Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Google Art Project

Expand Messages
  • Douglas Cape
    The following is my reply to the Guardian s Jonathan Jones article
    Message 1 of 18 , Feb 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      The following is my reply to the Guardian's Jonathan Jones article
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/feb/01/google-art-project-painting-reproduction

      I wonder whether Jonathan Jones has actualy visited the Google National Gallery Art Project Site or just been taken in by the The Google "innovations". Perhaps he has never see a high resolution photograph or panorama on a computer before.
      The quality of the panoramas on the Google site are appalling, grainy and fuzzy with jpeg artefacts and unpleasant flare. There are broken doorways, ceilings and floors, and yes you can see the joins between the photographs. The insipid colour balance is an insult to modern photography and totally inaccurate. The use of Google Street View navigation is inappropriate inside a Gallery, jerky and taking you to obscure corners. The panorama close ups of the paintings are not currently working on my computer.
      This project is currently an insult to the Gallery and deserves to fail. To see what high resolution panoramas can accomplish please visit http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/peterdoig/rooms/
      which has been online for several years.
      -------------------
      Douglas Cape
      Director of Photography Z360
      http://www.z360.com
    • Ignacio Ferrando Margelí
      Yes, I agree, now there is a problem to the professionals like me that can t offer all these work for free, like Google... will be able to do a good panorama
      Message 2 of 18 , Feb 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, I agree,

        now there is a problem to the professionals like me that can't offer all these work for free, like Google...

        will be able to do a good panorama of a museum and link to the google artwork photos??

        maybe I can try to sell that I can do the panos better but nobody will pay to repeat these artworks....






        El 01/02/2011, a las 13:57, aaronmspence escribi�:

        > The actual artwork photography is Ok, you can see they've gone to a lot of trouble do to it well in the 'behind the scenes' video here: http://www.googleartproject.com/c/faq
        >
        > But shoehorning StreetView into the mix is woeful. They needed to completely rethink streetview tech for working inside small areas at high quality. Both items Streetview was not designed for, and does very poorly at.
        >
        > Aaron Spence.
        >
        > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "ahoeben41" <aldo@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Be prepared to be depressed (about the lack of quality of the panoramic work).
        > > http://www.googleartproject.com/
        > >
        > > It looks like they sent a single photographer to all these museums who did not know how to change exposure or whitebalance settings in the camera.
        > >
        > > If there is ever a reason for good photography, it is when doing photos showing the works of masters. I can't imagine the museums are happy with this representation of their collections.
        > >
        >
        >

        ----------------------------------------------------------

        Ignacio Ferrando Margel�

        Abaco Digital

        http://www.abaco-digital.com







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • John Riley
        ... I think Bette Davis said it better than I ever could: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3zShjyaTr8#t=20s Yuck. John John Riley 4Pi-VR Media Solutions
        Message 3 of 18 , Feb 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          On Feb 1, 2011, at 6:14 AM, ahoeben41 wrote:

          > Be prepared to be depressed (about the lack of quality of the panoramic work).
          > http://www.googleartproject.com/
          >
          > It looks like they sent a single photographer to all these museums who did not know how to change exposure or whitebalance settings in the camera.
          >
          > If there is ever a reason for good photography, it is when doing photos showing the works of masters. I can't imagine the museums are happy with this representation of their collections.


          I think Bette Davis said it better than I ever could: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3zShjyaTr8#t=20s

          Yuck.

          John

          John Riley
          4Pi-VR Media Solutions
          http://4pi-vr.com
          johnriley@...
          (h)864-461-3504
          (c)864-431-7075
          (w)864-503-5775



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • fierodeval
          The panoramic images were taken with Ladybug3. I saw an image of the LB3 camera in the news in Spanish TV. regards! fiero
          Message 4 of 18 , Feb 2, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            The panoramic images were taken with Ladybug3. I saw an image of the LB3 camera in the news in Spanish TV.

