Mind-blowing portrait of Morgan Freeman

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

WeSbO
Lets play a little game : spot the differences lol ... There should logically be a few in this image.

on the left painting - on the right photo
edit on 10-12-2013 by WeSbO because: (no reason given)


along the left side of his forehead, are 2 curly q's of hair. one is a perfect circle. the one in the opposite frame, is not. that's an example

one shows every pore, the other doesn't. instead of pores it has highlights and bumps
edit on 10-12-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   

WeSbO
Lets play a little game : spot the differences lol ... There should logically be a few in this image.

on the left painting - on the right photo
edit on 10-12-2013 by WeSbO because: (no reason given)


You said on the left and right there is the painting? Isn't one supposed to be the original photograph?


EDIT - I see - you fixed it

But I had guessed that the left was the painting.

I see many differences between them.
edit on 10-12-2013 by MamaLeonne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
in the left side example, the top of his eyebrow has long streaks of dark color sweeping up from it and to the right.
on the right side example, it's individual hairs.

edit on 10-12-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Thats called downsampling... One photo is in 1000x740 and the other in 2620x3600, please acount for resolution detail. The lighter pixels tend to smudge/double when downsampled (you can try this at home with a personal photo)

The "Q curly hairs" you mention are the same the white pixels (reflections on the gray hair) are less defined due to the resolution



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
the big mole that's divided into ..looks like 3 sections, is at a different angle, although only slightly and has less details on the left example and darker/thicker shadows on the left example, vs. the right example.

above his eyebrow, along his hair line, are two moles, one on top of the other, in the left example. in the right example, there's only one mole.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   

WeSbO
reply to post by undo
 


Thats called downsampling... One photo is in 1000x740 and the other in 2620x3600, please acount for resolution detail. The lighter pixels tend to smudge/double when downsampled (you can try this at home with a personal photo)

The "Q curly hairs" you mention are the same the white pixels (reflections on the gray hair) are less defined due to the resolution


how exactly am i supposed to spot the differences if you're going to say the differences are just a result of resolution? are you wasting my eyeballs and brain space? i warn you, they are both running on limited power lol



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
If you could circle what you see that would be great.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Because it is a fact... I need something that is undeniable. When I get home I will, do a downsampling test on another photo to show you how things change when downsampled, in order to prove my point. We can not talk about detail when there are 8 678 000 pixels difference in between the two photos. Be we can tell where the détails should be, and where the downsampling has modified the detail. I would expect to see a little reflection missing on a hair for exemple, no every reflection is there, just less defined because of the low resolution.
Why would Kyle not provide a better resolution image (I have asked but no reply) ? Because there would no longer be differences...
edit on 10-12-2013 by WeSbO because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I'm sorry but who would buy this, really?
Am i supposed to believe that level of detail can be obtained using a finger?
Anyone buying into this is either too avid a fan, or too young to understand how these kind of things work.
Furthermore without some kind of time lapse video, or at least a few pictures, this is really like me standing next to a Guernica replica with a paintbrush and and forcing you to believe i did it on my own.
It's marketing, that's all.
Ever notice that in all commercials of "things with screens" the image the person is looking at is always beyond crystal clear? it's obviously edited to look that way (the high tech equivalent of coating turkey with shoe polish)
the image is amazing, but come now, let's not be ridiculous.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   

IShotMyLastMuse
I'm sorry but who would buy this, really?
Am i supposed to believe that level of detail can be obtained using a finger?
Anyone buying into this is either too avid a fan, or too young to understand how these kind of things work.
Furthermore without some kind of time lapse video, or at least a few pictures, this is really like me standing next to a Guernica replica with a paintbrush and and forcing you to believe i did it on my own.
It's marketing, that's all.
Ever notice that in all commercials of "things with screens" the image the person is looking at is always beyond crystal clear? it's obviously edited to look that way (the high tech equivalent of coating turkey with shoe polish)
the image is amazing, but come now, let's not be ridiculous.



