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

121–130 of 291 posts

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

#121

Post by leoedin »

noname120 wrote: post #117
Kwpolska wrote: post #19

The original Windows 10 wallpaper. In a later release, it was replaced by a brighter and cleaner version that was drawn on a computer. I personally prefer the later revision.

> replaced by a brighter and cleaner version that was drawn on a computer Can you source this statement?

I went looking - and there's a wiki dedicated to just this topic.

https://windowswallpaper.miraheze.org/wiki/Windows_10

It does seem that the original was replaced in May 2019 by a brighter version, although whether it was drawn on a computer or not is anyone's guess.

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

#122

Post by cynicalsecurity »

This rather speaks against Microsoft than for them. There was zero sense in creating a physical installation to capture it. The result feels digital and should have been digital. This speaks of Microsoft's poor planning and bad execution of plans and ideas.

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

#123

Post by blowski »

trojanalert wrote: post #95

This is so over-engineered, it tells you that when you have billions, you do the most whacky things. A 5-minute VFX job will yield the same results. But no, there's so much f*k you money, they had to do this.

Traditionally, one of Microsoft's weaknesses was how crappy it looked against Apple. Maybe they are trying to say "we care a lot about making this look good".

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

#124

Post by magicalhippo »

kqr wrote: post #105
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.…

Which details are you thinking of? I was under the impression that with ray tracing, physically based materials, and fluid dynamics our computers wouldn't be hard-pressed to realistically render a static scene with light (of varying coherence and other properties) going through a piece of plastic and hitting swirling fog. The parameters of the scene need to be set up, yes, but then it would be just as easy to generat…

Specular reflections and diffuse media (fog) makes for massive render times though, in my experience.

I did something similarish with water a long time ago, using a spectral renderer, finding spectral data for ocean water absorption and reflection, realistic spectral sun/sky model, and a physically-based ocean wave simulator to create the surface.

The underwater "caustic god rays" looked very nice and realistic, and setting it all up was easy once I had found the data. But it took ages to get rid of the noise.

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

#125

Post by Krisando »

giljabeab wrote: post #74

Shame they went a little overboard with the smoke and post fx really. A cleaner sharper image would have been nice

> Shame they went a little overboard with the smoke and post fx really. A cleaner sharper image would have been nice

Microsoft replaced it in 2019 with this one:

https://static.miraheze.org/windowswallpaperwiki/9/99/Img0_%...

I personally think the original is more interesting.

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

#127

Post by hhlh »

DonHopkins wrote: post #84

I love the way the smoke evokes Windows making your computer overheat, melt down, and burn up. I can almost smell it immolating.

Your comment does not make any sense. Windows is not known for making people's computers overheat and melt.

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

#128

Post by autoexec »

cl3misch wrote: post #40
huygens6363 wrote: post #30

I hate myself for saying it, but this feels like an artistic variation on "we spent 500 hours manually perfecting React button animations" or "I built a Lisp so we can have more interesting configuration files for our ... todo list app". I guess I'm jaded. > Creative Director: GMUNK > Managing Director, Live Action: Oliver Fuselier > Managing Partner, Digital: Dustin Callif > Executive Producer: Robert Helphand > Hea…

You're not wrong, but the production team might be more justified when you account for the huge number of users seeing this image. Would a synthetic image sufficed? Yes. Can it be worth it to invest in artists creating something nice if millions of people see it? Yes.

It's kind of sad how often the best way for artists to get paid and have their work seen is by creating corporate advertising. At least in this case it's just a pretty logo and not a direct lie or manipulation.

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

#129

Post by autoexec »

pompino wrote: post #108
meisenhus wrote: post #28

As impressive as this looks (and is), the effort strikes me as monumentally oversized. This particular picture, with its straight lines and everything artificial, could have just as well come out of a renderer. For substantially less cost, the result would have been the same. Doesn't mean you don't need to have the creative vision first. But executing it with a camera and a light/laser/fog set and all the effort that…

The final image is shaped by a variety of people observing live changes to the scene and giving inputs. You can't iterate as quickly when you're interrupted constantly by the artist having to modify the scene and then render it. I'm sure you would have made a nice looking image using a digital scene, but I don't think you can duplicate the experience. It would not have been the same creative atmosphere.

I'm pretty sure it'd be far faster for a team of people to view various options on a screen while an artist moved virtual lights around and played with colors and lens flair effects in a computer than it would be to wait around while people set up and move around various lasers and projectors and smoke machines between attempts and then looked at a screen to see how the camera picked it up.
Post reply on HN