            regards!
            fiero



            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "ahoeben41" <aldo@...> wrote:
            >
            > Be prepared to be depressed (about the lack of quality of the panoramic work).
            > http://www.googleartproject.com/
            >
            > It looks like they sent a single photographer to all these museums who did not know how to change exposure or whitebalance settings in the camera.
            >
            > If there is ever a reason for good photography, it is when doing photos showing the works of masters. I can't imagine the museums are happy with this representation of their collections.
            >
          • Aldo Hoeben
            ... Yes, you can clearly see the Ladybug3 setup towards the end of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEXoIkpitSs Question remains: what happened to
            Message 5 of 18 , Feb 2, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              > The panoramic images were taken with Ladybug3. I saw an image of
              > the LB3 camera in the news in Spanish TV.

              Yes, you can clearly see the Ladybug3 setup towards the end of this video:
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEXoIkpitSs
              Question remains: what happened to the images? Operator incompetence? Are Ladybugs really that hard to work with?
            • marty
              Hi fiero, and how about your ladybug ? Any progress? Marty
              Message 6 of 18 , Feb 2, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi fiero,
                and how about your "ladybug"?
                Any progress?

                Marty

                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "fierodeval" <fierodeval@...> wrote:
                >
                > The panoramic images were taken with Ladybug3. I saw an image of the LB3 camera in the news in Spanish TV.
                >
                > regards!
                > fiero
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "ahoeben41" <aldo@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Be prepared to be depressed (about the lack of quality of the panoramic work).
                > > http://www.googleartproject.com/
                > >
                > > It looks like they sent a single photographer to all these museums who did not know how to change exposure or whitebalance settings in the camera.
                > >
                > > If there is ever a reason for good photography, it is when doing photos showing the works of masters. I can't imagine the museums are happy with this representation of their collections.
                > >
                >
              • Jim Watters
                When this thread was started with Be prepared to be depressed I started to ignore it. http://www.googleartproject.com/ But Google has done something here
                Message 7 of 18 , Feb 2, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  When this thread was started with "Be prepared to be depressed" I started to
                  ignore it.

                  http://www.googleartproject.com/

                  But Google has done something here that no others (or very few) have.
                  I find the navigation from spot to spot easily to follow.
                  With most panorama tours I am constantly getting lost. You click on an arrow
                  and you have no idea where you are anymore. With the small increments presented
                  with the Art Project, like with Google Street View, combined with the slide-zoom
                  to next frame, it is easy to navigate.

                  I do wish that Google would allow viewers to change from click and drag to click
                  and point navigation but that is another argument. But it does cause many miss
                  clicks switching nodes when I don't want to.

                  And there is an option to view it in 3D.

                  The Ladybug 3 is not the best quality for a multicamera pano setup but it is a
                  small professional self contained product that can be purchased easily with
                  enough money.

                  Even a motorized pano head would be very time consuming shooting all these panos.

                  It is a shame that the quality of the panoramas do not show the same quality
                  that the individual images of the art work have. I am sure the Ladybug 3 is
                  capable of much better quality. But I don't have one. Maybe it was on video
                  mode and not image mode. Maybe if a motorized cart was moving it around instead
                  of a person and it paused at each shot to take the best quality image. If the
                  Ladybug 3 is capable of better quality you would think that as the photographer
                  moved from location to location the quality would get better.

                  There are parallax errors in the stitched images. That if there scripts were
                  calibrated again for close quarters of inside a gallery I am sure most would
                  disappear.

                  Personally I really like the multi-spot tour in each room. It wont be long
                  until the spots disappear and viewer will be immersed into a room with full
                  navigation. Being able to walk to any spot. I forget the names of any software
                  that can already do this. But I am sure Google will be the first to mass
                  produce this.

                  I do find that viewing galleries online do not require visiting room to room. A
                  gallery is more about the art work than the layout and architecture. But there
                  are many other places that navigating like this would be cool.

                  I find myself using Google Street View all the time when I look up any new
                  address. Having this kind of database of panoramas to look up nearly any
                  address is amazing.

                  Another company that has combined panorama and movement is NeuStep
                  http://www.neustep.com
                  The image quality is not much better. They used a single shot system that
                  eliminates the nadir and zenith. And the Observer is limited to follow the path
                  of the photographer. you can change paths but only where they cross.