by finger it means that he's using a graphics pad and instead of a stylus, the movement of the paint tool is based on the movement of his finger. he looks like a slight fellow. he may have tapering , thin fingers too. but the point is the tool is what is generating the precise detail, because the tool can be set to draw as thin or thick of a line as you want.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   

WeSbO
reply to post by undo
 


Because it is a fact... I need something that is undeniable. When I get home I will, do a downsampling test on another photo to show you how things change when downsampled, in order to prove my point. We can not talk about detail when there are 8 678 000 pixels difference in between the two photos. Be we can tell where the détails should be, and where the downsampling has modified the detail. I would expect to see a little reflection missing on a hair for exemple, no every reflection is there, just less defined because of the low resolution.
Why would Kyle not provide a better resolution image (I have asked but no reply) ? Because there would no longer be differences...



or that's the best resolution he has for it?
not saying he has this problem, but i frequently forget to save my work in anything higher than 75 pixels per inch lol just imagine what a mess that is
edit on 10-12-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   

undo
anybody think morgan's eyes look like he has glaucoma or cataracts?


geez...I'm 61 and at any time of the day, my eyes look like I've been on a 3-day drunk, bloodshot, glassy...it happens as you age...the mind is still 30, and the body...is...well...breaking down. I was a tough S.O.B. when I was younger, and now I'm just a cranky old man.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


He must have a better resolution of this picture, as you said your self the size of the canvas gives you the amount of detail... And i do not see the point of downsampling before saving... And you can see that on his painting there are alot more details available than what is shown, that it is not a 72ppp creation, that is also a fact.

So why not shut up all the buzz and prove that the image has been created, it so easy to do, and will give just even more credibility to procreate and the creation ? Why because the higher resolution does not exist, well yes it does it's the original photo...
edit on 10-12-2013 by WeSbO because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by WeSbO
 


Amen ...........I agree........he's not supplying the high res of his image for the exact reason that you state. IMH artistically informed O



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   

undo

IShotMyLastMuse
I'm sorry but who would buy this, really?
Am i supposed to believe that level of detail can be obtained using a finger?
Anyone buying into this is either too avid a fan, or too young to understand how these kind of things work.
Furthermore without some kind of time lapse video, or at least a few pictures, this is really like me standing next to a Guernica replica with a paintbrush and and forcing you to believe i did it on my own.
It's marketing, that's all.
Ever notice that in all commercials of "things with screens" the image the person is looking at is always beyond crystal clear? it's obviously edited to look that way (the high tech equivalent of coating turkey with shoe polish)
the image is amazing, but come now, let's not be ridiculous.



by finger it means that he's using a graphics pad and instead of a stylus, the movement of the paint tool is based on the movement of his finger. he looks like a slight fellow. he may have tapering , thin fingers too. but the point is the tool is what is generating the precise detail, because the tool can be set to draw as thin or thick of a line as you want.


Well that's somewhat interesting in that the premise of having used his finger - as I do all the time on an iPadAir in Paper53 - is false, or at the very least - misleading. My image all along was of him using his finger and having been astounded by that fact because I am so familiar with how the finger painting/drawing tools actually work in my own software. I think this just adds another level of advertising deception to the original premises.

edit on 10-12-2013 by MamaLeonne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
When you overlay two identical pictures in Photoshop layers, and apply the "Difference" effect to the top layer, you get full-frame black.

When I put the photo over the painting, and lined up key points (eye, wrinkles, etc), I get this:


The level of detail represented is very much possible, given the tools used.

However, it's merely a technical demonstration for making a photo-real copy, not one of artistic ability.


Here's another example of the software on iPad
edit on 10-12-2013 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


I think the painting is legitimate. I compared it to the original photo and I found some anomalous brush strokes on the upper-left eye brow. That eye brow does not compare to the one in the photo exactly, especially compared to how detailed the other hairs get in comparison. The eyebrow has a "painted" feel to it, unlike the original, which is very organic.
edit on 28amSat, 28 Dec 2013 03:59:09 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join