[HN Gopher] Ultra high-resolution image of The Night Watch (2022)
___________________________________________________________________
Ultra high-resolution image of The Night Watch (2022)
Author : lhoff
Score : 448 points
Date : 2024-09-21 09:08 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.rijksmuseum.nl)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.rijksmuseum.nl)
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| That's quite well-done!
|
| Much faster than most of these types of sites.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| An older, lower resolution image (11206 x 9320 pixels) can be
| downloaded here:
|
| https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/search/objects?q=nachtwacht&p=...
|
| To avoid the dumb mandatory account login, just use
| https://bugmenot.com/view/rijksmuseum.nl . It worked just now (so
| be nice and leave it working).
|
| Despite the ill-advised mandatory account (really, what's up with
| that?), the Rijksmuseum is providing a better service than the
| neighbouring Van Goghmuseum, which refuses to share anything but
| low resolution photos of Vincent van Gogh's works. Public museums
| are supposed to be custodians of culture, not IP owners.
| mjfisher wrote:
| I'm on mobile; I scrolled to the bottom and clicked the image
| of the painting and could zoom in to my heart's content - did
| it ask you for an account?
| Freak_NL wrote:
| You can zoom in a lot on the 2490 x 1328 pixels offered. When
| you hit the download button for the full version, you get
| nagged.
|
| Edit: you can zoom in, and then it will offer up the painting
| in slices at a higher resolution. So in theory you could
| download those and stitch them together if you manage to hit
| an unscaled version.
| re wrote:
| Wikimedia has a slightly higher-res image more easily
| accessible:
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Nightwatch_by_Re...
| (14,168 x 11,528 px)
| ozim wrote:
| Cool wiki has people recognition on paintings so you can
| click the link to see note about person in the picture!
| porphyra wrote:
| It's not people recognition, it's just manually created
| tags by volunteers. Anyone can draw a box on any image and
| write whatever they want in it.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| Odd that the resolution differs. The source linked to from
| Wikimedia Commons is the same page at the museum's website as
| the one I linked to.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| the account might be a combination of "deter abusive downloads"
| and "help, we have not enough members" combined.. now thinking,
| the result of account gets sent to administration and then
| funders, too, as a report result. not defending the practice,
| but the institution has to defend and maintain, too.
| keepamovin wrote:
| Oh wow, that is so cool. I thought I was at max zoom, normal
| blurry tiles. Then BOOM! It came into focus and I saw tiny
| cracks, smallest areas of paint, no loss of clarity. It's like
| you're standing right up next to it. That's incredible! Wow, all
| I can say. That's insane, that is totally insane!
|
| I would love if there were a depthmask or something and a
| synthetic "keylight" feature you could drag around to really get
| an idea of the textures, the peaks and valleys. I guess we'll
| have that in a future version. This is incredible.
| tigerlily wrote:
| Yeah I noticed this too, incredible, I was thinking "how did
| they do this?". It's zoom like it should be.
| bitexploder wrote:
| Enhance, but actually :)
| jonasdegendt wrote:
| Another similar scan is the Ghent altarpiece[0], and you get to
| compare the pieces before and after a restoration.
|
| [0] https://closertovaneyck.kikirpa.be/ghentaltarpiece/#home
| Guillaume86 wrote:
| Would love a VR version with the features you mentionned,
| looking at details with my nose on it...
| Aachen wrote:
| Not sure if off topic, but this German TV ad did a creative
| recreation of the painting that I found amusing as a Dutch
| person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6XQXhr7LQM
| lqet wrote:
| Ah, Frau Antje [0], still shaping the image most Germans have
| of the Dutch.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frau_Antje
| curiousgal wrote:
| To be honest I don't understand the obsession about documenting
| things that are done to the painting. Going through that section
| of the museum I felt like the curators cared more about
| showcasing their efforts to store the painting than the painting
| itself.
| perihelions wrote:
| I suspect there's selection effects in play: museum curators
| who don't aggressively make the case for more museum funding,
| don't end up curating the most well-funded museums.
| davidmr wrote:
| I think it's a way of keeping the museum's single most popular
| piece of art on display whilst working it. I think most museums
| would remove it for a while, but so many people come
| specifically to see this painting that they want to keep it
| viewable, so they make a little show of its restoration.
|
| I dunno; I've been through that floor 5 or 6 times since they
| started work, and people always seem to love the spectacle of
| it.
