Overview scroll with up/down extra marges and (of course) no overlaps left/right. This is generated from my 'master measure file' which is 1:1 and almost 30.000 mm at 150 pp1. That is a file when not opened with a storage space of approcimate 14 Gigabyte and difficult to handle as it is at limits of what Photshop can do. Still it is the only way to generate accurate print files on the basis of the measurements made by Tamas Walickzy of the mounting panels for the HPL prints by Genesis. There is a series of scrolls below that give the necessary information to understand the principles of doing the fitting on the panels. These principles need to be understood before starting the work.
The image content of the mural has been made in a few steps:
1) concept design of how the scroll would go along the walls
2) making of scroll content as one band with an equal height and now angling and corner situation yet
3) only after having received the precise measures of the mounting boards placed by Genesis and done by Tamas (June12) could I make a model based on the concept design
4) I have made a model that connects all the measures of the boards as if they were next to each other on the right and left without any space.
5) This model has a series of frames: a) the panels as measures; b) panels with the requested margins of 15mm at the left/right side (+ 30mm in tota)l and 10mm at top and bottom (+ 20mm)
6) There are 17 panels and so 17 layers in my master measure file and in this file I can switch on and off for each panel the actual size of a panel and the print size with the margins. All the measures and positions have been constructed by steering Photoshop with numbers only, because dragging layers in such a huge file and with so many millimeters is bound to fail
7) For each print file the layer with the actua panel measures + the margings has been generated by what is called in Photoshop a 'merged copy' of all visual layers; this technique enableb me to compensate th spots were angling of the striaght version of the scroll would lead to loss of image content. I did recreate at all points were a change of angle occured special overlayed elemnts so that gyhe angling scroll (that was a straight line at first) has become a continuous angling band of images without any loss.
8) The print matgins used now are such that small deviations of measures can be compensated by on the spot trimming of the image content.
9) The trimming needs to take in account the artwork and can not be done just from a measure point of view. In Scroll number 1 this is explained. If no attention would be paid to what I call 'visual continuity' the artwork will be damaged visually. The human eye is very attentive to continuity of forms that are sperated by small oids (as is the caser with the HPL mounting system put in place). When an object in the image has a line that crosses over two panels a few millimter difference will look uglky, the line appears as if broken. I propose that the measuring in the vertical plane will be done from the bottom part up of the HPL prints.
10) As the mural passes doors and goes around corners, 'visual continuity' is not everywhere critical at the same level. In scroll number 1 I have indicated the differences.
11) The swinging doors in the middle will not ne covered. I have created at the left and right hand side of the doors a speical kind of image ending. Attention must be paid not to take off too much at these nedings on the left and right hand endings of the scroll.
12) Thje first pannel A1 should not be trimmed at the left hand(beginning) side. As the image dsiappears behind a wall a bit of image loss at the right hand side of panel A1 will not be a problem.
13) At the other end a similar situation occurs in reverse. The right hand side of panel F1 should be trimmed as little as possible and this can be compensated by triming part of the left hand side of panel F1 that disappears into the wall (virtually).
14) scroll 2 has two layers: the top shows the panels and their file numbers and the the light blue indicates what sticks out at the top and bottom (the 10mm margins); right below it is a montage I amde as a general control of how the measurements of Tamas compare with the ones supplied by Genesis (send to me June 5). As the premises of the Gensis drawings are not teh same as the measurements taken by Tamas, I had to develop a special method to make this comparison.
First, the Genesis drawings of the mural have always limit themselves to the construction of the HPL mounting. Individual measures of each panel can only - and not always - be derived by calculation. This has posed me great difficulties already last year and this next phase the same difficulty remained. Also the digiatl scale of the drawings (A4 size 300 dpi) has limited my control/comparison of measures by Tamas and Genesis.
Nevertheless, I have used a method that is approximate and shows that their is NO great difference between the two measure outcomes. With a few exceptions though. Panel D3 has a msitake of over 9mm, which shows up. The method I used is importing the PDF pages of Genesis in Photoshop with a resolution of 1200 ppi and cutting out the panels from the lines indicating their position. Next I have pasted these cut-outs into my 1:1 master measure system, whereby of course I had to enlarge a lot these cut-outs, but all the while reatining their angle and aspect ratio. Of course a part of A4 (horizontal format)
drawing is only farction of the real big 1:1 file of the panels with their height of 120 cm.
15) Last in scroll 3 I put on one line all the measuremtn files as I have received them from Tamas. It is these numbers I have used. Now I need also to make a note here on the limits of the measures as taken by Tamas, when I applied a simple mathematical formula (Pythagoras) to derive for the sides of the rectangles and four point polygons, the resulting missing length and angle in the fiels of Tamas did not always match with my calculations. This is documented in the PDF file I did send before, which I will also put on this web page for download.
The differences were never very big and as far as I could discover all fall withing the chossen extra margins of 10 and 15 mm at the sides of the HPL prints. It seems sometimes as a needless seriers of exercises, but I am afraid it is not so. This for two reasons:
a) I had no opportunity to control certain measurement when I felt not secure implementing them, being even at another continent and not even having see the construction, just measurement (sadly all of us forhot to ask or supply me with some pictures of the actual situation ofthe mounting boards);
b) neither gensis nor Tamas have had the equipment to estabish a fixed basline for all measurements. I do not know if Genesis did control if the floor pof the SCM cooridar are really on one level, and Tamas could only estbalish a baseline for each panel. That confronted me with a relative psitionihg, not an absolute one, and when it came to doing the angles, I felt a need to do three double control, as
in the construction process of my 'master measure file' a slight difference in an gle over a great length could have made things go wrong.
16) The question of Genesis for having markers on the HPL prints, surpirsed me and I have already answered that question in extenso, do not want to repaet it here. I did however suggest a simple way to measure, nd just note here that the margings on the sides are always the same so there is measure to the print files and NO we will not print markers on top of artwork. We have pencils for that.
Tjebbe van Tijen/Imaginary Museum projects, Amsterdam Monday 25th of June