Would it be possible to get or build a monitor to view famous

Until we get large extremely high resolution and wide colour eink displays, no.

>>56599750
Interesting question

File: hpdesignjetl26500300dpi50pct.jpg (767KB, 2048x1346px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 2048x1346px

you'd be better off just going to a print shop and having them print off a nice big vinyl sign

>>56599792
Damn, thought so.
But how about this crazy idea. Would it be feasible to build a machine driving a paintbrush to x and y coordinates and let it copy a picture to canvas? It most certainly is possible but I have no idea how much it would cost to build one with precise enough movement.
Working with a limited color palette and dotting seem good enough to me. I have some knowledge in oil painting but seeing people make art pixel per pixel in mspaint puts what I've done to shame. I don't even like painting, just looking at them.
What problems do I oversee here in my idea?
>put filter on picture to reduce it to small dots of distinct sizes
>try to minimize lost space
>limit color range
>find out by trial and error what paintbrushes and pressure get as close to filtered versions dots
>make all dots of color A of all sizes
>wash paintbrush, switch color
>continue with color B, etc.

even if you made such a machine, what are you going to feed it?
without the instructions to paint a particular painting, you'd still need to know how to paint it yourself

>>56600182
-- unless you mean you intend to create software that turns scans into painting instructions

that might not be impossible, but it'll be fucking hard to pull off (besides just having it place an array of dots like an inkjet printer)

>>56600021
So a 1 DPI inkjet is what you're asking for

>>56600182
>>56600214
I would feed it paintings I like. I don't care about who painted them, why they did it or the general style. There are many classics I absolutely love, but also ones from relatively unknown digital painters on deviant art. If I like it, I like it. I wouldn't want to sell stolen work either. I would just fill up an entire room with my favorite paintings. It's just not the same on a regular monitor. The colors, the infinite resolution, the texture.

Yeah, I would intend to do that. But since oil and acrylic paint differs from simple printer ink, I would have to come up with some good ways to make a pleasant overall style. Get a hight resolution scan and reduce it to simple shapes even a servo controlled pencil can't fuck up. Brush down, brush up. Now we have a dot. This differ from Inkjet printing quite a lot. By fucking around with paint thinners, letting some paint dry and some disperse, different brushes and maybe even including different shapes like strokes, this style might turn out quite unique. I've never seen a painting artificially created like that, but there are quite a few hobby projects on Youtube doing similar stuff. But it's hard to make out the quality of the paining if it's filmed with a potato.

I can already think of other problems like the brush not keeping it's shape and producing inconsistent elements.
Turning an actual image in such painting instruction don't seem too. I'm a programmer and figuring out how to do this seems doable, considering there are open-source for similar image manipulation.
I don't know a lot about how to control electric devices, I would need help from my father in this. He has a great interest in that and hooking up motors, servos or whatever he deems to best to RPi would be enough from his side.

>>56600577
sounds like you're heading into a pool which is far deeper than you know
but hey, it'll be fun to attempt it, so knock yourself out

4K is enough if you're far enough away from the monitor.
Let's assume we want to show The Starry Night (the picture you posted) in its original dimensions.
The Starry Night has a 5:4 aspect ratio so on a 4K display (16:9) you'd get letterboxing which is less than ideal.
We can use the entire height of the 4K (UHD) display, that means it'd be 29" high and have a vertical resolution of 2160 pixels. That's a pixel density of around 74.5 dpi.

Now see the picture. The viewing angle under which you see two neighboring pixels is phi, at a viewing distance of a and the wdith of TWO pixels = d.
Human vision is limited to around 50 cycles (pixel-pairs) per degree, due to the density of brightness receptors in your eye (lower for color receptors).
How do we calculate a, the distance at which we can't distinguish between an UHD display and an even higher resolution display?
phi = 2 arcsin(d / 2a)
sin(phi/2) = d / 2a
a = d / 2*sin(phi/2)
a = d / (2*sin(1 / (2*(1/phi))))

1/phi = 50 cy/deg
pixel density: 74.5 dpi, therefore d = 2/dpi = 0.02685"
So a = 0.02685" ( 2*sin(1/(2*50 cy/deg))).

If you're around 77 inches or 195 cm from the picture, you won't see a difference; if you want to get closer you'll need a higher resolution monitor. This is of course assuming that the smallest structure in the picture is indeed 2 pixels wide.

As for color, I am pretty sure there are displays around that use the ACES color space.

File: angle.png (12KB, 361x217px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 361x217px

>>56600951
Forgot picture.

>>56600718
Yeah, seems like it. I know it feels bad, abandoning a project when it gets too overwhelming. Never even think about making an indie game.

But that's also why I'm asking here. CNC machines look like they have quite a spectrum. 2 servos to get a "child's first written word simulator" up to large machinery cutting high-precision metallic elements. What is the best I can build for about 500€? I have a access to basic metalworking utility and spare parts of all kind. A pencil should also be a lot lighter than a metal oder wood drill head, but would this making it preciser any easier?