Smoke, fog or haze machines have long been used to maximize the effect of lighting effects, as most modern lighting effects rely on beams of light moving around. This effect is hugely enriched when the light hits the smoke or haze particles, making the beams more pronounced and visible.
There are generally 2 common ways in which fog effects are produced in stage productions. The first is to use equipment that utilizes the properties of “dry ice”, however the more practical and popular option is to use a fog machine that uses a specially manufactured water based fog fluid or fog “juice”, these are often referred to as smoke machines as the effect often looks like smoke however these machines do create liquid droplets as in fog not smoke which is made up of dry particles, consequently I will refer to them as fog machines.
Dry Ice:
One method of producing thick fog is through the use of “dry ice”, generally available from ice manufacturing plants and is relatively inexpensive to purchase. Dry ice however is difficult and dangerous to handle, transport and store and great care is required to avoid contact with unprotected human skin. This means that protective clothing, heavy duty gloves, must be worn at all times when handling it. Dry ice can also only be used in well-ventilated areas, and can pose problems whilst transporting it. Although, the effect can be quite interesting, commonly seen in old horror films, dry ice has many disadvantages that mean the fog machines will be appropriate for my project.
Fog Machines:
The basic operation of a fog machine is to heat the fog fluid or juice in order to create fog. Fog machines use a fluid sometimes referred to as fog juice that is pumped into a thermostatically temperature controlled heat exchanger that vaporizes the fluid into thick clouds of fog. The fluid is a mixture of pharmaceutical grade propylene glycol, triethylene glycol and distilled water that is mixed by the manufacturer, often specifically for their own machines.
All fog machines require a warm up period when switched on generally around five minutes. This can act as a problem, especially amongst budget products. As although they will generate fog for a short period they will then need to pause to reheat before they can make fog again. This is generally a continual automatic cycle during their operation. More expensive models, however, can generate fog continuously without the reheat cycle in between, meaning that there aren’t any gaps in fog distribution. The wattage (power rating) of the heating element in the machine can be a good indicator of how well a fog machine will perform. Most budget fog machines generally range from 400 to 1300 watts. With a higher wattage rating the fog machine can not only produce more fog but equally as important it will not have to go into a re-heat cycle as often because the heat exchanger has more power available.
Most fog machines come with a remote control either in the form of a simple single push button on the budget machines or a remote timer controller in the more expensive machines. From this the volume of fog can be controlled as well as operation duration timer and rest duration timer, allowing the user to set intervals at which the fog will be distributed, volume, thickness or the duration.
Fog machines make some noise while then they operate, usually produced by the pump as fluid is pumped from the reservoir to the heat exchanger. The fog expanding out of the nozzle can also produce enough sound, which is something that should be considered whilst choosing a machine.
Haze Machines:
Although the most common machines on the market are fog, there is also another option that has been popular in the theater for several years, haze machines. Haze machines combine a low output auto cycling fog machine with a small chamber containing a fan, which can produces much the same effect as a fog machine, but is far less obtrusive.
The major difference between a fog machine and a true haze machine is that a fog machine vaporizes the fluid with heat and a haze machine does it in a compression chamber without heat. In a fog machine, the fluid is pumped through the heater core where it vaporizes and is forced out the front in it's vaporized state. When the temperature of the heater core drops below the temperature necessary to vaporize the fluid, the pump is disabled so you can't shoot out hot liquid on the crowd. A fog machine also creates low-lying fog that usually doesn't go above your knees
In a haze machine, however, the fluid is pumped into an enclosed chamber where an air compressor (similar to what you inflate your tires with) blasts the fluid into a vapor, which is then blown out by a small fan in the form of a vapor. A haze machine never shoots out a thick cloud like a fogger can. In fact, you rarely see haze in the air. A hazer generally uses mineral oil and creates a fine haze that hangs for long periods of time in the air. It is a cold process as there is no heat involved. This sounds like it would be more suitable to use with the PIR detectors, as the fog produced by a fog machine will be warm and may set the PIR detectors off. There is a worry that a haze machine will produce cold vapor that will also set the PIR off, but as it is finer it is more likely to work. I would also prefer an effect that can relatively unnoticed, as I want the columns to appear solid and still, something that will be ruined by clouds of swirling fog.
Health and Safety:
There is currently no published research that suggests that there are any side effects on people’s lungs from fog produced by Glycol/water based fluids. It is generally accepted that sometimes the fog produced can cause problems for asthmatics, however nothing has been proven conclusively and due to the nature as asthma it is possible that symptoms could be psychosomatic. I will be sure, however, to tell the users before they enter the space that a haze machine will be used. I imagine that the users will only be in the installation space for a maximum of five minutes, which will further reduce the possibility of irritation.
The particles produced by fog machines will set off ionization type smoke detectors. Generally this is only a problem with ionization or optical type detectors as they sense the fog particles as smoke. I will be sure to check the studio space before using a haze machine, but I am confidant that there will not be a problem.
I have researched into different machines and have arrived at a few possibilities for machines. I will, however, be hiring the machine so it will depend on what haze machines the hire company have.
Possible Machines:
Smoke machine - High End F100 or one of the Antari line
Hazer - DF50, Star Hazer or Antari HZ400
Saturday 28 March 2009
Monday 23 March 2009
Siegrun Appelt: 8.388.608
The basic structure of the installation is formed by 23 spotlights attached at different heights to the 23 façade supports in front of the EnBW building in Karlsruhe. Like a computergenerated drama, the lights are switched on and off in variable combinations according to the "Monte Carlo" technique, which uses a randomisation principle which is still calculable. The switching sequence of the 23 lights can be combined 223 times. The spotlights, which are directed downwards, also form a curtain of light. In wet weather or snow, this curtain is transformed into lighting cones by raindrops and snowflakes.
