Tilt shift of the Carnaval party in Rio de Janeiro 2011
Made by Jarbas Agnelli and Keith Loutit
Both Jarbas Agnelli & Keith Loutit were finalists at YouTube play, a Biennial of Creative Video at the Guggenheim.
March 4, 2012
Tilt-shift and time lapse turns Rio’s Carnaval into a complex animated model
February 23, 2012
Timelapse footage using tilt-shift makes everything look like a model
A time lapse of action in and outside the Port of Napier filmed mostly from the Bluff Hill lookout. Edited in Sony Vegas11 with Magic Bullet Looks 2 using the Swing Tilt pre-set that makes the machinery and ships take on a model toy appearance.
H/T to Nelson Kennedy for the link.
Wikipedia says:
“Tilt-shift photography” refers to the use of camera movements on small- and medium-format cameras, and sometimes specifically refers to the use of tilt for selective focus, often for simulating a miniature scene. Sometimes the term is used when the shallow depth of field is simulated with digital post processing; the name may derive from the tilt-shift lens normally required when the effect is produced optically.
“Tilt-shift” encompasses two different types of movements: rotation of the lens plane relative to the image plane, called tilt, and movement of the lens parallel to the image plane, called shift. Tilt is used to control the orientation of the plane of focus (PoF), and hence the part of an image that appears sharp; it makes use of the Scheimpflug principle. Shift is used to adjust the position of the subject in the image area without moving the camera back; this is often helpful in avoiding the convergence of parallel lines, as when photographing tall buildings.
December 25, 2011
The top 100 images from ESA/Hubble
Some breathtaking images from everyone’s favourite vantage point in space.
H/T to Lois McMaster Bujold for the link.
October 13, 2011
August 27, 2011
More photos from Japan’s abandoned “Battleship Island”
I blogged about this last year, including a few photos of the island’s skyline. This post at How to be a Retronaut includes lots of interior photos:
August 9, 2011
To every action, there’s a reaction
The rioters in Toronto and Vancouver were frequently caught on camera, and the photos were posted on the various photoblogging sites. Many people were identified this way, and some of them were charged as a result. Londoners are responding in the same way, with sites like http://catchalooter.tumblr.com/ where photos are being posted from the last few nights’ mayhem.
Every action does have a reaction, though, as rioters and even “innocent bystanders” are becoming more likely to attack anyone with a camera. This means a much greater risk for would-be citizen journalists (and professional journalists), as the police generally try to surround and contain mobs (when they don’t just evacuate altogether, of course). If someone in the mob decides that you’re “the enemy”, you won’t have much support — don’t risk your life just to get a “good shot”.
Update: Speaking of police unwillingness to protect civilians, there’s this account:
Cypran Asota, who has run the Boots opticians for 25 years, told the London Evening Standard how he watched as the shop was destroyed.
He said police stood by yards away, adding: ‘White boys ripped off the shutters, then a group of around eight or nine children went in and stole the day’s takings.
‘I ran back over the road to plead with them, this is my livelihood and I have to protect it, but they kept coming back in. They must have got away with £15,000 worth of frames. My insurance doesn’t cover acts of terrorism.
‘All the time the police were about 15 yards away, just watching. They didn’t do anything to stop it. They looked more scared of those kids than I was.’
Shopkeeper Shiva Kadih, 39, told the Standard he had ‘nothing left’ as witnesses said they prevented an attempt to burn down the shop as police watched nearby.
June 25, 2011
Reason.TV reporter arrested for “disorderly conduct” and “trespassing”
June 16, 2011
Apple’s lovely little pre-censorship patent
Oh, I know it’s supposedly intended to prevent iPhone users from filming at concerts and thereby depriving the promoters and performers of theoretical income, but I’m sure the technology will be used — in addition to, or instead — as a way of preventing certain kinds of citizen journalism.
The leading computer company plans to build a system that will sense when people are trying to video live events — and turn off their cameras.
A patent application filed by Apple revealed how the technology would work.
