New portfolio, please access: raularantes.com

This is a research blog for my MA in Visual Effects @ Ravensbourne, UK.

More Lasers

I’ve finally managed to test the two lasers I’ve got. The first one is a green laser, tested before. The second one is a RGY (red, green and yellow) one. Both have the option to be controlled via DMX, which basically means I can play with both within the same system, on the same application. So, the only thing I’ve had to work on was to include more channels.

The RGY has more parameters, as you can choose to run with just one colour or all three at the same time. So, I started my app connecting first the RGY (10 channels in total) and then the green (8 channels in total). I felt that both worked quite nicely, but I really need to define some patterns.

 

 


The new app contains channels for both projectors.

 

- Posted by rrraul on 27/05/2013 | PG04 |

The 50 Year Horizon

For the conclusion of the Business and Innovation unit, we should produce a paper setting out a strategy for taking a business to the market, securing early stage investment and taking in consideration the long term horizon. We had to answer how the project would evolve and respond to potential economic and political changes in the future, more precisely looking 50 years ahead, when radical innovation would likely to be necessary.

For this exercise, I’ve “developed” a multidisciplinary company focused on brand content, digital media and creative software tools. By analysing current trends such as 3D printing and future projections in macroeconomics and production, the company would evolve to product development. Important to notice that this was an exercise and it shouldn’t be taken as too too serious. First, I am not a futurologist, I’m quite bad in predicting things, but I must say, I had good fun reading and thinking about “stuff”.

It appears you don’t have a PDF plugin for this browser. You can click here to   download the PDF file.

- Posted by rrraul on 23/05/2013 | PG03 |

Implementing OSC

One of the ideas I had was to generate music in real time and pass parameters to the Laser application via OSC using Max/MSP. Max is a visual programming language for music and multimedia developed and maintained by San Francisco-based software company Cycling ‘74. During its 20-year history, it has been widely used by composers, performers, software designers, researchers, and artists for creating innovative recordings, performances, and installations.

Open Sound Control (OSC) is a protocol for communication among computers, sound synthesizers, and other multimedia devices that is optimized for modern networking technology. Bringing the benefits of modern networking technology to the world of electronic musical instruments, OSC’s advantages include interoperability, accuracy, flexibility, and enhanced organization and documentation.

One of the nicest things in the new version of Cinder is that it now has full native support to OSC, making it very easy to implement it in a project.

On the pictures below, I show how easily I can send OSC packets from Max and receive them on my app (check the Xcode console). The difficult part now is to compose something interesting enough that could contribute to the lasers.

Bibliography:

Max (software) - Wikipedia
Open Sound Control - Wikipedia
Cycling 74
Cinder 0.8.5 Released | Cinder
Open Sound Control

- Posted by rrraul on 22/05/2013 | PG04 |

Testing laser projectors

First tests with the lasers after getting the fazer machine. I’m very excited with the possibility to integrate some music response to the way the patterns are generated. Sound do make a great contribution to the lasers. So, basically what is going on here is that the application I’ve been writing in Cinder communicates via DMX with my Enttec interface, which is dealing with the various channels of the laser projector. I still need to test it with two projetors. It’s still work in progress…

More about my experience with the DMX interface controller and Cinder here. And more about controlling lights and digital communication via DMX here. Both recordings below were done very quickly with my iPad 2, so bare in mind that they don’t look “super” HD. ;-)

 

- Posted by rrraul on 21/05/2013 | PG04 |

Interactive video

An idea I’m thinking for some time now: the possibility to implement a solution that will allow a video player (software) to be able to control lights and objects. It would be useful for installations as an experience. The project could develop to an interesting “out of home” advertising platform. Not that it not existent today, but it would de certainly be a helpful thing. I’m sure that there are some options on the market. But such idea would simplify the way a video can interact with real objects. Thinking more of films as software apps that could interact with the lights of your house or maybe your devices and so on. That could be very interesting. I will do some tests and I should publish somethign soon.

For that purpose I could use a simple DMX dimmer pack:

A dimmer pack is a collection of dimmers used to DIM, or change the intensity of the lights in a theatrical show. Dimmer packs come in many varieties, from budget (anything from £50) right up to the high end stuff (up to about £3000). They are commonly controlled remotely from the lighting control console via either 0-10v analogue, or (more commonly these days) DMX-512.

An ideal dimmer changes only the intensity of the light, leaving all other attributes unchanged. Most dimmers lower the voltage to the light, which also causes the light to shift to the warm/red end of the spectrum because the filament cools. Some modern lighting instruments include a dimmer in the instrument (either mechanical or electrical) and do not require a dimmer pack. Most dimmer packs also distort the sinusoidal waveform of the AC voltage and can cause noise and problems if connected to motors. Some special dimmers produce true sine wave output.

