Fascinating to compare the two replicas - the 3D-print one looks a lot 'cleaner', but also resembles computer-graphics (perhaps just in the way its presented; the pic alongside the original (if that's the print one) looks amazing). They both appear to have the overall shape and design perfectly though.
(04-08-2024, 09:58 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: [ -> ]Fascinating to compare the two replicas - the 3D-print one looks a lot 'cleaner', but also resembles computer-graphics (perhaps just in the way its presented; the pic alongside the original (if that's the print one) looks amazing). They both appear to have the overall shape and design perfectly though.
They both look very good, but I think much of the visual differences at least are in the method used in the photo shoot...
Wearas the perfect CAD version appears to be shot in a box to avoid any reflections (though I dont doubt it has a perfect finish), the "Real" thing is not and is reflecting everything around it, this probably has contributed to its "rougher" appearance and its likely that this is much less so when viewing it with the naked eye...
In the past I've seen some exeptional replicas done with Electrotyping, though they were done from the orignals, the CAD method is only one step away from that really...
Kudos I think goes too Francesco Galluccio for his hand made original though.
(04-08-2024, 12:12 PM)Crispianus Wrote: [ -> ]In the past I've seen some exeptional replicas done with Electrotyping... the CAD method is only one step away from that really...
Ha, very true! Funny to think that the latest 3D print technology is so close to something invented in the 19th century.
And you're surely right about the reflections in the photo.
![[Image: gRirYO9.jpeg]](https://i.imgur.com/gRirYO9.jpeg)