| throwup238 wrote:
| Preserving and restoring an oil painting that old and large is
| a minor achievement, especially considering how many people
| have tried to destroy the painting in the last hundred years.
| shagie wrote:
| One of the channels that I've stumbled across in my YouTube
| travels is Baumgartner Restoration -
| https://www.youtube.com/@BaumgartnerRestoration
|
| > Julian Baumgartner of Baumgartner Fine Art Restoration, a
| second generation studio and now the oldest in Chicago
| employs only the finest archival and reversible materials and
| techniques to conserve and restore artworks for future
| generations.
|
| Its really interesting seeing the removal of past restoration
| attempts and the modern techniques to restore a painting.
|
| If I was to pick two that touch most on the responsibility of
| restoration and what is and is not achievable...
|
| Scraping, Scraping, Scraping Or A Slow Descent Into Madness.
| The Conservation of Mathias J. Alten
| https://youtu.be/YOOQl0hC18U
|
| Restoring The Faceless Painting https://youtu.be/hsTkaSbMLHw
| https://youtu.be/rDVcgpSwnyg https://youtu.be/JWCBNL-iu5s
| andrepd wrote:
| Why not? It's an old work of art, if you're going to make
| changes to it you better do the best equivalent of `git commit`
| that you physically can, to preserve how it was before your
| change.
| dewey wrote:
| Sometimes I find these things more interesting than the
| painting. I think it's good to also highlight what the museum
| is working on. Otherwise people would think it's just a room
| where they hang up new paintings once in a while, the restoring
| and research part would then be even more invisible.
| wrsh07 wrote:
| I always find it fascinating! Much like it is important in a
| museum of natural history to note "science isn't finished, some
| of these things are still under research" it's important to
| contextualize the painting you see today.
|
| The painting today is different than it was fifty years ago or
| a hundred years ago or from the day it was completed.
|
| It's common for paintings to be modified after completion,
| either by the creator or by the current owner. Whose version
| are you seeing? What are the possible versions?
|
| Anyway, the best part of a museum is you don't have to look at
| the things that bore you
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| Yep, paintings are living artifacts that evolve over time
| roughly wrote:
| This particular piece of work is damn near 400 years old. When
| one is tasked with participating in preserving such an item so
| the next twenty generations can also enjoy it, it pays to take
| notes on what you've done with your small part of that chain.
| stavros wrote:
| This is good, but I wish they would allow for more than 1:1 zoom
| in. 1:1 pixels on a 4k display are too small, I'd like to be able
| to zoom in more than that.
| gyomu wrote:
| Those 100MP digital medium format cameras are the most exciting
| tech in photography of the whole 21st century as far as I'm
| concerned.
|
| For my "serious" photography work I shoot medium/large format
| film, and every digital camera has left me non plussed. I may be
| a little obsessive about image quality, but what's the point of
| dropping $5k on a setup that gives worse results than a wooden
| box and a sheet of film?
|
| Then I got the Fuji GFX100 (the Hassy was a little out of my
| range :-) and... wow. Totally different ball game. I can finally
| produce digital images that rival film scans.
|
| Seeing what museums have been doing with them has been super
| cool.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| There's a trade off between sharpness and noise, the GFX have
| an intentionally lowered fill factor to, essentially, produce a
| sharper image. Meanwhile noise is one of the most important
| things when marketing mainstream cameras (next to AF), so they
| go for gapless microlenses etc.
|
| The reason this impacts sharpness is because a lower FF gets
| you closer to Shannon's ideal point sample, while a 99% FF is
| like a pitch-sized box filter.
| cyberlimerence wrote:
| For anyone interested in technical aspects of this, I recommend
| watching Pycon talk [1] from Robert Erdmann. I bookmarked this
| couple of years ago.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_hm5oX7ZlE
| encomiast wrote:
| Watching that seriously intensifies my imposter syndrome.
| jl6 wrote:
| > To create this huge image, the painting was photographed in a
| grid with 97 rows and 87 columns with our 100-megapixel
| Hasselblad H6D 400 MS camera.
|
| Looks like they had the ability to move the camera precisely to
| one of 97x87 grid positions. I wonder if they had any headroom in
| the precision of that movement. Could they have used a lower
| resolution but much cheaper camera and compensated by taking,
| say, a 200x200 grid of images instead?
