They really, absolutely, positively claim that this is /not/ photoshopped:

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/dan/cantbelieve5/chalk.jpg

(Though they admit some "editing" /has/ been done - using several liters 
of paint... see http://www.metanamorph.com, "Lave Burst")

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> They really, absolutely, positively claim that this is /not/ photoshopped:
>
> http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/dan/cantbelieve5/chalk.jpg
>
> (Though they admit some "editing" /has/ been done - using several liters
> of paint... see http://www.metanamorph.com, "Lave Burst")

Gotta love urban art.  Nowadays much better than old graffiti... :)

Post a reply to this message

>> They really, absolutely, positively claim that this is /not/ photoshopped:
>>
>> http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/dan/cantbelieve5/chalk.jpg
>>
>> (Though they admit some "editing" /has/ been done - using several liters
>> of paint... see http://www.metanamorph.com, "Lave Burst")
> 
> Gotta love urban art.  Nowadays much better than old graffiti... :)

Yeah. But the illusion only works in 2D. And only from one exact spot. 
It's must less impressive in person.

Still... people accuse *me* of having too much free time. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Yeah. But the illusion only works in 2D. And only from one exact spot. 
> It's must less impressive in person.

  It probably works if you look with only one eye (from that precise spot).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Yeah. But the illusion only works in 2D. And only from one exact spot. 
>> It's must less impressive in person.
> 
>   It probably works if you look with only one eye (from that precise spot).

Yeah, quite probably. Although you'd look a bit strange with one eye 
open. (Then again, some of the bystanders are giving the people in the 
middle strange looks too...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:15:49 -0400, nemesis wrote:

> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> They really, absolutely, positively claim that this is /not/
>> photoshopped:
>>
>> http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/dan/cantbelieve5/chalk.jpg
>>
>> (Though they admit some "editing" /has/ been done - using several
>> liters of paint... see http://www.metanamorph.com, "Lave Burst")
> 
> Gotta love urban art.  Nowadays much better than old graffiti... :)

I've seen a few images done this way, always impressive to see more.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/05/09 21:11, clipka wrote:
> They really, absolutely, positively claim that this is /not/ photoshopped:
>
> http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/dan/cantbelieve5/chalk.jpg
>
> (Though they admit some "editing" /has/ been done - using several liters
> of paint... see http://www.metanamorph.com, "Lave Burst")

	What's interesting is that they have this in some soccer stadiums. 
Essentially, from the camera's vantage point (broadcasting the game), it 
really looks like a 3-D advertising banner. Until someone walks over it 
or the ball rolls over it and you realize it's just 2-D on the floor.

	Apparently not that sensitive to camera motion. My brain is fooled 
every time - even though I know it's 2-D and not a 3-D billboard.

	Now your scene probably is sensitive to position, given the scale.

-- 
He's got a magnet!!!  Everybody BACKUP!!!!!!!!

Post a reply to this message

> What's interesting is that they have this in some soccer stadiums.

They have it in all soccer stadiums I've seen on TV :-)  Usually ones on the 
floor either side of the goal.  Also at some stadiums they have two "tiers" 
of advert banners around the stadium, but they display the correct images to 
make it look like one continuous layer of adverts even though one is about 5 
metres behind and 2 metres higher than the other.

> Apparently not that sensitive to camera motion. My brain is fooled every 
> time - even though I know it's 2-D and not a 3-D billboard.

At soccer matches the main camera doesn't move, it just rotates, so the 
illusion should be kept all the time.  Obviously when the director switches 
to a different camera the effect is ruined.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote in message 
news:4acaa75f$1@news.povray.org...
> They really, absolutely, positively claim that this is /not/ photoshopped:
>
> http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/dan/cantbelieve5/chalk.jpg
>
> (Though they admit some "editing" /has/ been done - using several liters 
> of paint... see http://www.metanamorph.com, "Lave Burst")

Julian Beever is the person who has been doing the sidewalk chalk 3D artwork 
for quite awhile.  I assumed this was the same person, but nope.

Post a reply to this message