Gregory's Server@thomasfuchs I want to believe it rendered in one, uninterrupted session.
In 1983 it would also have been impressive to find a display that could have done justice to this image. I wonder how many people looked at a 60hz interlaced version.
|
Top-level
@thomasfuchs I want to believe it rendered in one, uninterrupted session. In 1983 it would also have been impressive to find a display that could have done justice to this image. I wonder how many people looked at a 60hz interlaced version. 1 comment
|
@thomasfuchs @DigitalStefan I'd imagine most people saw it in print given the limitations of computer displays of the eara. Certainly that appears to be how it was exhibited at the SIGGRAPH 1985 Art Show, as a physical 16" x 24" print.
digitalartarchive.siggraph.org…
It's interesting to think other ways it could have been displayed at the time though given the huge 4K x 4K original resolution. I suppose theoretically you could photograph the print and turn it into a film slide for projection. A 35mm film slide can capture details equivalent to about 8,000 DPI which is far more than enough to cover the full resolution of the original image.
@thomasfuchs @DigitalStefan I'd imagine most people saw it in print given the limitations of computer displays of the eara. Certainly that appears to be how it was exhibited at the SIGGRAPH 1985 Art Show, as a physical 16" x 24" print.
digitalartarchive.siggraph.org…
It's interesting to think other ways it could have been displayed at the time though given the huge 4K x 4K original resolution. I suppose theoretically you could photograph the print and turn it into a film slide for projection. A 35mm...