Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How One Photographer Is Hacking the Concept of Time

Soulskill posted about 9 months ago | from the about-time dept.

Media 124

An anonymous reader writes "Hungarian photographer Adam Magyar doesn't work like most artists. He takes the world's most sophisticated photographic equipment, then hacks it with software he writes himself — all in order to twist our perception of time inside out. In this latest story from the digital publisher MATTER, Joshua Hammer discovers how Magyar's unique combination of technology and art challenges the way we understand the world. At one point, Magyar realized he needed a 'slit-scan' camera, 'the type used to determine photo finishes at racetracks and at Olympic sporting events by capturing a time sequence in one image. Such cameras were rare and cost many thousands of dollars, so Magyar set out to build one himself. He joined a medium-format camera lens to another sensor and wrote his own software for the new device. Total cost: $50. He inverted the traditional scanning method, where the sensor moves across a stationary object. This time, the sensor would remain still while the scanned objects were in motion, being photographed one consecutive pixel-wide strip at a time. (This is the basic principle of the photo-finish camera.) Magyar mounted the device on a tripod in a busy Shanghai neighborhood and scanned pedestrians as they passed in front of the sensor. He then digitally combined over 100,000 sequential strips into high-resolution photographs.' There are pictures and videos interspersed throughout the article."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

$50...if your time is worth nothing (3, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 9 months ago | (#45900775)

>> wrote his own software for the new device. Total cost: $50.

Sure, if the time to write the software was worth nothing.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (5, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about 9 months ago | (#45900851)

I'm glad he gets out more than the stereotypical slashdot developer. I would imagine that a series of slit scan camera shots of a basement and the action in there would be quite boring.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (5, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 9 months ago | (#45900859)

As long as it doesn't take away from another activity, then the cost of time is nothing. If this were not the case, then it would never be cheaper to cook at home rather than go to a restaurant.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (4, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 9 months ago | (#45900867)

I should add that you could also calculate it as a profit. Take the cost of a commercial alternative (said to be thousands of dollars in the summary), then subtract material and time costs. What's left is your profit.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (5, Funny)

icebike (68054) | about 9 months ago | (#45901065)

So if I buy a bicycle instead of that Bugatti Veyron I've been lusting for, it means I have a tax problem because of that $1,700,000 profit, (minus the cost of the bicycle)?

Brilliant!
All the government's budget deficit problems were nothing but an accounting error!

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 9 months ago | (#45901143)

Profit: The difference between what's gained and what's spent. If you spend $50 and gain something equivalent to a $5000 camera, then you have essentially created a $4500 profit.

And it's 100% tax-free profit. That's the beauty of it. While you attempted a purposely bad analogy, it still works as long as you remember both things need to be equivalent for your purposes - as is the case for the cameras in question. If the bicycle and the Veyron perform the same task *that you intend to use them for* equally well, then the bicycle can be seen as a $1,700,000 profit, (minus the cost of the bicycle). In the end, if you achieve your goal with a better bottom line than if you had gone with the alternative, it's a profit.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (2)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about 9 months ago | (#45901211)

Nah, think about it in terms of energy - potential vs. kinetic.

Sure, you bought 100 shares of AAPL at $7/share so you have a huge *potential* profit. Or you've got a big rock sitting on the edge of a cliff.

But until you sell the stock, or lever the rock over the edge, it is just potential.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (2)

icebike (68054) | about 9 months ago | (#45901299)

Profit: The difference between what's gained and what's spent. If you spend $50 and gain something equivalent to a $5000 camera, then you have essentially created a $4500 profit.

Well, I posted purely in jest.

You appear to be serious in equating avoidance of cost with profit. They are quite different in economic terms.

The fact that alternative methods are NOT used commercially suggests that there is no market for images of
this size, given the cost involved. Had there been such a market, this guy could corner said market.
However, he would also not be able to demand the same price. (Because there is no market at that price).

