This video was a long time in the making. I tried to make the finished product as enticing as possible, without getting too mired in the tons of information out there. As always a major shout-out to the r/unresolvedmysteries community on reddit. You rock! Thanks to anybody watching! I'd love to hear your theories.
@@xichael Hey Michael! Yea I saw it myself once I uploaded the video. Rest assured, next video it will be properly anti-aliased! :) Thanks for watching and for the feedback.
Hey @Christie Malry! Someone actually reminded me of that on reddit today. I've only come across clips from it so far. I'll definitely be watching it in its entirety.
Another great video, man. Well done. I think it sound quite plausible that these secrets of the trade would be kept, indeed, secret. If only someone had painted a painting of a painter using one of those mirrors. Then we´d know for certain!
Very interesting, but a little more research into some of the "lost or suppressed" info one will find quite a bit about the camera obscura and other ways of "projecting" and image. Even as far back as Da Vinci. There are drawings he made shwing how to build a darkened room or tent with a hole that natural light will project and upside down image on a wall with the use of some mirriors A modern day opaque projector uses this very system but witha strong lamp bulb as a light source. Until the recent advent of digital projectors, opaque projectors have been used to project and upsize the original artist drawing on to a wall or canvas to paint a mural. I have been a professional artist and have done this myself on special projects. I watched "Tim's Vermeer" and found it very accurate and possible. I also belive you have made a good, accurate and interesting video on this subject.
As one professional artist to another, I agree. Artists have always used the most advanced technology available to them. When wood panels were invented, we stopped painting on rocks; when oil paint was invented, we started using them. Ditto for straight-edges and rulers.
@@michaeljohnangel6359 Some artists make a conscious choice not to use the most advanced technology available though. I wonder what your thoughts are on AI generated art.
I just built one of these comparator mirrors. The painting is currently drying between layers. The secret seems to be using thin layers of paint. If you to slap it on thick like Van Gogh there will be a fair bit of drying time between layers as I am learning.
Penne and Teller's whole shtick is debunking hoaxes and con artists. If anything, their involvement only adds credibility. Those who doubted them and labeled them "tricksters" should have done their research. P.S. Great video!
Hey yea, I must agree. It would've made a pretty good story though if they went "We faked it all and here is how we did it. Let this serve as a cautionary tale folks! Don't believe everything you see."
I don't think they would jeopardize their decades long reputation. They have always been very clear about when they are "fooling" people and that it is not real. That is their whole act, "this is not magic, it is just a well crafted illusion". I agree that them being involved only increases credibility in this case.
Before Vermeer, Caravaggio (1571-1610) and others traced mirror projections to outline their figures. What is generally not realised is that this doesn't work when done from nature, unless one knows how to draw. Proof of this can be seen in David Hockney's drawings for which he used this professional shortcut: his drawings are AWFUL (drawing is not his strong point). Long before Caravaggio, van Eyck and others, in the early 1400s, were painting amazingly realistic and detailed paintings. Van Eyck, too, probably used mirror projections (lenses were not all that good back then). They were professional painters, and projections save time ("professional" means painting for money, and money pays the bills. I must iterate, though: projections work only if the artist can DRAW!). An excellent video. Please keep making them!!!
Really interesting insights, Michael! Thank you for watching and contributing to the discussions. It's actually funny you mention van Eyck, as one of his works will be the subject of our next video. Can you guess which? :)
If I remember correctly after watching the documentary, he painted that little black and white photo with way too much paint, and was trying to mix the colour on the canvas with thick impasto paints, there was no way he could have painted it with that crappy brush, most of the paint would have to be scrapped off, and also if I remember they cut away from him painting and then showed the finished painting in grey scale. As and oil painting student, these are what I picked up on, my teacher he does not need to draw the lines he can draw with the paint he's using, and mixes colours on the palette. You need control of your paints, not chaos, and a crappy makeup brush. This documentary was clearly misdirection.
I think most of them use digital tools to create or at least enhance their paintings/drawings. Also, with all the knowledge and techniques we have today, I figure it is easier to draw/paint from reference. I think they also use airbrushing techniques and sometimes a projection on a canvas.
