General Category > General Discussion

Movies

<< < (5/5)

John C:
That's true, but I can't think of any substance that'd adhere with any fidelity without destroying the wood.  At some point, there has to be a detail left to a subsequent artist or damage to the artifact.  In my case, it'd be tweaking the digital copy.  In yours, it's fiddling with the "cover" to express the right details.  It (or the alternative, loss of fidelity) seems to be an inherent part of the problem in that anything you do can only serve to cause damage or introduce noise.

Something I forgot about, though, that may only need the right magic substance (something that won't adhere to wood, specifically), what they call "fluid scanning."  It's an approach used to get three-dimensional scans by filming video of an object being slowly and smoothly immersed in a contrasting liquid.  Each frame then goes through kind of an inverted chromakey process, leaving you with a series of stackable outlines.

It's pretty clever, except for the part where you need to find something pourable that contrasts strongly to the wood but wouldn't cling to it or get absorbed to cause more damage.

Personally, I'd find a first-generation reconstruction close enough to "original print."

Yoc:
Why not just use a laser to scan the surface?  Zero physical contact and exact measurements.
Who know what it'd cost but I think that would solve the damage problem.

JVJ (RIP):

--- Quote from: narfstar on June 20, 2011, 05:52:24 AM ---While you would get the closest picture, it would not be from the original wood. To me that would be no different from an analog to digital recording. To be an original wood print, without damaging the wood, would require coating the wood with something that would protect it without removing any detail. Then you could say you had original prints.

--- End quote ---

EXACTLY, narf! You have to keep it ANALOG all the way. In reality, back in 1873, they coated the wood with some very fine waxy substance from which they made a mold from which they made a copper plate that they used in printing the book. Go to the bottom of this page: http://www.bpib.com/paris/2009-09/10-09.html and you'll see an example.

I've made a high-rez scan and it's okay as far as it goes:
http://www.bpib.com/paris/2010-Spring/Dore-wood-block.gif, but you're absolutely right that it wouldn't be a real "print" if there were any digital intermediary steps. Someday I'll figure it out, or I'll just bite the bullet and ink up the damn block.

Wait for it...

Peace, Jim (|:{>

narfstar:
So Jim what is the history/story behind the print?

JVJ (RIP):

--- Quote from: narfstar on June 23, 2011, 08:37:15 PM ---So Jim what is the history/story behind the print?

--- End quote ---

The print is what I WANT to make, narf. What I have is the ACTUAL wood-engraved block that some artisan carved from a Gustave Doré drawing back in 1873. My friend Francisco in Paris put me in touch with some hoity-toity bookseller over there who traded me this block for a set of my ImageS magazines. People ARE crazy.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page