This installation is extremely appropriate, considering spotlights, and how they both adapt and react to the environment that they are positioned in. I particularly like the way in which the lights turn on and off forming an apparently random sequence. Although this is not an interactive action it is something that I would like to consider introducing into my work, as I feel that it would add another aspect to my work.
It be enthralling to be stood within a spotlight, and then suddenly it would turn off and another light would appear in a different part of the space. I think that this would be enriched by the nature of the lights. i.e. the brightness and also the interactive aspect. The user would be able to make the connection between the lights turning on and off and their movements. If this was not expected it would be extremely effective. There would be a danger however, that the switching between lights could turn into a light show, that would be more familiar at a concert. This is something that I am going to consider more thoroughly and more than likely will appear in the piece in some form.
This installation is extremely appropriate, considering spotlights, and how they both adapt and react to the environment that they are positioned in. I particularly like the way in which the lights turn on and off forming an apparently random sequence. Although this is not an interactive action it is something that I would like to consider introducing into my work, as I feel that it would add another aspect to my work.
It be enthralling to be stood within a spotlight, and then suddenly it would turn off and another light would appear in a different part of the space. I think that this would be enriched by the nature of the lights. i.e. the brightness and also the interactive aspect. The user would be able to make the connection between the lights turning on and off and their movements. If this was not expected it would be extremely effective. There would be a danger however, that the switching between lights could turn into a light show, that would be more familiar at a concert. This is something that I am going to consider more thoroughly and more than likely will appear in the piece in some form.
Saturday 21 March 2009
Interaction
Throughout my university life I have become fascinated with the idea of interactivity and how the communication between human and machine can evolve. This has been a core idea with the work that I have produced since starting the course. I have always tried to find other methods of computer control than simple using a standard mouse and keyboard, instead using another part of the anatomy. This is an ideology that remains apparent within this work, and in fact acts as a core feature within the installation. Throughout the research stages of this project it has been interesting to see similar works, some of which also aim to illustrate light in a different way. During this process however I have not seen any interactive pieces, that allow the user to directly affect the light through an automated process, i.e. triggering a response from a machine, without somebody else having to control the machine. This is something that I feel I have addressed, and tried to fulfill with ‘Illuminate’.
One consideration that I have contemplated during the production process of the project (recorded in the supporting blog) is an interesting query that interactivity often raises; whether the user can becomes a co-author to the art. This thought was considered whilst deliberating over the role that the user will have throughout the installation and what level of control that they be granted. The user will have the freedom to move freely around the structure effecting how the light behaves with their movements, but does this really make them a co-author. Following some further thought I realised that the users role is not one of a co-author, but more of a performer. The user can control how the light behaves during the installation, but these behavior patterns have already been defined. The user simple has the control to dictate which route to take through the patterns. These ideas are supporting by the views of Lev Manovich, who comments,
“I always wonder how people (viewers) are exited about this new way of manipulation on them. It seems that manipulation is the only form of communication they know and can appreciate. They are happily following very few options given to them by artists: press left or right button, jump or sit. ”
Although I do not necessarily solely agree, as I myself enjoy using new methods of interaction within the media, I can understand why it could be perceived as manipulation.
For this reason I have tried to allow the user as much freedom as possible within the installation, but again this is controlled by my rules, and prerequisites. This is something that I am not sure could have been avoided considering the nature of this work, but is something I would like to consider further in the future.
The Myth of Interactivity- Lev Manovich “The Language of New Media”
Since starting the course I have become fascinated with the idea of interactivity and how the ideas can be developed to add complexity to my work. I have, however, noticed that the term is often used extremely loosely and can imply several different meanings. In order to correctly apply the term to my work I decided to research it further, starting with Len Manovich’s exploration of the term in “The Language of New Media”.
Used in relation to computer-based media, the concept of interactivity is a tautology.
In order to consider interactivity as a concept in itself Manovich also considers a number of other concepts including menu-based interactivity, salability, simulation, image- interface, and image-instrument, all of which allow him to consider different kinds of interactive structures and operations.
As Manovich highlights all classical art already possessed interactive aspects, manipulating the viewer’s attention to focus on different parts of the art, whether it was theater, cinema or even painting. Modern art and other media took this technique, and pushed it further, increasing the cognitive and physics demands. Early modern media, such as film montage from the 1920’s, forced audiences to construct mental gaps between unrelated images.
New representational style of semi- abstraction which, along with photography, became the “international style” of modern visual culture, required the viewer to reconstruct the represented objects from the bare minimum -- a contour, few patches of color, shadows cast by the objects not represented directly.
New forms of art such as happenings, performance and installation meant that art became participational, meaning that the viewer participated in the art. It was this movement in the 1960’s that some new media theorists believe paved the way for interactive computer installations that first appeared in the 1980s.
The concept “interactive media” often brings forth a literal interpretation of physical interaction between a user and a media object (pressing a button, choosing a link, moving the body). Although in many cases this may be what appears to happen it negates the idea of psychological interaction. The psychological processes of filling-in, hypothesis forming, recall and identification, which are required for us to comprehend any text or image at all, are mistakenly identified with an objectively existing structure of interactive links. This mistake is not new; on the contrary, it is a structural feature of history of modern media.
One consideration that I have contemplated during the production process of the project (recorded in the supporting blog) is an interesting query that interactivity often raises; whether the user can becomes a co-author to the art. This thought was considered whilst deliberating over the role that the user will have throughout the installation and what level of control that they be granted. The user will have the freedom to move freely around the structure effecting how the light behaves with their movements, but does this really make them a co-author. Following some further thought I realised that the users role is not one of a co-author, but more of a performer. The user can control how the light behaves during the installation, but these behavior patterns have already been defined. The user simple has the control to dictate which route to take through the patterns. These ideas are supporting by the views of Lev Manovich, who comments,
“I always wonder how people (viewers) are exited about this new way of manipulation on them. It seems that manipulation is the only form of communication they know and can appreciate. They are happily following very few options given to them by artists: press left or right button, jump or sit. ”
Although I do not necessarily solely agree, as I myself enjoy using new methods of interaction within the media, I can understand why it could be perceived as manipulation.
