manual input sessions

8/6/2019 Manual Input Sessions

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/manual-input-sessions 1/17

SURVEY OF MUSIC AND IMAGE

Assignment 2

T R I N I T Y C O L L E G E D U B L I N

D A V I D C O L L I E R

1 0 2 6 1 3 0 3

M . P H I L I N M U S I C A N D M E D I A T E C H N O L O G Y

2 6 A P R I L 2 0 1 1

Survey of Music and Image -Assignment 2" 1



TABLE OF CONTE NTS

Introduction" 4

Artists" 4

Golan Levin" 4

Zachary Lieberman" 4

Manual Input Sessions" 6

The System ( Implementation )" 6

NegDrop" 9

InnerStamp" 11

Rotuni " 13

Conclusion" 15

Bibliography" 16

Appendix - Equipment List " 17




List of Figures

Figure 1: Diagram of the system

Figure 2: The system in operation

Figure 3: Picture of the overhead projector, video projector and camera

Figure 4: Video projector and camera

Figure 5: Example of the NegDrop

Figure 6: Diagram of the NegDrop sound generation

Figure 7: InnerStamp performance silhouettes

Figure 8: InnerStamp playback

Figure 9: Example of Rotuni using shapes

Figure 10: How the Rotuni generates pitches

List of Tables

Table 1: Audiovisual mapping in NegDrop

Table 2: Audiovisual mapping in InnerStamp

Table 3: Audiovisual mapping in Rotuni




Survey of Music and Image - Assignment 2

“Discuss the use of technology, in a particular work (or set of works),

by a practitioner from the area of film, video, electronic art, multime-

dia, performance or digital art.”

IntroductionIn this essay I am going to discuss the role of technology in a series of performance pieces by

Gobal Levin and Zachary Lieberman. Both are innovators, on a continually increasing list, for

whom art is the driving force and technique the medium, the two are inextricably linked in a

upward spiral of innovation, This cycle of innovation between disciplines is incredible with the

improvement of one fueling the other. Levin and Lieberman as multidisciplinary performance

artists push the limits in each field and blurring the boundaries between art and technology.

ArtistsGolan Levin and Zachary Lieberman were the collaborators who created the Manual Input

Sessions. A brief profile of each has been added below to provide a background for the discus-

sion to follow.

G O L A N L E V I N

Levin is an artist, composer, performer and engineer whose works examine the human rela -

tionship with machines. Levin spoke at TED in 2004 giving a performance and lecture titled

“Software ( As ) Art”[8]. The title alone sums up how technology can be viewed as not just a tool

but a work of art in its own right.

The below quote sums up what Levin achieves through his works:

Through performances, digital artifacts, and virtual environments... ...Levin applies creative twists to digital technolo-

gies that highlight our relationship with machines, make visible our ways of interacting with each other, and explore the

intersection of abstract communication and interactivity. [ 1 ]

Z A C H A R Y L I E B E R M A N

Lieberman is an artist and computer programmer. Whose art work focuses around computer

graphics human computer interaction and computer vision.[13] Below is a quote taken from

the YesYesNo website about Lieberman’s work.




Zachary Lieberman’s work uses technology in a playful way to explore the nature of communication and the delicat e

boundary between the visible and the invisible.[ 11 ]

Lieberman was named the 36th most creative business person of 2010 by Fast Company

magazine.[12] This was no mean feat as some of the other names on the list include company CEOs, filmmakers and pop artists.

Both of the collaborators on the Manual Input Workstation/Sessions are artists who also have

a strong grounding in technology. For them the technology is the medium through which they

realise their art. What makes a discussion of these works so relevant, is that it was created by

two engineers who uses engineering techniques to realise performance art ideas, based in vision

and sound. This is contrary to the more conventional idea of an artist enlisting an engineer to

help them realise an idea.




Manual Input Sessions The Manual Input Sessions is a series of three vinagettes that bridge the gap between musical

performance and performing art. Each of the pieces use computer vision techniques as the in-

put for generating both the audio and the visual elements of the performance. As well as gen-erating the audio and visuals the performers hand silhouettes are projects on to the screen and

seems to directly interact with the visuals that they are creating. It is really creative use of

technology and an incredible interactive means of user input.