Sources:

Stage lighting - Wikipedia
What is a dimmer pack - Answers
Fixture Creator Tutorial - Par Cans, Dimmer Packs, Switch Packs

- Posted by rrraul on 17/05/2013 | PG04 |

No one is in control

Originally published here.

Zygmunt Bauman: “No one is in control. That is the major source of contemporary fear”.

Power has evaporated into cyberspace, fragmented. Polititcs remain at local level as before. Everything finance capital terrorism, weapon, that ignores national sorvengty are global. But powers that could eventually can control that are still local. The gap ability to do things and ability to decide things.

- Posted by rrraul on 16/05/2013 | PG03 |

Where are we heading to?

Simple overview on the work that I’ve been developing for the Concept and Prototyping unit and where am I heading to? In case you’re not able to read the pdf embed here due to PDF limitations, you can read it in a new window clicking here.

It appears you don’t have a PDF plugin for this browser. You can click here to   download the PDF file.

- Posted by rrraul on 15/05/2013 | PG04 |

The man who would monetise the web

From the Financial Times, fascinating:

Jaron Lanier is a computer scientist who first rose to fame for his work on virtual reality. Once a devoted advocate of the free content model of the internet, he now believes that without a comprehensive monetisation of the network and the information it transmits, the future is bleak for consumers and technology companies.

A contrast to my previous post.

- Posted by rrraul on 12/05/2013 | PG03 |

Private companies, public infrastructure

Great post by Paul Krugman about Google’s decision to shut down Google Reader. He cites Ryan Avent, who argues that Google has been providing crucial public infrastructure — but doesn’t seem to have an interest in maintaining that infrastructure, which indeed seems to be a quite interesting thought.

Whether you agree with Google’s executive chairman Eric Schmidt defending Google tax affairs, saying that the firm plays a key role in the UK’s high-tech growth or not, I do think this poses an interesting conflict to the whole notion of open innovation, social value and the idea of private companies working, collaborating and offering solutions in the public sphere by applying certain models of governance that generate benefits for a large number of people.

I think as we slowly see more companies adopting socially inclusive business models, becoming increasingly aware of their responsabilities in generating social benefits and moving away from a “shareholder value”, we will become more familiar with issues like this one. To be fair, to a certain extent, I do think Google enables a number of businesses around the country to operate, which generates social value. Notice that I’m not interested on the discussion about which conduct is the correct or wrong one.

As I’ve mentioned before here, the transition from a “shareholder” to “social” may be contradictory. The question in the future will be what form of autonomy is desired for a company to have in the economy and in the public sphere.

- Posted by rrraul on 05/05/2013 | PG03 |

Reinventing the firm

The report “Reinventing the Firm” by William Davies is a critic about the way the economic thinking in the last 20 years has evolved to a exclusive “shareholder value” and a “for profit” approach, in which a business should persistently pursuit short-term maximum gain and nothing else. The starting point for it is obviously the crash of 2008 and the subsequently recession. According to the report, more inclusive alternative ways and long term strategies are needed in order to reduce the risk of future crises. Also, different models of ownership and corporate governance and more diverse companies can generate wealth as well as positive benefits for society and shareholders as well.

It analyses business and the market from the perspective of collaborative management, offering solutions in the public sphere by applying new models of governance in the private sector. All very interesting and nobel. Though, there’re some interesting points inherited on this debate about the possible social role played by the private sector. Right on the beginning (Reinventing the Firm, Why now?, page 15), it recognises that the state can’t be entirely responsible for the creation and distribution of wealth and well-being. It also cites lack of support from politicians in expanding social entreprise in mainstream businesses.

And continues by stating that the current economic and political context and its turbulent nature is the right opportunity to rethink and expand a new sort of framework on business, ownership, management and accountability; finally reaching the inevitable question of what form of autonomy is desired in the economy.

Autonomy is a helpfully ambiguous value, straddling economics and politics. There is ample economic evidence concerning the benefits that worker autonomy can deliver to business performance, meaning that there are tangible economic reasons for managers to empower and liberate their employees. A particular idea of consumer autonomy, meanwhile, is at the heart of how markets are designed and regulated. But there is also an emerging political framework that seeks to deliver greater autonomy in our economic lives (including in our workplaces) as a component part of a society less liable to domination.

