Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of modern art is sold as a story, and for whatever reason the kind of folks who matter think that "did something by hand a thousand times" is a much better story than "wrote a Perl script." Art isn't the only thing that has stories, incidentally. Tomatoes have stories these days. (OK, the kind of tomatoes rich people eat have stories. Only poor people eat tomatoes that have no stories.)
i think products targeted at low income demographics are very much sold with a story. a kind of utilitarian "sensibleness" which facilitates contempt for more expensive products. why would advertisers neglect to exploit human psychology at all socioeconomic levels?
Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
41–50 of 147 posts
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#42Was 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.
Despite what you might think, the majority of the planet has no clue what a shell script is.
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#43Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#44What's the difference between an artist and a Perl programmer? 364 days and 23 hours.
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you just making the blind assumption that he's a programmer?
One year means he could have spent 364 days learning how to program and do all the 1000 uploads on the final day of the year...
Something tells me this project was not about efficiency.
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#46I can understand the video getting messed up, but what happened to the audio? From what I understand re-encoding an mp3 doesn't do much - all the waveforms that were going to be thrown out, were already the first time. On the second pass nothing much changes. Or did he rip the video using speakers and mic, rather than downloading the digital data from youtube? I have a feeling the errors came during the ripping proce…
Sure it does, typically. It’s no different from video in this way: ideally, all of the image features that would get thrown out were thrown out the first time, but the codec isn’t that smart.
Most implementations of lossy compression algorithms don’t have stability under re-encoding as a goal. (A few do – some image editors are smart about passing through unchanged JPEG blocks, for example, and I think mp3wrap will join MP3s cleanly.)
I’m too lazy to look into exactly how he did this, but it’s not impossible that the audio artifacts came from pure MP3^n re-encoding. It’s a case that most compressors ignore.
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#47Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#48I'm surprised it continued to change after detail was lost. Seems like there would be some measurable property of a codec/decode process that could be quantified - the entropy? It would be a desirable property to be 'idem-potent', e.g. after one cycle the result settles.
I think that you meant: 'code/decode.' 'codec' is a abbreviation for 'code/decode.'
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, in addition to the artistic aspect of it, he wanted to educate people about what actually happens to video when it is sent to youtube. This is much more relatable than saying, "I wrote this shell script..." Also, having the log of all 1000 versions on youtube is interesting as well. The other thing about art is that time is usually not a large motivating factor...
There are clear reasons why not everyone is an artist, patience and endurance is are a huge part of it.
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#50I can understand the video getting messed up, but what happened to the audio? From what I understand re-encoding an mp3 doesn't do much - all the waveforms that were going to be thrown out, were already the first time. On the second pass nothing much changes. Or did he rip the video using speakers and mic, rather than downloading the digital data from youtube? I have a feeling the errors came during the ripping proce…
re-encoding an mp3 doesn't do much Sure it does, typically. It’s no different from video in this way: ideally, all of the image features that would get thrown out were thrown out the first time, but the codec isn’t that smart. Most implementations of lossy compression algorithms don’t have stability under re-encoding as a goal. (A few do – some image editors are smart about passing through unchanged JPEG blocks, for…
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, when people point out that scripting this is easy, they're not kidding. We're talking shell one-liner here, forget even hitting perl.
I'm on about iteration 7 as I write this and it's definitely breaking down.