                  Look at iWave has done with Ladybugs.
                  http://www.iwane.com/en/technologies_1.html

                  --
                  Jim Watters
                  http://photocreations.ca
                • prague
                  ... Yes. At least, if the ladybug3 is anything like the ladybug2 which I used extensively over one week with Bill Meikle here in prague, Yes. The controls are
                  Message 8 of 18 , Feb 3, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Aldo Hoeben" <aldo@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEXoIkpitSs
                    > Question remains: what happened to the images? Operator
                    > incompetence? Are Ladybugs really that hard to work with?
                    >



                    Yes.

                    At least, if the ladybug3 is anything like the ladybug2 which I used extensively over one week with Bill Meikle here in prague, Yes. The controls are not intuitive. They capture about a gigabyte every 30 seconds (literally) and the plug likes to come disconnected, in which case you lose the whole shot. Manipulating the images afterwards for color - possible in theory but they don't provide a way to do that, you have to figure it out for yourself. Honestly I didn't come across a more overhyped and unreliable piece of equipment. I guesss Point Grey makes stuff for the military and this ladybug is sort of a footnote side project kind of thing for them.

                    It's like using a nuclear bomb to heat your children's bedroom. With no sunglasses.

                    Disclosure: I'm building my own spherical video camera but it's been not much more than a very spare-time side project for a few years now. :-P At least I didn't drop 10 large, to dabble in pano video.

                    Jeffrey
                  • prague
                    Thanks Jim for your thoughts. I m glad someone has finally spoken out that this thing is not all garbage. I agree that the click to go navigation is really
                    Message 9 of 18 , Feb 3, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks Jim for your thoughts. I'm glad someone has finally spoken out that this thing is not all garbage. I agree that the "click to go" navigation is really better than our normal panos.

                      Jeffrey

                      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jim Watters <jwatters@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > When this thread was started with "Be prepared to be depressed" I started to
                      > ignore it.
                      >
                      > http://www.googleartproject.com/
                      >
                      > But Google has done something here that no others (or very few) have.
                      > I find the navigation from spot to spot easily to follow.
                      > With most panorama tours I am constantly getting lost. You click on an arrow
                      > and you have no idea where you are anymore. With the small increments presented
                      > with the Art Project, like with Google Street View, combined with the slide-zoom
                      > to next frame, it is easy to navigate.
                      >
                      > I do wish that Google would allow viewers to change from click and drag to click
                      > and point navigation but that is another argument. But it does cause many miss
                      > clicks switching nodes when I don't want to.
                      >
                      > And there is an option to view it in 3D.
                      >
                      > The Ladybug 3 is not the best quality for a multicamera pano setup but it is a
                      > small professional self contained product that can be purchased easily with
                      > enough money.
                      >
                      > Even a motorized pano head would be very time consuming shooting all these panos.
                      >
                      > It is a shame that the quality of the panoramas do not show the same quality
                      > that the individual images of the art work have. I am sure the Ladybug 3 is
                      > capable of much better quality. But I don't have one. Maybe it was on video
                      > mode and not image mode. Maybe if a motorized cart was moving it around instead
                      > of a person and it paused at each shot to take the best quality image. If the
                      > Ladybug 3 is capable of better quality you would think that as the photographer
                      > moved from location to location the quality would get better.
                      >
                      > There are parallax errors in the stitched images. That if there scripts were
                      > calibrated again for close quarters of inside a gallery I am sure most would
                      > disappear.
                      >
                      > Personally I really like the multi-spot tour in each room. It wont be long
                      > until the spots disappear and viewer will be immersed into a room with full
                      > navigation. Being able to walk to any spot. I forget the names of any software
                      > that can already do this. But I am sure Google will be the first to mass
                      > produce this.
                      >
                      > I do find that viewing galleries online do not require visiting room to room. A
                      > gallery is more about the art work than the layout and architecture. But there
                      > are many other places that navigating like this would be cool.
                      >
                      > I find myself using Google Street View all the time when I look up any new
                      > address. Having this kind of database of panoramas to look up nearly any
                      > address is amazing.
                      >
                      > Another company that has combined panorama and movement is NeuStep
                      > http://www.neustep.com
                      > The image quality is not much better. They used a single shot system that
                      > eliminates the nadir and zenith. And the Observer is limited to follow the path
                      > of the photographer. you can change paths but only where they cross.
                      >
                      > Look at iWave has done with Ladybugs.
                      > http://www.iwane.com/en/technologies_1.html
                      >
                      > --
                      > Jim Watters
                      > http://photocreations.ca
                      >
                    • Bjørn K Nilssen
                      ... Another negative side effect from using that Ladybug is that the eye height gets far too high. It looks really weird in most museums that you have to look
                      Message 10 of 18 , Feb 3, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        På Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:51:23 +0100, skrev prague <360cities@...>:

