Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

High-Res Scan of Mona Lisa Reveals Its History

Posted by kdawson on Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:17 PM
from the what-are-you-smiling-about dept.
Graphics Software Science
daevux writes "CNN is reporting that French engineer Pascal Cotte has discovered interesting details of the history of Da Vinci's Mona Lisa from a 240-megapixel scan of the artwork in various frequencies. Cotte surmises that the painted figure's eyebrows and eyelashes probably disappeared due to poor cleaning at some point in the past. He believes he can reconstruct the painting's original skin tones."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: HiRes Scan of 'Mona Lisa' Reveals Its History by daevux (626542)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

High-Res Scan of Mona Lisa Reveals Its History 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • So will we ever know if it is a man or not?

    It's a Man BABY!!

    • The "Mona Lisa" has long been shrouded in mystery, including one long-standing question about the famous lady: What happened to her eyebrows and eyelashes?
      Man? No. She got a job working for the MythBusters.
        • This thread is useless without pics.

          • Re:It's a Man Baby (Score:5, Informative)

            by B'Trey (111263) on Thursday October 18 2007, @01:22PM (#21028843)
            This thread is useless without pics.

            Not sure exactly which pics you're talking about (the Mona Lisa scans or Da Vinci pics that were reversed and compared) but there's some interesting pics and additional info here [lumiere-technology.com], including a virtual restoration of the original pigments and some details of what was revealed.

    • Re:It's a Man Baby (Score:4, Funny)

      by Oktober Sunset (838224) <[sdpage103] [at] [yahoo.co.uk]> on Thursday October 18 2007, @05:11PM (#21032539)

      I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
      No, I will not hire you, because you wasted perfectly good pot, you fool.
  • Will THAT monstrosity be removed in Dan Brown's next book -> movie? His next one is about the Masons, and we know they don't tolerate that sort of frivality.

  • Hidden faces in Mona Lisa (Score:5, Funny)

    by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:22PM (#21027627)
    Let me guess... they've discovered that Mona Lisa's face is actually a combination of the faces of Da Vinci, Jesus, Dan Brown, and Tom Hanks?

  • Historical Significance to the art world (Score:3, Interesting)

    by techpawn (969834) on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:25PM (#21027683) Journal

    He believes he can reconstruct the painting's original skin tones.
    There is something to be said about a painting's appeal over the ages AS it ages. If it's restored beyond a certain point won't we lose some historical context for the pieces and the methods used?
    I'm not saying I wouldn't love to see a print of what it looked like "originally" but the aging of the painting adds to the significance of the work as a whole doesn't it? If so wouldn't things like thing cheapen the priceless nature of these pieces?
    • I'd imagine he's going to do it digitally and non destructively to the painting.

    • He believes he can reconstruct the painting's original skin tones.
      There is something to be said about a painting's appeal over the ages AS it ages. If it's restored beyond a certain point won't we lose some historical context for the pieces and the methods used?
      I'm not saying I wouldn't love to see a print of what it looked like "originally" but the aging of the painting adds to the significance of the work as a whole doesn't it? If so wouldn't things like thing cheapen the priceless nature of these pieces?
      No, no, NO! No it doesn't.
      DAMN no!

      Oh my god. Seriously, what you're saying is that a worn VHS is better than a remastered DVD.
      Worse, you're somehow thinking that we'll lose the historical context... as if restoration would eliminate the millions of pages detailing that context or the millions of reproductions of the work in its aged state.

      The degradation, I'll have you know, is what causes the loss of historical context.
      People think that old stone churches were always gray and foreboding buildings, when historically they were colorful, but that context was lost through erosion of the pigments.
      • People think that old stone churches were always gray and foreboding buildings, when historically they were colorful, but that context was lost through erosion of the pigments.

        Historically they were colourful, but that context was lost through whitewash.

        Literally. Cromwell has a whole lot to answer for.

      • So you're in favor of colorizing black and white films?

        a) The VHS/DVD argument is garbage because there are more than one of them and you cannot physically change one into the other.

        b) How do you know that the restoration has returned the item to it's original luster. What if it was originally painted in dull tones, but today's experts say they used bright tones back then. Which leads to...

        c) If the restoration is screwed up the item is lost. Forever.

        Sure we have loads of information and reproductions of th

      • Oh my god. Seriously, what you're saying is that a worn VHS is better than a remastered DVD.

        Actually, sometimes it is. A while back I saw a restored church - where the worn stone steps were replaced with new ones, and the worn and discolored pews treated similarly. The aged floor was carefully sanded down, covered with polyurethane and polished. etc... etc...

