Imagination in demos
category: general [glöplog]
0rel: 1995 called, they want their whining back.
Quote:
GET HIM! HE HAS A TIME MACHINE!BP'08 PC compo was basically only the same *BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM --rotating object-- BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM*
NO DON'T MOVE HE ALSO HAS A TIME BOOMB
c64 compo was basically on the same *BLEEP BLEEP --copperbar-- BLEEP BLEEP* afaik :D
*only
and the amiga compo is always also known as the AMIGAAAAAAA compo (or "best of tv advertising 2000-2005" when TBL have an entry).
Maali: it's RASTERBAR, damnit!
Joghurt: sorry, I meant BP'07
Joghurt: sorry, I meant BP'07
i can't whine because i'm actually not really part of the scene and didn't even know anything about it in the innovative 90ties. think the spirit hasn't gone completely, but people grew older and aren't that motivated to try out new things because computers are just the common work horses of today and nobody gives a shit about them. and there's the mighty game industry killing bedroom producers :\! i think at the beginning it was more about technical demostration, the thing itself was hot and although there was a tech motivation prods had this strange soul (orange!)...
but when i compare newer demos with that snobby processing stuff for instance i still think the scene has much more power than these fartsies trying to make explicitly art with computers. here, most people are real, and dedicated in a completely other way... yeah, i like this place really much! but i have to admit that it's rather dead at the moment, or do i only think so? - but i'm not whining :)
@Knoeki: yes, limitation can be liberating, on the other hand the size limit can also shift the focus to much on technical trickery (i tried to make 4k(s))
what is a imaginative demo/intro exactly? should it tell a story? should it draw imaginary objects/landscapes? when i think 'in demos', there's one thing, which seperates it from all other mind captaring tools. when i want express something through a demo i have TO CODE it down! - so all imaginations in demos are limited by one's ability to code. it's a very different process than making films for instance. i can think about a dark tunnel with humming whistling noises. so i can pick up a camera, go out, and simply capture the real thing. audio/visual realitiy is the limit for thinking 'in film'. so, a film maker has to think about all possible processes in reality (-fx), while a demo maker has to think much more about what computation has to offer. i still think, someone who doesn't know anything about code, can fully understand what makes demos so exciting.
the problem of comparing film and demo is the of virtual reality thing. everybody knows what computers can 'imagine'. but the pretty 3d engines of nextgen shooters for example are just demostrating a really special kind of visual computing... - neither film nor hd game engines should ever constrain the value of a demo! - coding demos today is something subversive. new demos will mostly never be technically better than games again, but they can do things all others can't...
(...)
but when i compare newer demos with that snobby processing stuff for instance i still think the scene has much more power than these fartsies trying to make explicitly art with computers. here, most people are real, and dedicated in a completely other way... yeah, i like this place really much! but i have to admit that it's rather dead at the moment, or do i only think so? - but i'm not whining :)
@Knoeki: yes, limitation can be liberating, on the other hand the size limit can also shift the focus to much on technical trickery (i tried to make 4k(s))
what is a imaginative demo/intro exactly? should it tell a story? should it draw imaginary objects/landscapes? when i think 'in demos', there's one thing, which seperates it from all other mind captaring tools. when i want express something through a demo i have TO CODE it down! - so all imaginations in demos are limited by one's ability to code. it's a very different process than making films for instance. i can think about a dark tunnel with humming whistling noises. so i can pick up a camera, go out, and simply capture the real thing. audio/visual realitiy is the limit for thinking 'in film'. so, a film maker has to think about all possible processes in reality (-fx), while a demo maker has to think much more about what computation has to offer. i still think, someone who doesn't know anything about code, can fully understand what makes demos so exciting.
the problem of comparing film and demo is the of virtual reality thing. everybody knows what computers can 'imagine'. but the pretty 3d engines of nextgen shooters for example are just demostrating a really special kind of visual computing... - neither film nor hd game engines should ever constrain the value of a demo! - coding demos today is something subversive. new demos will mostly never be technically better than games again, but they can do things all others can't...
(...)
these debates are so boring that i've just decided to quit the scene.
0rel: i know plenty of sceners that could use some "design" lessons from that snobby processing stuff. i often witness sceners (especially coders) ending up stuck in mazes of their own little neighbourhoods of opengl tests and sizeoptimizing codeporn. wouldnt hurt to tackle some more general sense of design. the beauty in processing is that since one never quite needed to be a coder to come up with pleasant design aesthetics, it brings out things that normally coders obsessed with their 3d engines and 2d filters wouldnt quite think of, and that can be quite refreshing in this place.
incidently but unrelated to the point: check out the hyphema dvd music made by nny, visual response coded in processing by crmx (both demosceners)
incidently but unrelated to the point: check out the hyphema dvd music made by nny, visual response coded in processing by crmx (both demosceners)
I second ps. Then if/when the computational bottleneck comes out one can switch to more "serious" developement tools. For sure processing is nice to start exploration from 0.
ps, that's nice... thanks.
i don't say processing is bad tool or something... i just don't trust in the culture around it.
Buttler:
would you call things on [url]http://www.generatorx.no/[url] "imaginative"?
i don't say processing is bad tool or something... i just don't trust in the culture around it.
Buttler:
would you call things on [url]http://www.generatorx.no/[url] "imaginative"?