How One Photographer Is Hacking the Concept of Time 124
An anonymous reader writes "Hungarian photographer Adam Magyar doesn't work like most artists. He takes the world's most sophisticated photographic equipment, then hacks it with software he writes himself — all in order to twist our perception of time inside out. In this latest story from the digital publisher MATTER, Joshua Hammer discovers how Magyar's unique combination of technology and art challenges the way we understand the world. At one point, Magyar realized he needed a 'slit-scan' camera, 'the type used to determine photo finishes at racetracks and at Olympic sporting events by capturing a time sequence in one image. Such cameras were rare and cost many thousands of dollars, so Magyar set out to build one himself. He joined a medium-format camera lens to another sensor and wrote his own software for the new device. Total cost: $50. He inverted the traditional scanning method, where the sensor moves across a stationary object. This time, the sensor would remain still while the scanned objects were in motion, being photographed one consecutive pixel-wide strip at a time. (This is the basic principle of the photo-finish camera.) Magyar mounted the device on a tripod in a busy Shanghai neighborhood and scanned pedestrians as they passed in front of the sensor. He then digitally combined over 100,000 sequential strips into high-resolution photographs.' There are pictures and videos interspersed throughout the article."
$50...if your time is worth nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
>> wrote his own software for the new device. Total cost: $50.
Sure, if the time to write the software was worth nothing.
Thought this was some poseur tech "artist" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as it doesn't take away from another activity, then the cost of time is nothing. If this were not the case, then it would never be cheaper to cook at home rather than go to a restaurant.
Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, if the time to write the software was worth nothing.
Of course, if he enjoyed doing it or got some sense of satisfaction, hell it's cheaper than a movie. Total cost could have been less than $0.
Re:There's an app for that. (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect he is getting much higher resolution images out of his rig. According to TFA his prints are 8 feet wide. You can scale up an iPhone image that high, but you will see a difference.
But still, many roads lead to Rome...
huh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not so much "Hacking the Concept of Time" as "Hacking camera software to change how it takes pictures"
Interesting concept, terrible website presentation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's an app for that. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's an free iPhone app [funnerlabs.com] to simulate a slit-scan camera. It doesn't take a "$50,000 camera".
Sure, but the actual smartphone camera cannot really compare with a high-end digital SLR or $16,000 Optronis video camera that can capture up to 100,000 frames per second?
Re:huh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me guess, you either didn't read the article, or didn't understand it:
He's not taking a single exposure. He's taking a very large amount of small slices over a span of time, and stitching them together into a single image.
He hasn't so much taken a 'snapshot in time' like a traditional camera, he's made images out of snapshots which occurred across time.
Which means he's taking objects going by at a pretty good clip, and combining a whole lot of them into something which looks like a single astounding image.
Some of his images have a time lapse quality to them, because they show things which are both in motion and still, over a time sequence:
If you read the article, you'll find he's done much much more than "Hacking camera software to change how it takes pictures" -- the resulting images look like a still frame, but are composited from a time lapse, and are MUCH more sophisticated than you seem to realize.
Why do people on Slashdot persist in dismissing things they don't really understand? What he's done is taken what look like still images, but are in fact a cross section in time.
That you think all he's done is to hack camera software means you don't have the barest idea of what it is he's actually done.
Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, The is now an increase the market for his images, because I have seen them, and want one. Whether I can afford one or not, is besides the point. And having seen his 12 second clip, the thing that struck me the most was how three dimensional it was, and I could easily imagine adapting the technique to normal cinematography sequences or even real (improved) 3D sequencing.
This value you do not perceive doesn't mean that there is "ZERO market" for his images, it simply means you do not see the value where others do. And to be honest, that is your view, and that is okay. I just don't share that view.
Re:$50...if your time is worth nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly - If you give it away for nothing and people want it, it has value so essentially you are paying them. If you feel good doing it, you're essentially being paid. There's just no hard currency involved.
Re:huh... (Score:5, Insightful)
It certainly does present time in an unfamiliar way visually. Use your imagination a little and it becomes a lot cooler.
Re:There's an app for that. (Score:4, Insightful)
How tall are his prints, though? The only thing that the resolution of the camera contributes to is the height. The width of his prints is determined by the number of time-slices that he assembles together into a single image.
He could make a 16 foot wide print by recording for twice as long.