Since there is essentially ZERO market for his images, the whole point is moot until he starts making sales.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (2)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 9 months ago | (#45901537)

Since there is essentially ZERO market for his images,

He's an artist; doesn't art always have a market, at least theoretically? I could apparently paint an entire canvas red and sell it for a ton of money if I could find the right rich person and convince them that I'm a famous artist.

The GP was talking about the value of the camera, not the art it produces. How much he sells the art for is besides the point.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (3, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 9 months ago | (#45901587)

Actually, The is now an increase the market for his images, because I have seen them, and want one. Whether I can afford one or not, is besides the point. And having seen his 12 second clip, the thing that struck me the most was how three dimensional it was, and I could easily imagine adapting the technique to normal cinematography sequences or even real (improved) 3D sequencing.

This value you do not perceive doesn't mean that there is "ZERO market" for his images, it simply means you do not see the value where others do. And to be honest, that is your view, and that is okay. I just don't share that view.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (2)

Yaur (1069446) | about 9 months ago | (#45902059)

As art its kind of neat. The technique used in the shot of the 42nd street/grand central platform I could easily see used in normal movies. There is a market, he just needs some advertising...

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (1)

mekkab (133181) | about 9 months ago | (#45902091)

I didn't care for the photos but 42nd street was rather amazing. I love how it captures fast motion (moving lock of hair, hoisting a knapsack up).

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (1)

chad_r (79875) | about 9 months ago | (#45904013)

I didn't care for the photos but 42nd street was rather amazing. I love how it captures fast motion (moving lock of hair, hoisting a knapsack up).

I found the last clip on the page, with the two girls running, was a powerful piece of art on a visceral level.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 9 months ago | (#45902123)

Well, I posted purely in jest.

You should either give it up or practice more.

Probably the former.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 9 months ago | (#45901743)

Profit: The difference between what's gained and what's spent. If you spend $50 and gain something equivalent to a $5000 camera, then you have essentially created a $4500 profit.

You are confusing profits with savings. I do not "profit" by $10 when I buy a $100 item at $90, I "save" $10. You do not profit until you actually gain a return on an investment. So if he sold his program or images? That would net a profit. Until then, he saved, but did not profit.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (4, Funny)

narcc (412956) | about 9 months ago | (#45901895)

If you spend $50 and gain something equivalent to a $5000 camera, then you have essentially created a $4500 profit.

Math. How does it work?

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45903847)

$4500 profit if $devtime 0 else false.

Then again, I likely can create a $25 solution, if I spend 2-3 years at it.

Math isn't just numbers & symbols, it's also conditions and constraints.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45903869)

Math is hard. Let's go shopping!

Re:$50...if your time is . . . - MATH how does it (1)

rickyslashdot (2870609) | about 9 months ago | (#45904145)

ANYBODY that can take $50 and credit it to a $500 devaluation is MY type of sucker ( shades of P. T. Barnum )

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45902015)

Profit: The difference between what's gained and what's spent.

Profit:
noun: profit; plural noun: profits
        1. a financial gain, esp. the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.

It's not the amount "gained", but the amount "earned" that's important. You'd have to sell your device to make profit (which sounds perfectly sensible when you say it aloud).

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 9 months ago | (#45902247)

HA! I was going to say something similar, but not quite as funny. Thanks, I needed a laugh today.

It sent me off into left field thinking of the possibilities of how much tax I owe due to saving made when I bought the home that I did, rather than buying one of these places [luxuryrealestate.com] .

I think SJHillman would be blown away by "complex math [mathforum.org] ". ;)

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45902145)

If you don't factor in the labor cost for cooking, the results are most definitely skewed and not to be trusted.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (4, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | about 9 months ago | (#45900927)

Sure, if the time to write the software was worth nothing.

