 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
...his painting, the canvas is not even dry and the artist and his models
went out for dinner.
Well, but the raytraced reproduction is far away from being finished.
This is just the first test with HQ radiosity settings.
global_settings {
assumed_gamma 1.0
max_trace_level 16
radiosity {
count 1600
error_bound 0.15
recursion_level 4
...
[everything else is the same as the indoor HQ settings from rad_def.inc]
The problems are:
Some ugly bright spots on the walls. Especially near the virginals and
windows. They appear ONLY when layerd textures are used. Indeed
the top layer uses an agate pigment and the shape of these spots is similar
to that pattern but in fact due to the pattern, these parts should appear
a little bit darker than the surrounding.
When using some glass material for the windows (indeed for this render
there is no glass used) even a very simple glass, the wall at the window side
becomes completely black. To be more exact, the part of the wall facing
the room.
The image maps (used for the paintings) become sudden black at a certain
level of darkness. So they look very ugly and be sure, the original maps I
have used are smooth.
All above mentioned does not appear with lower quality settings for radiosity
(e.g count 400, error_bound 0.8) and also not when using normal light sources.
Have I missed something?
Or are these known limitations for the way radiosity is done by POV?
Or is there something goin' wrong with the radiosity samples calculated
by POV (in other words: are there BUGS)?
Has anybody of the more experienced radiosity users any hints, explanations
or whatever? I'm really stuck and with HQ radiosity the image needs days
to render so it's no fun to work with trial and error.
And here is something completely different but quite interesting.
For this image you are standing close to the rear wall behind the place Vermeer
was sitting, so you can see the easel. The dimension for the room was reconstructed
by what can be seen in the mirror. (In the original painting you see the edge of the
table, so you can calculate the angle the mirror is hanging on the wall and
you can also see the part where the rear wall meets the floor and now you can
calculate the length of the room.) So we know the length of the wall at the window
side and we see that there is exactly room for a third window of the same size as
already seen in the painting. Also I assume that Vermeer would not have placed
his easel in the darkest place of the room and there it would be if there is not a
third
window.
BUT the lighting as seen in the painting (especially on the rug covering the table)
looks more like there is NOT a third window. (Or lets say the window shades
are closed.) In the image I have attached there is a third window but I have also
done a radiosity simulation without the third window and the lighting is much closer
to what can be seen in the painting.
What does this mean? Has Vermeer closed the window shades because he preferred
this kind of lighting for the room even if this means his canvas was lit very poor?
Or did he close the window shades, looked at the room, opened them to do some
brush strokes, closed them again...
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'MusicLesson.jpg' (75 KB)
Preview of image 'MusicLesson.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Truly remarkable.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Beautiful!
/Ib
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Beautiful job, I can't believe you were able to reconstruct the room
dimensions. Marvelous!
Ive wrote:
> ...his painting, the canvas is not even dry and the artist and his models
> went out for dinner.
>
> Well, but the raytraced reproduction is far away from being finished.
> This is just the first test with HQ radiosity settings.
>
>
> global_settings {
> assumed_gamma 1.0
> max_trace_level 16
> radiosity {
> count 1600
> error_bound 0.15
> recursion_level 4
> ...
> [everything else is the same as the indoor HQ settings from rad_def.inc]
>
>
> The problems are:
>
> Some ugly bright spots on the walls. Especially near the virginals and
> windows. They appear ONLY when layerd textures are used. Indeed
> the top layer uses an agate pigment and the shape of these spots is similar
> to that pattern but in fact due to the pattern, these parts should appear
> a little bit darker than the surrounding.
>
> When using some glass material for the windows (indeed for this render
> there is no glass used) even a very simple glass, the wall at the window side
> becomes completely black. To be more exact, the part of the wall facing
> the room.
>
> The image maps (used for the paintings) become sudden black at a certain
> level of darkness. So they look very ugly and be sure, the original maps I
> have used are smooth.
>
> All above mentioned does not appear with lower quality settings for radiosity
> (e.g count 400, error_bound 0.8) and also not when using normal light sources.
>
> Have I missed something?
> Or are these known limitations for the way radiosity is done by POV?
