Showing posts with label sample. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sample. Show all posts
09 October 2009
20 September 2009
A Rubric for Open Source Cinema (beta)
I am very excited to publish my very first videoblog entry to Quantum Cinema in which I give my candid reactions to RiP: a remix manifesto as well as the website Open Source Cinema. Sorry in advance for the somewhat noisy audio; next time I'll see to it that the audio is better quality.
A Rubric for Open Source Cinema (beta)
- Identification of Objects in the Frame
- Universal Editing Timeline Metadata
- Timecoded Text Transcription
Eclectic Method remix the Colbert Report:
Memo Akten performs mathematical transformations on Radiohead's data:
Ian Mackinnon interprets Radiohead's data with Lego stop-motion:
As we can see, Radiohead's data is a far more transformable medium than the clip from the Colbert Report. Hypercubist aesthetics are characterized by this fluidity.
PS: I have setup the domain www.hypercubist.com to redirect to Quantum Cinema so if you feel like sharing the blog with your friends, now you can remember the URL just a little bit easier ;)
24 February 2007
"8 1/2 Mile"
Sample-based aesthetics point to a larger grammar of clashing various media with topical or visual similarities to create mutant remixed offspring. While my personal approach with video is to use the formal processes common to sample-based work on materials I create myself, I still find a good mash-up to be rare finds in the cluttered landscape of audiovisual collage. This clip by The AV Club is particularly multi-dimensional in its result. The best mash-up work is something that will never be made better through automation; it is hi-tech handiwork.
My personal mash-up triumph was a track I made from ODB's Baby I got Your Money and Pink Floyd's Money, decorated by choice samples of Noam Chomsky talking about economics. I called it Dirty Money.
28 December 2006
Frame Rates
Let's hit the ground running, so to speak.
This afternoon I was hanging out with the Vasulkas and we were discussing video frame rates. Basically most of us have to choose between 24, 25, or 29.97 frames per second. While these frame rates allow us the persistence of vision necessary to perceive motion, it is interesting to think about the potential of high-speed video to produce other perceptual effects.
Steina said she believed that higher (read much higher) frame rates might actually trick the brain into forgetting that the images we see are video. Perhaps create an immersive cinematic image so realistic that the brain would no longer be able to discriminate between it and reality.
Yet naturally just as there is a low end on the perceptual threshold of movement in video (two frames) there is probably also a high end. Is it 50 fps (frames per second) 100 fps, or is it way up there in the tens of thousands like audio? My guess is its somewhere below 100 fps.
Economic forces have kept us from being able to experiment with high-speed video. High-speed film has the problem that just a couple seconds takes up valuable physical space and expensive resources (film stock). Yet in today's world of relatively affordable gigabyte harddrives, the prospect of storing high-speed video is not so intimidating. Perhaps the bottleneck today is the processors and video cards we would need to playback such higher frame rate material. Ideally we would have dedicated high-speed hardware and software.
Film sound is standardized at 48,000 Hz sample rate. This means that audio is sampled forty-eight thousand times per second! And yet for video we only "sample" our images at 25 frames per second (for the sake of simplicity I will assume the PAL frame rate). When you get down to 1/25 of a second there can still be an abundance of variation and movement in sound, yet you have only a still image.
Here we have the audio information from 1/25 of a second. Seems like a lot of variation right? At this duration we get a rumbling dirty wave pattern. If we go to the smallest grain of audio we end up with a pure high-pitched tone. These fluctuations in sound are interesting. So interesting, in fact, that granular synthesis is a very popular method of contemporary electronic music composition.
Think about what Martin Arnold might have done if he had had higher frame rates. While you are pondering this, enjoy this little clip of one of my favorite things he did, despite these arbitrary limitations:
This afternoon I was hanging out with the Vasulkas and we were discussing video frame rates. Basically most of us have to choose between 24, 25, or 29.97 frames per second. While these frame rates allow us the persistence of vision necessary to perceive motion, it is interesting to think about the potential of high-speed video to produce other perceptual effects.
Steina said she believed that higher (read much higher) frame rates might actually trick the brain into forgetting that the images we see are video. Perhaps create an immersive cinematic image so realistic that the brain would no longer be able to discriminate between it and reality.
Yet naturally just as there is a low end on the perceptual threshold of movement in video (two frames) there is probably also a high end. Is it 50 fps (frames per second) 100 fps, or is it way up there in the tens of thousands like audio? My guess is its somewhere below 100 fps.
Economic forces have kept us from being able to experiment with high-speed video. High-speed film has the problem that just a couple seconds takes up valuable physical space and expensive resources (film stock). Yet in today's world of relatively affordable gigabyte harddrives, the prospect of storing high-speed video is not so intimidating. Perhaps the bottleneck today is the processors and video cards we would need to playback such higher frame rate material. Ideally we would have dedicated high-speed hardware and software.
Film sound is standardized at 48,000 Hz sample rate. This means that audio is sampled forty-eight thousand times per second! And yet for video we only "sample" our images at 25 frames per second (for the sake of simplicity I will assume the PAL frame rate). When you get down to 1/25 of a second there can still be an abundance of variation and movement in sound, yet you have only a still image.
Here we have the audio information from 1/25 of a second. Seems like a lot of variation right? At this duration we get a rumbling dirty wave pattern. If we go to the smallest grain of audio we end up with a pure high-pitched tone. These fluctuations in sound are interesting. So interesting, in fact, that granular synthesis is a very popular method of contemporary electronic music composition.Think about what Martin Arnold might have done if he had had higher frame rates. While you are pondering this, enjoy this little clip of one of my favorite things he did, despite these arbitrary limitations:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
