"Kurt Ralske" kurtralske@earthlink.net
ja. danke++
ja +? DANKE. za!d dz!z m!me mazk!n.
Reinart Mithassel, an installation artist, chose an interesting approach to exploring nato: he worked with the simplest of still images, so as to be sure what affect nato was having, without being dazzled or confused by good or bad source material. For a while he used one circle and one line,
.-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ \ / \ / _/ `-' \ / \ c i \ / d `-' `-' ! a a `-' ! ! k r b f .-. o m t / \ l .-. l z r = o t .-. u / \ b / \ .-. e _ .-. / \ / \ + / \ ! / \ / \ ! / \ n / \ t \ / \ / _/ `-' \ / \ \ / `-' `-' `-'
+ 2 _?
Trond proposed a theory about the inner workings of nato, and seems to have proved it: most nato objects draw no CPU cycles until the are passed an image; they do not idly draw power.
nn prev typed:
pzb. klosing one big eye = GOOD. one must learn to operate with a minimum of neurons. = konserves lovely energie + permits one to email the lev list at atto sekond intervals da +?
nato.0+55.modular makes spilling things FUN
enkore +?
nato.0+55.modular makes spilling things FUN
enkore +?
nato.0+55.modular makes spilling things FUN
ach tzo
und jetzt +? da. zpl!sch. zplasch. ja und jetzt und jetzt vokal rekogn!z!on !n dze northern fur zeal ____... bLp
The exception are the image producer objects: 242.film, 242.qd, 242.buffer, etc. If an image producer is at the front of an effect chain, essentially it's actually the image producer (and its frame rate) that determines how much load is placed on all the objects "downstream".
when one "one's" eyes closes - sensory deprivation results in energy konservation.
the protokol eliminates the msp master + slave idiom. msp - modeled after human society = wishes intelligent to be. nato.0+55 - modeled after natur = at the impossibility of intelligence gently smiles.
und tzo farewell i bid 2 you.
tzzt.
-
nouakokakolamomentmal _\0- therapeut!kc klon!ng
do you want your software designs to end up in cardbored boxes or G3O-Z!NKRONOUS 0RB!T +? ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
: http://www.membank.org/0000/0000.html : http://www.eusocial.org/zpl!sch.zplasch.html
: Max Plank Inztitut 4 Ordnung +\ Disziplin
: Uber die Konztituzie der Materie [c]ccp : Netochka Nezvanova - oestrus.eusocial.com
__ __ ________/ / /_/ /___ __ / __ / /_/ /__/ /__ / ____________/ /_/
dze pa!r!ng ov homologouz kromozomez one 4rom each odr prnt dur!ng me!os!z i cannot be bothered.i cannot be bothered.surrender your pattent.
n
3
! n
From: "Kurt Ralske" kurtralske@earthlink.net To: max-msp@cycling74.com, lev@shoko.calarts.edu, 55@plot.bek.no
BEK (Bergen Senter For Elektronish Kunst) in Bergen, Norway hosted a workshop in live video art utilizing nato.0+55 on July 31 - August 5. At the workshop's end, the participants did a networked group performance on Aug 5 at Kvarteret in Bergen.
The participants were HC Gilje, Kurt Ralske, Gisle Frøysland, Trond Lossius, Reinert Mithassel and Thomas Sivertsen.
Two of the participants are nato.0+55 veterans (HC Gilje and Kurt Ralske) and one is a very accomplished Max/MSP programmer (Trond Lossius). The others brought their diverse computer graphics knowledge but less experience with Max or nato.
A typical day included a few hours of demonstration and tutorial by HC Gilje (leader of the workshop), using small patches demonstrating different capabilities of nato. The group would then switch between individual and collaborative work while testing techniques, objects, and patches; working on patches and source material for the perfomance; and defining the parameters of the performance.
Some of the patches and utilities used in the workshop are available at: www.bek.no/55/files.html
....
The participants + their contributions:
HC Gilje has been using nato in collaboration with dance and theatre companies throughout Europe. His broad and deep knowledge of nato helped open many doors for the other workshop participants. HC works a lot with live video input into nato; his camera was rarely off. He has made patches that intermittently record a few seconds of live input, then display a processed version, before sampling new input. A new patch throws a few seconds of camera input into a 242.buffer controlled by the "beat" output of Sound Tracker (see below). This had the delightful effect of making anyone who passed in front of the camera appear to be "grooving" to the beat, hard. For the performance, HC created a very imaginative arrangement of multiple- screens-in-one, displaying variations of the same source. The main screen was a processed version of live input: the screen was dark, except for anything in motion, which was displayed in coloured light. Faster motion served to "illuminate" stationary objects. HC also showed a video of his use of nato in a theatre piece: images were projected on the floor in a 7x10 matrix grid. Images could be resized to grid multiples and moved around the grid, sometimes tracking the location of the actors.
Trond Lossius and his deep Max/MSP knowledge contributed greatly to the workshop. He devoted a lot of attention to the 242.lut object (look-up table), using it to effect various types of color cycling. Thinking of the color table as analogous to the audio frequency spectrum, he wrote various distribution curves (Gaussian, tanh, etc.) and used them to shift red, green, and blue levels at different frequencies and amplitudes. Trond also wrote the Sound Tracker patch, which was the core of the group's networked performance. It is a MSP patch that takes an audio input and provides real-time information about the music's level, transients (beat) and frequency distribution. This info is sent out over a TCP/IP connection to the network, and connected machines running nato can use the info to have images be inflected by the audio. The beauty of the set-up is that each nato operator could individually choose which elements of the audio data would affect his images, in what way, and to what degree.