> Or is there something goin' wrong with the radiosity samples calculated
> by POV (in other words: are there BUGS)?
>
> Has anybody of the more experienced radiosity users any hints, explanations
> or whatever? I'm really stuck and with HQ radiosity the image needs days
> to render so it's no fun to work with trial and error.
>
>
> And here is something completely different but quite interesting.
> For this image you are standing close to the rear wall behind the place Vermeer
> was sitting, so you can see the easel. The dimension for the room was reconstructed
> by what can be seen in the mirror. (In the original painting you see the edge of the
> table, so you can calculate the angle the mirror is hanging on the wall and
> you can also see the part where the rear wall meets the floor and now you can
> calculate the length of the room.) So we know the length of the wall at the window
> side and we see that there is exactly room for a third window of the same size as
> already seen in the painting. Also I assume that Vermeer would not have placed
> his easel in the darkest place of the room and there it would be if there is not a
third
> window.
> BUT the lighting as seen in the painting (especially on the rug covering the table)
> looks more like there is NOT a third window. (Or lets say the window shades
> are closed.) In the image I have attached there is a third window but I have also
> done a radiosity simulation without the third window and the lighting is much closer
> to what can be seen in the painting.
> What does this mean? Has Vermeer closed the window shades because he preferred
> this kind of lighting for the room even if this means his canvas was lit very poor?
> Or did he close the window shades, looked at the room, opened them to do some
> brush strokes, closed them again...
>
> -Ive
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
another one for E:\Art :)
cu!
--
camera{location-z*3}#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*(C/50)#end#macro L(b,e,k,l)#local C=0
;#while(C<50)sphere{G(b,e),.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1
;#end#end L(y-x,y,x,x+y)L(y,-x-y,x+y,y)L(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)L(-y,y,y+z,x+y)L(0,x+y,
<.5,1,.5>,x)L(0,x-y,<.5,1,.5>,x) // ZK http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ive" <ive### [at] lilysoft com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3da07987@news.povray.org...
> All above mentioned does not appear with lower quality settings for
radiosity
> (e.g count 400, error_bound 0.8) and also not when using normal light
sources.
For the black spots, you could try a higher max_trace_level. That should do
it, but of course transparent material are always difficult to manage with
radiosity (you can also try loading a rad file created with the scene
without the transparent stuff).
The bright spots are perhaps a coincidence problem. Try to "sink" the window
frames slightly into the wall, at least it worked for me once.
Still, you've gone amazingly far in the recreation of the scene without
major visible problems... Bravo !
> What does this mean? Has Vermeer closed the window shades because he
preferred
> this kind of lighting for the room even if this means his canvas was lit
very poor?
> Or did he close the window shades, looked at the room, opened them to do
some
> brush strokes, closed them again...
The 3rd shades surely look as if they were closed (or draped). Actually this
is certainly the case in his other paintings.
http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/v/vermeer/03b/23conce.jpg
http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/v/vermeer/03c/25artpa.jpg
http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/v/vermeer/02b/08offic.jpg
http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/v/vermeer/03a/17lute.jpg
I don't think the lack of light was such a problem anyway. I guess that such
paintings took days to create, so it's not like he had only a few seconds to
"capture the moment". It's painting, not photography ! The "Art of painting"
image gives some hints about the creative use of draping (though it could be
said the drape was in fact imaginary and used only for dramatic purpose, as
in http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/v/vermeer/04/33faith.jpg)
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, *now* I'm amazed... Nothing I ever got out of POV-Ray looked this good!
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks a lot to all.
I think the next step (beside of playin' more with radiosity) is to create
the dresses for the girl and her teacher. I've never thought that I will
become a tailor by using POV some day.
And one more thing to the room dimensions. For sure, they are
hypothetical and I still do not know the exact position for the right wall.
But somehow I believe there is a door somewhere. But that's also
purely hypothetical.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ive" <ive### [at] lilysoftcom> wrote in news:3da07987@news.povray.org
Realy nice :)
Imho it is a shame to waste some of tihs nice image details in .jpg
compression, how about posing lossless compressed version (i.e. png) ?
