h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> I'm wondering also if an entry could *be* media.

That's a whole nother world.... I can certainly see (hear?) entries being audio.

It's getting the balance right between running and walking, though, isn't it?

If you like you can also have a look at my document about the Community Artists:

http://tinyurl.com/CAandPhotographers

If you can't open that please look here:

A84885015

Maybe you will get ideas about what could be possible in the future.

>>> I would argue against merging the AViators with the other two groups, however. What they do is something quite different from the Artists and Photographers, and I think it makes sense to keep it separate.

Could you explain this, KB? Specifically how the activities of AViators quite different from Artists and Photographers?

Personally, I think joining up (in an overall group), the various subgroups who produce media, Art-work, photography, video, audio, music, diagrams/etc., etc., would be benifical... As it is, and with the user-base still being overall quite low on site, I'm guessing a lot of these groups don't necessarily have huge memberships, so in combinding them together, at least to some degree in an overall 'meMegadodo Media Production IInc' group, err or whatever a more sensable name would be, oughta make it quicker if nothing else for turning round 'media', whatever form it might be, as say, an aviator who might not be busy on any actual aviating projects, could comment on a video, picture or art work etc., from those subgroups, and visa versa... Also, I think, a lot of the people in these various groups do cross over into some or all or one of the other groups, so it'd be handy, say, if I or someone was producing some audio narration, or background music, to accompany a video (made by a video person), with some animation (by an artist I guess), and coordinating getting that all stuck together into a single piece of media etc...
The only reason really, I can think, or remember, why we went off site with the aviators, on to the aviator website was that it was the only workable way to do things, if that could be done in house/on the site itself, I can't see we (or at least I), woudl object to that; When we first started, things like just passing big files between each other was tricky and we quickly ended p using our own personal websites (I'd upload a audio clip to my website and give a link to the others, in a google group to it), or we'd ahve to use sharespace (err I think that's what its called), and it got messy trying to keep track of things on the google group, utube, various file sharing thinggies for sharing big files, individual researchers websites etc...

thanks 2legs

Gives me something to think.

WEll, in so far as I'm an average henrys cat (who only knows what he knows), I don't really know anything about all the groups who do the art stuff and pictures for entrys etc... So not really sure how they currently work; I'm guessing some kind of internal to each group, kinda PR thing, a sort of informal people saying 'yes thats fine for that entry' type of thing, to be honest I'm never sure how that bit of things worked for the Aviators, and certainly the aviators seems very quite now for ages, I think after Rich pulled back from it, there wasn't anyone to kind of pull us easily distracted folk together and get us to actually finish anything plus some of the others I think got busy or took Elvis trips of varying durations from teh site etc I could kinda invasage how good aviators could work out to be, but we'd need more people in it for a start I think, and perhaps a clearer direction... or at least someone kinda in charge to use the whip on us and get us to actually finish things... (as an example I've songs from years ago I've still not finished recordign/mixing despite being so* nearly finished, and this year alone I've started probably six dozen new tunes... and finished maybe one or two of them )

I think that convergence of the different media is the natural way to go. It's happening everywhere. Phones that had cameras now have video. Cameras that had video now have HD video. Camcorders are capable of filming underwater now and can even take photographs. Computers are enabling us all to do royalty free music using EJay sample packs.

Photo manipulation lets us turn photos into canvas art and embossed images (why aren't we allowed to manipulate photos on the BBC any way?) and everyone now has at least one file converter on their computer, from basic WAV-mp3 jobs through Audacity clean up software.

I even have a video suite on my computer that is good enough for me to restore an old 1970s basket case of a TV show into a highly watchable mkv that upscales to (at least) UK Gold standard on a 32" HD screen after a bit of enhancement. So yeah, lets put all the media into one section. We're going to be free of BBC restriction. Let's make sure we are all at least talking to each other so we can make this site cutting edge not cut your throat.

No idea why we can't manipulate photos. I only know that we can't.

Presumably so the BBC can avoid "misleading" "photoshopped" photos going out on their site. This one springs to mind: http://michaelwarbux.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/royal-wedding-funny.jpg?w=614 Easier to ban them all than to make editorial decsions on them one at a time.

B

oh god... guess you are right

Yeh... What Radox said...

I think photographers and artists should have one workplace together and not be separated because they basically do the same thing and it avoids questions like 'if I manipulate photos is that arts or photography'. The AViators should have a separate workspace which is connected with the artists and they all should share a forum and a group page that is visible to outsiders (introduction, recruiting...)

Okay, I think I get it. On the one hand digital manipulation offers us an enormous world of artistic expression. On the other hand, it can be used for deception or mockery.

