It’s been almost 6 months since we posted about Shiffman’s Most Pixels Ever processing library, but that doesn’t mean there’s been no progress.

Recently he’s left the lab and ensconced himself in front of the IAC Video Wall, bringing Most Pixels Ever to the screen with the most pixels to give.

Run Lola Run Lola Run Lola Run Lola Run from shiffman and Vimeo.

A little technical detail, with an announcement:

Each cell of video is 60×45 pixels. The entire system is run by 3 Mac Pros each pumping out 2720×768 (totaling 8160×768 for the entire wall.) I’m going to be releasing the Processing library/framework this week! Stay tuned!

Releasing the library? You mean this library?

The site is still a little lean, but early adopters can download the Alpha version and read a little about running it with processing.

Bouncy bouncy!

Data Is Nature brings to our attention the Valsuka Archive, an incredible trove of early video art history, exhibitions, work, designs and circuit diagrams. Paul describes it better than I:

The Vasulka Archive is massive repository of documents from the pioneering days of electronic, computer and video art. Containing a staggering 27000 pages of scanned documents, replete with hand typed texts, circuit diagrams and skuzzy ink marks, I could spend the rest of the week perusing this stuff, believe me. The big names are here, Crutchfield, Conrad, Paik, Van der Beek, Youngblood etc - hand written correspondences to the Vasulka’s as well as reviews and even obituaries of each artist/scientist - but history is selective and remembers according to its own algorithm. Encouragingly, not only do we find artifacts from the so called key movers of the time but also an exhaustive list of lesser, and relatively unknown practitioners waiting to be (re)discovered.

Check out the The Vasulka Archive and see what has inspired every generation of video artist. From TV to film to Music Video and club style VJing, it all started with these pioneers.

Via Data is Nature.

Visualists have a wide range of skills to cover. After you’re done figuring out how to create and edit content and turn it into a performance / live installation / whatever, then you have to deal with the technicalities of projectors?

Basic calculations for throw distances are pretty straightforward: a 3:1 throw ratio, for instance, means you need 3′ from the projection surface to get a 1′ image. But that’s before you throw in all the variables: what are the specs of the projector you’re using, what’s the lens, what’s the setting of the lens, what size image and throw will provide an image that’s bright enough for the job, etc. So, while there are various calculators online, by far, my favorite is this fantastic interactive calculator at Projector Central:

Projection Calculator Pro [Projector Central]

Video artist Maya Ciarrocchi turned me on to the site (thanks, Maya)! It’s useful for two reasons, even if you’re decent at arithmetic. First, it’s got an extensive database of obscure projectors attached to it, so you’ll prepared for whatever you run into. Second, it has adjustable sliders so you can try what-if scenarios.

Won’t be long before I put all of this to use. Wednesday, I leave for Pittsburgh and the Hazlett Theater, where I’ll be in residence for a week and a half installing a custom show for choreographer Grisha Coleman, written in Processing and Java. I expect this will be a trial-by-fire for me as far as projector setup and installation, with one computer display and five projectors, all in unusual locations. I’ll be sure to report back on what I learn, including what I learn the hard way.

How about you: got a preferred method for researching projectors and projector setup? Got some killer spreadsheet for your throw distances? Let us know in comments.

Peter’s post on projector orientation myths prodded my memory on an issue I encountered while picking up my shiny new camera. While finalizing the lease paperwork the sales guy went out of his way to bring my attention to a slice of A4 treeware contained within the box. The text printed on it prophesized a dire future for anyone plugging a firewire cable into their camera while the computer is switched on.

Dan’s recent letter on the subject prompted me to post this to get some feedback from the visualist community. Has this happened to anyone? Has a manufacturer denied you warranty service because they say you plugged in your firewire cable backwards? Here’s the full text of the warning which came with my camera:

Sony Corporation of Hong Kong Limited
Broadcast and Professional Pacific Asia Company

Date: September 1, 2006

Precaution: i.LINK Cable Connection

- Before connecting the i.LINK cable to a computer or Sony unit, please check the direction of the jack. The i.LINK connector on the computer may be damaged or cause the unit to malfunction of you forcefully insert the jack. Please align [up arrow] mark of the i.LINK cable with [down arrow] mark on the Sony unit before insert the i.LINK cable.

- Please connect the i.LINK cable to a computer before connect it to the Sony unit. If you connect the i.LINK cable to the Sony unit first, it may cause the unit to malfunction caused by static electricity.

- When you connecting the Sony unit to any equipment with a 6-pin type i.LINK jack, always connect the cable to the 6-pin i.LINK jack first.

- When you connect the Sony unit to any equipment with a 6-pin type i.LINK jack, always power off the equipment and remove the power cord from the AC outlet while inserting the i.LINK cable. Fail to do above action may result in high current flow between the cable and the equipment, which may cause damage.

… Huh? I thought that hotplugging was part of what makes Firewire so great? Do other manufacturers have issues with this, or have Sony just done something daft in their design and not fixed it? The helpful guy I bought my camera from told me that you can buy a special surge-isolating firewire cable to prevent this, at a price of several hundred dollars.

I’ve had 2 rented Draper Cinefold screens with me on the tour. These are relatively expensive collapsible screens which we got a good deal on for a 3ish month rental. Unfortunately their former life at dance parties outside in the elements had left them with some pretty serious battle scars. One of the screen frames had a broken hinge, as did one of the legs.

These I “fixed” with gaffer tape and strips of plywood, until we had a couple of days off between tour legs and I time for some maintenance. I realised that while the screens came with drape bars to hang blacks from, they had never been used as the drapes are an extra US$1000ish, and not really required for raves out in the bush.

It was a relatively quick fix to dremel off the rivet heads from the broken and fresh hinges and to bolt the new ones in place. Requires some 6mm bolts, washers, and some nyloc nuts if you want to be extra sure that they’re not going to work their way free as the kit vibrates its way around the country in the back of a truck.

I shot a timelapse of the fix. Not really as a tutorial, as it’s not really something which requires much explanation. More as a celebration of my return to civilization, where I can waste a couple of hours shooting and motion tracking a mundane exercise.

Wow. Pretty nerdy sounding, but this technology is quite impressive, and could be incredibly useful for aspect ratio conversion, object removal, rescaling, etc.

The object removal is very very impressive. I can think of a bunch of interesting uses for this, especially if you artificially mess with the weights for effect only. Id love to see this on a sequence of frames.

via reddit

Update : here is Dr Ariel Shamir’s homepage, with PDF and higher quality Quicktime.

M-.-n aka discodirt from Arkaos land shares what happens with a camera with a dead CCD. I love (digital) trash:

The camera in question is an old, “crappy” Minolta DiMAGE X20.

See, why can’t my gear break in interesting ways? All I get is something that refuses to turn on or a tape eject mechanism that fails. (Hello, Sony!) This is, of course, a tried-and-tested method in audio recording, as well; there are countless stories of unique sounds produced from dying DATs and failing tubes.

Got some attractive results from non-functioning gear? Let us know.

3D goodness means getting cozy with your local graphics API — and getting ready to nerd out in a big way. OpenGL continues to progress with a major overhaul. It’s a way off, but you’ve still got lots of eye candy with OpenGL 2.1. So … if you’re not Electronic Arts or Bungie, is there really any reason to use DirectX?

With the release of Windows Vista, we’ve been hearing a lot about DirectX, Microsoft’s Windows-only API for accessing graphics hardware. Of course, most of what you’ve been hearing is Windows gaming lovers complaining because they have to upgrade to Vista just to get DirectX 10 — and they take a compatibility and performance hit for many existing games as a result. (The latter isn’t DirectX 10’s fault; it’s a side effect of a new driver and display model in Vista itself, which impacts OpenGL and DX9, as well.) So what’s going on in the OpenGL camp? At SIGGRAPH, OpenGL 3 was announced. The full spec isn’t available yet, and actual OpenGL 3 hardware will be some ways off, but the future looks bright. In a presentation on the new OpenGL, NVIDIA’s Michael Gold pointed to these major hallmarks:

• Getting “back to the bare metal” for performance. This includes cutting back on overhead, streamlining the API, and actually revamping the object model in a way that should boost raw speed.
• Simpler, more efficient application development.
• Simpler driver development.

So that all sounds good. The object model appears to be the major change, with new object meta-classes that make it easier and more efficient to, well, make stuff. Good luck deciphering this at this point (I expect it’ll be easier once the real spec is out), but here’s more on the announcement, with slides:

OpenGL 3.0 Birds of a Feather at SIGGRAPH
PDF with slides, via NVIDIA’s Michael Gold

Us visualists, of course, can leave most of this to developers and hardware makers. What’s nice is that when we do want to make things look slick, we have access to a cross-platform 3D API in tools like Processing/Java, Pure Data (via GEM, etc.), and Max/MSP/Jitter.

As it happens, I’ve been looking at both OpenGL and DirectX solutions while putting together tools and frameworks to do new 3D work.