--
#macro g(U,V)(.4*abs(sin(9*sqrt(pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))))*pow(1-min(1,(sqrt(
pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))*.3)),2)+.9)#end#macro p(c)#if(c>1)#local l=mod(c,100
);g(2*div(l,10)-8,2*mod(l,10)-8)*p(div(c,100))#else 1#end#end light_source{
y 2}sphere{z*20 9pigment{function{p(26252423)*p(36455644)*p(66656463)}}}//M
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The bright spots are perhaps a coincidence problem. Try to "sink" the window
> frames slightly into the wall, at least it worked for me once.
>
Yes, I have also made the experience that it is better to let the objects more
intersect for radiosity scenes. But for some reason, I have forgotten to do this
with the window frames.
But this will not solve the problems for the rear wall near the virginals. And why
does this only happen with layered textures?
Somehow I've got the impression that something is going wrong with the radiosity
calculation when pigments with high transmit/filter values (like glass or texture
layers) are involved.
But I think before complaining, I should try a version with a high max_trace_level
first, let's see what will happen.
Anyway, thanks a lot.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Imho it is a shame to waste some of tihs nice image details in .jpg
> compression, how about posing lossless compressed version (i.e. png) ?
>
Because JPG is 74KB and PNG (reduced to 8 bit per sample) is 560KB
and not everybody has a ADSL connection?
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You said the lighting is nog the same as in the original painting. Does this
include the lack of reflections on the varnished woods? the cello and the
mirrorframe are reflective, judging from the painting, however, your
rendering doesn't show any of this. I would think that some reflection on
the varnished wooden surfaces wood enhance this image...
For the rest, all I can say is: " " while I'm amazed...
oh, one more thing. The cloth is stitched(?), right? In any case, I guess it
is made of many small threads. Maybe you could bring some of that back with
the technique developed and showed a while ago by Kedar Patil
(http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/27430/)?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ive" <ive### [at] lilysoftcom> wrote in news:3da1e9eb$1@news.povray.org
>> Imho it is a shame to waste some of tihs nice image details in .jpg
>> compression, how about posing lossless compressed version (i.e. png) ?
> Because JPG is 74KB and PNG (reduced to 8 bit per sample) is 560KB
> and not everybody has a ADSL connection?
perhaps link to www with this image ? can I get .png 24 bit version on
mailto:pov### [at] raf256com please :) ?
--
#macro g(U,V)(.4*abs(sin(9*sqrt(pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))))*pow(1-min(1,(sqrt(
pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))*.3)),2)+.9)#end#macro p(c)#if(c>1)#local l=mod(c,100
);g(2*div(l,10)-8,2*mod(l,10)-8)*p(div(c,100))#else 1#end#end light_source{
y 2}sphere{z*20 9pigment{function{p(26252423)*p(36455644)*p(66656463)}}}//M
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You said the lighting is nog the same as in the original painting. Does this
> include the lack of reflections on the varnished woods? the cello and the
> mirrorframe are reflective, judging from the painting, however, your
> rendering doesn't show any of this. I would think that some reflection on
> the varnished wooden surfaces wood enhance this image...
Indeed you can see a very small amount of highlights on both, the viol and
the mirror frame, but you are right, it's not visible enough. And as the
image uses only radiosity, specular highlights do not work, so all is done
with blurred reflection, and a good amount for this was difficult to guess.
And as mentioned this is just a first test to get an overall impression, there is
still a lot of work with fine tuning.
And BTW the instrument on the floor is a viol or gambe, the cello was
not yet invented :)
>
> For the rest, all I can say is: " " while I'm amazed...
>
thanks, but do not hold your breath too long...
> oh, one more thing. The cloth is stitched(?), right? In any case, I guess it
> is made of many small threads. Maybe you could bring some of that back with
> the technique developed and showed a while ago by Kedar Patil
> (http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/27430/)?
I have thought about this, but my guess: rendertime increases from days to years.
There are still those *natural* limitations for us render folks.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ive" <ive### [at] lilysoftcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
3da1f054@news.povray.org...
> Indeed you can see a very small amount of highlights on both, the viol and
> the mirror frame, but you are right, it's not visible enough. And as the
> image uses only radiosity, specular highlights do not work, so all is done
> with blurred reflection, and a good amount for this was difficult to
guess.