@@mirandagoldstine8548 Thank you for the valuable insight. I understand why some people would come to a misconception like the person above, considering the high prices these works of art fetch in the contemporary market.
Hey no problem. I’m actually working on getting a degree in art history. I did a quick search and I found the information. I think there are records from art markets that were around during the Dutch Republic that list the names of painters, titles and prices they sold for. That would probably be a better way to picture the finances of the art market in 17th century Netherlands.
This is just stupid. The movie is just a documentary movie. All it does is try to communicate the story in a way that people will find approachable, and fun. But it has very little to do with Tim's actual hypothesis. Tim's hypothesis is all in the science. He is an optics innovator, and billionaire because of his optics patents. He has taken measurements of the picture that prove to him that lens distortion is in the picture, and that is the main proof. Another optics expert could test that evidence, it is probably fairly easy to do as distortion is so obvious, modern software packages have been developed to eliminate it in digital photos. However, it is one thing to spot it, and another thing to be able to quatify it build the lens one has detected in the painting, and they match that to the interior, and prove that focal length actually fits into the room. For that you probably need a science background. The other contention was that there was something uncannily real about the color. This is important because lenses create a color shift. That rules out too many lenses stacked in a stack, and you end up not being able to use previously identified optical devices. What the movie does is try to pass on these findings, but in a way that would make it understandable to a non technical audience. If a non artist can paint a Vermeer, then probably he is right with his theories. Maybe, but we don't really know if Tim was right. It seems he probably is. But maybe he is the one who cracked the code on creating a new device for painting, not Vermeer. The problem with reverse engineering is you don't get any credit. If you make something great while copying well, that was in the original genius. If it doesn't work, you are the one who gets the egg on your face, the thing you copied worked. So Tim is stuck in the situation where having invented something that Vermeer would have been lucky to figure out while nobody since has till now, and it took an optics genius to do it, he has to give credit to Vermeer. Ganz's article wasn't even well reasoned when it came out, but he is the kind of writer who reports in, as the evidence changes. And he has annotated the article with rejections of many of his points. He was just widely wrong. And has the integrity to point out new evidence. I don't know why you would include the article in a video from late 2021 when even the author had changed his mind. The P&T thing is another nonsense. I don't believe it is a hoax. Tim is a serious guy, and senior magicians would probably just be interested in a "magic trick" that has survived almost 400 years. I have never seen their act, but modern magicians seem to have settled on the honesty that everyone knows they peddle illusions. Everyone knows they don't actually do magic. Tim's process is laborious, and there would be no payoff in an illusion. Video is easy to fake, it isn't someone making an elephant disappear on a stage in front of a live audience. They would not get any credit for faking some guy sitting at a desk putting tiny marks in place with a paintbrush.
Hey! Thanks for watching and for typing out this long reply. I always welcome discussion here. However, it seems that you either didn't watch the entire video or misinterpreted my message. If the latter is the case, I do apologize for not being clear enough. I never said Penn & Teller (or Tim for that matter) were performing a hoax. I even said that I would find it highly unlikely and listed several reasons as to why it would be unlikely to be a hoax.
This video was a long time in the making. I tried to make the finished product as enticing as possible, without getting too mired in the tons of information out there.
As always a major shout-out to the r/unresolvedmysteries community on reddit. You rock!
Thanks to anybody watching! I'd love to hear your theories.
Great job on the video, I really enjoyed it!
@@littledeebee Thanks so much for your support!
@@xichael Hey Michael! Yea I saw it myself once I uploaded the video. Rest assured, next video it will be properly anti-aliased! :)
Thanks for watching and for the feedback.
wow man nice work
Hey @Christie Malry! Someone actually reminded me of that on reddit today. I've only come across clips from it so far.
I'll definitely be watching it in its entirety.
Found you from reddit! Loved the video, I'll subscribe, this channel has potential.
We'll get there!
Thx for the support
I found this channel on reddit too!
Penn and Teller are tricksters, but not liars. I trust that documentary is true.
Yea, I must agree on this!
