Post a reply to this message

"Lance Birch" <-> wrote in message news:3da7e015@news.povray.org...
> Hi Sander, this message and [2/2] didn't display correctly for me.  On
this
> message, I can't seem to open the JPEG, and on the second message, I just
> get garbled text (that I guess is part of the attachment).
>
> Is anyone else having this problem or is it just me?

I was able to see it, sorta. The top half is okay, bottom half is
mosaic-like as if a progressive Jpeg was frozen before it finished
displaying.
Way I got a look was just to Open the 2nd part (1/2) in OE by clicking on
the paperclip button and then clicking on the file name. I suppose it could
be saved to disk too and then looked at. Unless some people couldn't get
their software to read what appears to be a broken Jpeg.

As to the things about the painting Sanders pointed out, yeah I see. Looking
at the wall behind her and to the left it looks farther away than what the
left side by the window seems to be. Otherwise I'd just say that the table
is pulled away from the wall the window is on, but that doesn't really
explain it either I don't suppose.
--
Farewell,
Bob

Post a reply to this message

Oooops!

Had to quickly act on cancelling a reply I just made when I realized there
actually was a 2/2 part to that posting. Gee, maybe I should expand the
subject line list window pane some. I thought Lance was only talking about
the 0/2 and 1/2 parts, thought that seemed odd. So yep it is all there,
nothing wrong with it after a decoding, nevermind my other reply(ies).
--
Farewell,
Bob

"Sander Stols" <sa### [at] nder> wrote in message
news:MPG.1812004742585c11989685@news.povray.org...
> In article <3da7e015@news.povray.org>, "Lance Birch" <-> says...
> > Hi Sander, this message and [2/2] didn't display correctly for me.
> >
> I'm extremely sorry! Lost the routine a bit. It seems to be a two-part
> binary. You should decode the two parts together. It's normal UUE, as
> far as I know...

Post a reply to this message

In article <MPG.1812004742585c11989685@news.povray.org>, sa### [at] nder 
says...
> In article <3da7e015@news.povray.org>, "Lance Birch" <-> says...
> > Hi Sander, this message and [2/2] didn't display correctly for me.  On this
> > message, I can't seem to open the JPEG, and on the second message, I just
> > get garbled text (that I guess is part of the attachment).
> > 
> > Is anyone else having this problem or is it just me?
> > 
> > Lance.
> > 
> > thezone.firewave.com.au
> > www.firewave.com.au
> > 
> > 
> > 
> I'm extremely sorry! Lost the routine a bit. It seems to be a two-part 
> binary. You should decode the two parts together. It's normal UUE, as 
> far as I know...
> 
> --
> 
> Regards,  Sander
> 

Here's the link to one of the many examples of the milkmaid:
http://www.elisaramos.co.uk/revista_sep.htm

--

Regards,  Sander

Post a reply to this message

in news:MPG.1811f5d8a1d66a89989682@news.povray.org Sander Stols wrote:

> He certainly did not use a camera for his painting "Milkmaid". Try
> and figure out the perspective in this painting! It's near impossible
> to get it right.

One of the things that David Hockney points out as an evidence for the use 
of cameras with lenses are these strange perspectives.
The lens isn't able to project the whole scene at once on the canvas and 
there is also the depth of field. So for one painting the lans has to be 
moved a few times. Each movement results in a change of perspective. Nice 
examples for this are people with too big or small heads an too long legs. 
I don't have Hockney's book here at the moment, but when I have it back 
I'll post a few links too images that show these perspective quircks.

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

In article <Xns### [at] povrayorg>, ing### [at] tagpovrayorg 
says...
> in news:MPG.1811f5d8a1d66a89989682@news.povray.org Sander Stols wrote:
> 
> > He certainly did not use a camera for his painting "Milkmaid". Try
> > and figure out the perspective in this painting! It's near impossible
> > to get it right.
> 
> One of the things that David Hockney points out as an evidence for the use 
> of cameras with lenses are these strange perspectives.
> The lens isn't able to project the whole scene at once on the canvas and 
> there is also the depth of field. So for one painting the lans has to be 
> moved a few times. Each movement results in a change of perspective. Nice 
> examples for this are people with too big or small heads an too long legs. 
> I don't have Hockney's book here at the moment, but when I have it back 
> I'll post a few links too images that show these perspective quircks.
> 
> Ingo
> 
That is all very true, I remember having read about this book and his 
theory. 
Nevertheless I suppose a painter like Vermeer wanted to paint something 
that represented reality. I conceed I never realised that in his 
Milkmaid the perspective is strange/weird. Looking at the painting it 
doesn't bother me one moment. But at the same time it is not realistic.
 
--

Regards,  Sander

Post a reply to this message

"Sander Stols" <sa### [at] nder> wrote in message
news:MPG.1812004742585c11989685@news.povray.org...
> In article <3da7e015@news.povray.org>, "Lance Birch" <-> says...
> > Hi Sander, this message and [2/2] didn't display correctly for me.  On
this
> > message, I can't seem to open the JPEG, and on the second message, I
just
> > get garbled text (that I guess is part of the attachment).
> >
> > Is anyone else having this problem or is it just me?
> >
> > Lance.
> >
> > thezone.firewave.com.au
> > www.firewave.com.au
> >
> >
> >
> I'm extremely sorry! Lost the routine a bit. It seems to be a two-part
> binary. You should decode the two parts together. It's normal UUE, as
> far as I know...

Ah!  I thought you must have posted several images because the file sizes
were so small (in most groups I've seen, the only messages that are split
are over 200 KB).

I didn't even think of join/decode!

Thanks :)

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message