| WithinReason wrote:
| I'm sure they registered the images.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_registration
| buildbot wrote:
| Lower resolution yes, but one thing with the 400MS or any
| multishot back is that it can shift by one or 1/2 pixel to
| collect full RGB color info for each pixel, very important for
| conservation work.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| It should be much easier to take overlapping pictures and
| "seam" them together.
|
| I assume there are software tools for that.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I worked at this museum a few decades ago on a contract job, it
| was cool to walk around among so much history. Though I never
| really could appreciate the "old masters" from the Dutch Golden
| Age. Their work was part art and part record-keeping for which
| nowadays we have photography and video. The subject of many of
| these works are stuffy rich people posing for the "family album".
| Artfully done yes but boring subjects in my personal opinion.
|
| I did like some of the landscape views though. But overall I'm
| more into modern art where the art and the message is the only
| goal.
|
| One of the things special to me about the night watch is that
| it's huge in real life which I never really appreciated before I
| saw it. In contrast, the Mona Lisa at the Louvre was
| disappointingly tiny.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| Recommend Peter Greenaway's film ,,J'Accuse" about Rembrandt
| and that painting. It shares your criticism and argues that in
| it's own time, that painting did as well.
| kwanbix wrote:
| What is so incredible is the technique they used, the level of
| detail and how lifelike they are.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Something which is very hard, if not impossible, to get
| unless you look at the real deal.
|
| I'm generally not into art but my mom took me to the
| Rijksmuseum, and I was blown away by the details in those
| paintings. I spent probably 15 minutes just studying the
| translucent ruff in one of the paintings in amazement.
|
| The paint is three dimensional, the light interacts in ways
| which just aren't captured in a photo. Viewing the paintings
| on my screen here now they all look flat and quite dull in
| comparison.
| gyomu wrote:
| > One of the things special to me about the night watch is that
| it's huge in real life which I never really appreciated before
| I saw it. In contrast, the Mona Lisa at the Louvre was
| disappointingly tiny.
|
| I had the same experience seeing a print of Hokusai's Great
| Wave. For whatever reason it was built up in my mind as a huge
| piece, but in reality it's the size of a standard sheet of
| paper.
| meindnoch wrote:
| Ukiyo-e had standard sizes, but none was larger than an A/2
| piece of paper.
| timwaagh wrote:
| Sounds like you have been to the Rijks and nowhere else. Lots
| of old paintings of all kinds of scenes hang in lots of museums
| all over this country. Not a huge museum goer but this lacks
| nuance.
| jimvdv wrote:
| I agree with you on the subjects are boring rich people, if we
| judge it with today standards. For the time it was actually
| quite unique that (upper) middle class people could get their
| portrait done, and not just nobles.
|
| I like to think of it as part of a period of history where the
| merchants start to gain power from the aristocracy and that
| shows in what gets passed down to us.
| JJMcJ wrote:
| > (upper) middle class people
|
| It reflects a great change in Western society, which really
| began to flourish first in the Netherlands, where the
| merchant and industrial classes began to be dominant, and
| were growing sick of pretending it wasn't true.
|
| Mostly in Britain these days, we see the final pretenses of
| the nobility on display.
| ghaff wrote:
| Holland is really where the wealthy merchant class first
| became dominant in Europe--and was generally not
| subservient to the nobility as in other other countries.
| JJMcJ wrote:
| Rembrandt could put life into rich people's portraits in ways
| few were ever able to match.
|
| Besides the Night Watch, this one:
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rembrandt_-_De_Staal...
|
| known in English by various names, such as Syndics of the
| Drapers' Guild. These portrayals are anything but stuffy.
|
| One writer said, if you take Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, for
| music, Rembrandt was more than that for painting.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah I just don't 'see that' in them. Like I said I'm far
| from an art connoisseur.
|
| So what I said is my opinion alone :)
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| Art's impact often depends on context
| cezart wrote:
| I remember what I liked about Rijks upon visiting was that it
| was organized by decade, and had not only paintings, but
| various historical artifacts as well. Like state corporation
| sealed opium, which offered a context for the contemporary
| relaxed attitude of the Dutch towards drug consumption. And in
| general offered many windows into how the country grew up to be
| what it is. So yes, much history!