Of course, if he enjoyed doing it or got some sense of satisfaction, hell it's cheaper than a movie. Total cost could have been less than $0.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (1)

parkinglot777 (2563877) | about 9 months ago | (#45900939)

You mean you write a software and pay me at the same time, so that the cost is less than $0? Then you should start doing it now! ;)

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 9 months ago | (#45901283)

A lot of people on here probably do just that when they write and host open source software.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (3, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | about 9 months ago | (#45901789)

Exactly - If you give it away for nothing and people want it, it has value so essentially you are paying them. If you feel good doing it, you're essentially being paid. There's just no hard currency involved.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 9 months ago | (#45900943)

And how much is the medium format lense? I suspect not cheap.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45901309)

Depends. There's loads of old bronicas, mamyias or pentaxes on ebay for a song. Even hasselblad lenses for 200-400 dollars, which is cheap.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (1)

sjames (1099) | about 9 months ago | (#45901753)

If you're already a professional working in the medium, it's just getting more use out of something you already have.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45900997)

There's things people do that may waste time and/or money, but they do them anyways because they find them enjoyable. They're called "hobbies". You should get one.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (0)

icebike (68054) | about 9 months ago | (#45901067)

Well in this case, he went to an awful lot of trouble to get some rather mundane pictures.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (4, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | about 9 months ago | (#45901297)

Please post some examples of your hobby, so that we can pick it apart for no good reason. Or maybe that is your hobby, in which case - good job.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45902619)

Well in this case, he went to an awful lot of trouble to get some rather mundane pictures.

No, he's posted some rather spectacular images, and you apparently don't know fuck all about photography so you think he's posted mundane images.

As a photographer, I can tell you that getting anything anywhere near what he's done is a technical marvel with rather striking results.

If you can do better, show us. If not, STFU, because you're talking about stuff you don't actually understand.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45903201)

As a photographer, I can tell you that he's posted some rather mundane images, and you apparently don't know fuck all about photography so you think he's posted spectacular images.

So what I did there?

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (3, Interesting)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 9 months ago | (#45901081)

And it's not particularly new. There was a guy doing the same thing with the scanner head from a flatbed scanner back in the late 90's/early 00's. The general idea of long exposures goes back further than that, much further.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45901673)

Really?
I remember several projects that used a line sensor on a rotary platform to do panoramas, but using the same sensor fixed to basically create a photo-finish picture of x seconds of traffic... nope.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (3, Interesting)

dfsmith (960400) | about 9 months ago | (#45901497)

Therapy can run many tens of dollars an hour. Maybe he considers coding to be theraputic, in which case it saved him money. Your time is worth what it's worth to you.

Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (2)

aix tom (902140) | about 9 months ago | (#45901979)

And only if he didn't have any fun. If he did have fun writing the software, then he additionally saved the money for movie tickets, theme park rides, drinks in pubs, etc... that other people seem to have to PAY to have fun, so the cost for the device might even come out negative.

There's an app for that. (3, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 9 months ago | (#45900781)

There's an free iPhone app [funnerlabs.com] to simulate a slit-scan camera. It doesn't take a "$50,000 camera".

Where the fun in that? (5, Interesting)

future assassin (639396) | about 9 months ago | (#45900881)

Seriously even though people do things I could care less for, its awesome to see what "ONE" person can do and how imaginative they can be. Stuff like this is what use to drive me to "build" things when I was kid. Damn all those days drooling over parts and tools at Radio Shack.

Re:Where the fun in that? (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | about 9 months ago | (#45901059)

Damn all those days drooling over parts and tools at Radio Shack.

Funny, my experience with Radio Shack was more in the category of 'drooling tools that can't find the parts' -- they really went downhill for the last bunch of years, until ultimately becoming the "cheap-ass electronics and toys store".

Re:Where the fun in that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45901685)

Funny, my experience with Radio Shack was more in the category of 'drooling tools that can't find the parts' -- they really went downhill for the last bunch of years, until ultimately becoming the "cheap-ass electronics and toys store".

A lesson I learned from someone who worked at one for a while during college: If you know what you are doing, go straight to the parts section and find it yourself. The cashier-grunts aren't trained on all the little parts back there, just in how to sell to people enticed by the remote-control dinosaur and the cell phones. I think he even said that they were told not to even attempt to offer help to someone who goes straight to the parts sections, just to ask "did you find everything you were looking for?" when the customer comes out.