If an iPhone were held up and used to film during a concert infra-red sensors would detect it.
These sensors would then contact the iPhone and automatically disable its camera function.
I mentioned my concern to Jon, who sent me the initial link saying, “That sounds like a straight-from-Steve-Jobs kind of ‘how can we make money from censorship’ brain fart. Want to bet that the next thing it’ll allow is governments to automatically prevent iPhone users from filming police ‘doing their job’?
“Literally ‘nothing to see here’, if the technology works as they imply in the article.”
His response: “My bet is that the government application is the first we’ll see of this technology, not the next.”
Update: Oh, good, it’s not just me seeing the cloud instead of the silver lining — here’s Tim O’Reilly with the same concerns:
Doubtless in response to pleas from the entertainment industry, Apple has patented new technology to disable cellphone video based on external signals from public venues. Now imagine if that same technology were deployed by repressive regimes. Goodbye to one of the greatest tools we’ve yet seen for advancing democracy.
Think for a moment about the pro-democracy impact of cellphone video combined with online services like YouTube [. . .] I hope Apple has the guts and good sense never to deploy this technology, and instead uses the patent to prevent it being implemented by others. Yeah, right! If it were Google, that might be more than a vain hope.
Update, the second: Cory Doctorow chimes in:
An Apple patent describes a system for allowing venue owners to override compliant cameras. The patent describes using an infrared signal that compliant cameras would detect; in the presence of this signal, the device would not allow its owner to activate its record function. It is intended for use at live events and galleries and museums, and it will be a tremendous boon to policemen who shoot unarmed subway riders, despotic armies putting down revolutions as well as anyone else who is breaking the law or exercising coercive power.
June 14, 2011
Random links
A few links which don’t lend themselves to becoming full blog posts:
- Guardian: “[T]he police managed to violate both freedom of the press and the English language.“
- Just as the rest of the country has suspected for years, Ontarians are shown to be a bunch of drunken pot-heads.
- Lady Thatcher’s snub of Sarah Palin didn’t happen, says former Thatcher aide.
- Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, excluded from the New Hampshire GOP debate, campaigns in Iowa instead. “I think the biggest issue facing this country right now is that we are bankrupt and on the verge of a financial collapse”
- An Economist blogger decries the “whimsical choice to exclude from consideration the polls that would qualify Mr Johnson for participation in the debate“.
- You like books? You need more bookcases? Here is a house for you: “a structure where books could line every surface.”
- Best travel tips for locals to give to visitors. Including, from the comments, “As you can see via the weather network, the temperature at the Canadian border drops an average of 50 degrees as you enter from the United States. Dress appropriately.”
The SlutWalk double standard
Abigail Ross-Jackson wonders why SlutWalkers would want to “live in a world where women can wear what they want but men are never allowed to woo or whistle?”
Why should men be demonised for wolf-whistling or for attempting to chat up a woman whom they think is attractive? The Slutwalkers’ demand of the right not to be judged is profoundly backward and anti-social. Several of the banners on Saturday’s protest seemed to suggest that men are more like animals than rational human beings. One said: ‘Why am I dressed like a slut? Why are you thinking like a rapist?’ This is worrying, because it points to another serious problem with the Slutwalk phenomenon: its embrace of the widening definition of ‘harassment’. While most people would agree that stalking, groping and so on is unacceptable, amounting to harassment, the idea that looking, thinking, flirting and chatting someone up is also no longer acceptable, and that it amounts to ‘thinking like a rapist’, shows that everyday human interaction is now increasingly being labelled ‘harassment’. What next: no eye contact without written permission?
One woman who took part in the London Slutwalk later tweeted: ‘Thirty-seven people have taken my photo so far on #slutwalk. Just one sought consent first. (Of those I challenged, it’d not occurred to them to ask.)’ This just about sums up the preciousness, and the social aloofness, of Slutwalkers: they seem to imagine that even on a public demonstration at which they have dressed in the most attention-grabbing way, it is somehow a violation of their person for someone to take a photo. Feminists are warping the word ‘consent’, taking it from the realm of rape and applying it to such everyday actions as chatting and taking photos in public. But if we had to seek consent for every form of human interplay, nothing would ever happen; it would be a boring world indeed.