Can we not just adhere to certain code of behavior? (We don't illustrate to deceive, sort of thing.) And possibly label the artwork? (This is a colorized photo. This mosaic was created from 1,000 photos taken by researchers all over Earth. This photo was taken underwater and was not digitally enhanced.)

>> 'If I manipulate photos is that arts or photography' <<

I could just as easily say 'if I draw a series of pictures and turn them into an animated .gif is that art or motion video'? As I said, everything is converging and the boundaries between disciplines are becoming more blurred every day. The artwork on the latest Gundam animé is so close to 'reality' you could be forgiven for thinking they had filmed real actors and posterized it afterwards. All the media disciplines should be housed together to allow us to take advantage of new techniques and tech as it's developed.

well, that's what I wanted to say by asking that question. And that's why I thin Artists and Photographers should share a page.

Hi all

I got a message that - shock horror! - the Aviators were being discussed, so having a short bout of insomnia at the same time I thought I&#39;d pop in and give you my thoughts.

In terms of a &#39;process&#39;, it was always very loose (I am referring to the group in the past tense for reasons that will become apparent). In theory we&#39;d make clips whenever we got inspired, upload them for one another to review and, when everyone was happy with them, upload and link them to the Entries. In reality it&#39;s such a lot of work (and in the case of travel films impossible) to reshoot and edit sections of video that the &#39;review&#39; part was just a case of answering the question &#39;does this add to the Entry?&#39; Looking at the clips we made, all of the EG ones were made by me on my own, as (I believe) were the Post ones made by Bel and Beatrice. For the one audio play we did we had very specific roles and we all knew what we had to do and who to send it to. So a &#39;shared workspace&#39; would be of limited use. I&#39;d question whether it&#39;s even worth the time spent setting anything up to assist with the creative process.

I lost heart in the whole Aviators project because it didn&#39;t seem to get noticed by the community at all and it was never really embraced by the BBC. We (more specifically, &#39;I&#39 made a lot of c**p, but stuff like the Birdwatching in the Gambia clip was more useful than the entry it accompanied. But the chief problem is that it takes a lot of time, a bit of equipment/software/knowhow, and so you&#39;re never going to reach a point where there&#39;s enough AV onsite for it to be any more than an unexpected novelty. I had a new batch of stuff filmed for my Barcelona entries but I decided it wasn&#39;t worth the effort as AV doesn&#39;t work in the new skin. I still think that if it&#39;s promoted in the right way it can pull people in and really add to the entries (and the Beeblecast showed how easy it is for people to become involved without having to have any editing skills) but I&#39;m no longer convinced that many people are too bothered about seeing it on h2g2.

I&#39;d suggest that you just don&#39;t worry about the Aviators until people start actually making AV and asking what to do with it. If you get somebody like I was three or four years ago who&#39;s mad about AV and can really take it forward, don&#39;t constrain them by having a process already in place. Let &#39;em get on with it and just check over their output. If you&#39;re not worried about it being &#39;official&#39; you could just embed any video from the user&#39;s own YouTube account. If there are issues with that you could put Bel&#39;s voiceover clip on the start of anything created and upload it to the new site or add it to the official YouTube account I created. But the group&#39;s output has been so small for the last two years or so that you&#39;re wasting time debating it. There isn&#39;t anyone making AV at the moment. Just because people have the technological capability to make AV doesn&#39;t mean that they&#39;ll actually make it, and even if they do it may not be in a way that works for the site!

One final minor point: the photo accompanying The Hawthorn (A34170932) that I submitted three years ago is digitally manipulated, and the Eds told me at the time that this was perfectly fine.

Nice to see you all

thanks, that's a lot of input

I personally think it *is* worth discussing. And we have the time at the moment as we're all waiting for news.
I can see what you mean, but I think there's nothing lost if we make place to share files within the Artists group. If it isn't too difficult to do.
Embedding youtube videos is of course an option, or maybe just submitting the finished stuff as it would be done now. I don't really like to be dependent on other sites (like youtube). Again just my personal opinion.

Thanks for that link, I am *sure* I was told manipulations are not allowed. Where did I get that from?

>>> I'd suggest that you just don't worry about the Aviators until people start actually making AV and asking what to do with it

Okay, Skankyrich, I'm asking now.

Recently I have been making audio content which is aired on two local radio stations. Sometimes it is related to an entry on h2g2. I'd like an opportunity to work with other researchers with stronger visual arts skills.

So where do I go from here? I rather like Tav's suggestions that there be an easy way to coordinate submitting this content.

I second that Nerd. By the way, I've just been watching a show on NHK World that featured a new lens filter that can be fitted over any existing screen to convert it to 3D - no glasses required. The demo showed it on an iPad and an iPhone. 3D hootoo can't be far away now.

I saw that rule as well Tav, I think it might have been quietly allowed to lapse.