T H E S Y S T E M ( I M P L E M E N T A T I O N )

In order to perform any of the pieces a hardware setup must first be created. I have included

the equipment list in the appendix, but I will go through and discuss the setup in this section.

The basic equipment needed for this installation is an overhead projector, video projector,camera, speakers and a computer. In figure 1 you can see a simplified diagram of the layout for

the hardware.

Figure 1: Diagram of the system[6]

The performer uses their hands to make silhouettes on the overhead projector. The video cam-

era captures a video of the silhouettes and sends it to a computer. Within the computer the

image is analysed and information is extracted from this. This information is then used to gen-

erate sounds which are played back through the speakers and images which are projected using

the video projector. All of these processes happen almost instantaneously so that the silhou-

ettes, visuals and sounds interact in realtime. Figure 2 is an example of the system in operation

( minus sound ).




Figure 2: The system in operation[2]

We can see in figure 2 the performer manipulating shadows on the screen using the overheadprojector. If you look closely at the overhead projector you can see that there is a pink gel

placed over the light source. If we look back at the projection we can see the silhouette, a pink

background and a white shape, outlined by the silhouette. This white shape is being projected

from the video projector while the rest of the image is projected from the overhead projector.

This makes the white shape a bit blurry as it is two projections layered one on top of the other,

while the rest of the image has crisp edges.

I would speculate that the pink colour of the over head projector has some functional role and

is not there for purely aesthetic reasons. The fact that it is listed on the equipment list wouldlead me to believe this. It is probably used to enable the vision system to diff erentiate between

the two projections. So that the vision system only analyses changes that happen on the over-

head projector.

Figure 3: Picture of the overhead projector, video projector and camera [6]




Figure 3 is an image of the projector and camera. From this we can see how the hardware would

be laid out in an installation. In an installation the projection from both of the projector are

aligned, so that when the silhouettes create visuals the visuals are aligned with the silhouettes.

This improves the eff

ect of the installation and helps to blur the distinction of what is influ-

encing what.

A camera is attached to the video projector to capture the silhouettes. Figure 4 below gives a

close up image of the setup of video projector and camera. The input that the camera captures

must also be lined up with the projection of the silhouettes to capture the information neces-

sary to create the visuals and sounds.

Figure 4: Video projector and camera [6]

This section has described the hardware necessary to create this installation and how it must

be setup to realise the pieces. In the next section I will go through each of the vignettes in turn

and describe how they use the information generated by the projector and camera to create the

visuals and sounds. Each of the vignettes manipulates the input in diff erent ways to create dif -

ferent sounds and images.




N E G D R O P

The NegDrop is one of the pieces that makes use of this system. It uses computer vision in-

formation taken from a silhouette to generate sound and image.

Figure 5 below gives an example of the screen image of the NegDrop. The right hand image in

the figure is a time-lapsed composite.[14]

Figure 5: Example of the NegDrop[14]

The computer vision for the NegDrop scans the silhouettes on the screen looking for closed

interior contours or holes. With these holes it uses the video projector to project the same

shape but in white over the original image. This happens in real time and there is no percepti-

ble time lag to the observer.

When the performer releases the shape the camera recognizes this and performs a series of computations and manipulations on the output from the video projection. On the screen the

shape behaves as if it were a real object released from a height and falls to the bottom of the

image. When it hits the bottom, the system recognizes this and a sound is generated. Like a

real object the shape bounces and a sound is created each time it strikes the edges of the pro-

jection. Over time the bounces diminish and the shape and audio fades out. Figure 6 below is a

diagrammatic representation of how the sound is created.

Figure 6: Diagram of the NegDrop sound generation[14]

! $# # # # # # # #

# # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

# # # #

# # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # ##

#

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

-

#

#

!#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

! $# # # # # # # #

# # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

# # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # ##

#

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # #

#

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # #

$ $ $

$ $

# #

# #

# #

# # #

#

# # # #

# # # #

# # # # #

# # # # #

# # #

# # #

# # # # # # #

# # # #

# # # # #

# # #

# # # # #

# # # #

# # #

# # # # # # #

# # # # # #

# # # #

# # # # # #

- - #

# # # #

# # #

! $# # #

# #

# # ## # # #

# #

# # # #

# # # # #

# # # #

# # # #

# # # #

# # # #

# # # # #

# # ##




The sounds are generated from the falling shapes using a number of predefined parameters.

