Michael Szpakowski
Since the beginning
Works in Harlow United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

ARTBASE (1)
Discussions (1004) Opportunities (5) Events (14) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Question: curating/programing digital files


Hmm -I'm not convinced about the codec or some of the other detail such as data rate. It a strikes me as a bit like specifiying brand of paint used in a painting.
I think we should grant the spectator *some* wit. A spectator assumes intention on the part of the maker -therefore image quality , size &c will enter into her judement of the effectiveness of the work .
There might be an exception to this when , say, mobile phone footage is -exceptionally, for example- presented on a large screen, but that would have more to do with justifiying curatorial decisions than anything to do with the work itself. Of course this wouldn't apply if the artist had *specified* projecting a tiny piece of video on a large screen -this then becomes part of the artwork & we should let the spectator judge...
michael
PS I want to say again I *do* think length & whether looped is a crucial factor to indicate -it's something the spectator will not usually know in advance & it makes a difference from the start to how one approaches a piece.

DISCUSSION

Question: curating/programing digital files


Ah - I now realise you're past all that! Forgive me! ( although I'm glad I got it off my chest).
For the viewer I'm not sure it matters so much - I think "digital file" or "QuickTime video" or some such is good.
It seems a bit over fussy to indicate codec or even aspect ratio or SD, HD - they'll see it!
What I do think is important is length, whether it has sound and whether it loops ( and whether this is a straightforward loop or a palindrome).
cheers
michael

DISCUSSION

Question: curating/programing digital files


If it's being projected off a computer I would specify square pixels & the resolutions you are prepared to deal with.
SD can imply 4:3 or 16:9 and 720p or 1080p implies 16:9 ( but I think you might end up having to resize 1080p to project successfully from a computer ). It always bemuses me when people ask for PAL or NTSC in this context, surely it's irrelevant...
'Uncompressed' is another irritant -this can generate files of 20GB+ for a few minutes if one takes it literally.
H264 seems to be the most popular codec just about everywhere but I still have a fondness for Sorenson 3 which I think preserves contrast better - H264 can looked rather washed out.
'Uncompressed' is irritating as well because it implies a way of working which would exclude appropriated footage, cell phone video, mixing and matching lo res and hi res stuff... &c.

It would make me happy if I read a call which said:

***Files in QuickTime - SD *actual ratio* 4:3 or 16:9, HD 1080X720 ; codec: H264, Sorenson 3, Photo jpeg or mp4, preferred data rate the best you can/that seems sensible.
If your ratio is none standard please embed it in a black background in one of the above formats.
As these files will be projected from a computer it will almost certainly be worth deinterlacing your project before export.***

( Furthermore In my experience there is then absolutely no problem in authoring either PAl or NTSC DVDs from these, if that was necessary at any point)

I hope this makes sense - I'd be interested in other points of view...

best
michael

DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION

Photos of Mail Nothing to the Tate Modern


Lovely drawing from Dave Miller,

http://davemiller.org/

posted on Netbehaviour the other day....

image