Comments on: Van Gogh photomosaic

Van Gogh photomosaic

Robot Johnny — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:01:57 -0800

Starry Night - Vincent Van Gogh's famous painting of carrots, seagulls, flowers, oranges, dolphins, and polar bears.

By: Doohickie

Doohickie — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:05:24 -0800

That just makes my head hurt. I mean, Van Gogh was messed up enough; why mess with his paintings further. Amazing technology. I just think it's misapplied in this case.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:06:04 -0800

Metafilter: Amazing technology. I just think it's misapplied in this case.

By: devbrain

devbrain — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:15:32 -0800

This amazing technology, it vibrates? Oh line up - who's next. One at a time, please.

By: selfmedicating

selfmedicating — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:28:58 -0800

Luv the photomosaic, but am kind of scared of Andrea: I'm a 29 years old male but people don't guess me to be more than 25. So I have a young soul in me. I'm a very simple person, with a pure heart, a deep life and a mad mind. I am nothing and I love the void in myself. I live in a lovely room wich is in chaos, like my long hair playing with the wind.

By: pracowity

pracowity — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:30:34 -0800

Done with Paint.

By: hal9k

hal9k — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:32:29 -0800

Will wonders never commence

By: nomisxid

nomisxid — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:03:35 -0800

There is a rather interesting thread on his forums about the patented nature of photomosaics...more interesting in where it led me per se, than the discussion on his forum, but still interesting....

By: mkultra

mkultra — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:07:32 -0800

Oh, come on, you fuddyduddies. This is cool. Can't something just be cool?

By: teece

teece — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:11:12 -0800

It is quite nifty, mkultra, I would agree.

By: almostcool

almostcool — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:23:55 -0800

It's neat, but it's hard to really get an overall feel for the scope of the thing in the somewhat limited size window that pulls up. What would really be impressive is if this thing were printed out wall-sized and displayed somewhere, so you could see the minute details a little better in relation to one another. I agree, it's definitely neat, but one of those things that is cramped a bit by being so small.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:31:00 -0800

I don't know, I zoomed in and got pixelated. Then I zoomed out and saw the image again. Then I zoomed in again and got pixelated again. I never saw any of the 210,000 tiny images making up the main one. Its a neat idea but what real use is it? Unless this was done on a huge square somewhere and people could walk over it and look at the individual tiles and then go up in a skyscraper and see the whole image. But even then, I'm not sure I "get it".

By: fluffycreature

fluffycreature — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:34:50 -0800

Just returned a month ago from a vacation and have 1200 images waiting for something just like this. Marvelous, simply marvelous.

By: LeeJay

LeeJay — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:40:37 -0800

I don't know, I zoomed in and got pixelated. Then I zoomed out and saw the image again. Then I zoomed in again and got pixelated again. I never saw any of the 210,000 tiny images making up the main one. It did that for me at first too. I let it hang for a few seconds and it suddenly refocused itself and I could see the smaller photos. I think it's pretty neat although, as almostcool wrote, it's hard to get a real sense of scale.

By: Zurishaddai

Zurishaddai — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:41:15 -0800

The enormous size of the image makes this much less impressive to me. Basically, the method here seems to be:

take a standard hi-res image of Starry Night,
to each pixel assign an image whose average color = the color of that pixel

Yawn.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:56:58 -0800

If it's really that simple, with no real artistic intervention required, I'm crestfallen.

By: MonkeySaltedNuts

MonkeySaltedNuts — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:58:45 -0800

looks like he ripped of some of the code from GoogleMaps. When you get down to individual tiles you can drag them and new files will fill in the edges.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:59:36 -0800

Does anyone remember the city-scape picture that was posted on metafilter awhile ago using the exact same (or very, very similar) zooming applet design? It was noteworthy because it was the first low-priced setup to capture an image of such resolution all at once. Good post. (In order to see the fine details, zoom in and wait for the pixelation to resolve.)

By: ODiV

ODiV — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:35:03 -0800

? But the image we're seeing isn't a photomosaic at all. When we zoom in, then we get to see the images, but zoomed out it's just pixels. Agreed that it would only make sense on a wall somewhere.

By: roue

roue — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:36:55 -0800

this is done with a flash plugin called Zoomify. You drag your high res image onto the application and it makes a directory of different sizes. The flash plugin dynamically loads 'em as you zoom in and out. I've seen it used very effectively on scrolls and maps. This, eh.

By: redteam

redteam — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:41:37 -0800

The reason several people are not impressed by this is because many of us have seen this before. For example, you can go a novelties store in the mall and get posters of pot leaves or Darth Vader composed of tiny pictures of pot-related things and Darth Vadery stuff (respectively). I like the interface of the image browser, but I wonder if the guy actually programmed the whole thing himself, or if he just found some utility that took a whole lot of stock photos and did it. That's an impressive amount of nature photos at any rate.

By: hoskala

hoskala — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:58:26 -0800

There has got to be a nude somewhere. Keep on looking. odinsdream, did you mean this. 2,5 gigapixels, and the GUI is exactly the same. I found it fascinating, just like looking at a miniature model of a city. The Van Gogh is just one hell of a large mosaic. Not very new, or interesting in itself. And it is not 210000 different photographs. It's easy to spot repetive pics.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:05:53 -0800

I just think it's misapplied in this case. No - I think it's amazing. It doesn't detract from the original, as far as I'm concerned. Nice.

By: Doohickie

Doohickie — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:32:58 -0800

Yes it DOES detract from the original. So there. Nyah.

By: Decani

Decani — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:19:32 -0800

What fenriq said. I zoomed in and saw bugger all. No images. Just increasingly granular nothing. Do you have to drop a tab to get this link?

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:30:06 -0800

no, but feel free anyway. You have to wait a little bit before the image un-fuzzes, so to speak.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:49:58 -0800

hoskala: That's what I was thinking of! I love looking around that thing, thanks!

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:17:53 -0800

I zoomed in and saw bugger all. Check LeeJay's comment again. After the first click or two, wait five seconds between clicks to let the images load. It maxes out at about 7 clicks, so just have a teensy bit of patience and you'll see the tiny pics.

By: deborah

deborah — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 10:56:15 -0800

What mkultra said. Neat!