MADA Assessment Presentation 2

19 03 2008

Title : Reproduction Prohibited

Please click on the images below.

I. Research


II. Lecture and Tutorial Reflections


III. Prototype


IV. Papers


V. F2F and Online Coordination



2nd Assessment Prototype

19 03 2008

A. Preliminary Tests


B. Experiment 1


C. Experiment 2


D. Experiment 3 and 4


MADA 2 – Preliminary Tests

19 03 2008

These are the tests we did to test the video loop. As seen on this video, an ordinary frame becomes a hall. If we include the frame of the screen, the effect will be similar.

This second one shows how it would look if there were a viewer. Here, hands are used, but these tests are so we can imagine if they are viewers, how would the experience be.

For the third test, we moved the camera on its side. It created an escher cube effect. Meaning if the audience entered in one direction, it would seem as though they are entering from all. Playing with this with Puredata, altering the direction of the video feed would happen in real-time.

For the fourth, the camera was turned upside down, creating a disconcerting effect. One’s image comes from above. The later part of the video shows the effect of turning the camera, which creates an endless swirl, and the zoom creates abstraction. Altering all these details will change the image completely.

And for the last preliminary test, two imacs were used. This proved that the feedback look between two computers does work and does affect each other in real-time. The particularly interesting aspect was that there was a lag time in the looped images.

I have been thinking that perhaps if we do alter the time, and make it lag even more, more interesting results could come about.

These tests gave me a taste of what the possibilities are with this technique. For MADA 3, I will be testing these further to figure out what particular techniques I will choose for my screen.

MADA 2 – Experiment 2

19 03 2008

With this experiment, we shot with a single camera with a projector.  The light source was the projector itself, creating a feedback loop with both shadow and image.  To be able to create this installation, we would need a very dark space, since light leaks would completely destroy the image.

The result of this experiment was my finding out that one’s light source is of utmost importance to create the feedback and using the projector as the light source of the subject creates amazing results on the image.  Almost like playing with light itself.

Here are screen shots of the experiment:




MADA 2 – Experiment 3 and 4

19 03 2008

For experiment 3, we used 2 adjacent projectors as seen below. Here, the light leaks in the room proved to be a problem. The image and the feedback was not as clear. For the final installation, we need to find either a small space or we need to build a large enclosed space/box if we do use projections.

Because of this, for experiment 4, we used the small room near the studio. We projected them unto two parallell walls which is how our final set up will be.

We will have to mount the projectors unto the ceiling or perhaps create a rear projection for the final setup. Here are some screen shots from experiment 4.

experiment-4-5.png experiment-4-4.pngexperiment-4-1.pngexperiment-4-2.png


After discussing the issue of light and projection space, we also had the idea of testing out using television screens and making them part of the installation as sculptures. This we will be investigating and testing in MADA 3.

MADA 2 – Experiment 1

19 03 2008


Mosh and I have developed the work into 2 interlocked video feedback loops. Two cameras will be pointed at each other’s screens creating feedback and anything that comes in between the camera and the screen becomes a part of the work.

This is where the idea of having the viewer as subject comes in. Here is a video of our first installation:

This basically illustrates how the installation is going to work. Looking at the test, I realized that the angle of the camera and the zoom plays a big role in its effect on the image. We experimented with both fast and slow movement, and the effect is like ripples going into the abstract.

During this test, we also found that using two different techniques on either side of the screen is going to work. We tried using the most basic set up of having one screen in color and the other in black and white and what we found was that the screen in color produces a colored figure with a black and white background. Here are screen shots from the video found above.


IMAC 1 (top) IMAC 2 (below)

We also tested the set-up with an MA Printmaker, Preeti Sood. Here are some of the screen shots of her experience.

After the experiment she suggested for us to put change the techniques every five minutes or so, to give viewers a broad range of experiences.

What I found particularly interesting was how she preferred when the screens were different. Like when one was black and white, and one was in color. She also liked the technique wherein one was abstract (with a distortion filter) and when the other was ‘normal.’ The screenshots are below:


IMAC 1 (top) IMAC2 (bottom)

Another particularly interesting reaction from Preeti was the fact that she found it disconcerting that she could not see her own image upon looking at the screen from certain distances. This echoes the painting of Magritte, Reproduction Prohibited, when the man looks at himself and sees his back. This idea of consciousness is what we aim to convey.

2nd Assessment Papers

18 03 2008

A. Interim Report



B. Contextual Essay



C. PGPD Essay



%d bloggers like this: