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

171–180 of 291 posts

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

#171

Post by hu3 »

NayamAmarshe wrote: post #152
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.…

Here's someone recreating the same wallpaper on Blender in 13 minutes: https://youtu.be/EIfrP365iTQ

Looks good but rather too foggy and not as crisp as the original which is much more detailed. Video artifacts notwithstanding.

blender: https://i.imgur.com/0BjMWi3.jpeg

original: https://i.imgur.com/GGwVibG.jpeg

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

#172

Post by isametry »

pompino wrote: post #104
jonplackett wrote: post #96

Shame MS don’t spend this much time on effort on… every other part of their design for everything.

They don't need to because you can't argue with success. They continue to have the dominant product in the space for several decades.

Successful product != well-designed product.

Microsoft got Windows where it is by having no sense of self-respect and willing to play the B2B race to the bottom. And it remains dominant thanks to decades' worth of legacy software that needs to continue running.

So that's cheapness and momentum.

If Windows was ever a beautiful product, it certainly isn't now. It would never become popular today in its current shape and principles.

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

#173

Post by bombcar »

xattt wrote: post #148
kthartic wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2015 (almost 10 years ago now) the tech probably wasn't as convincing as it is today. But I agree you could probably get like 90% there

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”.

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

#174

Post by starstripe »

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 would have used VFX for this as I'm pretty sure it would have been more cost effective to achieve a similar result. Most people, like me, probably just assumed this was VFX anyway. But I'm glad Microsoft didn't though, as this is a fascinating story and case study.

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

#176

Post by another2another »

devsatish wrote: post #155
fredley wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also: The search for Autumn https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/02/autumn200702

That’s a cool read! Followed the VF article and eventually landed on this Reddit post where they shared the full res. https://www.reddit.com/r/windowsxp/comments/s2i9ta/finally_w...

An interesting read, which led me to lookup Kilbride in CA, and found it's even highlighted on Google maps:

https://www.google.com/maps/place//@43.4246699,-79.9457692,1...

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

#177

Post by mateus1 »

starstripe wrote: post #174
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 would have used VFX for this as I'm pretty sure it would have been more cost effective to achieve a similar result. Most people, like me, probably just assumed this was VFX anyway. But I'm glad Microsoft didn't though, as this is a fascinating story and case study.

Microsoft surely wasn’t too worried about the cost.

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

#178

Post by marhee »

linsomniac wrote: post #163
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.…

>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 would be n right (as you would need to check n slots). Wouldn't either defy O(n)?

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

#179

Post by skrebbel »

nar001 wrote: post #158
NayamAmarshe wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's someone recreating the same wallpaper on Blender in 13 minutes: https://youtu.be/EIfrP365iTQ

Copying is a lot easier than creating though, the Windows team had to start from scratch

Your comment made me laugh because out of context, it suggests “the Windows team” is averse to copying things.

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

#180

Post by MarioMan »

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 techniques.

https://youtube.com/@workphlo

Post reply on HN