Table 1 outlines the various properties of the shape and how they are matched to sound prop -

erties.

Table 1: Audiovisual mapping in NegDrop[14]

When watching the performance you might be able to pick out how some of the audio pa -

rameters are matched to the visuals but not all of them. When I watched a video of NegDrop I

recognised how the pitch and volume were being generated but not the other audio parame-

ters.

The NegDrop is a very eff ective piece, particularly the manner in which the sounds are gener-

ated. The fact that the released shapes behave as if they were subject to gravity is very eff ective

and makes the piece very easy to comprehend on first viewing.

The artists/engineers have put a considerable amount of work into creating a system that is

visually and sonically engaging. It is easy to comprehend even though some of the underlying

programming is no doubt quite complicated. They have also managed to integrate the field of

computer vision, computer music, video and performance into one composition.

$ # # #

# # # # #

# # # #

# # # #

# # #

# # # # #

# # # # #

#

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

# # # ## # # #

# # #

# # # #

# # # # #

# # # # #

# # # #

# # #

# #

# # #

#

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

I3-.3()$J)37*).&*0$ K3(-6$J)37*).&*0$

,$"2$%&#+&(+# '12,5#3.+&6(#J#.$>?#

,$..101$"#("(&69# 7$.%*(#

5$&1K$"2+.#'$0121$"# 02(&($#'+"#.$,+21$"#

,$*'+,2"(00#L#'$1"21"(00# 21*8&+.#8&1652"(00#

#

# # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # #

# # #

# # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # #

- - # # # # # #

# # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # #

!$ $ $# # # # # # # #

# #

# # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

# #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # ##




I N N E R S T A M P

The InnerStamp is another piece devised for this setup. Like the NegDrop this piece uses

holes in the silhouettes to generate sounds and images. In the case of the InnerStamp though,

the piece generates a continuous drone when there is a hole on the screen the camera capturesthis and a visual is created to match the hole. See figure 7.

Figure 7: InnerStamp performance silhouettes[8]

The computer uses the information gained about the hole to generate sound coinciding with

the image. It does this by mapping the contour parameter to the audio parameter to generatesounds that are directly related to what is happening with the silhouettes. Table 2 gives a break

down of how the parameters are mapped against each other.

Table 2: Audiovisual mapping in InnerStamp[14]

Like the NegDrop the same contour properties are mapped to the same audio properties but it

is the way that the performer can interact with them that has changed. Instead of the system

producing discrete sound and vision events the InnerStamp allows the performer to manipu-

late the sound and vision as a continuous drone. This means that by changing the area within

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

& & & & & &

4-25-*6&76-1%65,%/& 8-*2+&76-1%65,%/&

97-27")!5$)*4$2$)! 5*29&!H.%),$!I!.7GJ!

&7)*37-2%.!57#*2*7-! #2$)$7!5%-!.79%2*7-!

2*4$!#*-9$!&%-+#!+$5%)2$+! K7."4$!+$9%'!

5$)*4$2$)6276%)$%!)%2*7!H*B$B!-7-69745%92-$##J!

01!47+".%2*7-!*-+$D!H*B$B!2*4()%.!()*,&2-$##J!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

& & &

& & &

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !!

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !




the hole the performer can raise or lower the pitch. Also by maintaining the contour size and

using you fingers to fill in the area the timbre can be adjusted.

The program will continue to generate sound and images matched to the silhouettes as long as

there is a hole maintained in the projection. Once the performer breaks the silhouette they canno longer manipulate the output from that particular shape. The program stores the informa -

tion generated by the performers movements and after they have released the shape it will

playback through these shapes and associated sounds. Playback will continue until the per-

former removes their hands from the projection. When this happens the animations will

gradually fade from the projection and the audio will fade as well. Figure 8 is an exmple of the

system playing back an image and associated sound.

Figure 8: InnerStamp playback[14]

The performer can generate up to three shape/sound animations simultaneously. After three,

for each new animation generated an older one will disappear.

The InnerStamp piece is similar to the NegDrop in the way that it uses negative contours to

generate an output audio and visual. It is diff erent in the way that it uses this information to

generate the output.