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _One of the things special to me about the night watch is
| that it 's huge in real life which I never really appreciated
| before I saw it._
|
| Famous art that's stunningly bigger in person than I expected:
| - The Raft of the Medusa (Gericault) - Guernica
| (Picasso) - The Hallucinogenic Toreador (Dali)
|
| Cannot recommend seeing art in person enough.
|
| Aside from the scale, it's also impossible to fully capture
| color or translucency in screen/page-presented imaging.
|
| And so much of the European painting mastery in the 1400s+ is
| the manipulation of non-opaque paint to create a desired
| effect.
| SamBam wrote:
| And famous art that's much smaller in person than I expected:
| _The Great Wave off Kanagawa_ by Hokusai. For such an epic
| image, it 's only 25x37 cm / 10x14".
| MeteorMarc wrote:
| Add Birth of Venus (Botticelli)
| trox wrote:
| Aside from color and translucency, an original artwork shows
| also the relief. It can tell much about the creation process
| of a painting and adds additional texture. Furthermore, some
| pigments were expensive and hard to work with prior to the
| 19th century such that artists used it very sparingly.
| Guillaume86 wrote:
| It makes me wish for a VR app with ultra HD reproductions,
| you could have normal maps and other 3d techniques to add
| another level of fidelity, the scale is also not a problem
| in VR.
| dexwiz wrote:
| Napoleon Crossing the Alps Is also much bigger than I
| expected.
| throwup238 wrote:
| Add to that the _Blue Boy_ by Thomas Gainsborough at the
| Pasadena Huntington and anything by Hans Holbein the Younger
| such as the portraits of Sir Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell
| at the Frick Collection.
|
| The former uses a brilliant blue paint that is simply
| impossible to convey via RGB display or CMYK printing color
| spaces and the latter look like giant printed photographs,
| down to the stubble on More's face, even though they were
| painted in the early 16th century.
|
| _> And so much of the European painting mastery in the
| 1400s+ is the manipulation of non-opaque paint to create a
| desired effect._
|
| I'm sad that people don't bother with that as much today. I
| went on a shopping spree a while ago buying a bunch of
| Williamsburg and Old Holland oil paints and their colors are
| absolutely amazing, especially the old school heavy metal
| paints which come in a variety of opacities. Blending them is
| an art in its own right. Sadly I don't have any skill at
| painting so it's mostly abstract experiments with color.
| devilbunny wrote:
| If you want a really interesting version of the work, go to the
| Royal Delft factory. They made a reproduction in their famous
| blue tile. It's about the same size as the original.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| For me, it took going to Van Gogh's museum in Amsterdam to
| really get it. The way they contextualize and explain his work
| and the actual lighting of the museum is something to
| experience first hand.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| There are several centuries between the Dutch Golden Age and
| Van Gogh.
| graftak wrote:
| Van Gogh is modern art
| ghaff wrote:
| Yeah, it's not really fair to associate quality with size
| but... Thomas Cole's huge works. Most of Rembrandt's famous
| works are fairly large. Etc. I admit to not being an especial
| admirer of the Mona Lisa but certainly larger works grab our
| attention more.
| archagon wrote:
| I was walking around the Rijksmuseum just yesterday and had the
| same thought. Except: Rembrandt's paintings stood out to me
| among those of his peers. His subjects didn't feel posed and
| his lighting and setpieces felt soft and naturalistic, not
| artificial. Each canvas gave the impression of an intimate peek
| into someone's life. The style almost reminded me of late
| Romantic paintings (e.g. Peredvizhniki) that came 200 years
| later.
| didntcheck wrote:
| When I visited I think I spent more time looking at the
| architecture of the building than the collections. It's very
| nice. Similar story with the Louvre I suppose - I never went
| in, but enjoyed walking past the pyramid exterior in the
| evening
| mmustapic wrote:
| What I do like about those paintings is the techniques used:
| relief to give some parts more volume, simple strokes to
| portray glass or metal reflections, other kind of simple
| strokes for textiles. As you say, now we have photographs, but
| it amazes me how what they could do without that technology.
| ikari_pl wrote:
| I used to have it as a full wall wallpaper in the living room
| where I was growing up.
| timwaagh wrote:
| Rembrandt did not work in this resolution so i think zoomed in it
| will just be a bunch of random noise.
| gligorot wrote:
| I thought the same. But try to zoom in on the eyes, you'll
| notice fascinating details.
