←back to thread

717 Gigapixel Image of Rembrandt's Nightwatch

(hyper-resolution.org)
565 points gaws | 1 comments | 25 Jan 22 00:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.235s | source
Show context
supernova87a ◴[25 Jan 22 02:51 UTC] No.30067296[source]▶
Do they always take the image from straight on, front? Is the camera panned around with a narrow FOV so that it doesn't see portions of the canvas from an angle? Does the light source move with the camera?

Or, I'm thinking, it's often really interesting to see the 3D texture of a painting -- is that ever something desired to be recorded? For example, with impressionist / pointillist paintings I've seen in person, looking at the canvas from a very low angle is even more interesting to be able to see the brush strokes than seeing it directly face-on.

replies(3): >>30067320 #>>30067359 #>>30067694 #
kingcharles ◴[25 Jan 22 03:45 UTC] No.30067694[source]▶
This explains all the technical details - it is far more advanced than you would imagine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_hm5oX7ZlE

replies(2): >>30067980 #>>30068067 #
1. modeless ◴[25 Jan 22 04:36 UTC] No.30068067[source]▶
Wow, that's a lot of work! And yet it seems a shame to not capture more information than a single RGB color value per pixel. I can think of three other types of information you could capture: 3D information (which they did capture but only at a coarse level), the BDRF, and hyperspectral information. Of these the BDRF seems most important for viewing of paintings, and I'm surprised that there's no consideration of that given the thoroughness of the rest of the project.

With the BDRF you would be able to show the painting as it would appear under any lighting condition and any viewing angle. This would make the painting appear much more realistic in a VR rendering, for example. The current stitched photo assumes uniform lighting and a straight-on view, and if you simply mapped it to a texture on a plane in a 3D environment it would look flat and lifeless.