Re:There's an app for that. (4, Insightful)

jockm (233372) | about 9 months ago | (#45901003)

I suspect he is getting much higher resolution images out of his rig. According to TFA his prints are 8 feet wide. You can scale up an iPhone image that high, but you will see a difference.

But still, many roads lead to Rome...

Re:There's an app for that. (3, Insightful)

dmatos (232892) | about 9 months ago | (#45902099)

How tall are his prints, though? The only thing that the resolution of the camera contributes to is the height. The width of his prints is determined by the number of time-slices that he assembles together into a single image.

He could make a 16 foot wide print by recording for twice as long.

Re:There's an app for that. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45901011)

iPhone - the polar opposite of creativity

Re:There's an app for that. (4, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 9 months ago | (#45901069)

There's an free iPhone app [funnerlabs.com] to simulate a slit-scan camera. It doesn't take a "$50,000 camera".

Sure, but the actual smartphone camera cannot really compare with a high-end digital SLR or $16,000 Optronis video camera that can capture up to 100,000 frames per second?

Probably already patented (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45900815)

He probably violated a patent somewhere along the way too. Stupid patents :P

He's Hungarian and his last name is Magyar? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45900827)

So his last name is "Hungary" in Hungarian? What an amazing coincidence! Like Lou Gehrig .. what are the odds that he got the disease named "Lou Gehrig's Disease"!

(I got nothing)

Re:He's Hungarian and his last name is Magyar? (4, Interesting)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#45900905)

With his first name meaning "human" in some languages, his name apparently means "the Hungarian guy". ;-)

Re:He's Hungarian and his last name is Magyar? (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | about 9 months ago | (#45902851)

The first human, named "human"? Son of a gun!

Re:He's Hungarian and his last name is Magyar? (2)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 9 months ago | (#45901117)

Magyar doesn't mean Hungary. It means Hungarian.

Re:He's Hungarian and his last name is Magyar? (4, Informative)

csumpi (2258986) | about 9 months ago | (#45901543)

Magyar, in Hungarian, can be used as a noun or an adjective. It translates to "Hungarian person" or "Hungarian" respectively.

Hungary in Hungarian is Magyarország (which translates to "Hungarian country" word by word).

.

Re:He's Hungarian and his last name is Magyar? (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 9 months ago | (#45901589)

Except I suspect that unless he's several hundred years old, they probably "named him after the country" (ethnicity, whatever) rather than the other way around.

Damn time travelers fucking up everything...

Re:He's Hungarian and his last name is Magyar? (1)

istartedi (132515) | about 9 months ago | (#45901873)

So his last name is "Hungary" in Hungarian? What an amazing coincidence!

It probably isn't too much more unusual than being a German [wikipedia.org] German.

Re:He's Hungarian and his last name is Magyar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45902287)

You mean a German German [wikipedia.org] , not a German [wikipedia.org] German, right?

Re:He's Hungarian and his last name is Magyar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45903235)

But is he a true Scotsman?

The gear makes better photographs.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45900835)

I feel like I missed the point he was trying to make - because the photos of his gear were much more interesting than the other photos he took.

Re:The gear makes better photographs.. (1)

icebike (68054) | about 9 months ago | (#45901217)

Pretty much my take too.

He may have a boat load of resolution, but until he finds a way to use it, it is largely a technical exercise.

Not more dramatic than these: http://70gigapixel.cloudapp.net/ [cloudapp.net] or these http://www.dresden-26-gigapixels.com/dresden26GP [dresden-26...pixels.com] but possibly done
with cheaper methods.

Still, people have been stitching images like this [tawbaware.com] for a long time with equally cheap equipment, although they can't capture motion.

Re:The gear makes better photographs.. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45901573)

Way to miss the point.
With a stationary slit-scan camera he's imaging t*Y, not X*Y.

all cameras time-slice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45904509)

In a conventional camera one still has time slices - not t*Y slices, but time slices by the distance of various subjects from the lens... Almost infinitesimal time slices in conventional photographs, but up to almost the age of the universe in astrophotography.

Re:The gear makes better photographs.. (2)

mekkab (133181) | about 9 months ago | (#45902107)

no no, watch 42nd street. That's the magic. The photos are junk.