For this reason I have tried to allow the user as much freedom as possible within the installation, but again this is controlled by my rules, and prerequisites. This is something that I am not sure could have been avoided considering the nature of this work, but is something I would like to consider further in the future.
The Myth of Interactivity- Lev Manovich “The Language of New Media”
Since starting the course I have become fascinated with the idea of interactivity and how the ideas can be developed to add complexity to my work. I have, however, noticed that the term is often used extremely loosely and can imply several different meanings. In order to correctly apply the term to my work I decided to research it further, starting with Len Manovich’s exploration of the term in “The Language of New Media”.
Used in relation to computer-based media, the concept of interactivity is a tautology.
In order to consider interactivity as a concept in itself Manovich also considers a number of other concepts including menu-based interactivity, salability, simulation, image- interface, and image-instrument, all of which allow him to consider different kinds of interactive structures and operations.
As Manovich highlights all classical art already possessed interactive aspects, manipulating the viewer’s attention to focus on different parts of the art, whether it was theater, cinema or even painting. Modern art and other media took this technique, and pushed it further, increasing the cognitive and physics demands. Early modern media, such as film montage from the 1920’s, forced audiences to construct mental gaps between unrelated images.
New representational style of semi- abstraction which, along with photography, became the “international style” of modern visual culture, required the viewer to reconstruct the represented objects from the bare minimum -- a contour, few patches of color, shadows cast by the objects not represented directly.
New forms of art such as happenings, performance and installation meant that art became participational, meaning that the viewer participated in the art. It was this movement in the 1960’s that some new media theorists believe paved the way for interactive computer installations that first appeared in the 1980s.
The concept “interactive media” often brings forth a literal interpretation of physical interaction between a user and a media object (pressing a button, choosing a link, moving the body). Although in many cases this may be what appears to happen it negates the idea of psychological interaction. The psychological processes of filling-in, hypothesis forming, recall and identification, which are required for us to comprehend any text or image at all, are mistakenly identified with an objectively existing structure of interactive links. This mistake is not new; on the contrary, it is a structural feature of history of modern media.
Friday 20 March 2009
Spotlights
Spotlights
Although the main idea behind the form of the light revolves around columns, it is highly likely that users will consider the columns to be spotlights, due to the nature of the lights, after all the lights that I plan to use are spotlights used in theatre and other stage performances. This is a problem that I need to consider, as I don’t want the lights to appear like they have just been taken from a pop concert. Although this problem will be addressed later I also need to consider the meanings that are attached to spotlights in the own right, including ideas that stretch from, alien space ships and war search lights, to rock concerts and sun beams.
I have decided to first look at the spotlight from a chronological vantage, allowing any analysis to be well grounded and informed. Consequently the following section will read as a brief history of spotlights. A great source of information considering this came from …. Chapter on the ‘History of the Spotlight’ in Light Art from Artificial Light.
The ideas outlined here mainly focus on the use of spotlights from the war period, where light was used as a weapon to blind the enemy, meaning that they couldn't seen the attackers, rendering them easier to kill.
As well as being used in war planes, and on the ground, another common connotation is alien spaceships. This idea has been born through several big profile hollywood films, and supported by claims of sightings, where large beams of light appear from the base of the ship, as either a weapon or a method of 'beaming' up something.
Although the main idea behind the form of the light revolves around columns, it is highly likely that users will consider the columns to be spotlights, due to the nature of the lights, after all the lights that I plan to use are spotlights used in theatre and other stage performances. This is a problem that I need to consider, as I don’t want the lights to appear like they have just been taken from a pop concert. Although this problem will be addressed later I also need to consider the meanings that are attached to spotlights in the own right, including ideas that stretch from, alien space ships and war search lights, to rock concerts and sun beams.
I have decided to first look at the spotlight from a chronological vantage, allowing any analysis to be well grounded and informed. Consequently the following section will read as a brief history of spotlights. A great source of information considering this came from …. Chapter on the ‘History of the Spotlight’ in Light Art from Artificial Light.
The ideas outlined here mainly focus on the use of spotlights from the war period, where light was used as a weapon to blind the enemy, meaning that they couldn't seen the attackers, rendering them easier to kill.
As well as being used in war planes, and on the ground, another common connotation is alien spaceships. This idea has been born through several big profile hollywood films, and supported by claims of sightings, where large beams of light appear from the base of the ship, as either a weapon or a method of 'beaming' up something.
Thursday 19 March 2009
Cylindrical Columns
It has become apparent that it may not be possible to produce a square column of light. Although I have tried several different solutions and have spoken to several experts within the field it appears that there may not be a method of producing a perfectly square light. There are other possible solutions that could potentially produce a square light, including reconstructing a light, with square edges etc. However, this would prove to be extremely difficult, and require a large amount of knowledge surrounding lights.
As time is against me I have regrettably decided to revert to cylindrical columns. It is disappointing to have to move away from the original idea, but it has proven extremely time consuming and difficult to find an adequate solution. Columns have traditionally been cylindrical for thousands of years, so this decision will also allow me to continue with tradition, which may reinforce the idea that the lights are in column or pillar form.
As well as hardware solutions I have considered projecting the light into a corner of a room, similarly to James Turrell’s work (discussed earlier in the blog), and lighting a structure (made from fabric etc). Although these would probably be able to produce a square light, I had planned to produce something that was freestanding, which is something that I would like to still be apparent. After all it will be this movement around the columns that will trigger the sensors, and consequently the interactive aspect of the project.
