WOT: This is pretty amazing.
05-02-2009, 10:49 PM
#1
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOT: This is pretty amazing.
WOT meaning, Way Off Topic, but at least it's car related. I happened to see this on the BBC website a couple of minutes ago and thought it was extremely impressive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/8030766.stm
That must have taken forever to get right.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/8030766.stm
That must have taken forever to get right.
Last edited by Hockeyman11385; 05-02-2009 at 11:36 PM.
05-03-2009, 11:02 AM
#7
Rennlist Member
Wow,...can she do that with our litter boxes?
Trending Topics
05-03-2009, 01:00 PM
#8
Banned
It's obviously a hoax.
The only way it's possible for a three-dimensional object to appear to have "disappeared" into its background by being painted to match the background as seen in the photo is for the viewer to view the object from the same precise vantage point that the artist painted from, and that would mean viewing with one eye closed (monovision and not stereovision). Any other viewing point and the object is clearly as visible as any other badly painted eyesore, making people really wish it would disappear. But as the viewer - with one eye closed - approaches that "magic" precise vantage point in three-dimensional space, all the lines line up and the object indeed appears to "disappear." This is related to the phenomenon of parallax.
The other dead give away is that in order for an artist to paint an object so that it appears to "disappear" from exactly one precise vantage point, the artist would need to paint from the same fixed vantage point as the object is to be viewed in order to paint accurately to create the illusion. That would mean one hell of a long paintbrush and one hell of an arduous task.
So clearly what this drawing student did was take a photo of the car in front of the building and enlarged it and painted on top of this two-dimensional canvas to create this piece of artwork. In the photo in the article she poses in front of her artwork, the two-dimensional canvas. The dead giveaway here is that the photographer is clearly taller than she, yet his camera's viewpoint is precisely in the "magic" spot where the illusion can only be seen from. So that from her viewing height and perspective, the lines wouldn't match up and the illusion wouldn't be seen. Also, the shadows don't quite match up. The shadow under the car indicates that the sun is directly above and slightly to the right. The shadows in her portrait shot indicate that the sun is slightly to the left.
Whoever wrote that article just got punked, as well as everyone who bought it. Doesn't say much for the credibility of the BBC's website running with this story without first sending a reporter out there to verify it.
The only way it's possible for a three-dimensional object to appear to have "disappeared" into its background by being painted to match the background as seen in the photo is for the viewer to view the object from the same precise vantage point that the artist painted from, and that would mean viewing with one eye closed (monovision and not stereovision). Any other viewing point and the object is clearly as visible as any other badly painted eyesore, making people really wish it would disappear. But as the viewer - with one eye closed - approaches that "magic" precise vantage point in three-dimensional space, all the lines line up and the object indeed appears to "disappear." This is related to the phenomenon of parallax.
The other dead give away is that in order for an artist to paint an object so that it appears to "disappear" from exactly one precise vantage point, the artist would need to paint from the same fixed vantage point as the object is to be viewed in order to paint accurately to create the illusion. That would mean one hell of a long paintbrush and one hell of an arduous task.
So clearly what this drawing student did was take a photo of the car in front of the building and enlarged it and painted on top of this two-dimensional canvas to create this piece of artwork. In the photo in the article she poses in front of her artwork, the two-dimensional canvas. The dead giveaway here is that the photographer is clearly taller than she, yet his camera's viewpoint is precisely in the "magic" spot where the illusion can only be seen from. So that from her viewing height and perspective, the lines wouldn't match up and the illusion wouldn't be seen. Also, the shadows don't quite match up. The shadow under the car indicates that the sun is directly above and slightly to the right. The shadows in her portrait shot indicate that the sun is slightly to the left.
Whoever wrote that article just got punked, as well as everyone who bought it. Doesn't say much for the credibility of the BBC's website running with this story without first sending a reporter out there to verify it.
05-03-2009, 01:15 PM
#9
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's obviously a hoax.