It is not as immediately accessible as the NegDrop because it is not as apparent how the sound

and image are linked. As the InnerStamp manipulates the data continuously it is not as clear

what is influencing what. This could be exactly what the artists were going for when they came

up with the idea for this piece and if so it works very well.

# # # # # # ## #

# # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # #

#

# # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # #

##

#

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $#




R O T U N I

The Rotuni is the final viginette created for the Manual Input Sessions. It is diff erent from the

previous two as it does not use negative contours/holes in the silhouettes to generate sounds.

Instead the images and sounds for this piece are created in a completely diff erent manner.

When an object creates a silhouette the computer scans this image and generates a rotating

green radar arm from its centroid. In figure 9 you can see that the demonstration uses cutout

shapes for this piece, although any silhouette can be used.

Figure 9: Example of Rotuni using shapes[2]

As the arm rotates a Midi note is generated corresponding to the length of the arm eg. the

longer the arm the higher the pitch. The notes are triggered at discrete time steps set by a pre-

defined tempo. The shape thus generates a repeating melody, each time the arm rotates, if theshape remains the same it plays the same melody on each sweep of the arm. By using cutouts

shapes the performer can predict the melody that the system will output. This could be very

useful to play interlocking melodies composed of several diff erent shapes.




Figure 10: How the Rotuni generates pitches[14]

In figure 10 we can see how the program calculates the pitch, using the radius from the centre

of the shape. A spikier shape would off er more variation of pitch while a circle would produce a

drone like sound.

Table 3: Audiovisual mapping in Rotuni

From table 3 we can see that the radius arm is mapped to the pitch and the horizontal position

of the silhouette is mapped to the stereo position.

The Rotuni is not as interactive as the previous two piece but it is still an impressive use of the

technology and shows what can be done with the processing systems. It could be more useful

in a performance setting though, as if the performer used pre-made shapes for silhouettes they

would have better control of the output, unlike the NegDrop and the InnerStamp which aremuch more susceptible to variations between performances. Although this would depend on

what the performer was trying the achieve ( it might be that variety between performance is

what is desired ).

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !!

!

& & &

& & &&

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! &

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !!

!

& & & & & & & & & & &

& & & & &

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5

5 5 5 ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

& & & & & &

4-25-*6&76-1%65,%/& 8-*2+&76-1%65,%/&

!"#$%&'()'*+"",-#$'./0-/!'/.1' ,-%2&'3*&(.%4!(+5'

&(.-6(#%/!',(*-%-(#' *%"."(',/#'!(2/%-(#'

2(#%(7.'89'#71:".' ;898'%-1:."'*"!"2%-(#'

'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' '

! &' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' '

! &' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' '

' ' '

!! ' '

! ' ''

! ' '

! ' '

'

'

!

'

' '

' '

!

' '

'

! ' '

'

!

' '

' '!

'' '

! ' '

' '




Conclusion The Manual Input Sessions are a triumph in bridging the gap between art and technology.

Levin and Lieberman have used comparatively simple hardware to create an installation and

performance that explores our relationship to sounds, images and technology. In the processblurring the distinction between the three.

There are obviously some very sophisticated processes going on in the background to create

this installation but because it is so seamless they do not draw attention to themselves. This is

one of the primary reasons, I think, that the Manual Input concept works so well. The focus of

the user or the audience is placed solely on the output and interaction and not on the imple-

mentation.

Part of the reason that the idea for this project is so easy to grasp is that user created shadows

are the input. Everyone has at some stage made shapes using shadows so this is very familiar to

us. When the user uses shadows to create images and sound they are using this familiar experi-

ence and it is being augmented with technology.

One of the more interesting aspects of this project is its accessibility to everyone. The inter-

face is simple to get started using and the feedback of both visual and sound is very engaging.

Also there isn’t a great degree of manual dexterity needed to use it, this makes it accessible to

both the very young and the very old who should be able to create sounds and visuals without a

lengthy learning curve and no prior experience.

The two collaborator have subsequently gone on to develop and adapt this idea to create

“Messa di Voce” a performance piece that extends this idea and incorporates vocal performers.

This piece further explores the system as an interactive medium for performance.