                        >
                        >
                        > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Aldo Hoeben" <aldo@...> wrote:
                        >>
                        >>
                        >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEXoIkpitSs
                        >> Question remains: what happened to the images? Operator
                        >> incompetence? Are Ladybugs really that hard to work with?
                        >>
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Yes.
                        >
                        > At least, if the ladybug3 is anything like the ladybug2 which I used extensively over one week with Bill Meikle here in prague, Yes. The controls are not intuitive. They capture about a gigabyte every 30 seconds (literally) and the plug likes to come disconnected, in which case you lose the whole shot. Manipulating the images afterwards for color - possible in theory but they don't provide a way to do that, you have to figure it out for yourself. Honestly I didn't come across a more overhyped and unreliable piece of equipment. I guesss Point Grey makes stuff for the military and this ladybug is sort of a footnote side project kind of thing for them.

                        Another negative side effect from using that Ladybug is that the eye height gets far too high. It looks really weird in most museums that you have to look down at all but the largest paintings. Makes me feel like a friend of mine, who is 213cm tall ;)
                        The 2D/giga images are great though, as well as the text/info.

                        Strangely enough almost all comments on Twitter that I have seen are very positive (it even trended ww a couple of days ago).
                        Unlike TheDaily, which gets mainly luke to negative comments in general (not seen one negative comment on the 360s though :)


                        --
                        Bjørn K Nilssen - http://bknilssen.no - 3D and panoramas.
                      • tom_a_sparks
                        ... I cant wait until some steals the navigation features of street-view and includes it in their virtual tour software ... I think these are the products your
                        Message 11 of 18 , Feb 3, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jim Watters <jwatters@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > When this thread was started with "Be prepared to be depressed" I started to
                          > ignore it.
                          >
                          > http://www.googleartproject.com/
                          >
                          > But Google has done something here that no others (or very few) have.
                          > I find the navigation from spot to spot easily to follow.
                          > With most panorama tours I am constantly getting lost. You click on an arrow
                          > and you have no idea where you are anymore. With the small increments presented
                          > with the Art Project, like with Google Street View, combined with the slide-zoom
                          > to next frame, it is easy to navigate.

                          I cant wait until some steals the navigation features of street-view and includes it in their virtual tour software

                          > Personally I really like the multi-spot tour in each room. It wont be long
                          > until the spots disappear and viewer will be immersed into a room with full
                          > navigation. Being able to walk to any spot. I forget the names of any software
                          > that can already do this. But I am sure Google will be the first to mass
                          > produce this.

                          I think these are the products your are thinking of
                          autodesk's ImageModeller (was realviz ImageModeller) and easypano's panowalker

                          tom
                        • Keith Martin
                          ... Personally, I think Google s big mistake lies in not including continuous slide movement. To look around I have to click-drag, let go, click-drag, let go
                          Message 12 of 18 , Feb 3, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > I agree that the "click to go" navigation is really better than our normal panos.

                            Personally, I think Google's big mistake lies in not including 'continuous slide' movement. To look around I have to click-drag, let go, click-drag, let go - over and over. I *should* just need to click-drag-hold and have the panorama continue turning.

                            k

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.