The only way it's possible for a three-dimensional object to appear to have "disappeared" into its background by being painted to match the background as seen in the photo is for the viewer to view the object from the same precise vantage point that the artist painted from, and that would mean viewing with one eye closed (monovision and not stereovision). Any other viewing point and the object is clearly as visible as any other badly painted eyesore, making people really wish it would disappear. But as the viewer - with one eye closed - approaches that "magic" precise vantage point in three-dimensional space, all the lines line up and the object indeed appears to "disappear." This is related to the phenomenon of parallax.
The other dead give away is that in order for an artist to paint an object so that it appears to "disappear" from exactly one precise vantage point, the artist would need to paint from the same fixed vantage point as the object is to be viewed in order to paint accurately to create the illusion. That would mean one hell of a long paintbrush and one hell of an arduous task.
So clearly what this drawing student did was take a photo of the car in front of the building and enlarged it and painted on top of this two-dimensional canvas to create this piece of artwork. In the photo in the article she poses in front of her artwork, the two-dimensional canvas. The dead giveaway here is that the photographer is clearly taller than she, yet his camera's viewpoint is precisely in the "magic" spot where the illusion can only be seen from. So that from her viewing height and perspective, the lines wouldn't match up and the illusion wouldn't be seen. Also, the shadows don't quite match up. The shadow under the car indicates that the sun is directly above and slightly to the right. The shadows in her portrait shot indicate that the sun is slightly to the left.
Whoever wrote that article just got punked, as well as everyone who bought it. Doesn't say much for the credibility of the BBC's website running with this story without first sending a reporter out there to verify it.
The only way it's possible for a three-dimensional object to appear to have "disappeared" into its background by being painted to match the background as seen in the photo is for the viewer to view the object from the same precise vantage point that the artist painted from, and that would mean viewing with one eye closed (monovision and not stereovision). Any other viewing point and the object is clearly as visible as any other badly painted eyesore, making people really wish it would disappear. But as the viewer - with one eye closed - approaches that "magic" precise vantage point in three-dimensional space, all the lines line up and the object indeed appears to "disappear." This is related to the phenomenon of parallax.
The other dead give away is that in order for an artist to paint an object so that it appears to "disappear" from exactly one precise vantage point, the artist would need to paint from the same fixed vantage point as the object is to be viewed in order to paint accurately to create the illusion. That would mean one hell of a long paintbrush and one hell of an arduous task.
So clearly what this drawing student did was take a photo of the car in front of the building and enlarged it and painted on top of this two-dimensional canvas to create this piece of artwork. In the photo in the article she poses in front of her artwork, the two-dimensional canvas. The dead giveaway here is that the photographer is clearly taller than she, yet his camera's viewpoint is precisely in the "magic" spot where the illusion can only be seen from. So that from her viewing height and perspective, the lines wouldn't match up and the illusion wouldn't be seen. Also, the shadows don't quite match up. The shadow under the car indicates that the sun is directly above and slightly to the right. The shadows in her portrait shot indicate that the sun is slightly to the left.
Whoever wrote that article just got punked, as well as everyone who bought it. Doesn't say much for the credibility of the BBC's website running with this story without first sending a reporter out there to verify it.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271934
http://www.lep.co.uk/weirdnews/Artfu...ish.5218648.jp
05-03-2009, 01:22 PM
#10
Banned
Good find.
But it clearly shows that the "disappearing act" only happens from one precise vantage point where all the lines line up to create the illusion. From any other viewpoint it just looks like camouflage.
Still, it's pretty creative work.
But it clearly shows that the "disappearing act" only happens from one precise vantage point where all the lines line up to create the illusion. From any other viewpoint it just looks like camouflage.
Still, it's pretty creative work.
05-03-2009, 04:11 PM
#12
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: I'm not sell'n anythang... much..
Posts: 8,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's obviously a hoax.