        It truly is a beautiful building - but today it looks like it never did historically, except maybe on the day it was completed. All histori

        • Restoring something to the way it was initially experienced is different from trying to enhance it beyond what it originally was.

          Both are culturally beneficial, but the enhancement is more like a new work than an authentic reproduction of the old work.

          • Restoration - re-releasing Star Wars on DVD, with video and audio copied from the original except visual/audio flaws and artifacts have been removed.
            Crapification - re-releasing Star Wars on DVD, except there's all this CG crap in the background that wasn't there before.
            Han shot first! :D

        • Re:Context is LOST through degradation, not gained (Score:5, Interesting)

          by samkass (174571) on Thursday October 18 2007, @01:47PM (#21029295) Homepage Journal
          I owned a stone house in Pittsburgh when I lived there. I thought I'd bought a gray stone house, but when it needed repointing and got spray-washed, I discovered I owned a yellow, red, tan, and generally pretty interestingly-colored stone house. The stones had just all turned gray because of the soot through the 20th century. So it doesn't always turn out like that.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Aliks (530618)
            In fact da Vinci and all the artists of the time were well aware of the effects of aging on their work and took account of it.

            Their patrons wanted work that would remain interesting over several generations, so there are usually a lot of "subtexts" in the picture that will only be revealed by repeated viewing.

            Artist knew that the colours and varnishes they used would not finally "set" for some months or years so they had in mind a finished look that would not be achieved on day 1.

            The artists themselves were
            • Their patrons wanted work that would remain interesting over several generations, ... Artist knew that the colours and varnishes they used would not finally "set" for some months

              In Leonardo's time, no one really knew about how artwork degrades over centuries. They did have access to artworks that were centuries old at the time, but they had no way to analyze how those works had been degraded over the years.

              All they knew was what they could remember over their lifetimes. It's only recently that we have deve

    • If by "as the painting ages" you mean it gets covered in unnatural materials like soot and smoke and dirt and dust and oils and who knows what else, then I'd have to disagree with you. No painting will never look exactly as it did when the painter's brush last touched it, but that moment is the moment the artist decided the painting was finished. If he wanted his painting to look so dark and drab and dreary, he would have used darker tones. Walk around your local art museum and you'll either come away wi

  • link (Score:4, Funny)

    by kharchenko (303729) on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:27PM (#21027735)
    240 megapixels and you link to a CNN article? Show me the pixels!

  • how much? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:29PM (#21027779)
    Mona Lisa, masterpiece
    A painting, badly damaged
    Gentlemen, we can rebuild her
    We have the technology
    We have the capability ...
    Mona Lisa is that painting
    Better than she was before
    Brighter - Truer colors - Anatomically Complete

  • Doctor Who "City of Death" (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:30PM (#21027789)
    Did he find "THIS IS A FAKE" written on the canvas in felt tipped marker under all that paint?

       

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jnaujok (804613)
        Hey, in City of Death, the Doctor specifically says/writes, "Never mind the mess on the panels..." He never refers to it as canvas. I know this having recently watched the episode waiting for this exact "mistake".

  • The Old Masters (Score:3, Informative)

    by OhHellWithIt (756826) on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:32PM (#21027857) Journal
    Everyone goes on so about the Mona Lisa, etc., that I have to throw in this commentary of Twain's from The Innocents Abroad (Source: enotes.com [enotes.com]):

    I have got enough of the old masters! Brown says he has "shook" them, and I think I will shake them, too. You wander through a mile of picture galleries and stare stupidly at ghastly old nightmares done in lampblack and lightning, and listen to the ecstatic encomiums of the guides, and try to get up some enthusiasm, but it won't come.

    He goes on at length here [virginia.edu], down around page 190.

  • Bitmap compressed to 2 bytes (Score:5, Funny)

    by dkoulomzin (320266) on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:36PM (#21027935)
    :|

    That's a kickass compressor.

  • One slight problem (Score:5, Funny)

    by GMFTatsujin (239569) on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:39PM (#21027983) Homepage
    How do they explain the words "THIS IS A FAKE" written in felt tip marker underneath all that aged paint?

  • In other news (Score:5, Funny)

    by Experiment 626 (698257) on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:43PM (#21028055)

    Slashdot researcher CowboyNeal has used the same 240 megapixel camera and advanced imaging techniques to reveal the history of the goatsecx picture.

