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

Sistine Chapel

vatican.va

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 246 posts

Re: Sistine Chapel

#111

Post by Istof »

jacquesm wrote: post #6

Very nice. In fact, almost nicer than being there (though you should do that anyway if you get the chance). Because now you can experience the details for as long as you want without a hundred other people around you who are just as annoyed at you as you are at them. I get it that a tourist complaining about tourist attractions being too crowded is total hypocrisy on my part. But at the same time what I wouldn't give…

very nice, but the textures look somewhat cartoonish/unreal... is that how it really looks?

Re: Sistine Chapel

#112

Post by deltaqueue »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #63
jacquesm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's two reasons, not just copyright, and the millions of flashbulbs discharging there over the course of a short timespan would for sure have an effect on the lifespan of the work. So that's a good thing for a bad reason and I totally sympathize with the position of the stewards of this amazing work. I have a super nice story about this but I'm actually somewhat hesitant to tell it in detail in public, but I once…

That's two reasons, not just copyright, and the millions of flashbulbs discharging there over the course of a short timespan would for sure have an effect on the lifespan of the work. Has anyone actually done the math on this? Or is it just a social hack used by museum guards to dodge the real reason for the policy, which is to keep the gift shop in business?

I haven't done the math, but seeing the chapels in Cappadocia, Turkey seems to prove this. Most of the chapels contain frescoes that are significantly color-faded, but Karanlık Kilise ("Dark Church"), which is quite dim and has very little ambient light, contains frescoes with far richer color. [1]

Unfortunately, the guards stationed there like to yell at tourists even if their flashes are off, so I suspect most people don't understand the reasoning.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_of_G%C3%B6reme

Re: Sistine Chapel

#113

Post by neltnerb »

jacquesm wrote: post #6

Very nice. In fact, almost nicer than being there (though you should do that anyway if you get the chance). Because now you can experience the details for as long as you want without a hundred other people around you who are just as annoyed at you as you are at them. I get it that a tourist complaining about tourist attractions being too crowded is total hypocrisy on my part. But at the same time what I wouldn't give…

Only thing that I would change, would be to add Easter eggs.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#114

Post by neltnerb »

sitkack wrote: post #109
walden42 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It often makes me wish for a non-religious religion -- just a refuge of tranquility. Have you looked into Buddhism yet? Because that's exactly one of the ways I'd describe it--a non-religion whose focus is on tranquility. If you haven't looked into yet, this is a great easy-to-read book to start with: http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Every-Step-Mindfulness-Everyday/...

Or something you can attend, http://afsc.org/ with people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers are the closest thing we have to Buddhism in the Americas.

... except for you know, Buddhism. Which has a center in certainly every major US city.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#115

Post by sitkack »

neltnerb wrote: post #114
sitkack wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or something you can attend, http://afsc.org/ with people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers are the closest thing we have to Buddhism in the Americas.

... except for you know, Buddhism. Which has a center in certainly every major US city.

Quakers I think are slightly more percipient. Both are extremely self reflective but Quakers come with a nicer hug.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#116

Post by neltnerb »

jacquesm wrote: post #69
CamperBob2 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's two reasons, not just copyright, and the millions of flashbulbs discharging there over the course of a short timespan would for sure have an effect on the lifespan of the work. Has anyone actually done the math on this? Or is it just a social hack used by museum guards to dodge the real reason for the policy, which is to keep the gift shop in business?

The biggest enemy of pigments is ultra-violet and lots of cheap flash kits do not filter that out. Sunlight is about 1 KW/square meter on a non-cloudy day at noon, directly from above. 4% of that is a typical value for the UV component. So the UV power hitting a 1 square meter surface at noon is about 40 Watts. Photographic flash is on the order of a millisecond give or take, and power output of a typical flash durin…

It's worth mentioning that white LED flash has essentially zero UV.

This shows an LED light spectrum with one cool white LED. The warmer colors have even less of the 450nm peak.

http://saikoled.com/design.html#AAAAAAAAAAAAABAAA

(click on "Actual Brightness" to see the spectrum in mW instead of lumens, I didn't implement that in the URL header yet)

Re: Sistine Chapel

#117

Post by neltnerb »

sitkack wrote: post #115
neltnerb wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... except for you know, Buddhism. Which has a center in certainly every major US city.

Quakers I think are slightly more percipient. Both are extremely self reflective but Quakers come with a nicer hug.

Thank you, that sentence made me smile.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#118

Post by bane »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #66
bane wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And without the guards yelling "NO PHOTO!!!" every 10-20 seconds at people who dare to try to get a photo of the chapel that's not nearly as nice as this. Copyright is maddening sometimes. [1] 1 - http://mentalfloss.com/article/54641/reason-why-no-photograp...

I heard rumours they were considering closing the Sistine chapel to the public because people were using flashes when taking photos and it had the potential to damage the artwork. I don't see why you would bother taking photos anyway. Go in and enjoy it. In a place so crowded your unlikely to get a good photo and there are plenty of photos already online for you to look at.

It's crowded, but you're looking up so the crowds aren't really that big of a problem.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#119

Post by blueblob »

nitrogen wrote: post #7

Meta comment about the panorama interface: The click+drag view control feels inverted to me. I'm curious whether I'm in the minority, though. For FPS games on PC I use normal mouse, but for console FPS games I use inverted joystick.

Let me preface this with my thoughts being that this was super cool, but I felt the same way. It is amazing that this was done in the 1400s, computer graphics and everything... I also found it annoying that double click didn't zoom.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#120

Post by hrabago »

bane wrote: post #118
k-mcgrady wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard rumours they were considering closing the Sistine chapel to the public because people were using flashes when taking photos and it had the potential to damage the artwork. I don't see why you would bother taking photos anyway. Go in and enjoy it. In a place so crowded your unlikely to get a good photo and there are plenty of photos already online for you to look at.

It's crowded, but you're looking up so the crowds aren't really that big of a problem.

This is what I remember as well. (1) It was very very crowded, and (2) the crowds didn't make a big impression in my memories of being there because I was looking up.
Post reply on HN