kapoor#Vantablack_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anish_Kapoor#Vantablack_contro... It's a reaction to Anish Kapoor's exclusive licensing of Vantablack, regarded as abusive in the art world.

kawhah 3y ago
Did you reply to my comment without reading all the way to the end of the sentence?

nabla9 3y ago

No. These numbers are measured perpendicular. Vanta Black has low total hemispherical reflectance below 1% from all angles, others don't.

Xixi 3y ago

Looking at it the other way, Black 4.0 reflects 0.05% of the light, and Vantablack 0.035%. So Black 4.0 reflects about 40% more light. The difference is not that small. On the other hand, Vantablack is highly toxic (similar to asbestos), while Black 4.0 should be quite a lot safer.

kawhah 3y ago
Right but 40% of something very small is also very small. If you are experiencing the two blacks in a normal ambient environment around lighting and other non highly light absorbent surfaces, they will look extremely similar.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  Isn't light (luminosity) perception logarithmic?
  - kawhah 3y ago
    No, the logarithmic effect bottoms out towards the low part of the scale. If you're somewhere very dark, your eye adjusts so that you get back to the middle of the range. But if you're somewhere light and just looking at black paint, it doesn't.

kritr 3y ago

Having seen his exhibit in Venice. I will say, in the right contexts it really does look like a black hole. This doesn’t require limited lighting, just regular room lighting. 3d objects painted with it will disappear into themselves as if it was 2d.

kawhah 3y ago
the question is whether or not the same would happen with 'conventional' black paints.