The only way it's possible for a three-dimensional object to appear to have "disappeared" into its background by being painted to match the background as seen in the photo is for the viewer to view the object from the same precise vantage point that the artist painted from, and that would mean viewing with one eye closed (monovision and not stereovision). Any other viewing point and the object is clearly as visible as any other badly painted eyesore, making people really wish it would disappear. But as the viewer - with one eye closed - approaches that "magic" precise vantage point in three-dimensional space, all the lines line up and the object indeed appears to "disappear." This is related to the phenomenon of parallax.
The other dead give away is that in order for an artist to paint an object so that it appears to "disappear" from exactly one precise vantage point, the artist would need to paint from the same fixed vantage point as the object is to be viewed in order to paint accurately to create the illusion. That would mean one hell of a long paintbrush and one hell of an arduous task.
So clearly what this drawing student did was take a photo of the car in front of the building and enlarged it and painted on top of this two-dimensional canvas to create this piece of artwork. In the photo in the article she poses in front of her artwork, the two-dimensional canvas. The dead giveaway here is that the photographer is clearly taller than she, yet his camera's viewpoint is precisely in the "magic" spot where the illusion can only be seen from. So that from her viewing height and perspective, the lines wouldn't match up and the illusion wouldn't be seen. Also, the shadows don't quite match up. The shadow under the car indicates that the sun is directly above and slightly to the right. The shadows in her portrait shot indicate that the sun is slightly to the left.
Whoever wrote that article just got punked, as well as everyone who bought it. Doesn't say much for the credibility of the BBC's website running with this story without first sending a reporter out there to verify it.
The only way it's possible for a three-dimensional object to appear to have "disappeared" into its background by being painted to match the background as seen in the photo is for the viewer to view the object from the same precise vantage point that the artist painted from, and that would mean viewing with one eye closed (monovision and not stereovision). Any other viewing point and the object is clearly as visible as any other badly painted eyesore, making people really wish it would disappear. But as the viewer - with one eye closed - approaches that "magic" precise vantage point in three-dimensional space, all the lines line up and the object indeed appears to "disappear." This is related to the phenomenon of parallax.
The other dead give away is that in order for an artist to paint an object so that it appears to "disappear" from exactly one precise vantage point, the artist would need to paint from the same fixed vantage point as the object is to be viewed in order to paint accurately to create the illusion. That would mean one hell of a long paintbrush and one hell of an arduous task.
So clearly what this drawing student did was take a photo of the car in front of the building and enlarged it and painted on top of this two-dimensional canvas to create this piece of artwork. In the photo in the article she poses in front of her artwork, the two-dimensional canvas. The dead giveaway here is that the photographer is clearly taller than she, yet his camera's viewpoint is precisely in the "magic" spot where the illusion can only be seen from. So that from her viewing height and perspective, the lines wouldn't match up and the illusion wouldn't be seen. Also, the shadows don't quite match up. The shadow under the car indicates that the sun is directly above and slightly to the right. The shadows in her portrait shot indicate that the sun is slightly to the left.
Whoever wrote that article just got punked, as well as everyone who bought it. Doesn't say much for the credibility of the BBC's website running with this story without first sending a reporter out there to verify it.
Good greif Ben.......
05-03-2009, 04:53 PM
#14
Banned
Don't be confused. I was just calling BS based on one photo. 
Yeah that's pretty clever too. And his artwork works best when viewed from the "sweet spot" that makes the image line up with the perspective point of view of the observer.
Some more of his work:
Some more of his work:
05-03-2009, 05:09 PM
#15
Banned
Here's one that shows how one of these looks like when NOT viewed from the sweet spot:
More here: http://www.designsdelight.com/optica...cal-illusions/
http://www.weirdomatic.com/pavement-...an-beever.html
http://users.skynet.be/J.Beever/index.html
More here: http://www.designsdelight.com/optica...cal-illusions/
http://www.weirdomatic.com/pavement-...an-beever.html
http://users.skynet.be/J.Beever/index.html