What's the difference between an artist and a Perl programmer? 364 days and 23 hours.
And the Perl programmer has disposable income and a girlfriend.
Wait, in what part of the world is a programmer more likely than an artist to have a girlfriend?
Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
121–130 of 147 posts
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#122Wow. It's like a lesson in wavelet transforms for the layman. But without ever using the word 'wavelet.' Cool.
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#123Next time the topic of bandwidth caps comes up remember this guy. I don't want to knock his project but I think it illustrates a point that unlimited bandwidth and access to services tends to make people less concerned about using bandwidth efficiently.
He used hundreds of hours of his time. What makes you think he would've refrained from paying a few extra dollars for the bandwidth?
Nothing. I'm sure he probably would have if forced to. I know from my own (bad) habits I often waste bandwidth just because I can. Common example of this is having a file downloaded to my laptop sitting in my backpack but instead of taking it out, waking it up, mounting the share and copying it I'll just re-download it from the Internet instead because I'm lazy and there's really no downside for me.
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#124It's really interesting to note the differences in our perceptions of the final audio versus the final video.
The video, while severely degraded, is obviously still a human figure moving around.
The audio, on the other hand, is mangled completely beyond recognition.
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#125The "Angry Video Game Nerd" guy did a similar thing with two VHS tapes, copying a video back and forth over and over: http://www.cinemassacre.com/2010/05/26/vhs-generation-loss/
As was alluded to in the comments there, most of the loss was probably due to stretching and demagnetization of the two tapes. Generational loss would most likely consist of horizontal scanline offset (due to time base skew) and horizontal blurring, though eventually the time may get off far enough to cause some of the other artifacts seen in that video.
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#126Was the aspect of using YouTube's servers so critical to the artistic quality of this project that he couldn't just substitute a shell script that encodes the video 1000 times over? Would've taken a heck of a lot less time than the year he spent.
The benefit is that all 1000 videos are available on YouTube - you can check out the quality at any step along the way.
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but couldn't he have written a shell script that did the uploading and dowloading to Youtube? How would we know if he did?
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think some people are rather contemptuous of individuals who brought art down to the standard of "simply a bunch of paints splattered on a canvas". So much so that it become indistinguishable from a mess. I could even imagine a bunch of every-day normal freelance laborers cleaning an art gallery and accidentally throwing thousand of dollars worth of art piece simply because it is indistinguishable from a mess. Art…
When you don't understand a piece of art, do you say that you don't understand that the artist was trying to say... or do you say "I look down upon the artist." I'm guessing you're a reasonable person and just say 'I don't get it, and don't care.' As opposed to the utterly unreasonable opinion espoused by the OP, in which instead of not caring, he looks down upon the artist.
[deleted]
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think some people are rather contemptuous of individuals who brought art down to the standard of "simply a bunch of paints splattered on a canvas". So much so that it become indistinguishable from a mess. I could even imagine a bunch of every-day normal freelance laborers cleaning an art gallery and accidentally throwing thousand of dollars worth of art piece simply because it is indistinguishable from a mess. Art…
When you don't understand a piece of art, do you say that you don't understand that the artist was trying to say... or do you say "I look down upon the artist." I'm guessing you're a reasonable person and just say 'I don't get it, and don't care.' As opposed to the utterly unreasonable opinion espoused by the OP, in which instead of not caring, he looks down upon the artist.
I can understand why someone is looking down on modern art.
Classic art doesn't need that much rationalization to be meaningful. I think that art isn't first of all a product of thought, but an expression of feelings. So the access to the art is by looking and feeling.
Modern art isn't per se meaningful, you can't understand it by just looking at it. There has to be a rational superstructure which creates the meaning for it. And some artist push too hard the creation of this superstructure. So that the explanations seem arbitrary.
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why hypothesize? Create a directory. Copy your favorite MP3 into it as both "source.mp3" and "orig.mp3". (orig.mp3 is just for convenient comparison later.) Then: for i in {1..100}; do lame source.mp3 dest.mp3; mv -f dest.mp3 source.mp3; done Then listen to the resulting "source.mp3" at the end. Send whatever params to lame you want in that command line, though the defaults strike me as pretty good for this test. BTW…
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/86yiq/hear_what_... A reddit post on that exact experiment. Sadly, the file is down. As a side note, I had a post here that I deleted about this, worded something like "Yes, they used that song". I went back to read the topic, and found I'd made nearly the exact same comment on the story over a year ago. I guess I'm a tad predictable. Edit: Aha! A megaupload link was posted…
[deleted]
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why hypothesize? Create a directory. Copy your favorite MP3 into it as both "source.mp3" and "orig.mp3". (orig.mp3 is just for convenient comparison later.) Then: for i in {1..100}; do lame source.mp3 dest.mp3; mv -f dest.mp3 source.mp3; done Then listen to the resulting "source.mp3" at the end. Send whatever params to lame you want in that command line, though the defaults strike me as pretty good for this test. BTW…
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/86yiq/hear_what_... A reddit post on that exact experiment. Sadly, the file is down. As a side note, I had a post here that I deleted about this, worded something like "Yes, they used that song". I went back to read the topic, and found I'd made nearly the exact same comment on the story over a year ago. I guess I'm a tad predictable. Edit: Aha! A megaupload link was posted…
That file only increased my questions on what happened to the audio on this vid. The song is quite recognizable. So why did the youtube one turn into garble?
And the jpg one is just incorrect. He kept increasing the compression ratio, which proves nothing at all. For a more accurate view see http://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/355-How-I-M... which shows that after a certain point the jpeg stops changing. (Which is what I expected the mp3 to do, but I guess it doesn't.)