Although it would have been one hell of a hoax! :)
@@SimplyMystery actually just saw them live a week ago, awesome live show!
Really? That's awesome. I wish they would tour Europe more often. I would definitely go see them.
Another great video, man. Well done. I think it sound quite plausible that these secrets of the trade would be kept, indeed, secret.
If only someone had painted a painting of a painter using one of those mirrors. Then we´d know for certain!
Paintception.
Very interesting, but a little more research into some of the "lost or suppressed" info one will find quite a bit about the camera obscura and other ways of "projecting" and image. Even as far back as Da Vinci. There are drawings he made shwing how to build a darkened room or tent with a hole that natural light will project and upside down image on a wall with the use of some mirriors A modern day opaque projector uses this very system but witha strong lamp bulb as a light source. Until the recent advent of digital projectors, opaque projectors have been used to project and upsize the original artist drawing on to a wall or canvas to paint a mural. I have been a professional artist and have done this myself on special projects. I watched "Tim's Vermeer" and found it very accurate and possible. I also belive you have made a good, accurate and interesting video on this subject.
Really nice insight. It seems you have been keeping up with this subject.
As one professional artist to another, I agree. Artists have always used the most advanced technology available to them. When wood panels were invented, we stopped painting on rocks; when oil paint was invented, we started using them. Ditto for straight-edges and rulers.
Nice discussion guys! It seems I need to "brush up" on some things. ;)
@@michaeljohnangel6359 Some artists make a conscious choice not to use the most advanced technology available though.
I wonder what your thoughts are on AI generated art.
@@captainobscuro1321 AI generated art is pathetically bad. Ask me again after robots have learned to paint (and compose) well.
very well done. I've studied history for years and never heard this brought up before. Great work.
Thanks a lot! Yea, it's a really interesting slice of history.
Love the art History mysteries!
Us as well! We have a couple episodes in the pipeline and atleast one of them is about art history too.
I just built one of these comparator mirrors.
The painting is currently drying between layers.
The secret seems to be using thin layers of paint.
If you to slap it on thick like Van Gogh there will be a fair bit of drying time between layers as I am learning.
Came here from Reddit and wasn't disappointed. That was seriously fascinating!
Thanks so much, Portia! I'm glad you found it fascinating.
Penne and Teller's whole shtick is debunking hoaxes and con artists. If anything, their involvement only adds credibility. Those who doubted them and labeled them "tricksters" should have done their research.
P.S. Great video!
Hey yea, I must agree. It would've made a pretty good story though if they went "We faked it all and here is how we did it. Let this serve as a cautionary tale folks! Don't believe everything you see."
I don't think they would jeopardize their decades long reputation. They have always been very clear about when they are "fooling" people and that it is not real. That is their whole act, "this is not magic, it is just a well crafted illusion". I agree that them being involved only increases credibility in this case.
@@squidcaps4308 That definitely makes sense. Maybe I should have communicated that better in the video.
Before Vermeer, Caravaggio (1571-1610) and others traced mirror projections to outline their figures. What is generally not realised is that this doesn't work when done from nature, unless one knows how to draw. Proof of this can be seen in David Hockney's drawings for which he used this professional shortcut: his drawings are AWFUL (drawing is not his strong point). Long before Caravaggio, van Eyck and others, in the early 1400s, were painting amazingly realistic and detailed paintings. Van Eyck, too, probably used mirror projections (lenses were not all that good back then). They were professional painters, and projections save time ("professional" means painting for money, and money pays the bills. I must iterate, though: projections work only if the artist can DRAW!).
An excellent video. Please keep making them!!!
Really interesting insights, Michael! Thank you for watching and contributing to the discussions.
It's actually funny you mention van Eyck, as one of his works will be the subject of our next video. Can you guess which? :)
I'm subscriber 314 and this is a cool video!
Thanks so much for your support. Happy holidays!
great work, glad I subbed a while ago
Thanks! I think you're one of the first subscribers that I've come across multiple times in the comments. :)
If I remember correctly after watching the documentary, he painted that little black and white photo with way too much paint, and was trying to mix the colour on the canvas with thick impasto paints, there was no way he could have painted it with that crappy brush, most of the paint would have to be scrapped off, and also if I remember they cut away from him painting and then showed the finished painting in grey scale.