Thought this was some poseur tech "artist" (4, Insightful)

korbulon (2792438) | about 9 months ago | (#45900847)

Wrong. Some of his work is pretty wild, especially the vids. Really cool stuff, this.

Total cost: $50 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45900913)

Plus 2000 man hours and tireless dedication... In other words: Not $50

Re:Total cost: $50 (0)

narcc (412956) | about 9 months ago | (#45901923)

Naw, it's still $50. His time is worthless.

2001: A Space Odyssey (5, Informative)

E++99 (880734) | about 9 months ago | (#45900957)

This is the same photographic technique used to create the stargate special effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey, but putting the camera on a trolley and zooming it in. Here's a really good video on the evolution of the technology. http://youtu.be/KhRo2WbWnKU [youtu.be]

For artistic slit scan photography, check out Jay Mark Johnson's work. It's much more interesting than this stuff, imo.

Re:2001: A Space Odyssey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45902447)

I dunno, I actually like this guy's work more.
Jay Mark Johnson's work looks (I've just seen it for the fist time) a lot more gimmicky to me, with all the distortions.

What I like about this guy's work is that it looks like a normal photograph whcih couldn't really have been made normally.

huh... (2, Insightful)

MitchDev (2526834) | about 9 months ago | (#45901005)

Not so much "Hacking the Concept of Time" as "Hacking camera software to change how it takes pictures"

Re:huh... (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 9 months ago | (#45901277)

Not so much "Hacking the Concept of Time" as "Hacking camera software to change how it takes pictures"

Let me guess, you either didn't read the article, or didn't understand it:

Magyar mounted the device on a tripod in a busy Shanghai neighborhood and scanned pedestrians as they passed in front of the sensor. He then digitally combined over 100,000 sequential strips into high-resolution photographs.

He's not taking a single exposure. He's taking a very large amount of small slices over a span of time, and stitching them together into a single image.

He hasn't so much taken a 'snapshot in time' like a traditional camera, he's made images out of snapshots which occurred across time.

Which means he's taking objects going by at a pretty good clip, and combining a whole lot of them into something which looks like a single astounding image.

Some of his images have a time lapse quality to them, because they show things which are both in motion and still, over a time sequence:

Eerie distortions of objects in motion and at rest reminded viewers that they were looking at a pictorial representation of time, not space. Speeding buses were compressed into Smart cars. Individuals who paused at a bus stop were elongated like Metroliners. Slower walkers had billowing pants legs, or feet like skis, or Oscar Pistorius-style blades. And because of the peculiar nature of the scanning technology, everyone was moving in the same direction. "The horizontal axis is not about space, it's not about left and right, it's about earlier and later," he says. "If two people are crossing the pixel at the same moment, they will look like they are walking together."

If you read the article, you'll find he's done much much more than "Hacking camera software to change how it takes pictures" -- the resulting images look like a still frame, but are composited from a time lapse, and are MUCH more sophisticated than you seem to realize.

Why do people on Slashdot persist in dismissing things they don't really understand? What he's done is taken what look like still images, but are in fact a cross section in time.

That you think all he's done is to hack camera software means you don't have the barest idea of what it is he's actually done.

Re:huh... (-1, Troll)

MitchDev (2526834) | about 9 months ago | (#45901329)

He did NOTHING to the "Concept of Time"

Time still flows at the same rate. All he's doing is altering the end product of the picture, this has nothing to do with "the Concept of Time".

If you think just because the end product is neat, but has nothing to do with the name, then you have bigger problems. Would you like to buy some "Soft drink that cures cancer just because that's the title of it"?
I have a nice bridge to sell you.

Re:huh... (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 9 months ago | (#45901621)

He combined snapshots and motion blur of objects which were all in motion. I would qualify that as manipulation of our concept of time; our expectation as observers differs from the end result.

Re:huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45901705)

Pretty easy to call you an idiot then, isn't it?

