Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Beckett did actually put actors in soil up to their necks.”
Aindreas,
Ha! I had forgotten about Happy Days. It’s the perfect parallel.
“To be always what I am – and so changed from what I was.”
Franz.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “It’s not so much any single take that is mind boggling, it the fact that the film was edited before the actors walked on the stage.”
Aindreas,
Yes, read that. Editing as pre-production.
It’s another good example of the compositional aspect of editing for those uninitiated (and it seems no one really understands what editing is unless they’ve done it).
Either that or pre-viz is swallowing up editing and post is now a sub-department of FX instead of the other way round.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “… they couldn’t move their arms literally an inch past stage direction/previz.”
I think in all of the exteriors, the only thing “real” is the faces, … so an inch here and there on the arms may not have mattered.
Franz.
-
[Phil Hoppes] “I don’t believe there is any motion tracking at all.”
[Walter Soyka] “It’s live dance with projected visuals, not recorded dance with compositing visuals. I’ve worked on few of these integrated dance/visual pieces myself, and we always pre-produced the animations. … I think the animation follows the dance, not the other way around.”
I’d agree with these assessments, and I’d say this kind of work with projection is not uncommon in contemporary dance.
There’s been lots of diverse work in terms of both documenting and interpreting dance with 3D tools (and video). Follows is one interesting example because it seems to aim to feed the visualization data back into the creative process:
https://vimeo.com/60560235
https://synchronousobjects.osu.edu/ (autoplay music)
https://motionbank.org/Createditigalmotion notes that Merce Cunningham may be the original innovator here, but I don’t know enough about it, and of course there’s a long history of dance and film.
https://createdigitalmotion.com/2014/01/dancer-to-score-to-animation-coding-decoding-and-recoding-in-a-choreography-lab/Also, as a resource for projection work, createdigitalmotion seems to be an excellent resource (though I only skim it occasionally)
https://createdigitalmotion.com/
Franz.
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Vimeo framework” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Joseph W. Bourke] “… the early establishing shot in John Frankenheimer’s The Train”
[Herb Sevush] “… the amazing opening shot of Wells’ Touch of Evil.”
[Herb Sevush] “…the famous final 7 minute crane shot that ends Antonioni’s The Passenger.”
[Chris Harlan] “… the Copa tracking shot in Goodfellas and the mock Touch of Evil shot in The Player.”
[Aindreas Gallagher] “… that shot still feels impossible.”
Wandering down the tangent, one of the interesting recent examples of long-takes in mainstream cinema, Gravity, actually isn’t, of course.
The meaning of what a shot is has shifted: it’s an audience impression, not a physical fact. And thus a single “shot” now might contain untold amounts of editing. That’s not new with Gravity – I suppose it’s been with us for a few decades in FX – but Gravity brings it to the fore: it’s funny to see the “single, unbroken, 11min shot” talked about in terms that suggest it’s the same sort of accomplishment as a long take. (“Timecode”, “Russian Ark” and the above examples being actually and impressively accomplished as such.)
I’ve read much about the opening “shot” for Gravity (since there is much to read about it) but nowhere have I actually read about the number of elements (or at least the number of actor-originated elements, ie shots) that go into that “one shot” – they almost avoid talking about hard facts like that, as if they are afraid to break the impression that it is “one shot”… for fear of making it seem “less impossible”?
Or in other words: even one shot might need to be edited.
Franz.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “… has anyone seen the movie Timecode?”
[Chris Harlan] “And there is always Rope.”… and, of course, Russian Ark:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318034/combined… and Wavelength:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength_%281967_film%29
(though it contains edits)Franz.
-
A further tangent, but related:
When Artworks Crash: Restorers Face Digital Test
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/arts/design/whitney-saves-douglas-daviss-first-collaborative-sentence.html?_r=1&“When Whitney curators decided to resurrect the piece last year, the art didn’t work. Once innovative, “The World’s First Collaborative Sentence” now mostly just crashed browsers. The rudimentary code and links were out of date. There was endlessly scrolling and seemingly indecipherable text in a format that had long ago ceased being cutting edge.”
https://rhizome.org/editorial/2013/jun/12/restoring-douglas-davis-collaborative-sentence/
“Their work involved not only updating servers and running legacy browsers on vintage computer systems, but also considering theoretical and ethical aspects of the conservation, conducting interviews with the original programmer to document what the lost software did, writing the new code for the work, addressing a host of thorny technical issues and documenting the results. In short, the project is an excellent case study of the issues involved with digital conservation …”
Edit: original metafilter thread with further discussion:
https://www.metafilter.com/135801/When-Artworks-CrashFranz.
-
Both “The Street” and “createdigitalmusic” backing up from yesterday’s posts.
To be clear:
“The Street reporting (and thus ours, in building a report on it) was inaccurate and misleading in that financial data for Avid actually isn’t available. … The main point is this: we don’t have any 2013 numbers for AVID. Avid has filed no earnings reports, including the 2013 Form 10-K …”“Analysts say”, indeed.
There’s this bit too:
“Avid’s new strategy centers on media management. … Avid’s CEO Louis Herndandez, Jr. did provide a peek into the new Avid strategy, “Avid Everywhere.” … Hernandez says that the “value chain” has shifted beyond just creation, to monetizing and sharing content. The solution appears to be a combination of cloud solutions and new media management tools built into software like Pro Tools and Media Composer. … these would even give you the ability to finish a track in Pro Tools at home, then have a TV studio looking for music for a sports feature license it from you, all within an Avid-run marketplace. There are also new tools ranging from metadata, tagging, and search to cloud-based collaboration and exchange.”
I think the emotional core of those words is “Avid-run marketplace”.
Franz.
-
Craig,
But you’re making the case that their profit and future is in hardware.
Do they currently generate more revenue from hardware?
Do they make higher profit margin from hardware?I don’t see any answers about either of those questions.
Revenue is down on a rise in units sold because the units (software) sell for less. This tells me nothing about the profit potential. If the profit is higher on the cheaper widgets (software) then it would seem that is where the future is.
Franz.
-
Craig,
If that’s true, those are pretty wild swings.
Video was 40% of revenue in 2011, then 63%, then 55% for the quarter in this report (this was all before they sold their consumer products line). Those seem like wild swings in sales to me.
I still don’t really see any conclusive breakdown of hardware vs. software in any of this, though.
Franz.
-
[Craig Seeman] “Granted it may take a little extrapolation but these are the numbers …”
Craig,
Those numbers are the same from the breakdown chart in my link.
If I squint hard I see a 50/50 split in hardware / software. But I might be looking at it wrong. What numbers make you think they rely more on hardware for revenue?
Franz.