This is a disappointing change in direction as square lines would have been wonderful to see, but it is also an exciting change as it means that I can press on with the production of the piece. Following research I have found a viable method of producing a defined cylindrical column, follow spots.
As time is against me I have regrettably decided to revert to cylindrical columns. It is disappointing to have to move away from the original idea, but it has proven extremely time consuming and difficult to find an adequate solution. Columns have traditionally been cylindrical for thousands of years, so this decision will also allow me to continue with tradition, which may reinforce the idea that the lights are in column or pillar form.
As well as hardware solutions I have considered projecting the light into a corner of a room, similarly to James Turrell’s work (discussed earlier in the blog), and lighting a structure (made from fabric etc). Although these would probably be able to produce a square light, I had planned to produce something that was freestanding, which is something that I would like to still be apparent. After all it will be this movement around the columns that will trigger the sensors, and consequently the interactive aspect of the project.
This is a disappointing change in direction as square lines would have been wonderful to see, but it is also an exciting change as it means that I can press on with the production of the piece. Following research I have found a viable method of producing a defined cylindrical column, follow spots.
Wednesday 18 March 2009
Stage Lights
So far I have struggled to find a light source that will produce a collimated beam of light, let alone a square beam of collimated light. I have decided that my next step is to consider stage lights, commonly seen at concerts or the theater. This was an option that I had considered during the starting period of the project, but moved away from in favour of projector, both digital and analogue (overhead). As time is not on my side at this point I think that the best option would be for me to research into lighting companies located in London that I can then go and talk to regarding my problem. I think this will be far more effective then simply blind searching the internet, as although I know what the desired result is, there will be lots of lights that I will not be familiar with, and consequently it will be far more time effective to go straight to professionals within the field. In honesty this is something that I should have done much sooner, instead of focusing on the research behind the project.
As you can imagine there are several stage lighting companies located in London, all of which had a large amount of lights available. I decided to phone around to see who would be willing to allow me to come into the shop/business and test some lights out. Some of the firms were more reluctant than others due to light deterioration and some simply didn’t have a possible solution. Many firms suggested that laser lights would be the best option as laser light travels in straight lines, but I was still under the impression that the light would spread once leaving the source. The other option, that was repeatedly mentioned, was a follow or profile spotlight, often used to highlight a single person whilst on stage.
I eventually found a couple of firms that were willing to let me come in and try out different options in the shop. The first of which, called Clubtek, was located in Beckenham, which although was relatively south of London, was still worth the journey. During the visit I was able to try moving-head lights, profile spots, and follow spots.
Moving head lights:
A moving head is a versatile and multi-function light that was designed to replace multiple conventional, non-moving lights. The main advantage of moving heads is the versatility that they offer, all of which can be controlled via computer programming. The effects can be pre-programmed and played back using only simple commands, changing between effects rapidly.
Although the beam that was produced was very bright and crisp, the beam was too angled, which wouldn't work for the installation as I want the beams to appear collimated.
Follow spot:
A followspow is a powerful stage light, which can be controlled manually to follow actors around the stage. They normally have a several features that can be changed manually, including a focusable lens, an adjustable iris and a manual device that can effect the intensity of the beam.
The beam that was produced by the follow spot was more collimated than the moving head, and was equally bright. The beam was not as sharp as the moving head, but presented a viable option for the project.
Profile spot:
A profile spot works similarly to a follow spot, but the beam is not as powerful or pronounced. It can be used for the same uses, but is not as commonly seen.
The decision was made that laser lights probably wouldn’t be suitable considering the width that I desire from the beam i.e. a solid foot of light, as lasers are generally extremely thin beams unless you get extremely expensive lights.
I was pleased with the results, learning that a follow spot would provide a relatively collimated beam over the distance that I was proposing (7 to 8 feet). The follow spot however was as anticipated cylindrical, and the staff were not aware of any method of producing a square beam. Although this was disappointing the follow spot had other options that could potentially act as interactive system. On the front of the light there was a magazine fitted, that held five colour filters and a metal sheet that could make the light appear to turn on and off.
Although this wasn’t the solution that I had intended to find on the way to the meeting, I left feeling confident that this could form a back-up plan if I cannot find a solution for the original idea.
As you can imagine there are several stage lighting companies located in London, all of which had a large amount of lights available. I decided to phone around to see who would be willing to allow me to come into the shop/business and test some lights out. Some of the firms were more reluctant than others due to light deterioration and some simply didn’t have a possible solution. Many firms suggested that laser lights would be the best option as laser light travels in straight lines, but I was still under the impression that the light would spread once leaving the source. The other option, that was repeatedly mentioned, was a follow or profile spotlight, often used to highlight a single person whilst on stage.
I eventually found a couple of firms that were willing to let me come in and try out different options in the shop. The first of which, called Clubtek, was located in Beckenham, which although was relatively south of London, was still worth the journey. During the visit I was able to try moving-head lights, profile spots, and follow spots.
Moving head lights:
A moving head is a versatile and multi-function light that was designed to replace multiple conventional, non-moving lights. The main advantage of moving heads is the versatility that they offer, all of which can be controlled via computer programming. The effects can be pre-programmed and played back using only simple commands, changing between effects rapidly.
Although the beam that was produced was very bright and crisp, the beam was too angled, which wouldn't work for the installation as I want the beams to appear collimated.
Follow spot:
A followspow is a powerful stage light, which can be controlled manually to follow actors around the stage. They normally have a several features that can be changed manually, including a focusable lens, an adjustable iris and a manual device that can effect the intensity of the beam.
The beam that was produced by the follow spot was more collimated than the moving head, and was equally bright. The beam was not as sharp as the moving head, but presented a viable option for the project.
Profile spot:
A profile spot works similarly to a follow spot, but the beam is not as powerful or pronounced. It can be used for the same uses, but is not as commonly seen.