Re:huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45902253)

How did the end result differ from your expectations?
When I looked at the pictures after reading the text they were exactly what I expected all the way down to the huge horizontal bars running along the pictures.
Hacking the concept of time would have been if he had somehow inverted the flow of time inside the images.
Or maybe made pictures that somehow show the future.

Re:huh... (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 9 months ago | (#45902367)

Only certain things in the images were blurred, though. He transposed e.g. people from separate timeframes into the same image. With standard expectations, either everything that moved would be blurred or nothing would; there would not be some of each.

Re:huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45901769)

Yes he did. He didn't hack Time, but the concept of it. More specifically the how we visualize it. Makes sense to me. You're being pedantic.

Re:huh... (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 9 months ago | (#45901901)

It certainly does present time in an unfamiliar way visually. Use your imagination a little and it becomes a lot cooler.

Re:huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45902653)

It does? Really? Cause it just looked like he took a video and slowed it down. I've seen that lots of times. It's not new.
And his still photographs look just like well...still photographs. Just because he took a lot of individual pictures and spliced them together to form one picture that just looks like a still photograph which could have been accomplished with any point and shoot camera by adjusting the shutter speed, that makes it "hacking the concept of time"?

Re:huh... (1)

sjames (1099) | about 9 months ago | (#45902779)

On the bright side you get to save those expensive museum admissions by looking at your snapshot collection.

Re:huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45902127)

Yes, he did. Don't take things so literally. You will be happier.

Re:huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45902143)

Concept doesn't mean what you think it does. If you change the concept of time, you don't have any effect on time. You have an effect on the viewer. Maybe you're just immune to art, but I found the works shown in the article to be amazing. I'd love to see them full sized.

Re:huh... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 9 months ago | (#45902089)

the resulting images look like a still frame, but are composited from a time lapse, and are MUCH more sophisticated than you seem to realize.

Much sophisticate. So video artifact. Wow!

Why do people on Slashdot persist in dismissing things they don't really understand?

I don't know. Why don't you tell me. Anyone experienced with real time graphics and video will have not just a 1D concept of frame composition weirds, but 2D or even 3D "time hacking" if that's what you want to call it. If the artifact / video error is affected by some other object's properties (say, forgetting to pop a matrix stack, or clear a stencil, etc), or somehow leads to negative elapsed frame time for the physics equation (even in spatially localized areas) then you can even have 4D or more imaging effects.

I wouldn't consider this hacking time at all, it doesn't even leverage the properties of time aside from the fact it advances. Here's something closer to what I'd call hacking time [ted.com] based on its relatively constant rate of advancement.

Re:huh... (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 9 months ago | (#45902421)

Anyone experienced with real time graphics and video will have not just

So a fairly small minority.

If the artifact / video error is affected by some other object's properties (say, forgetting to pop a matrix stack, or clear a stencil, etc)

*squints* Ummm...QED.

Oh please. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45901017)

"How one renegade photographer is hacking the concept of time."
"Time doesn't exist for him."

Anyone remember a similarly fawning article about how the greeks don't have strict time concepts in their language?
It's because so few of them go to work on time.

Interesting concept, terrible website presentation (4, Insightful)

hydrofix (1253498) | about 9 months ago | (#45901041)

The website where the story article is hosted is pretty terrible. It's apparently based entirely on some sort of JavaScript hacks. I can only zoom one photo before the JavaScript code crashes. Then, when I try to reload, it loses the position I was on the page. I also dislike those texts and images that change brightness and scroll in dis-syncronization with the rest of the page. Not to speak of those "Share" buttons jumping out from behind page elements when I move my mouse cursor around. This page, although apparently meant to be "artistic", is sadly just a staple of horrible and dysfunctional web design.

New headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45901071)

Humanities Student Invents New Way to Waste Time.

Available on eBay (2)

dmatos (232892) | about 9 months ago | (#45901145)

Really, this guy didn't need a "slit-scan" camera. Any linescan camera would work. They're not rare. They're used everywhere for industrial inspection. You can find them on eBay for under a hundred dollars. Yes, you'll need to put a lens on it as well, but most are compatible with normal camera lenses. You'll just need a mount adapter.

