BT, a regular reader of this blog, brings this to our attention. This is interesting, the stuff of potential misunderstanding by some, and fuel, probably, for new da Vinci conspiracy theories. It is a paper, Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa entering the next dimension by Claus-Christian Carbon and Vera M Hesslinger in Perceptions (volume 42, pages 887-893).
For several of Leonardo da Vinci’s paintings, such as The Virgin and Child with St Anne or the Mona Lisa, there exist copies produced by his own studio. In case of the Mona Lisa, a quite exceptional, rediscovered studio copy was presented to the public in 2012 by the Prado Museum in Madrid. Not only does it mirror its famous counterpart superficially; it also features the very same corrections to the lower layers, which indicates that da Vinci and the ‘copyist’ must have elaborated their panels simultaneously. On the basis of subjective (thirty-two participants estimated painter–model constellations) as well as objective data (analysis of trajectories between landmarks of both paintings), we revealed that both versions differ slightly in perspective. We reconstructed the original studio setting and found evidence that the disparity between both paintings mimics human binocular disparity. This points to the possibility that the two Giocondas together might represent the first stereoscopic image in world history.
This article has supplementary online material:
- Figure 1 (p7524-f1.pdf: 1167 kbytes)
- Figure 2 (p7524-f2.pdf: 484 kbytes)
- Figure 3 (p7524-f3.pdf: 433 kbytes)
- Figure 4 (p7524-f4.pdf: 266 kbytes)
- Figure 5 (p7524-f5.pdf: 511 kbytes)
- The full paper is behind a pay wall.
Interesting to know he painted another one from a different perspective., but doesn’t really compare to the shroud. We already know from Mario’s Shroudscope that “The depth map is typically produced by hand or by using a second photograph that was taken with a different angle when the main photograph was taken. In the case of the Enrie Vertical 3D Photograph of the Shroud Scope, the depth map is the image itself. It is very rare that a regular photograph can be used that way.”
And beyond :
Mario Latendresse has created the second photograph of his anaglyph according to arbitrary parameters.
“depth map” on the shroud is isotropic, no perspective, and it’s “the fuzzier the further” and not necessarily “the brighter the closer” as used in his second photograph.
Anoxie wrote: “Mario Latendresse has created the second photograph of his anaglyph according to arbitrary parameters.”
Sorry, but this statement is false.
By “second photograph”, I assume that you are referring to the “depth map”. As explained on the Help Shroud Scope web page, the two photographs used to generate the anaglyph are exactly the same photograph coming from Enrie. No modifications were applied to the Enrie photograph to get a depth map.
Of course, the anaglyph was created using a parameter, but that is a basic requirement to generate the anaglyph itself and a large range of values for this parameter produce essentially the same result. In other words, the parameter needed is not essential, nor unique.
Anoxie also wrote: ““depth map” on the shroud is isotropic, no perspective, and it’s “the fuzzier the further” and not necessarily “the brighter the closer” as used in his second photograph.”.
Sorry, but this statement is also false.
A “depth map” has nothing to do with isotropy and the depth map does represent a relation between distance and brightness demonstrated by the anaglyph itself.
Basically i meant you don’t know how the 3d is encoded on the shroud, you are assuming “facts”.
If you use the vp8, you can see “3d”, it does’t mean you.ve deciphered the way cloth body distance is encoded.
You write : a “depth map” has nothing to do with isotropy
Once again, you create an artificial depth map to generate your anaglyph. To do so you use an horizontal shift (stereoscopic vision required by the anaglyph) but contrary to the example of this post (the two mona lisa) you don’t know under which perspective you should look at the shroud (left right, oblique, upside down).
You write : the parameter needed is not essential, nor unique
Well, to create a subjective 3d vision.
To put science in a “depth map” one has to have a scientific model. I’m right, not asking, not dogmatic.
Comments are closed.