The decision was made that laser lights probably wouldn’t be suitable considering the width that I desire from the beam i.e. a solid foot of light, as lasers are generally extremely thin beams unless you get extremely expensive lights.
I was pleased with the results, learning that a follow spot would provide a relatively collimated beam over the distance that I was proposing (7 to 8 feet). The follow spot however was as anticipated cylindrical, and the staff were not aware of any method of producing a square beam. Although this was disappointing the follow spot had other options that could potentially act as interactive system. On the front of the light there was a magazine fitted, that held five colour filters and a metal sheet that could make the light appear to turn on and off.
Although this wasn’t the solution that I had intended to find on the way to the meeting, I left feeling confident that this could form a back-up plan if I cannot find a solution for the original idea.
Monday 16 March 2009
Contraction tests
I decided to test my theory considering how light could appear to contract and expand with the use of card and a pully system. Although at this stage I did not think it was necessary to introduce a pully system, as I could move the card adequately using my hands. I started the test by cutting out two cardboard L's that would form the structure that would control how much light would be allowed through.
I then used the same procedure, as with the initial tests, and blew smoke through a beam of light produced by spotlight torch. Although this is not how I intend to produce the final columns of light the technique produces an adequate enough beam to conduct tests with.
I then positioned the cardboard L's underneath the source of light (the torch) and linked them so that they formed a square in the middle that could be enlarged by moving the cards slightly apart. Although, this technique did reduce the size of the beam, it remained in a cylindrical form, and was considerable not as bright as above the card. The results are shown below.
Why did this happen?
Most of the light from the light source simple reflected off the card, as there was no method of control where the light was angled. If there had been a method to reflect the light through the hole the brightness wouldn't have been effected. This would have involved using curved mirrors, or even a completely different source. However, if the hole was made any smaller the same problem would still exist. Although the card did control how big the beam was coming out of it, it also caused a considerable amount of light to diffract around the edges of the hole, causing the light to spread.
Conclusion:
Although the tests were interesting, they have proven that this idea would be difficult to fulfill, requiring a complicated use of mirrors and pullys. I am consequently going to consider another method of achieving the effect as well as other possibilites of how the light could change following the input of the user.
I then used the same procedure, as with the initial tests, and blew smoke through a beam of light produced by spotlight torch. Although this is not how I intend to produce the final columns of light the technique produces an adequate enough beam to conduct tests with.
I then positioned the cardboard L's underneath the source of light (the torch) and linked them so that they formed a square in the middle that could be enlarged by moving the cards slightly apart. Although, this technique did reduce the size of the beam, it remained in a cylindrical form, and was considerable not as bright as above the card. The results are shown below.
Why did this happen?
Most of the light from the light source simple reflected off the card, as there was no method of control where the light was angled. If there had been a method to reflect the light through the hole the brightness wouldn't have been effected. This would have involved using curved mirrors, or even a completely different source. However, if the hole was made any smaller the same problem would still exist. Although the card did control how big the beam was coming out of it, it also caused a considerable amount of light to diffract around the edges of the hole, causing the light to spread.
Conclusion:
Although the tests were interesting, they have proven that this idea would be difficult to fulfill, requiring a complicated use of mirrors and pullys. I am consequently going to consider another method of achieving the effect as well as other possibilites of how the light could change following the input of the user.
Sunday 15 March 2009
Contract not bend
Since starting the project, finding a method to make the columns of light appear to bend has proven to be extremely difficult. I have tried options that include lenses, tilting the light source and even software options, none of which have provided an adequate method to achieve the desired effect. As a result I have decided to consider other interactive possibilities, as I would rather a working form of interaction than spend the remaining amount of time trying to find a solution and not succeeding. Although this is a disappointing prospect, as I was extremely interested by the original idea, it is also an exciting prospect as it will allow me to consider other possibilities that may not have been thought of before hand, and could even produce a more enriched experience.
I would like to make it clear that this is not a decision that I have taken lightly and it is a careful choice that will hopefully improve and develop the project.
During recent discussions about the installation I have considered the idea of introducing a method of making the light column appear to contract and expand. This would have direct correlation to how close the users are to the column; the closer they are the more the column will contract. Although I like the idea of such a system it is a idea that requires more consideration to see if it would actually be possible. The initial idea would be to have two L shape pieces of wood or card, the would be aligned with each other to form a square in the middle of them.
These pieces could then be controlled by a pull system to move them in and out, controlling how much light is allowed through the central square. I am uncertain, however, if this will be successful as I believe that the light will simple spread once if leaves the central square, but in order to be certain I would like to test how successful this technique will be.
I would like to make it clear that this is not a decision that I have taken lightly and it is a careful choice that will hopefully improve and develop the project.
During recent discussions about the installation I have considered the idea of introducing a method of making the light column appear to contract and expand. This would have direct correlation to how close the users are to the column; the closer they are the more the column will contract. Although I like the idea of such a system it is a idea that requires more consideration to see if it would actually be possible. The initial idea would be to have two L shape pieces of wood or card, the would be aligned with each other to form a square in the middle of them.
These pieces could then be controlled by a pull system to move them in and out, controlling how much light is allowed through the central square. I am uncertain, however, if this will be successful as I believe that the light will simple spread once if leaves the central square, but in order to be certain I would like to test how successful this technique will be.
Thursday 12 March 2009
Tests with Lenses
One of the most likely possibilities to create a collimated beam of light would be to use lenses, which will cause the beam of light to be bent back into a central point, and prevent the beam from continuing to spread, and expand. A lens is a piece of glass that has curved sides that can concentrate or disperse light rays. If I therefore find the correct lens I should be able to concentrate the light rays passing trough it to create a relatively collimated beam (same diameter all of the way down).