  • Ironic advertisment (Score:5, Funny)

    by amstrad (60839) on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:46PM (#21028105)
    "Cotte surmises that the painted figure's eyebrows and eyelashes probably disappeared due to poor cleaning..."

    I found it amusing that the ad I got while reading the article was for Botox...

  • The REAL question is (Score:5, Funny)

    by zappepcs (820751) on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:47PM (#21028117) Journal
    would restoring the Mona Lisa to her original glory be in violation of the DMCA? Mother nature has specifically encoded the particles of the painting into their current state. Disassembling those particles or re-arranging them to unlock the original content seems to contravene explicit provisions of the DMCA.

    While the rest of the world may enjoy Leonardo's original work, here in the US we simply will not tolerate such abashed attacks on the copyrights of Leonardo. What do you mean copyright has expired? Ok, give us one more congressional session (and a couple pleasure boat cruises) and we will have that fixed.
  • It was written in Pascal? I knew the language was old but didn't realize it was /that/ old.

  • Brows/lashes wiped off? (Score:4, Funny)

    by EvilGrin5000 (951851) <burninating.peasants@gmail.com> on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:48PM (#21028153)
    According to the article, there's a postulation that a curator or restorer might have accidentally cleaned off the eyebrows and eyelashes.

    FTA

    "And if you look closely at the eye of 'Mona Lisa' you can clearly see that the cracks around the eye have slightly disappeared, and that may be explained that one day a curator or restorer cleaned the eye, and cleaning the eye, removed, probably removed the eyelashes and eyebrow," he said.

    Why would a single pigment/color disappear?
    Weren't colors back then all made with the same base? In that case, why would only the eyebrows disappear and nothing else shows a smudge from whatever cleaning agent it was used? (if this is the case).

    Not to mention that I would have loved to be there for THAT occasion:

    Owner: "Can you get this thing cleaned up for me?"
    Curator: "Sure thing mister, I'm a professional."
    Owner: "It's priceless you know..."
    Curator: "I'll take good care of it."
    Curator starts the restoration from the eyes and accidentally wipes off eyebrows and eyelashes.
    Curator: "Fuck!"
    Curator: "Well... maybe if I get the eyes soaked in enough oil to not crack for 500 years, no one will notice."
    Owner gets back.
    Owner: "Hmm... look at them eyes! They're awesome!"
    Owner: "There's something different about her, is it her smile?"
    Curator: "I'm just a restorer, but yeah, er... she looks mysterious."
    Owner: "Nice eyes though!"

    So much speculation...
  • I find it amusing that the "changes" to the painting that people don't like they attribute to outside sources instead of the artist. Who is to say he isn't the one that made those changes while he was painting the work? I'm not really a fan of looking behind works of art to see how they were created and what ideas the artist didn't like or covered over. The artist only intended for us to see the final layer of paint, and he hid the others from view intentionally.

    On the other hand, it does make artists mo

  • You can see the restored colors here (Score:5, Informative)

    by zeoslap (190553) on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:59PM (#21028355) Homepage
    His company, and the restored colors can be seen here [lumiere-technology.com]

  • Somebody has something wrong (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bfree (113420) on Thursday October 18 2007, @01:14PM (#21028701)
    From tfa:

    The device scanned a 240-million pixel image using 13 light spectrums, including ultra-violet and infrared.
    The resulting ultra-high resolution photograph of 150,000 dots per inch
    150,000 dpi is a lot! As best I can tell the Mona Lisa is about 30 * 21 inches or 630 square inches which at 150,000 dpi would yield a 14.175 terapixel image, just 60,000 times the claimed 240 megapixels! 240 million pixels would be only 617 dpi! I suppose the other possibilities include his "camera" was taking 150dpi, 240 million pixel images in which case he must have taken about 59,000 shots to produce a full 150,000 dpi image of the picture. I guess this is conceivable taking a shot every 0.1 inches?

  • Fixed it for ya (Score:4, Funny)

    by timeOday (582209) on Thursday October 18 2007, @01:31PM (#21028989)
    Thank me later [theknack.net].

  • Maybe Da Vinci removed them (Score:4, Insightful)

    by swestcott (44407) * on Thursday October 18 2007, @01:33PM (#21029025) Homepage
    Maybe he did not like the way it looked and removed them himself is there any way to know I am not a painter but could this not be a possibility?

    God way to sell his service though and how does one get permision to scan somthing like this?

  • This Just In! (Score:3, Funny)

    by PPH (736903) on Thursday October 18 2007, @02:04PM (#21029607)
    The Mona Lisa appears to have been painted on top of a 'Dogs Playing Poker' masterpiece.