The Manual Input Sessions are a very creative use of technology. It is a brilliant concept and an

interesting installation that explores how people interact with technology. The interactive ele-

ment of the piece is the most exciting aspect of the piece as it opens up this technology to eve-

ryone, not just the technophiles. I see interactivity as being an area that will become increas-

ingly prevalent in the near future and it will be applications like the Manual Input Sessions that

will expose people to the creative side of interactivity.




Bibliography [1] Wolf Lieser. Digital Ar t. Langenscheidt: h.f. ullmann. 2009. pp. 251-53

[2] Flong. The Manual Input Workstation. http://www.flong.com/projects/miw/

[3] Flong. The Manual Input Sessions. http://www.flong.com/projects/mis/

[4] Wikipedia. Golan Levin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Levin

[5] Carnegie Mellon Design. Faculty.

http://www.design.cmu.edu/show_person.php?t=f&id=GolanLevin

[6] La fondation Daniel Langois. The Manual Input Workstation - Documentary Co ection. http://www.fondation-langlois.org/html/e/page.php?NumPage=2220

[7] The System Is. Manual Input Station. http://thesystemis.com/projects/manual-input-station/

[8] Levin, G. & Lieberman, Z. Tme ma. http://www.tmema.org/mis/

[9] TED. Sound As Ar t. http://www.ted.com/talks/golan_levin _on_software_as_art.html

[10] Sound On Sound. Tomorrow’s Musicians & What They’ Be Playing.http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan06/articles/nime.htm

[11] YesYesNo. Interactive Projects. http://yesyesno.com/zachary -lieberman

[12] Fast Company. The 100 Most Creative People in Business 2010. http://www.fastcompan y.com/100/2010/36/zachary -lieberman

[13] Wikipedia. Zachary Lieberman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Za chary_Lieberman

[14] Levin, G. Lieberman, Z. ( 2005 ). Sounds * om Shapes: Audiovsual Performance with Hand Sil -

houtte Contours in The Manual Input Sessio ns, in Proceedings of the 2005 International Confer-

ence on New Musical Expression. Vancouver, Canada. pg 115-120.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachary_Lieberman



http://www.fastcompany.com/100/2010/36/zachary-lieberman








http://yesyesno.com/zachary-lieberman

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan06/articles/nime.htm














http://www.ted.com/talks/golan_levin_on_software_as_art.html



http://www.tmema.org/mis/




http://thesystemis.com/projects/manual-input-station/





http://www.fondation-langlois.org/html/e/page.php?NumPage=2220





















http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Levin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Levin

http://www.flong.com/projects/mis/

http://www.flong.com/projects/mis/

http://www.flong.com/projects/miw/

http://www.flong.com/projects/miw/



Appendix - Equipment ListRequired equipment (list provided by the artists to exhibiting institutions)

- PC Computer, 3.0Ghz+ or Dual 2.2Ghz+ Intel CPU, 512MB RAM, 40GB HD

We recommend and prefer desktop computers from Dell or HP

Windows XP English recommended but not required

nVidia GeForce 7400+ graphics card with 2 outputs ( DVI & VGA )

It may be helpful to have a wireless keyboard

- Video projector, 3000+ ANSI Lumen, DLP, 1024x768 native resolution

- Ceiling -mount system for video projector

- 15" LCD screen ( 1024x768 ), for administrative purposes only

- Stereo sound system ( powered speakers + amplifier )

- Stereo audio cables ( PC to amplifier )

- 1 long coaxial 75-ohm BNC video cable ( 20 meters-) for Camera to PC

- 1 12- volt DC adaptor, 500 milliamps

- 1 long VGA cable ( 20 meters-) for PC to video projector

- 1 short VGA cable ( 2 meters ) for PC to LCD screen

- Special pedestal construction

- Overhead Projector

- Spare lamps for Overhead Projector

Additional equipment ( the artists may provide some of these items)

- Sony SSCM-183 B&W Security Camera

- IR-pass filter for camera ( Kodak Wratten 87C gelatine filter, 1 square inch )

- Bogen/Manfrotto Camera Clamp with Quick-Release Head

- Pinnacle PCTV video capture PCI card for PC

- Rosco #349 Fischer Fuchsia pink gel sheet

- Special cardboard numbers and shapes

Exhibition room requirements:

- Medium-dim room with no daylight

- Light level in the room should be constant, and not fluctuate significantly [6]


manual input sessions

Documents