During these initial tests with lenses I am going to text the effect of enlarger and condenser lenses, that I was able to borrow from John Bunyan (a technician from my university). A condenser lens works by focusing the light that passes through it onto a specific point, commonly seen in microscopes. A condensor enlarger (seen in photographic darkrooms) collimates light, this means that the light is bent so that the rays are all paralell to each other. This is done with large convex lenses which the curved surfaces facing each other. Although I do not have large versions of this I was able to borrow a set of larges that will work to the same effect.
Although it was extremely useful to read about the lenses and the effect that they would have, I decided that t would be better to test them, and see in person the effect that they really have.
I set the tests up like I had with the others, using the same spotlight torch that I used during the initial tests. As before I blew smoke through the light, allowing it to be more visible. I then positioned the lenses in front of the light and recorded the results.
As you can see the lens cause the light to bend, and be flipped, causing the light to invert, similarly to a pinhole camera.
if you take one of these lenses and set up a small bright light source (i suggest a 12v small halogen lamp with a battery or 12v adapter) you should find a distance from the lens from which it projects a columated beam - check with a piece of paper - the lens should project its own shape and size on the paper as you move it away.
Enlarger lenses are different to camera lenses, in that an enlarger lens is designed to transfer a flat image onto a flat image, so it's optimized as a flat-field lens. When using a substandard lens, you'll see light falloff at the edges. In this drawing you can see how the light has to travel a longer distance to the corners of the print. When using a good lens, you may have to burn in the edges to account for this, when using a substandard lens, the impact of the fall off can be too much to adjust for, or may even cause the edges to be unsharp, and reduce contrast.
During these initial tests with lenses I am going to text the effect of enlarger and condenser lenses, that I was able to borrow from John Bunyan (a technician from my university). A condenser lens works by focusing the light that passes through it onto a specific point, commonly seen in microscopes. A condensor enlarger (seen in photographic darkrooms) collimates light, this means that the light is bent so that the rays are all paralell to each other. This is done with large convex lenses which the curved surfaces facing each other. Although I do not have large versions of this I was able to borrow a set of larges that will work to the same effect.
Although it was extremely useful to read about the lenses and the effect that they would have, I decided that t would be better to test them, and see in person the effect that they really have.
I set the tests up like I had with the others, using the same spotlight torch that I used during the initial tests. As before I blew smoke through the light, allowing it to be more visible. I then positioned the lenses in front of the light and recorded the results.
As you can see the lens cause the light to bend, and be flipped, causing the light to invert, similarly to a pinhole camera.
if you take one of these lenses and set up a small bright light source (i suggest a 12v small halogen lamp with a battery or 12v adapter) you should find a distance from the lens from which it projects a columated beam - check with a piece of paper - the lens should project its own shape and size on the paper as you move it away.
Enlarger lenses are different to camera lenses, in that an enlarger lens is designed to transfer a flat image onto a flat image, so it's optimized as a flat-field lens. When using a substandard lens, you'll see light falloff at the edges. In this drawing you can see how the light has to travel a longer distance to the corners of the print. When using a good lens, you may have to burn in the edges to account for this, when using a substandard lens, the impact of the fall off can be too much to adjust for, or may even cause the edges to be unsharp, and reduce contrast.
Wednesday 11 March 2009
Find an Expert (continued)
Since posting questions on the forums, including instructables.com and scienceforums.com, I had received some feedback. Although these were useful suggestions, such as to try mirrors or reflectors, there still seemed to be an awful lot of doubt about whether the effect could be achieved and especially to what level of expertise. My need to talk the ideas through in person was growing ever more necessary, as it became difficult for people to understand my ideas and for me to understand their suggestions of e-mail or threads.
I had heard from a friend at university that John Bunyan, a technician at the university had a good understanding and knowledge of light, due to his work partly revolving around projection. John, who was doubtful that he would have an answer, was still willing to meet with me to discuss the ideas over. Although he did not have a answer as such for the proposed project, we did discuss other options that might be possible and be just as effective. We discussed the possibility of the beam appearing to contract and expand as people moved around the object, which I liked the idea of, but again I did not know how feasible it would be. The best option was to try to test the idea out, so I went away to conduct further test. John was also kind enough to lend me some lenses that he had to test how these would affect the beam of light.
NB. Even though I have discussed the idea through with several people I am still no closer to achieving a solution regarding the square column of light. I think it may be time to consider a cylindrical column of light.
I had heard from a friend at university that John Bunyan, a technician at the university had a good understanding and knowledge of light, due to his work partly revolving around projection. John, who was doubtful that he would have an answer, was still willing to meet with me to discuss the ideas over. Although he did not have a answer as such for the proposed project, we did discuss other options that might be possible and be just as effective. We discussed the possibility of the beam appearing to contract and expand as people moved around the object, which I liked the idea of, but again I did not know how feasible it would be. The best option was to try to test the idea out, so I went away to conduct further test. John was also kind enough to lend me some lenses that he had to test how these would affect the beam of light.
NB. Even though I have discussed the idea through with several people I am still no closer to achieving a solution regarding the square column of light. I think it may be time to consider a cylindrical column of light.
Tuesday 10 March 2009
Testing the PIR
It was at this stage, as with every new technology introduced into the project, to test the PIR detector, and see if they would be compatible with the USB experiment interface board (E.I.B.). As I have mentioned the PIR detectors that I decided upon run on between 9 and 15 volts. This meant that I would have to use a converter to control how much power it would receive.
Once this was set and the power connected to the PIR, using wire, I connected the the signal N.C. to the experiment interface. Fortunately the devices seemed to work perfectly fine together, and the PIR detector was registered instantly by the software that had been provided with the board.
I was now confident that I would be able to use the PIR detectors in the installation as long as they could be masked off, and once mounted give the correct field of detection, something that also needed to be tested.
