Pupil Barrister

Tag: Visual (Page 3 of 16)

Reviews, comments and thoughts on visual arts and graphic design

The Colour Palette of Children's Programmes

The colour palette for children’s TV is very green, isn’t it?
There are two reasons for this.  One, many of the shows are set outside, which encourages kids to play outside too.  It is a shame that this is not a given, but there we go.
Second, many of the programmes mix live action with animation.  The easiest way to insert a person into a make-believe world, or bring an imaginary character into the real-world, is to use green-screen technology.  If there is lots of grass in the set (imaginary or otherwise) it makes the job of the CGI teams easier, and it makes the resulting product better.  It’s interesting that this technical requirement should mean that more programmes for kids are set outside.

In The Night Garden

In The Night Garden


Continue reading

Slaves to the Screen

I thought this image posted by Anthony Painter was emblematic of… something.

@anthonypainter: will.he.is #hackneyweekend http://t.co/NUM95DTg

20120626-143734.jpg
As an aside, it is amusing that Twitter thinks will.i.am is a URL, but that’s not what set my mental cogs in motion.
Instead, I was struck by the fact that Antony was at the Hackney concert over the weekend, but was still reduced to watching the events on a screen. I am sure that anyone who has ever been to one of the big summer festivals (Glastonbury, &ct) will have experienced the same phenomenon, that of watching an ostensibly ‘live’ event on screen, because the actual performers are too far away.
I was reminded of a scene in The Simpsons (Season 7, Episode 9, Sideshow Bob’s Last Gleaming, thanks Google, thanks Wikipedia) where Homer refuses to crane his neck to watch the jets at an air show, preferring to let the TV decide what he watches.
One might say that there is no conceptual difference between the a festival-goer watching the concert from the back of the crowd, and a viewer tuning in to coverage of the same festival on a TV set. In both cases, the cameras and the broadcast technology magnify the performer. However, this discounts the value of the atmosphere, the sense of communal experience, one gets from being at the event. This explains why people will stand for hours in order to see the Queen’s white coat in the far distance for a few seconds, rather than simply allow the BBC to give us constant, glorious close-ups of the wDuke of Edinburgh developing a bladder problem.
On a lesser scale, it explains why people choose to watch Euro 2012 (and all the other tournaments) in pubs. Communality counts. It also explains why others will actually travel to the tournament host country, merely to sit in a park and watch the match on a Jumbotron outside the stadium. Proximity counts too.
Nevertheless, I do think that it’s an odd sort of culture that prizes the live and the immediate over the transmitted, and yet those attending live, immediate events still find their experience of the show mediated through a square electronic screen. And we haven’t even discussed the second-order oddness of the TV stations broadcasting the sight of other people standing in a field (or on the Mall) watching a screen, as a form of entertainment in itself.


Related: That thing that happens during a lull in a live sporting broadcast, when the director cuts to a shot of the crowd, and the person spots themselves on the screen in the stadium, and waves at it, then realises that the camera is shooting them from another angle, and so they look around for the camera, and the director cuts back to the action…

ADSFMovie

I’ve been laughing at this online web comedy series, asdfmovie by Thomas Ridgewell.  Here’s episoide 5, which I sumbled upon because its one on the most top rated YouTube uploads today.

It feels like a distillation of comedy down to its purest elements. The punchline is all, illustrated in 2-dimensional simplicity. Its like tweeting on video. Very much of the internet age.

Facial recognition software could get you sued or fired

Those of us who have been anally removing the tags of ourselves in Facebook photos are feeling pretty smug today, as the latest privacy scandal breaks.  By default, they’ve turned on a new automatic facial recognition feature.  Online provacy groups are worried that this, since information about what you look like could in theory be sold on to third parties.
Two links to share.  First (via Kottke, inevitably), Dazzle Camoflage for Faces.  Using the same principles that the Navy used to foil submaries in the First World War, its possible to confuse facial recognition software by the clever use of makeup and hairstyles.  The only problem is, to confuse the all pervasive Facebook, one would need to permenantly adopt a makeup style similar to the 1980s New Romantic look, at all times, professional and social.
Second, read this diverting short-story by Paul Ford, ‘Nanolaw With Daughter‘.  When companies can gather very specific biographical, personal and location data about you, they can send you targetted law suits:

On a Sunday morning before her soccer practice, not long after my daughter’s tenth birthday, she and I sat down on the couch with our tablets and I taught her to respond to lawsuits on her own. … We had gone to a baseball game at the beginning of the season. They had played a song on the public address system, and she sang along without permission.

 

Long Photos

Earlier this week I commented on that photo of Obama and his advisors in the Situation Room:

The image in question is particularly good because it seems to portray a very long moment. If Souza had been filming the scene we imagine that it would not have looked very different from the still photograph… apart from some blinking.

Via Matt Haughey, I’ve discovered From Me To You, the work of Jamie, a photographer who takes photos and adds a little bit of movement into them as animated GIFs.  Its not clear at first glance that you’re looking at a manipulated photograph and not an actual movie.

Caught in the Fashion Jungle

Caught in the Fashion Jungle – http://fromme-toyou.tumblr.com


It reminds me of some comments made by technology thinker Chris Heathcote, who has written on the development of outdoor electronic billboards.  Hilariously, neither Chris nor I can locate the link to the post where he specificially discussed the idea that the best and most sophisticated use of moving images in billboards might be the most subtle.  Barely perceptible movements, blinks or slight gestures, may actually grab the attention of the target audience in a way that horrible flashing banners may not.  We know that modern brains can learn to mentally censor banner adverts and other obnoxious and ostentatious marketing.  Chris points to this bus shelter advert as an example of best practice.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