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| Some of the magic happens at a distance
| roughly wrote:
| This is true for a great many things
| ssfrr wrote:
| > an error of even 1/8 mm in the placement of the camera would
| result in a useless image.
|
| That doesn't make sense to me. Presumably part of the image
| stitching process is aligning the images to each other based on
| the areas they overlap, so why do they need that much precision
| in the camera placement? I'd think keeping the camera square to
| the painting would be important to minimize needing to skew the
| images, but that doesn't seem to be what they're talking about.
| gertlex wrote:
| I assumed it was mostly distance from painting surface to
| camera that needed to be controlled for.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| The camera is manual focused, so 1/8mm would make it out of
| focus.
| Daub wrote:
| Shortly after the painting was completed it was cropped so that
| it would fit on the wall. See if you can guess which edge was the
| victim.
|
| Of the high resolution image itself... I teach painting and
| regularly use such images as teaching aids. I honesty belive that
| they have as much teaching value (or even more) than seeing the
| real thing. The details of paint applicationare magnificently
| clear in such images.
| grumple wrote:
| It was actually cropped on all 4 sides:
| https://news.artnet.com/art-world/operation-night-watch-1982...
| grugagag wrote:
| Fascinating to see how the paint cracked. I zoomed in around the
| faces of the three men on the bottom right hand side and there
| are light areas on their faces with few cracks and dark areas
| with lots of cracks, eg around the noses. I wonder what caused
| that.
| mejutoco wrote:
| I do not know of course, but black oil painting cracks more
| than other colours. I think it is common to mix black colour
| with a bit of dark blue to avoid excessive cracking. That could
| be a potential explanation.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| A next step could be to "restore" those cracks in the image,
| and get an image of how it looked when new.
| ph1l337 wrote:
| Feels like you could make a fun game out of guessing where in the
| image you in the most zoomed in level.
| ck2 wrote:
| Very vaguely related to image detail but you know what similarly
| impressed the heck out of me:
|
| you know that first ever imaging of a black hole using telescopes
| across the globe and even the poles to make the signal gathering
| as wide as possible?
|
| well that telescope (interferometer) could also image a TENNIS
| BALL on the MOON
|
| (in perspective currently 5 meters is the best resolution of the
| moon we have and they only get like one or two photons back when
| they bounce a laser off that mirror the astronauts left there)
|
| So are we going to enter an era where we can get ten more times
| out of existing telescopes with exponentially better sensors?
| zokier wrote:
| There is fairly significant difference in radio observations
| and visible spectrum imaging though. You aren't going to get 5m
| resolution visible light image of the Moon any time soon.
| nofunsir wrote:
| reminds me of microsoft seadragon/photosynth
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seadragon_Software
| tecleandor wrote:
| It's basically the same technique. Same as Google Maps too
| brookst wrote:
| The tiled zoom thing is everywhere, and lots of museums
| publish high resolution images this way. There's a handy tool
| to reconstruct an image at any zoom level from a url:
| https://dezoomify-rs.ophir.dev/
| mrs6969 wrote:
| I am literally standing in the museum, looking at night watch as
| this moment, and saw this post. Legend.
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| Enjoy the moment and soak in all the details
| mmooss wrote:
| It's interesting that while standing in front of the painting,
| someone would be looking at their phone, and that they would
| look at a photograph of the painting.
| j4coh wrote:
| Hacker News in one eye and the painting in the other?
| rtaylorgarlock wrote:
| Get off yo phone!!! ;)
|
| I got to watch them do some of the scanning when I walked
| through the museum on a trip a couple years ago. Very cool
| setup.
| josefrichter wrote:
| Did we just take down the website?
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| First time I visited the Rijksmuseum I was of course excited to
| see the night watch. I found it on a side wall, 20x15 cm and was
| really surprised. I was expecting something more grandiose.
|
| But never mind, I love paintings from that era so I went on
| admiring the others.
|
| At some point I was in the middle of the central corridor and it
| then hit me... Wow.
|
| Before getting to the main part of the museum, there were two
| temporary exhibitions. One was about doll houses and the other
| was about the activities (work) on a 17th century ship.
|
| The latter was amazing. I was traumatized by the surgeon work,
| and his 5 tools... 5 tools to handle all injuries - how happy I
| am too live in France in the 21st century
| dralley wrote:
| The Nights Watch takes up nearly an entire wall, not sure what
| you saw but it wasn't the actual painting.