Once this was set and the power connected to the PIR, using wire, I connected the the signal N.C. to the experiment interface. Fortunately the devices seemed to work perfectly fine together, and the PIR detector was registered instantly by the software that had been provided with the board.
I was now confident that I would be able to use the PIR detectors in the installation as long as they could be masked off, and once mounted give the correct field of detection, something that also needed to be tested.
Lynteck Focus PIR Detector
As I have already mentioned there are several PIR detectors on the market, most of which are similar in specifications. After enquiring about a few options from shops such as Screwfix, Homebase and B & Q, I eventually decided on one that is stocked by Maplin, the Lynteck Focus PIR Detector.
The main reason that I decided upon this detector was the operating voltage. Most of the other PIRs that I looked at were mains powered, which would mean the current voltage running from them to the E.I.Board, would be far high, and would not work. In order to be able to power the Lynteck PIR detectors I will have to use a power converter, but this is a better option than not being able to use the board.
Technical Specification
Specifications:
Detection method: Dual pyro-ceramic sensor
Operating voltage: 9 to 15Vdc
Current draw: Active Standby <12 mA
Alarm output: NCrelay rated at 28Vdc
Tamper switch: NCrelay rated at 28Vdc
Alarm period: 2 to 3 seconds
EMI protection: 30KV & spark suppression PCB
RFI protection: Shielded PCB
Coverage: 96 zones, no creeping zones
Range: 15m, 120 angle
Operating temp: -10 to +50C
Although this detector seems suitable for the task at hand, I need to check its sensitivity to haze, and whether the sensor can be masked off slightly to limit the field of detection. If this cannot be performed then the sensors will detect too large of an area. I want the sensors to detect a limited area, as I want certain sensors to focus on the immediate areas around specific light columns.
The main reason that I decided upon this detector was the operating voltage. Most of the other PIRs that I looked at were mains powered, which would mean the current voltage running from them to the E.I.Board, would be far high, and would not work. In order to be able to power the Lynteck PIR detectors I will have to use a power converter, but this is a better option than not being able to use the board.
Technical Specification
Specifications:
Detection method: Dual pyro-ceramic sensor
Operating voltage: 9 to 15Vdc
Current draw: Active Standby <12 mA
Alarm output: NCrelay rated at 28Vdc
Tamper switch: NCrelay rated at 28Vdc
Alarm period: 2 to 3 seconds
EMI protection: 30KV & spark suppression PCB
RFI protection: Shielded PCB
Coverage: 96 zones, no creeping zones
Range: 15m, 120 angle
Operating temp: -10 to +50C
Although this detector seems suitable for the task at hand, I need to check its sensitivity to haze, and whether the sensor can be masked off slightly to limit the field of detection. If this cannot be performed then the sensors will detect too large of an area. I want the sensors to detect a limited area, as I want certain sensors to focus on the immediate areas around specific light columns.
Monday 9 March 2009
Detecting the PIRs/ USB Experiment Interface Board
Before deciding on the PIR detectors that I would use for the motion detection I felt that it would be sensible to consider how the signal could be sent from the PIR detector to the computer once motion had been detected. During another module from CMP I had worked with IPAC cards, which were cards that could be plugged into a computer to replicate a keyboard. From this different sensory equipment could be plugged in and then converted to a 'keypress'. Although in this instance an IPAC would not be suitable considering electric current etc, I assumed that there would be a more advanced option available that would be able to handle the several different PIR detectors. After initial searches I found several tutorials that guided you through circuitry that would allow you to convert your PC into a home security system, but none that led me to a simple hardware solution. I decided the next step would be to search the shops where equipment like this may be found. Fortunately Maplin stock a USB Experiment Interface Board, which works extremely well for home automation.
The board has 5 digital inputs and 8 digital output channel and can plug directly into the PC via USB. The board also came with its own software, but was also compatible with visual basic, which I could use to control the project through the board. The board was also a good choice as four could be used at the same time, which would enable for anything up to 20 inputs and 32 outputs. Although I was confidant that I would not need this many, it was reassuring to know that the option was there.
Each board costs £34.99 ready assembled.
As well as the board I decided to purchase some flexible wire, as I was certain that I would soon need to wire the board to PIR detectors, and would need it for later in the project. I bought 100m of red wire and 100m of black, which would allow me to colour code positive and negative connections.
The board has 5 digital inputs and 8 digital output channel and can plug directly into the PC via USB. The board also came with its own software, but was also compatible with visual basic, which I could use to control the project through the board. The board was also a good choice as four could be used at the same time, which would enable for anything up to 20 inputs and 32 outputs. Although I was confidant that I would not need this many, it was reassuring to know that the option was there.
Each board costs £34.99 ready assembled.
As well as the board I decided to purchase some flexible wire, as I was certain that I would soon need to wire the board to PIR detectors, and would need it for later in the project. I bought 100m of red wire and 100m of black, which would allow me to colour code positive and negative connections.
Thursday 5 March 2009
Tuesday 3 March 2009
Renewed Drive
The Kinetica Art Fair was a great source of inspiration and ideas. The fair was also extremely rewarding as it provided me with a renewed desire to persevere and produce something that I will proud of and that will act as a benchmark for my future works. In honesty I had become slightly off track, and without the pressure of a looming hand in date I was finding it increasingly hard to become motivated. Kinetica however, allowed me to imagine a standard that I want ‘Seeing is Believing’ to be finished to, which helped to put my thoughts in the right direction again, and continue with the progress of the project. The fair also helped me realise how much effort and time goes into industry standard projects, and if I want to continue into the industry following my course, I must raise my workload, and be determined with the project. The show also prompted me to consider the name of the project to something that represents the project better, and is more professional, so although a new name has not yet been decided upon, it is more than likely to change in the up and coming weeks.
