xeni at June 17th, 2014 16:18 — #1
jackbird at June 17th, 2014 16:37 — #2
I have a hard time believing that all of those are actually documentation of something he projected onto a landscape.
Particularly the one shot directly into the sun where the projection is just as bright as the sun-filtering clouds, but also the ones where enormous swaths of landscape are lit up day-bright by his projections. The article is less than illuminating about the details of his methods or materials.
funkdaddy at June 17th, 2014 17:03 — #3
Searchlights. I mean uh, search Searchlights. Lumens aplenty for those projections if he had access to one you can rent them.
xzzy at June 17th, 2014 17:09 — #4
The Morton Arboretum did something like that at their Christmas display this past winter (it's probably been done elsewhere, too). In one case they had a camera set up that let you do goofy expressions and paint it on trees.
It worked in the technical sense, but it was extremely difficult to make out any detail. You might get a sense of colors swirling but that's about as far as it goes.
Photographing it requires a tripod and long exposures.
jackbird at June 17th, 2014 17:23 — #5
What about the inverse square law? And how it's more or less evenly bright and totally in-focus as the image recedes way downrange?
mcsnee at June 17th, 2014 17:57 — #6
It looks to me like that might be the moon on a long exposure rather than the sun--I see star streaks in the background, and the ground shadows look more like nighttime than daylight.
jackbird at June 17th, 2014 18:34 — #7
OK, that makes more sense.
xeni at June 22nd, 2014 16:19 — #8
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.