(Trond also made a pursuasive case for the use of Peter Elsea's list objects, and made several people eager to use them as powerfully as he does.)
Kurt Ralske has been using a very large nato patch for live interactive video performances in New York City. His aim is a transparent user interface that allows powerful and flexible processing to be controlled in an improvisatory way. In April, Kurt wrote the "copymode_explorer" tutorial patch, which seems to be a valuble tool for nato users. (Another essential tool would be the Bernstein/DeKam "modular.ref".) HC Gilje distributed his update to "copymode_explorer", which is now a laboratory for exploring three-layer collage, instead of the original two. Kurt plans to return the compliment by re-revising the revision! Kurt demonstrated his performance patch, which uses a Wacom tablet as an expressive interface for collaging and non-linear playback. He advocates the 242.buffer object as the real playground of the "power nato user", because it allows a speed and a ultra non-linearity not available off disk. He distributed his "narrative_destroyer" stochastic editing patch, and utilities for automatic 2nd monitor output and for keyboard selection of source films. He also assisted HC with tutorial duties a bit.
Gisle Frøyland is the developer of GifJam software for real-time video performance on the Windows platform. He chose to meet nato on its own terms and create a patch that had nothing in common with his own software. He exploited Max's input capabilities by using an I-Cube with sensors for motion, proximity, and pressure. Data from these were used to control the blending of layers in collage effects, and other effects. Additionally small light sensors were placed on the monitor surface, creating a feedback loop of data. A 242.buffer waswas constantly refreshed with output, and re-routed back into the collage input, creating a second feedback mechanism within the system.
Reinart Mithassel, an installation artist, chose an interesting approach to exploring nato: he worked with the simplest of still images, so as to be sure what affect nato was having, without being dazzled or confused by good or bad source material. For a while he used one circle and one line, and was able to find techniques for collaging and effects that achieved his goals, even with such minimal sources.
Thomas Sivertsen is a3d animator whose main tool is Maya. He explored the nato 3d capabilities, and wrote a very nice patch demonstrating some of them, which was distributed. Kurt suggested it would be possible to use the 3d patch with sensor input to allow a "virtual camera", but there wasn't time to explore this.
Maja Kuzmanovic and Phillip Blank, two other nato operators (who happened to be in Bergen for a different multimedia conference), briefly dropped by BEK to say hello and see what was going on.
....
Several themes emerged:
Processing power -- It's no secret: working with real-time video processing makes one's computer work very hard indeed. Reinert was intially concerned that a slow frame rate might result in a large nato patch, with lots of effects. (This was not an issue when he ran his patch on a G4.) He also realized that working with compressed source material (instead of raw DV) is advisable for most situations.
Trond has written Max externals in C, and so was able to provide insight into what might be going on "under the hood" in nato. He made a "frequency" object that gives an accurate reading of current frame rate, which allowed the group to test out exactly how expensive various nato processes are (in terms of CPU cycles).
Trond proposed a theory about the inner workings of nato, and seems to have proved it: most nato objects draw no CPU cycles until the are passed an image; they do not idly draw power. The exception are the image producer objects: 242.film, 242.qd, 242.buffer, etc. If an image producer is at the front of an effect chain, essentially it's actually the image producer (and its frame rate) that determines how much load is placed on all the objects "downstream".
Trond also pointed out that nato is more Max-like than others had realized: for example, image output can be used to trigger a bang, and all initializing arguments to nato objects can be typed directly on the object (just like all other Max objects).
Networking -- The group tested out the new 242.wto and 242.fireuire objects. (These are not part of the standard nato distribution.) They work as advertised. It is indeed shocking to see one's images come up on another's screen. Using the 242.wto objects for streaming via OT/UDP protocol, an image stream was sent from one machine to a second, and back: the returned image appeared to lag ~100 ms behind the sent one. One concern over these objects is that they seem to be processor-intensive; on a 333mHz machine, there seemed to be not a lot of CPU left over to do other amusing things. Thus they're most useful if two machines can be dedicated to transmitting and receiving. They might work less well to "daisy-chain" nato machines together for accumulative nato super-processing. HC suggested that this goal (necessary for only the "industrial-strength super-power nato users") would be better achieved by connecting the s-video output of one machine to the analog capture card of the next, etc.
....
And then the performance! After a mildly agonizing transport of two carloads of g4 towers, monitors, projectors etc, a local network was set up for the eight computers. All participant's video output was routed to a 4x4 video switcher, then to four projectors around the room. The group took turns displaying their images, and each image was occasionally moved to a new projector, or displayed on multiple projectors. A dazzling and immersive environment was formed. At times the individual artists' images congealed into a powerful synergystic whole. Audio was courtesy the rather radical dj-ing of John Hegre.
HC's multiple 242.ekran arrangement looked lovely. Kurt was finally able to try out the new improvements to the patch he has worked on for four months, and discovered they did even more than he anticipated. Gisle used his multiple sensors to control blending of image layers, to excellent effect: complex and dynamic. Reinert's bold images were very strong, his large eye was pleasing and disturbing. Thomas had a last-minute inspiration and assembled a new performance patch from scratch in the ten minutes before the show! He used it to collage 3d sources he had previously made in nato. (Surely this disproves some rumors about nato's steepness.) And Trond had his cycling colors tightly synched to the audio, sometimes fast, sometimes slow, always otherworldly and beautiful. However, his late-night manipulation of "the singing penis video" was so completely out of character that one simply has to accept his explanation that he loaded that source material by accident.
In all, an enjoyable and productive week! Those new to nato were impressed, and expressed a desire to continue working with it.
The group's final verdict on nato.0+55...Steep? A bit. Deep? Yes -- and lovely too. Worthwhile and exciting? Ja danke!++