pesco — 2014-05-07T13:12:29-04:00 — #1
noahdjango — 2014-05-07T13:22:46-04:00 — #2
whoa, it works! not well, but definitely the background falls way back and maybe the hands seem a bit closer.
I tell ya, that Leonardo, he was just leagues ahead, man.
ranger — 2014-05-07T13:31:20-04:00 — #3
yeah, it kinda works. But I imagine if it was intentional it would work a little better.
othermichael — 2014-05-07T13:39:43-04:00 — #4
ranger — 2014-05-07T13:52:05-04:00 — #5
For example, it seems to work just as well with these two Monet paintings. In other words, kinda but not that well. it's just what happens when you paint the same subject from the same perspective twice.
ben_ehlers — 2014-05-07T14:48:06-04:00 — #6
On the other hand, isn't the Mona Lisa quite small? Presenting a stereographic image in a normal setting would be problematic if the pictures were anywhere near life size...
lucas_wallace — 2014-05-07T15:04:44-04:00 — #7
Does anybody else think that the right-eye image should go on the left side? It's much easier to see that way. Why do people always put stereoscopic images backwards?
jim_campbell — 2014-05-07T15:05:06-04:00 — #8
adjusted for cross eye viewing:
ranger — 2014-05-07T15:06:10-04:00 — #9
Her 'Chest' protrudes when looking at it one way, while it recedes the other. It portrudes when the other features are recessed. kind of backwards to what it should be. Sorry my previous unedited comment came off as crass or offensive, I thought I was being light hearted about that fact.
jim_campbell — 2014-05-07T15:13:14-04:00 — #10
Yer right.. for free viewing. it's easier to cross your eyes. (look at the right image with your left eye and vice versa) But if you had a stereoscope you'd need them as above.. (right eye image on right)
mister44 — 2014-05-07T15:30:48-04:00 — #11
I read this article the other day, and I concluded the answer is "no". Works were copied all the time. The fact this happens to sorta kinda have this effect is just serendipity.
7etoatreides — 2014-05-07T15:45:51-04:00 — #12
It seems like every year somebody has a new crazy theory about the Mona Lisa. People need to let go and just admire the painting for what it is.
timmh — 2014-05-07T15:50:10-04:00 — #13
I KNEW I could see a dolphin!
thorpemeister — 2014-05-07T16:05:57-04:00 — #14
For it to be intended as 3D, both would have to be more alike. They don't even look like the same person
sodiumlights — 2014-05-07T16:49:27-04:00 — #15
kiptw — 2014-05-07T17:17:41-04:00 — #16
I was going to say I doubt that the one they've found is as old as the original, because it doesn't have the columns: copies before a certain date have them, and ones from after don't, and the story was that the painting was cut down to fit a frame at some point.
Wikipedia, however, says there is physical evidence (which I won't go into here) that the original never had the columns, so never mind.
Odd that some find cross-eye viewing easier. I can't make it hold still that way. I learned freeviewing years ago, and it's way easier than carrying a viewer everywhere just in case I run into stereo images.
mister44 — 2014-05-07T17:18:17-04:00 — #17
HA! Wrong, you idiot. It's a sail boat!
mikeyp — 2014-05-07T19:20:26-04:00 — #19
Reminds me of that Bob Shaw story 'The Giaconda Caper'.. anyone else know it?
pgt — 2014-05-07T21:27:41-04:00 — #20
Rather than a deliberate attempt at stereoscopy, I imagine that the Leonardo and his student set up side by side easels, and painted simultaneously. Leonardo was left handed. If his student were right handed, they would not have interfered with each other, even with the easels close together.
The stereoscopic effect is due to them viewing the subject from slightly different positions.
smut_clyde — 2014-05-07T22:38:38-04:00 — #21
One frame from a NSFW animated sequence? Yes, that came to mind.
next page →