As and oil painting student, these are what I picked up on, my teacher he does not need to draw the lines he can draw with the paint he's using, and mixes colours on the palette. You need control of your paints, not chaos, and a crappy makeup brush. This documentary was clearly misdirection.
How do artists of today create realistic paintings?
I think most of them use digital tools to create or at least enhance their paintings/drawings.
Also, with all the knowledge and techniques we have today, I figure it is easier to draw/paint from reference.
I think they also use airbrushing techniques and sometimes a projection on a canvas.
i theorize they had access to gel pens years before the rest of the world
That must be it! :D
How many peasants in 1600's have been exposed to paintings?
Peasants? Not a lot.
But "town-dwelling 17th century Europeans"? Quite a bit depending on how interested or affluent they were.
@@mirandagoldstine8548 Thank you for the valuable insight.
I understand why some people would come to a misconception like the person above, considering the high prices these works of art fetch in the contemporary market.
Hey no problem. I’m actually working on getting a degree in art history. I did a quick search and I found the information. I think there are records from art markets that were around during the Dutch Republic that list the names of painters, titles and prices they sold for. That would probably be a better way to picture the finances of the art market in 17th century Netherlands.
This is just stupid. The movie is just a documentary movie. All it does is try to communicate the story in a way that people will find approachable, and fun. But it has very little to do with Tim's actual hypothesis. Tim's hypothesis is all in the science. He is an optics innovator, and billionaire because of his optics patents. He has taken measurements of the picture that prove to him that lens distortion is in the picture, and that is the main proof. Another optics expert could test that evidence, it is probably fairly easy to do as distortion is so obvious, modern software packages have been developed to eliminate it in digital photos. However, it is one thing to spot it, and another thing to be able to quatify it build the lens one has detected in the painting, and they match that to the interior, and prove that focal length actually fits into the room. For that you probably need a science background.
The other contention was that there was something uncannily real about the color. This is important because lenses create a color shift. That rules out too many lenses stacked in a stack, and you end up not being able to use previously identified optical devices.
What the movie does is try to pass on these findings, but in a way that would make it understandable to a non technical audience. If a non artist can paint a Vermeer, then probably he is right with his theories. Maybe, but we don't really know if Tim was right. It seems he probably is. But maybe he is the one who cracked the code on creating a new device for painting, not Vermeer. The problem with reverse engineering is you don't get any credit. If you make something great while copying well, that was in the original genius. If it doesn't work, you are the one who gets the egg on your face, the thing you copied worked. So Tim is stuck in the situation where having invented something that Vermeer would have been lucky to figure out while nobody since has till now, and it took an optics genius to do it, he has to give credit to Vermeer.
Ganz's article wasn't even well reasoned when it came out, but he is the kind of writer who reports in, as the evidence changes. And he has annotated the article with rejections of many of his points. He was just widely wrong. And has the integrity to point out new evidence. I don't know why you would include the article in a video from late 2021 when even the author had changed his mind.
The P&T thing is another nonsense. I don't believe it is a hoax. Tim is a serious guy, and senior magicians would probably just be interested in a "magic trick" that has survived almost 400 years. I have never seen their act, but modern magicians seem to have settled on the honesty that everyone knows they peddle illusions. Everyone knows they don't actually do magic. Tim's process is laborious, and there would be no payoff in an illusion. Video is easy to fake, it isn't someone making an elephant disappear on a stage in front of a live audience. They would not get any credit for faking some guy sitting at a desk putting tiny marks in place with a paintbrush.
Hey! Thanks for watching and for typing out this long reply. I always welcome discussion here.
However, it seems that you either didn't watch the entire video or misinterpreted my message. If the latter is the case, I do apologize for not being clear enough.
I never said Penn & Teller (or Tim for that matter) were performing a hoax. I even said that I would find it highly unlikely and listed several reasons as to why it would be unlikely to be a hoax.