All I can say is wow. Using this technique, one could up-rez blurry, shaky, poorly-exposed video using automatic image-stitching from related digital imagery. Unwanted components of the original video can be removed seamlessly too.
The ramifications for filmmaking, art, and propaganda are mind-boggling.
On a related note, the new technology of plenoptics, or "light-field" imagery, can take specially formatted images that allow depth of field, exposure, and even position to be altered after the fact. Simply amazing!
Thanks to Chriz for these links.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"one could up-rez blurry, shaky, poorly-exposed video using automatic image-stitching from related digital imagery."
One problem here is that the supplemental hi-res images must be 'a priori', so what value is added to the pixel content, other than deception?
Aside from the current limitation that it only works with mostly static scenes, one could: 1. shoot a scene with low-res digital video 2. shoot lots of hi-res digital coverage, 3. generate a much higher-rez final video, 4. composite greenscreen actors over it, using a motion-controlled camera based on data from the reconstructed original camera move, 5. do all kinds of artistic postprocess effects to the footage to generate fantastic otherworldliness.
All of this would represent a huge savings in the data and manpower required to generate such imagery.
And anyway, what is art but delicious deception?
Of course this does have some serious implications for propagandizing. But the government can wag the dog any time it likes, and we're fools if we trust anything we see nowadays. Better to just consider *everything* as art. Even "news".
Smart cookie. I still become conceptually agitated at the realization of perceptual deception. Yes, the graphics of the early micros were exciting and how much fun it was running a Sinclair 1000 with its' 4 chips flying a simulator over a mountain, block-imagy though it was. Nowadays, as you point out, all is art, and conversely. This IMVU, where I encountered your uncommonly intelligent URL's, was for me my nieces' doing, via invitation. I understand now how a graphics pro might wallow in the visuals of it, but retreat was the order of the day for the old man, for fear of claims of immersion in perversion, given the virtual image-class; just the difference between Cal and Chi probably.
Here the blog structure allows some conversation without the continuous concantenation of sentences and thoughts.
Getting back to graphic realities, isn't there an ethical burden to production such that not "everything" is always a possible artifact? Referencing S.E.P: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/artifact/
"Aristotle divided things into those that “exist by nature” and “products of art” or “artificial products” (Physics, Book II, 192b). Artifacts are contrasted to natural objects; they are products of human actions. Consequently an artifact has necessarily a maker or an author...."
It is truly satisfying to be fully engaged in one's expertise, and it shows in your web presence. I've passed on several of your video doc. 'discoveries' to our academy listserver. The docs have authorship, but are not indistinguishable from 'art', I hope! For me, flying the 'craft is as authenticating the sources- peeking behind the screen. Courts sometimes do it, or try, and we individuals find footing in asserting and ascertaining realities among all those dazzling flashes of light that purport to inform and nurture.
Keep up your active mind and don't let those rogue pirates sneak up on you.
I agree that not everything on video is doctored, but I would say with reference to the concept of 'artifice' every frame of video information -- by definition -- is an artifact.
Thank you for your kind words, Anonymous. I'm pleased you enjoy my blog.
Post a Comment