Heck, you could even do this in post-processing using a normal 2-D camera that's capturing a movie. Just snag a single column from successive frames and stack them into a single picture. Sure, your frame rate will be limited, but it's technically feasible, especially if the 2-D sensors allow for windowing to increase frame rate.

Re:Available on eBay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45902075)

You know how I know you didn't RTA?

Re:Available on eBay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45902407)

A normal camera which makes movies has a really shitty resolution if you want to make 8 feet prints.

And yes, you can by these camera's on ebay. That's probably what he did before he bought a more expensive model.

The difference between the pedants here and him is that he actually makes beautiful photographs and manages to sell them.

The problem with computer nerds (I am one myself so I should know) is that they feel likt they have accompished something once they have thougt through how to do it. But then you still need to actually, you know, do it.

Re:Available on eBay (1)

Carnildo (712617) | about 9 months ago | (#45903327)

If you'd read the article, you'd see that he did use an industrial linescan camera for some of his work.

And the cops arrest him for taking pictures. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45901191)

Awesome job, cops; glad you are out there protecting people from photographers.

Meh (1)

multimediavt (965608) | about 9 months ago | (#45901215)

Nothing we haven't seen from Hollyweird. Good work, but doesn't thrill me or speak to me. Not sure what the slit camera actually did in his work that another, more common imaging device could not do. Subterfuge it would seem from the article.

Did he create a time machine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45901257)

No? Well then this title is dumb link bait.

Regular camera and discard the other columns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45901377)

This can be done with a regular camera and very BASIC image processing skills....

take the video, grab the middle column and put all side by side (doh!)

(This is called visual rhythm and it can be used to detect video transitions....)

Big F8cking Deal (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45901721)

Why is this such a big deal?

And this is new? Not exactly (1)

Almost-Retired (637760) | about 9 months ago | (#45902191)

In fact, I was a lot newer than I am now the first time I was involved with a slit camera, in this case a 35mm with its horizontally running window shade shutter glue in about the 1/500th second position, halfway across the frame. Focused on the mirror on the finish line post at the greyhound track somewhat north of Rapid City, SD.

The film was pulled by a variable speed motor such that the dogs, as they crossed the mirror, weren't too badly lengthened or shortened, along with a digital clock that output to LED's in binary with the leds in the upper part of the mirror on the post so that the elapsed time track was a series of dashes above the dogs in the film strip.
It ran in a darkroom so they could snip off the end of the exposed film, perhaps 9 or 10 inches long, drop it in some hot dektol, wait till the image was about right, drop it is some strong acetic acid, pull it up to look at it with a magnifying glass and post the winners blanket number and time, all in 15 to 20 seconds. The strip never was fixed unless 2 dogs were nose and nose, because it was about time for the next race to be off.

This was in the middle of the 1960's, and was by then _the_ method at racetracks all over the country, so it wasn't new then.

Jaysus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45902365)

Slashdot is full of cynical jaded assholes.

Its not a particularly new concept. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45902369)

Perhaps I could invoke that old Slashdot meme "Prior Art". Literally!

Years ago, hackers were bolting (ok, duct-taping) flatbed scanners onto the back of large-format cameras so they could capture digital images. After all, a LF digital capture device was eye-wateringly expensive then; hmmmm ok, they're eye-wateringly expensive NOW, but you get my drift. The process was to step the scanner head across the image plane (with the shutter open), sampling the image at each step, combining the resultant image into a composite whole. It was recommended that the process worked best with still-life images, as otherwise the results would be "odd".

Obviously time moves on, and the technology is a bit more sophisticated but the concept isn't as radical as the article tries to make out.

I looked at the web page, "renegade photographer"? It read like the sort of statements that accompany images in prestigeous photography competitions (ie the Taylor Wessing Portrait prize). Pretty bog-standard stuff, just a bit of arty leg-cocking to mark his place.

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45903311)

guys are usually users. Surprise BSD machineS This post brought in ratio of 5 to

man plays with slit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45904147)

story a 11

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?