[. . .]
Many millions of us negotiate our relationships, sexual or otherwise, on a day-to-day basis; we don’t need contracts or written consent or any clearly established boundaries. In trying to formalise human relationships, the Slutwalkers’ attitude is actually quite arrogant: they seem to want to reshape the public sphere, and even parts of the private sphere, according to their own tastes and desires, with no regard for the rest of us. One Slutwalker said: ‘I wear what I want. Because I dress this way it doesn’t mean I’m a bad person. I get upset if a girl gets dressed up for male attention.’ This really gets to the heart of the double-standard in the Slutwalk phenomenon: they can wear what they like because they are apparently empowered and strong women, but if other women chose to dress in order to attract attention then they should be pitied and looked down upon. Meanwhile men can’t look, pass judgement or flirt for fear of being branded sexist and vile, while women apparently exist in a bubble where they are elevated and protected from the prying eyes and judgements of society.
May 26, 2011
May 18, 2011
Reminder: check state law before videotaping the police
Clive sent me this Wendy McElroy post from last year, but it’s still (mostly) valid today:
In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.
Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.
The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where “no expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.
It shouldn’t need to be said that the police and the courts who’ve backed the police on this issue are wrong. But they appear to be running scared, at least in a few states:
Carlos Miller at the Photography Is Not A Crime website offers an explanation: “For the second time in less than a month, a police officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently paralyzing the 24-year-old man.”
When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.
May 12, 2011
30 years in prison for taking photos of farms?
As we all know, there are no higher risk facilities in the United States than the farm:
According to the New York Times, the Iowa bill, which has passed the lower house of the legislature in Des Moines:
would make it a crime to produce, distribute or possess photos and video taken without permission at an agricultural facility. It would also criminalize lying on an application to work at an agriculture facility “with an intent to commit an act not authorized by the owner.”
From a libertarian perspective, there’s so much wrong with these bills that it’s hard to know where to begin. Maybe with the bills’ ridiculous overbreadth and over-punitiveness — the Florida proposal, for example, apparently would ban even roadside photography of farms, and send offenders to prison for as much as thirty years. In proposing a (very likely unconstitutional) ban on even the possession of improperly produced videos, the Iowa bill, ironically or otherwise, echoes the tireless legislative efforts of some animal rights activists over the years to ban even possession of videos depicting dogfights and other instances of animal cruelty, for example.
Wouldn’t that kind of prison sentence for unauthorized photography be considered extreme in the old Soviet Union?
April 23, 2011
Is this where the “ponygirl” fetish got started?
One of a series of “WTF?” postings at How to be a Retronaut may show the origin of the “ponygirl” fetish. (I would advise you not to Google Image Search for that . . . unless that’s what you are interested in):
April 20, 2011
What will Smartphones kill off next?
When you look at their track record, Smartphones are technological hit-men, taking down category after category of stand-alone electronic devices:
Cisco’s recent announcement that it was closing its Flip mini-camcorder business got us thinking. It’s pretty clear that today’s smartphones, with their excellent HD video cameras, are partly to blame for the Flip’s demise. But how many other consumer products and services — digital or analog — are being killed off by the big, bad smartphone?
We’ve assembled a list of likely victims here. If you know of other smartphone-induced casualties, please tell us in the Comments section — or contact your local law enforcement authorities. Let’s start with the most obvious victims…
The only two items on their list I disagree with are stand-alone GPS units and paper maps. Paper maps because the portable GPS units are excellent for what I think of as tactical directions — take this turn, drive this distance, etc., but are not as useful for strategic purposes. Paper maps aren’t dead yet.
And the reason I don’t think GPS units are quite dead isn’t technological, but financial: I can’t afford to use my iPhone for GPS because of the insanely high data costs when I’m roaming, especially if I’m in the United States.