Monday 2 March 2009
Cinimod Studio and Chris O'Shea at Kinetica
'Beacon’ is a kinetic light installation with a mind of its own. An array of emergency beacon lights interacts with visitors, tracking their movement through the space, creating an immersive and playful experience.
The installation exploits a transfer of technologies from existing industrial products. The beacon lights have had their internal parts replaced with custom hardware, enabling the rotation of the reflector and lamp brightness to be individually controlled. Thermal imaging cameras have been adapted to track the participants’ movement through the space.
‘Beacon’ is orchestrated in real-time by a bespoke control system, which uses tracking information from the cameras to coordinate an interactive and highly responsive behavior. It was the high level at which the tracking system worked that made the piece so effective. Whilst people navigated their way throughout the lines of light it almost became playful, trying to lose the lights, but they were extremely effective of keeping the user in their sights. This led users to question the processes behind the piece, impressed with the answers that they received from the artists. Although I was greatly impressed with how well the system was working, I particularly liked how the tracking system was submerged within the lights, making it appear that the lights themselves were following the users. This is something that I aim to achieve with my piece. I want the motion detection to be hidden within the piece, appearing as if the light is detecting touch. In order to do this i will have to find a method of detection that is not seen and still works even when smoke is blown across the receiver and in a dark environment. Although at this stage i don't think it will be thermal imaging it remains useful to consider all options.
The installation exploits a transfer of technologies from existing industrial products. The beacon lights have had their internal parts replaced with custom hardware, enabling the rotation of the reflector and lamp brightness to be individually controlled. Thermal imaging cameras have been adapted to track the participants’ movement through the space.
‘Beacon’ is orchestrated in real-time by a bespoke control system, which uses tracking information from the cameras to coordinate an interactive and highly responsive behavior. It was the high level at which the tracking system worked that made the piece so effective. Whilst people navigated their way throughout the lines of light it almost became playful, trying to lose the lights, but they were extremely effective of keeping the user in their sights. This led users to question the processes behind the piece, impressed with the answers that they received from the artists. Although I was greatly impressed with how well the system was working, I particularly liked how the tracking system was submerged within the lights, making it appear that the lights themselves were following the users. This is something that I aim to achieve with my piece. I want the motion detection to be hidden within the piece, appearing as if the light is detecting touch. In order to do this i will have to find a method of detection that is not seen and still works even when smoke is blown across the receiver and in a dark environment. Although at this stage i don't think it will be thermal imaging it remains useful to consider all options.
Wrap3 at Kinetica
Wrap3 produces 360-degree motion graphics, delivered both through panoramic projection and more traditional display technologies such as plasma screens and LED walls. Their projection techniques and video mapping software enable Wrap3 to generate fluid, interactive "Virtual Second Skin" for practically any object on any scale.
In the piece there were several blocks positioned carefully upon and around each other, creating a boxed structure. There were then a series of projectors positioned around the boxes that were linked together using specialist mapping software. From these, images of grids matching the size and structure of the boxes were projected on to the boxed structure matching it perfectly. The grids then appeared to move on the structure, given the illusion that the boxed were moving. Within these grids an image of a girl also appeared, playing on the idea of her being trapped within the space.
Even though I have decided to move away from video projectors to provide the light source, it was still an impressive piece in terms of the finish and presentation. The contrast between the bright, sharp projected light and the darker space surrounding the presentation worked extremely well. I think it was the contrast between the light and darkness that made the piece look so crisp. Although the content of my project is different this is something that I would like to be present in my work. The bright straight lines appeared to dissect through the darkness, which will hopefully be one of the most visually stunning aspects of this project. In order for this to work as effectively as possible it is imperative to test different strengths of light compared to darkness. I may also have to consider introducing additional background lights around the installation if the columns do not produce enough light to adequately light the surrounding space. The main reason for this would be health and safety, as I do not want users to be moving in darkness once they move away from the columns.
In the piece there were several blocks positioned carefully upon and around each other, creating a boxed structure. There were then a series of projectors positioned around the boxes that were linked together using specialist mapping software. From these, images of grids matching the size and structure of the boxes were projected on to the boxed structure matching it perfectly. The grids then appeared to move on the structure, given the illusion that the boxed were moving. Within these grids an image of a girl also appeared, playing on the idea of her being trapped within the space.
Even though I have decided to move away from video projectors to provide the light source, it was still an impressive piece in terms of the finish and presentation. The contrast between the bright, sharp projected light and the darker space surrounding the presentation worked extremely well. I think it was the contrast between the light and darkness that made the piece look so crisp. Although the content of my project is different this is something that I would like to be present in my work. The bright straight lines appeared to dissect through the darkness, which will hopefully be one of the most visually stunning aspects of this project. In order for this to work as effectively as possible it is imperative to test different strengths of light compared to darkness. I may also have to consider introducing additional background lights around the installation if the columns do not produce enough light to adequately light the surrounding space. The main reason for this would be health and safety, as I do not want users to be moving in darkness once they move away from the columns.
Jason Bruges at Kinetica
'Studies in White' was a piece that considered perception. It considered how light worked on a surface and how this effected depth and movement as a result of shifting light. There were a number of different animations that allowed the audience various different ways of becoming attracted to the surface - using very bright palettes with very subtle movements, and vice versa. At a very low level the light appears to disintegrate adding to the exploration of the piece.
Kinetica Art Fair 2009
Kinetica was an art fair that was completely dedicated to the convergence of art and technology. This was an exciting prospect, not only as it was located at one of my Universities campuses, but mainly as the themes are extremely similar to 'Seeing is Believing' combining scientific development and the human condition. The events surrounding the fair have included some of the world's most eminent leaders in the fields of kinetic, electronic and new media art. Through observing and considering work produced by such prolific figures I will be able to further consider the context behind my project. I have highlighted projects that I thought were particularly relevant and interesting in the subsequent posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)