Giles wrote:
> Heres the tricky bit to explain. - Now if you can imagine that all out of
> focus elements in a photo have been rendered by a hexagonal aperture,
> then one effect will be that all elements have been vaguely shaped as
> hexagons - I don't mean that the whole out of focus area will appear as a
> myriad of distinct hexagons, because in most circumstances it wont as
> there are so many of them (infinite?) and they are all very blurred.
> However, all these hexagons, though individually indistinct will have a
> cumulative effect that the brain picks up on because there will be a
> myriad of lines which are all parallel to each other. I probably haven't
> explained this very well.
>
I wonder if shapes that tessellate produce more pleasing effects?
> I believe the impressionist painter Seurat painted with distinct dots of
> colour which up close look like dots but when viewed from a distance an
> image formes as the brain integrates the distinct elements to form a
> recognizable image. I think if the dots of paints were triangles - all
> perfectly aligned so that all equivalent sides were parallel to each other
> then one stepped back - an image would still form but it would seem to have
> a different quality to it than one composed of round dots.
>
I've seen nice murals done with different horizontal lengths of paint
applied straight from the tube. Made for a TV type look to the mural.
> It's just a theory.
How do we test it?
Gregg
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|