    Attempts to restore the original are now underway.

  • But of even more interest than the eyebrows and lashes was the discovery a thin mustache and goatee...

    • Maybe it wasn't Leonardo's idea ;) (Score:5, Funny)

      by Moraelin (679338) on Thursday October 18 2007, @02:44PM (#21030265) Journal
      Who says it was Leonardo who couldn't stop. Let's face it, if it went anything like modern project management in a lot of places, it would be more like:

      Act 1:

      Leonardo's PHB: Good news Leonardo! We've won the preliminary round of talks with Francesco del Giocondo for a painting! Now he'll only want a time and cost estimate, and a tech demo to help him make up his mind!
      Leonardo: Great! Did he say _what_ he wants painted? How big? I mean, the cost and time depends on that.
      Leonardo's PHB: Now, now, Leonardo... what did I tell you about scaring the customers with that kind of technical questions? Get working on that demo already, and we'll ask for more details after he sees it.
      Leonardo: Hmm, ok, WTH, I'll just paint the castle then...
      Leonardo's PHB: That's the spirit!

      Act 2:

      Leonardo's PHB: Sad to say, Mr del Giocondo wasn't impressed with your demo. He said it was too sketchy and lacking any detail, but luckily the VP of Marketing managed to convince him to give you another chance.
      Leonardo: Whoa there, you said he wanted a demo, not a full painting. Of course it's sketchy!
      Leonardo's PHB: Now, now, we're not at assigning blame. What matters is that we get the contract, right?
      Leonardo: Right. I guess I'll go back to painting the castle, then.
      Leonardo's PHB: Oh, right, I forgot to mention that. He thinks that it doesn't quite fit what he had in mind, so he'll want it changed to a lake.
      Leonardo: Ah well, I'll just get a fresh canvas then.
      Leonardo's PHB: Not so fast, we don't have the budget for a new painting. You'll have to change the demo from a castle to a lake.
      Leonardo: You're kidding, right? I mean, seriously...
      Leonardo's PHB: Do I look like I'm kidding? I already promised the CEO it'll be ready in half the time of a new demo.
      Leonardo: Oh, for fuck's sake...

      Act 3:

      Leonardo's PHB: Good news, Leonardo. Francesco was pleased, now he wants to see how the lake looks as a background for a woman's portrait.
      Leonardo: Let me guess, he wants her painted _over_ the lake, because someone told him it'll be cheaper, right?
      Leonardo's PHB: Well, duh, of course.
      Leonardo: So when does he send this woman here, so I can paint her?
      Leonardo's PHB: Who said anything about doing the final product already? You're just supposed to do another demo, so he can see if that's what he wants. Just take any woman and paint her there.
      Leonardo: Grrr... Ok, I'll just paint my girlfriend, then.

      Act 4:

      Francesco del Giocondo: Ah, yes, Mr da Vinci, I presume. Yes, that's very interesting, indeed. See, the lake is exactly what I had in mind for the background, but what I actually want is a portrait of my wife, Lisa.
      Leonardo: Great. I'll just get a new canvas, and we can talk about what time should I start.
      Francesco del Giocondo: Wait, new canvas? I was assured that we can just change that bit in the demo. I mean, look at it, it looks almost ready...
      Leonardo's PHB: Yes, of course, Mr del Giocondo. No need to waste money on starting from scratch.
      Leonardo: Guys, that's crazy, that wasn't supposed to work that way.
      Francesco del Giocondo: Well, I see... I guess I'll have to find another painter, then.
      Leonardo's PHB: Leonardo, so help me God, if we lose this customer, I'll make sure you never work again in this city!
      Leonardo: Ok, ok, I'll just... ummm, make her a bit thinner then to match Mrs Gioconda. Right.
      Francesco del Giocondo: Oh, I'm so delighted we could reach an agreement.

      Act 5:

      (Several months later.)

      Mona Lisa: Hmm, no, those eyebrows just won't do... They'll have to go.
      Leonardo: Completely??
      Mona Lisa: Yes. My friend, Maria assures me that that's the latest fashion in Constantinople.
      Leonardo: But... but... you'll look like a radiotherapy patient without them.
      Mona Lisa: Mr da Vinci, I think you forget who's the customer here! No way I'm accepting this product as it is!
      Leonardo: Ah, ok, let me get my turpentine bottle then. Anything else?
      Mona Lisa: In fact,

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.