For instance, a firm that sought to empower employees purely as a means to extract greater effort and productivity from them could be accused of excessive work intensification, and would scarcely be satisfying the democratic requirement for non- domination in the workplace. On the other hand, a firm that privileged workplace democracy at the expense of productivity would be failing in an equal and opposite sense. The task, this report argues, is to build firms with a suitable balance between economic and political forms of participation, liberty and empowerment. In the best cases discussed in this report, this balance is struck in such a way as to uphold both sets of priorities.

Clearly, there is a conflict between the political perspective of the problem which is intrisic to the business management of the framework and the economic part, which is crucial for the existence and maintance of any sort of business. Autonomy perhaps is the balance that is allowed and given to the employees now invited and more integrated to the model by their employers. This balance needs to fulfil individual needs and individuality is an important part on the equation, as well as self awareness and self importance as essential factors.

This reminds me of the George Soros book “The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What it Means”. Regardless of what the author was aiming for or his activities, the title offers an insightful conceptual framework about the relationship between thinking and reality within the economic and political perspective. Soros refers to it as General Theory of Reflexivity. In this article “Soros: General Theory of Reflexivity”, he explains that he was heavily influenced by Karl Popper:

In his books Popper argued that the empirical truth cannot be known with absolute certainty. Even scientific laws can’t be verified beyond a shadow of a doubt: they can only be falsified by testing. One failed test is enough to falsify, but no amount of conforming instances is sufficient to verify. Scientific laws are hypothetical in character and their truth remains subject to testing. Ideologies which claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth are making a false claim; therefore, they can be imposed on society only by force. This applies to Communism, Fascism and National Socialism alike. All these ideologies lead to repression. Popper proposed a more attractive form of social organization: an open society in which people are free to hold divergent opinions and the rule of law allows people with different views and interests to live together in peace. Having lived through both Nazi and Communist occupation here in Hungary I found the idea of an open society immensely attractive.

While I was reading Popper I was also studying economic theory and I was struck by the contradiction between Popper’s emphasis on imperfect understanding and the theory of perfect competition in economics which postulated perfect knowledge. This led me to start questioning the assumptions of economic theory. These were the two major theoretical inspirations of my philosophy.


What Soros says with his reflexivity idea is that situations that have thinking participants, participants’ view of the world is always partial and distorted (fallibility). And this fact can influence the situation they relate by taking inappropriate actions/decisions (reflexivity). Even though it seems obvious, these ideas have been in a way ignored by economic theory, according to the author. What is also very interesting is this bit by Zygmunt Bauman (Liquid Modernity, page 20):

The individual submits to society and this submission is the condi­ tion of his liberation. For man freedom consists in deliverance from blind, unthinking physical forces; he achieves this by opposing against them the great and intelligent force of society, under whose protec­ tion he shelters. By putting himself under the wing of society, he makes himself also, to a certain extent, dependent upon it. But this is a liberating dependence; there is no contradiction in this.

Not only is there no contradiction between dependence and liberation; there is no other way to pursue the liberation but to ‘submit to society’ and to follow its norms. Freedom cannot be gained against society.

Important to notice that any comparison may sound unfair, since we are having two complete different spheres here. One thing is a collaborative and inclusive business model and the other is a economic political framework and political sociologic analysis. But what I am concerned here is how theoretical models are product or pure response to something wider. In Bauman’s book, for example, he says that fordism was in its heyday simultaneously a model of industrialization, of accumulation, and of regulation. And yes, I know. I know. We are far beyond our glorious industrial past. And even though we are in much more dynamic and complex context, I think this observation is still valid.

Modern self-confidence gave an entirely new gloss to the eternal human curiosity about the future. Modern utopias were never mere prophecies, let alone idle dreams: openly or covertly, they were both declarations of intent and expressions of faith that what was desired could be done and will be done. The future was seen like the rest of the products in that society of producers: something to be thought through, designed, and then seen through the process of its production. The future was the creation of work, and work was the source of all creation.

Every society today is consciously committed to economic growth, to raising the standard of living of its people, and therefore to the planning, direction, and control of social change. What makes the present studies, therefore, so completely different from those in the past is that they are oriented to specific social-policy purposes; and along with this new dimension, they are fashioned, self-consciously, by a new methodology which gives the promise of providing a more reliable foundation for realistic altern­atives and choices.

The future is a product created by the one who has the hold on the present. William Davies report apparently offers some interesting ideas on employee ownership as an optimal model of autonomy, merging economic performance with politically progressive forms of accountability and governance. It’s interesting to see these oposing aspects trying to carefully work together. It’s as if we were trying to get a grip on our liquid destiny.

Bibliography:

Reinventing The Firm, William Davies
General Theory of Reflexivity, George Soros
Liquid Modernity, Zygmunt Bauman

- Posted by rrraul on 25/03/2013 | PG03 |

Previous Page   Next Page