Piranesi's Perspective Trick (2019)
medium.com
Piranesi's Perspective Trick (2019)
1–10 of 92 posts
Re: Piranesi's Perspective Trick (2019)
#2Re: Piranesi's Perspective Trick (2019)
#3 "Normal homography perspective transformation produced in GIMP. Note how squashed the buildings at the right and left are when taken in isolation"
The building at the right is not squashed ?
It is wider than in the Piranesi picture above.Re: Piranesi's Perspective Trick (2019)
#4In the image with the caption: "Normal homography perspective transformation produced in GIMP. Note how squashed the buildings at the right and left are when taken in isolation" The building at the right is not squashed ? It is wider than in the Piranesi picture above.
Re: Piranesi's Perspective Trick (2019)
#5Re: Piranesi's Perspective Trick (2019)
#6In the image with the caption: "Normal homography perspective transformation produced in GIMP. Note how squashed the buildings at the right and left are when taken in isolation" The building at the right is not squashed ? It is wider than in the Piranesi picture above.
Re: Piranesi's Perspective Trick (2019)
#7Re: Piranesi's Perspective Trick (2019)
#8In the image with the caption: "Normal homography perspective transformation produced in GIMP. Note how squashed the buildings at the right and left are when taken in isolation" The building at the right is not squashed ? It is wider than in the Piranesi picture above.
The building on the right is squashed, in isolation. When you take the building by itself (in isolation), it is indeed wider than the picture above, but it is also the same height, i.e., squashed.
Re: Piranesi's Perspective Trick (2019)
#9Re: Piranesi's Perspective Trick (2019)
#10I think this is a key point that people are often unaware of. For instance, whenever I see a modern artist who has painted photorealistic art, I read discussion about how amazing it is that this artist can paint something so perfectly life-like, and the Renaissance artists were clearly inferior, since they couldn't paint with such skill.
Besides the obvious discussion about the purpose of art, the other question is whether a photorealistic painting is actually more "lifelike?"
Sure, it represents the world exactly the way that a camera sees it, but does it represent the world exactly as we see it? With our human brains we are filling in details, we are focused on the subject of the painting, we are distorting, we are re-mapping shades of color to what we know they ought to be. "Lens blur" in particular isn't remotely the way our eyes perceive the world: our eyes can never roam around the unfocused parts of our own image, rather we ignore the blurry parts unless we specifically try to notice them, and anything we try to focus on becomes sharp.
So I appreciate the authors recognition that Piranesi's perspective may indeed be closer to how we perceive the world than "correct" perspective.