| I-M-S wrote:
| Not only does it take up the entire wall, IIRC part of it was
| actually cut in order for it to fit that wall.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| That's the point - As a sibling comment says - there is a
| small replica and then suddenly I saw the whole painting at
| the end of the central corridor. This was a "wow" moment, and
| an unexpected one
| tnolet wrote:
| You saw the small replica Rembrandt made for the dude who
| commissioned the painting. He wanted one to hang in his home.
| It's much smaller than the actual piece, which covers a whole
| wall.
|
| And indeed, the large one got a chunk cut off at some stage as
| they had to move it. This was long ago when Rembrandt was not
| particularly in vogue.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| Since it was not clear from my comment: _" At some point I was
| in the middle of the central corridor and it then hit me...
| Wow"_ was when I discovered the real painting on a whole wall
| at the end of the central corridor. It was amazing
| lysace wrote:
| This gives some context to the the size:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40137724
| diego_moita wrote:
| The Rijksmuseum is on my top 5 list of museums I've ever visited,
| along with the Vatican Museum, the Louvre, the Met and the
| Uffizzi.
|
| There are a lot more interesting works in there including
| Vermeer, other Rembrandt works, Pieter DeHooch, Rubens, the whole
| golden era of Dutch Renaissance...
|
| Since you're in Amsterdam already save some time to visit the
| VanGogh Museum, very close to Rijksmuseum.
|
| And since you're in Netherlands already save some time to go to
| Den Hag (the Hague) to visit the Maritius Huis museum and the
| cool M.C. Escher museum.
| dralley wrote:
| Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna is very nice. The inside is
| basically a palace.
| JohnKemeny wrote:
| Related:
|
| Most detailed ever photograph of The Night Watch goes online (125
| comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23151934
|
| Ultra High Resolution Photo of Night Watch (2022) (40 comments)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29778166
| charles_f wrote:
| There's something oddly satisfying in that you keep zooming in
| impressively close, and the image remains clean and non blurry.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| The map or whatever they use to achieve the online widget is
| extremely impressive. I've never seen such a clean
| implementation of a progressively loading zoom tool like that
| before, apart from in map applications and even they often
| suffer from buffering.
| seacourt wrote:
| It was built with https://micr.io/
| ghosty141 wrote:
| Now if it would just support mousewheel zooming... Thats my
| only problem with the viewer.
| FredPret wrote:
| This is why it always pays to do your best work down to the
| smallest detail.
|
| You never know if, 400 years later, people are going to invent a
| way to examine it atom by atom.
| canjobear wrote:
| It's a pdf, you can zoom in as much as you want?
| https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1311_05-08_mickens.pdf
| besttof wrote:
| A colleague of mine made this very nice way to explore the
| (often) high resolution images from their collection:
|
| https://rijkscollection.net/
|
| Highly recommended and easy to fall into a "rijkscollection hole"
| for a bit :)
| GrumpyNl wrote:
| Works better than the one mentioned in the title, this one let
| you zoom in and out with scroll weel.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| *scroll wheel
| drng wrote:
| This is super cool. Thanks for sharing the link
| UberFly wrote:
| This is really nice to use. Is this how this wing of the
| gallery actually looks?
| supakeen wrote:
| No, it looks different from this.
| diego_moita wrote:
| Technically it is an interesting project.
|
| But anyone who has visited the museum will find it weird. It is
| very different. The building architecture is very different,
| there are thousands more works in the exposition, and the order
| of the works is very different, ...
| mmooss wrote:
| This page is a bit better, and lets you zoom to the pixel level
| (they say):
|
| https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/stories/operation-night-watch?...
| OldGuyInTheClub wrote:
| This is a remarkable complement to seeing a work of art in
| person. We can get close through zoom in ways that we couldn't at
| the museum without putting the piece at risk.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| I spent ages looking at this painting, and I still can't find
| commander vimes.
| dewarrn1 wrote:
| This is cool! We visited the Rijksmuseum while they were doing
| the photography: automated but still painstaking work.
| roflmaostc wrote:
| Related to it, there is a company doing that for microscopy. Did
| an internship once there
|
| https://gallery.ramonaoptics.com/gallery
| lovegrenoble wrote:
| Direct link to image: https://hyper-
| resolution.org/view.html?pointer=0.375,0.000&r...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-21 23:00 UTC)