Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Windows 10 wallpaper was physically built and photographed (2015)

gmunk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 291 posts

Re: Windows 10 wallpaper was physically built and photographed (2015)

#191

Post by thfuran »

marhee wrote: post #178
linsomniac wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you can let the world do the work for you. Reminds me of the Spaghetti Sorting algorithm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_sort

Interesting but I am not sure I understand this: >> contact-and-removal operation takes constant time, the worst-case time complexity of the algorithm is O(n). How is the contact-and-removal operation constant time? How can that assumption ever be true? If you use a parallel processor like human vision or human feel (ie. which pressure nerve activates on the hand) it may appear constant, but if you use a computer it…

You're talking about some other kind of sort.

Re: Windows 10 wallpaper was physically built and photographed (2015)

#192

Post by brontosaurusrex »

esjeon wrote: post #82

I've been spending a lot of time on photography (though mostly w/ film cameras) during recent years, and only recently realized this is actually photographed. (It took long because I'm a long-time Linux user, so I barely seen the image.) Many people say this would've been easier with VFX, but I disagree. The image has highly convincing details that would take a long time even for highly talented VFX artists to nail.…

Absolutely, there is no happy accidents in VFX.

Re: Windows 10 wallpaper was physically built and photographed (2015)

#194

Post by ecjhdnc2025 »

MarioMan wrote: post #180
disillusioned wrote: post #7

Despite having seen this image thousands of times, I never considered it might have originated from practical effects, even if it was composited. Very cool. The composite sounds like no picnic, either: >With over 3,000 photos captured from the shoot, the initial stage of the composite was an exercise in patience as Munko diligently went through all of the assets and picked the best ones suited for the final image. He…

This is basically how product photography works if you’re on a budget. You keep the camera fixed in place but adjust the lighting between shots. Then, in post, choose your favorite components of each image and composite them together in Photoshop. I like watching a YouTube channel called “workphlo” that does this. The core process is the same for all of the items, but it’s quite enjoyable to see him vary the techniqu…

Compositing like this is a nearly inevitable part of almost all product photography, I think? Anything that has motion will lean towards compositing for all the surrounding elements. Except those incredible people who built motion rigs for burger drop ads.

Capture One (the kinda sorta still industry standard tethering/photography capture software in the marketing industry, for all the high-end kit) has a really nice tool to help with previsualising compositing live.

Re: Windows 10 wallpaper was physically built and photographed (2015)

#195

Post by jcl »

bombcar wrote: post #173
xattt wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Stranger Things intro scene is CGI. Artists were consulted who originally created similar titles in the 80s with practical effects to see how they could do it too. The old-school artists said to just do it in CGI because that’s what they would have done.

People don’t hate CGI - they hate bad CGI. It’s hard to explain, but you know it when you see it. Bad practical effects do exist, but even when bad they don’t look “unnatural”.

I recall Amazon’s Lord of the Rings title sequence [1] received some criticism for looking fake, even though they filmed it practically [2]. I’d guess it was due to folks assuming title sequences are CGI, combined with the fact that few people really know what poured liquid metal is supposed to look like.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV-dDyYgwkc

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZEpWvQFXqQ

Re: Windows 10 wallpaper was physically built and photographed (2015)

#196

Post by snowwrestler »

esjeon wrote: post #82

I've been spending a lot of time on photography (though mostly w/ film cameras) during recent years, and only recently realized this is actually photographed. (It took long because I'm a long-time Linux user, so I barely seen the image.) Many people say this would've been easier with VFX, but I disagree. The image has highly convincing details that would take a long time even for highly talented VFX artists to nail.…

I think if you handed this image to a VFX artist and said “make this,” they could do it. They probably could have done it back in 2015, too.

But the team making this image didn’t have it in advance. They just had some ideas they wanted to try out.

The story of how it was made is not just the story of the techniques they used, but also how they applied and adjusted those techniques to try things and see how it looked.

This image was “made” in that people built the stuff that was photographed, but it was also kind of “discovered” in that they tried a bunch of things until they discovered what they liked.

That’s possible in VFX too, but the process is different and too many iterations can quickly erase any cost advantage. This is one reason animated movies are disciplined about locking the script early in production. You can’t cost-effectively improv your way through an animated movie the way a director and actors can with a camera and a set.

Re: Windows 10 wallpaper was physically built and photographed (2015)

#197

Post by ecjhdnc2025 »

surgicalcolor wrote: post #156
sph wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking like an engineer, and speak as if there is a right amount of time to spend on artistic endeavours; if you cross this threshold for you it is a "ridiculous and colossal amount of effort". Budget aside, art isn't constrained or criticized by how much effort the artist put in. All that matters is the result. A wallpaper or any other artistic creation isn't less beautiful or evocative because the artist s…

No, he's just being realistic. Even without getting into semantics about "what is art", the reality is that this is promotional material for advertising. This wasn't commissioned by a rich patron to put up on exhibition for MoMA. This isn't to take away from the artists skill, effort, creativity etc. but the context of this is inherently a business and economic decision. There's no artistic impetus, no political/soci…

> Even without getting into semantics about "what is art", the reality is that this is promotional material for advertising. This wasn't commissioned by a rich patron to put up on exhibition for MoMA.

99.9999% of all art is not commissioned by a rich patron to put up on exhibition for MoMa. It's just something that artists do.

IT geeks are all for imposing their own creative restrictions on their work -- using Haskell when the competition is using PHP, developing their own distributed network persistence layer on top of SQLite when there are products out there that already exist but they just don't like for pseudospiritual reasons.

But artists who just make pictures are expected to be cost-effective and not to put any value on their artisanship?

Re: Windows 10 wallpaper was physically built and photographed (2015)

#198

Post by JKCalhoun »

I also built a wall (with literal wallpaper even!) in order to create the cover for a genealogy book that I created.

I knew what a wanted — an old fashioned looking wall with old-timey pictures of my relatives hanging on the wall. I also wanted a mantel with more photos standing on it that would run along near the bottom of the book cover.

I tried initially creating the cover in a paint program — layering elements together (wallpaper, photo frames, photos), adding drop shadows, but it wasn't coming together.

So I went to Lowe's and bought a 4' x 8' sheet of 2" insulating foam or some such, bought what looked like the oldest-fashioned wall paper, a gallon of paint, etc. In the end I messed up the lighting, but I suppose that is something I am still learning in photography. But I still liked the result.

https://imgur.com/a/12VN4sI

Re: Windows 10 wallpaper was physically built and photographed (2015)

#199

Post by [deleted] »

actionfromafar wrote: post #86
esjeon wrote: post #82

I've been spending a lot of time on photography (though mostly w/ film cameras) during recent years, and only recently realized this is actually photographed. (It took long because I'm a long-time Linux user, so I barely seen the image.) Many people say this would've been easier with VFX, but I disagree. The image has highly convincing details that would take a long time even for highly talented VFX artists to nail.…

Also pretty sure it was the fun tool for the project.

[deleted]

Re: Windows 10 wallpaper was physically built and photographed (2015)

#200

Post by bonki »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #198

I also built a wall (with literal wallpaper even!) in order to create the cover for a genealogy book that I created. I knew what a wanted — an old fashioned looking wall with old-timey pictures of my relatives hanging on the wall. I also wanted a mantel with more photos standing on it that would run along near the bottom of the book cover. I tried initially creating the cover in a paint program — layering elements to…

The lightning might indeed not be the best but I really like it, well done!
Post reply on HN