Now these are some interesting rooms. I can’t begin to imagine how to even start the painting process on the designs.
I have no idea if they cheated like this, but it can be done relatively simply by projecting the desired image using a projector placed at the desired viewing point, then tracing over the projected image wherever it falls. Very effective though.
Pretty neat. I wonder what it’s like to walk through those spaces. Somehow I get the feeling that it’s more effective on a screen than in reality, but I don’t really know that. It must be weird to suddenly walk into just the right spot for the illusion.
Any idea where those spaces are?
No idea, I got the link from here.
I love pictures like that. They boggle my mind! Have you seen any of Julian Beever’s work?
Very neat. If I had my own house I’d be tempted to try it.
I think these are more impressive though:
I would think you’d get vertigo. You have the real 3-D images (the walls) overlaid with the painted 3-D images. Especially that first one. Makes me dizzy just thinking about it.
Photoshop. Look particularly at the one with the concentric orange circles. There is orange color bleeding into the security monitor (that’s missing in the second image). Also the color is too consistent across different surfaces. The reflective abilities of window panes and flat walls is significantly different. Yet in the third image down, the line across the window only varies slightly, even in LaB mode.
That´s fascinating!, in the first link, the drawing of Batman and Robin it´s brilliant, the Coke bottle looks absolutely real and I love the pond with the toy sailboat…
Thanks for the links, that´s definetly something to keep at hand.
Yes. These are most obviously Photoshopped.
Huh. Well that’s disappointing.
scr4, thanks for those links. That stuff is great!
and MissMossie’s links too, sorry bout that.
I don’t think so. Blow up the image and just extract the contents of the display - there isn’t a clear boundary. And even if there is, it would be simple to do this in real life using a yellow film.
The monitor is on the wall, to the left of the black counter. The second photo is taken from a vantage point further to the right, and most of the counter is out of the picture. So it’s not surprising the monitor isn’t visible.
Not if you paint both with the same paint, or cover both with the same colored paper.
Someone wrote an interesting rant about this a few months ago.
Oh, what a surprise! That was you !
Read what you wrote back then and apply it to these pictures. All the points you make here could easily explained by different perspectives and the poor picture quality.
I don’t dispute that the images viewed from the correct ‘assembled’ angle may have been tweaked in an image editor to make them look nice, but to suggest that the whole lost is photoshop work is plainly absurd; it would be just as difficult to fake the off-angle shots in photoshop as it would be to create the IRL works. And this based on what? A monitor that you can see in one angle and not in another. Bleh.
I can’t decide which annoys me more; knee-jerk shouts of ‘Photoshop!’ when it is far from clear that this is the case, or people that believe there really is a giant bunny when it clearly isn’t the case.
And wasn’t one of the points I made that if you’re going to call bullshit on an image you need to give reasons why you think it’s fake. If you look at my post, I pointed out things that are wrong. I guarantee you that it’s not a knee-jerk call on my part. Look carefully at the images, especially if you enlarge them. Besides the ones I pointed out , there are more.
The zig-zag lines in the warehouse floor change color, yet all the other colors stay consistent. Furthermore, the width of the line in proportion to the total height of the columns changes drastically.
On the hallway with concentric black circles, the focus on the circles remains constant down the hallway, yet the light fixtures, naturally, get less sharp as the distance increases. And again, the color values of the lines stays too consistent down the hall under different lighting conditions.
Consider the orange rectangles. There is art hanging on the wall by the elevator doors. Do you seriously believe someone is going to hang art then cover it with orange paint or RTA vinyl? I have to doubt it could be paint because the color goes across walls (drywall), doors (wood) and the threshold of the elevator doors (likely metal).
Again with the room with a “X”, the color is impossibly consistent across a wood floor, a sheet-rocked wall and a window pane. Even RTA vinyl isn’t that good.l
On the top two examples, the only perspective that the optical illusion works is one of a very tall, well over 6-ft person. Why design something so clever and then hide it from almost everyone who enters the place?
And there are more problems that to me scream “hoax”. The idea that these would be as difficult to fake in Photoshop as to do for real is absurd. Have you seen some of the morphs at http://www.worth1000.com ?
These aren’t that hard to do, especially the simple lines. You can do them with one person holding a laser pointer and telling another where to make marks, and then joining them up. I guess circles or more difficult shapes would require a projector as Mange says.
(tongue was in cheek, btw)
I don’t see any giant bunny.