Comments on: Run Lola, Ruuuuuuuuuuuuun! http://www.shiffman.net/2007/03/27/runlolarun/ Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:08:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: allthisweek.com » Blog Archive » Run Lola, Ruuuuuuuuuuuuun! at daniel shiffman http://www.shiffman.net/2007/03/27/runlolarun/#comment-87006 allthisweek.com » Blog Archive » Run Lola, Ruuuuuuuuuuuuun! at daniel shiffman Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:39:59 +0000 http://www.shiffman.net/2007/03/27/run-lola-ruuuuuuuuuuuuun/#comment-87006 [...] Link [...] [...] Link [...]

]]> By: martin http://www.shiffman.net/2007/03/27/runlolarun/#comment-23328 martin Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:59:30 +0000 http://www.shiffman.net/2007/03/27/run-lola-ruuuuuuuuuuuuun/#comment-23328 Just to note another static film-as-one-frame albeit in C and as a commandline application: jekyll: http://1010.co.uk/2006.02.11.html#2 ap/xxxxx (used in the first instance to compare eight alternately censored versions of Walerian Borowczyk's Docteur Jekyll et les Femmes) Just to note another static film-as-one-frame albeit in C and as a commandline application:

jekyll: http://1010.co.uk/2006.02.11.html#2

ap/xxxxx

(used in the first instance to compare eight alternately censored versions of Walerian Borowczyk’s Docteur Jekyll et les Femmes)

]]> By: New Media Initiatives Blog » WebWalker 1.4 http://www.shiffman.net/2007/03/27/runlolarun/#comment-23292 New Media Initiatives Blog » WebWalker 1.4 Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:25:25 +0000 http://www.shiffman.net/2007/03/27/run-lola-ruuuuuuuuuuuuun/#comment-23292 [...] [...] [...] [...]

]]> By: Peter Kirn http://www.shiffman.net/2007/03/27/runlolarun/#comment-22694 Peter Kirn Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:55:56 +0000 http://www.shiffman.net/2007/03/27/run-lola-ruuuuuuuuuuuuun/#comment-22694 I can't help with the technical difficulties, but I will say that, had you made this unrecognizable, under previous interpretations of the law this *wouldn't* necessarily be a violation. There had been some common-sense protections for derivative works based on the size of the infringement and recognizability of the source that have since been erased by an increasingly liberal interpretation of the courts. I can certainly say that with audio sampling. But yes, generally, not a good legal path to tread. Of course, you can always feed a public domain movie into this. Some great monster flicks come to mind. ;) I can’t help with the technical difficulties, but I will say that, had you made this unrecognizable, under previous interpretations of the law this *wouldn’t* necessarily be a violation. There had been some common-sense protections for derivative works based on the size of the infringement and recognizability of the source that have since been erased by an increasingly liberal interpretation of the courts. I can certainly say that with audio sampling. But yes, generally, not a good legal path to tread.

Of course, you can always feed a public domain movie into this. Some great monster flicks come to mind. ;)

]]> By: Daniel http://www.shiffman.net/2007/03/27/runlolarun/#comment-22199 Daniel Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:29:55 +0000 http://www.shiffman.net/2007/03/27/run-lola-ruuuuuuuuuuuuun/#comment-22199 Well, my little post here is hiding a deep, dark secret that I am getting some memory errors and crashing after running for 5 or 10 minutes. And this is even with running the app on 3 Mac Pros with 8gb of RAM each. However, I do not load all of the frames of the movie into RAM, I simply hold onto the ones that I need by grabbing the \"current\" frame of the movie and shifting everything around. The six displays show 3,264 frames at a time. At 24 fps, this is a little over 2 minutes of the movie at once. So I just need, say, 200 or so more screens to show all 130,000 frames of the move. I suppose if I made the cells 30x16 I would only need around 45 screens. And, 15x8, just 15 screens. There we go! Well, my little post here is hiding a deep, dark secret that I am getting some memory errors and crashing after running for 5 or 10 minutes. And this is even with running the app on 3 Mac Pros with 8gb of RAM each. However, I do not load all of the frames of the movie into RAM, I simply hold onto the ones that I need by grabbing the \”current\” frame of the movie and shifting everything around. The six displays show 3,264 frames at a time. At 24 fps, this is a little over 2 minutes of the movie at once. So I just need, say, 200 or so more screens to show all 130,000 frames of the move. I suppose if I made the cells 30×16 I would only need around 45 screens. And, 15×8, just 15 screens. There we go!

]]> By: scott fitz http://www.shiffman.net/2007/03/27/runlolarun/#comment-22176 scott fitz Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:20:44 +0000 http://www.shiffman.net/2007/03/27/run-lola-ruuuuuuuuuuuuun/#comment-22176 That's super hot Dan. I always run out of memory whenever I play around with that sort of time-slicing, because I try and load an entire movie into ram before playing it back. That way, I can pull each frame on the fly. Do you have the whole movie in memory at 60 x 43? That’s super hot Dan. I always run out of memory whenever I play around with that sort of time-slicing, because I try and load an entire movie into ram before playing it back. That way, I can pull each frame on the fly. Do you have the whole movie in memory at 60 x 43?

]]>