Well well, put them in a light_group and fake it :-)
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive,
Regarding a third window in Vermeer's "A Music Lesson" (the room was also
used as a setting for several other of his works), I by chance encountered
a book called "Vermeer's Camera" in my local bookstore about a week ago.
The book contains a detailed examination of the spaces in which Vermeer set
his paintings, in an attempt to explain the artists use of optical devices
to assist in his work.
I remember seeing several illustrations, and at least one photograph, of a
fully reconstructed stage set for the interior featured in "The Music
Lesson". A third window is clearly present in these illustrations and
photographs.
In the book, the lighting in the photographic reproduction of "The Music
Lesson" (very much like what you are attempting, but done with stage sets
and lighting instead of PovRay) is very very close to the painting, and I
do not believe the third window has been covered in any way.
The book also offers some measurements for certain items in Vermeer's
paintings, based on the reconstructions. I remember seeing window heights,
table lengths, etc. in an appendix in the back.
I can't rememeber the author or publisher, but I know the book is called
"Vermeer's Camera" and was published in the last year or so in the UK, and
recently in paperback in America.
Hope this info helps!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive,
I just remembered something and now have to correct myself about my previous
post regarding three windows in Vermeer's interior for "The Music Lesson".
There is an illustration in the book I mentioned which shows the interior
for the painting in question with the bottom half of the third window
covered by outside shutters!
So there is your answer to the third window question. This means you might
have to do a little extra modeling if you feel like being really precise,
and I have no idea what those shutters might have looked like. But there is
a website you might find very useful, the website for the book:
http://www.vermeerscamera.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive wrote:
> I assume that Vermeer would not have placed his easel in the darkest place of
> the room . . . What does this mean? Has Vermeer closed the window shades
> because he preferred this kind of lighting for the room even if this means
> his canvas was lit very poor? Or did he close the window shades, looked at
> the room, opened them to do some brush strokes, closed them again...
Actually, Vermeer was probably using a camera obscura, which means that he
was indeed sitting in the darkest part of the room. More info here:
http://www.grand-illusions.com/vermeer/vermeer1.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I just remembered something and now have to correct myself about my previous
> post regarding three windows in Vermeer's interior for "The Music Lesson".
>
> There is an illustration in the book I mentioned which shows the interior
> for the painting in question with the bottom half of the third window
> covered by outside shutters!
>
> So there is your answer to the third window question. This means you might
> have to do a little extra modeling if you feel like being really precise,
> and I have no idea what those shutters might have looked like. But there is
> a website you might find very useful, the website for the book:
> http://www.vermeerscamera.co.uk
>
Herman Serras has also mentioned this book in a post some weeks ago, and
I have ordered it already in my next corner bookstore - but this is a small, old
fashioned store where the owner seems to read all the books by himself before
selling them. Still, I never have seen this book by myself.
and I am soooooo curious....
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Actually, Vermeer was probably using a camera obscura, which means that he
> was indeed sitting in the darkest part of the room. More info here:
>
> http://www.grand-illusions.com/vermeer/vermeer1.htm
>
Yes, I know the rumours about his use of a camera obscura. In my
opinion, this is not true.
But anyway, if he has used such advanced technologies and optical
utilities, he could be considered as the first *raytracer* ever. And
from my point of view, this would not weaken his reputation as a
great artist in any way.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well well, put them in a light_group and fake it :-)
>
> G.
>
Well, well, you again, always faking... :-)
...but it would *sound* much better when I could say
all the lighting was done with radiosity.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just something about music:
Hanna (she played the cello with our band) told me that
at this time it was strictly forbidden for a woman to play
a instrument like the viol or a gambe, because you had to
do this with widely spread legs. So this kind of instrument
was only played by men.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ive" <ive### [at] lilysoftcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
3da300eb$1@news.povray.org...
> But anyway, if he has used such advanced technologies and optical
> utilities, he could be considered as the first *raytracer* ever.
Actually the first raytracer ever was Albrecht Dürer, one century earlier,
and he wrote a user's guide about it... The "rays" used were strings but the
main idea was there.
It took a lot of time, so that was certainly raytracing...
Here are the best links I could find (and sorry they're PDF) but if people
are interested I could post better images and a short description of how it
was done.
http://students.cec.wustl.edu/~cs453/lectures/14Raytracing.pdf
http://wwwicg.informatik.uni-rostock.de/Lehre/VSem_MG02/PhotorealBilder.pdf
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Actually the first raytracer ever was Albrecht Dürer, one century earlier,
> and he wrote a user's guide about it... The "rays" used were strings but the
> main idea was there.
>
Oops, what a shame. I was born in Nuremberg, the hometown of Albrecht
Dürer, how could I forget about him...
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3da300eb$1@news.povray.org Ive wrote:
> Yes, I know the rumours about his use of a camera obscura. In my
> opinion, this is not true.
If he did he wasn't the only one ...
> But anyway, if he has used such advanced technologies and optical
> utilities,
... there was a lot more technology available these days than one may
think. Doing this kind of work with a normal, pinhole, camera obscura is
near impossible due to the lack of strong light sources. But lenses
where already available, Christiaan Huygens (1624 - 1695) was one of the
great lens grinders of his time. Vermeer (1632 - 1675) may have been
very well aware of these tools. It is for example known that Rembrand
(1606 - 1669) used lenses and has met Huygens.
A great book on all this is:
Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters
by David Hockney
Viking Press; ISBN: 0670030260
There also was a great documentary on the subject on the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/1595979.stm
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Another posibility is that Vermeer got his lenses from his friend Antoni van
Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) , who made about 500 optical lenses during his life.
Van Leeuwenhoek lived also in Delft.
"ingo" <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:Xns### [at] povrayorg...
> in news:3da300eb$1@news.povray.org Ive wrote:
>
> > Yes, I know the rumours about his use of a camera obscura. In my
> > opinion, this is not true.
>
> If he did he wasn't the only one ...
>
> > But anyway, if he has used such advanced technologies and optical
> > utilities,
>
> ... there was a lot more technology available these days than one may
> think. Doing this kind of work with a normal, pinhole, camera obscura is
> near impossible due to the lack of strong light sources. But lenses
> where already available, Christiaan Huygens (1624 - 1695) was one of the
> great lens grinders of his time. Vermeer (1632 - 1675) may have been
> very well aware of these tools. It is for example known that Rembrand
> (1606 - 1669) used lenses and has met Huygens.
>
> A great book on all this is:
> Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters
> by David Hockney
> Viking Press; ISBN: 0670030260
>
> There also was a great documentary on the subject on the BBC:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/1595979.stm
>
> Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.3da2b808270812b5a077d9480@news.povray.org>,
nomail@nomail says...
> Ive wrote:
>
> > I assume that Vermeer would not have placed his easel in the darkest place of
> > the room . . . What does this mean? Has Vermeer closed the window shades
> > because he preferred this kind of lighting for the room even if this means
> > his canvas was lit very poor? Or did he close the window shades, looked at
> > the room, opened them to do some brush strokes, closed them again...
>
> Actually, Vermeer was probably using a camera obscura, which means that he
> was indeed sitting in the darkest part of the room. More info here:
>
> http://www.grand-illusions.com/vermeer/vermeer1.htm
>
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. For one thing there is no room for the girl behind the table,
and the table cannot be rectangular, to name two points :)
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'VermeerMM3.jpg' (69 KB)
Preview of image 'VermeerMM3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Lance Birch
Subject: Re: Vermeer has finished... - VermeerMM3.jpg [1/2]
Date: 12 Oct 2002 04:40:53
Message: <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?
Lance.
thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: hughes, b
Subject: Re: Vermeer has finished... - VermeerMM3.jpg [1/2]
Date: 12 Oct 2002 04:59:17
Message: <3da7e465@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: hughes, b
Subject: Re: Vermeer has finished... - VermeerMM3.jpg [1/2]
Date: 12 Oct 2002 05:10:26
Message: <3da7e702$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Lance Birch
Subject: Re: Vermeer has finished... - VermeerMM3.jpg [1/2]
Date: 12 Oct 2002 12:43:47
Message: <3da85143@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
