53
edits
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
We explored latency pragmatically. As an initial experiment, we attempted to clap steadily as a group. This failure found new form in our second attempt, where our hands were kept clearly visible in front of the camera, providing both strong visual and audio cues for timing. | We explored latency pragmatically. As an initial experiment, we attempted to clap steadily as a group. This failure found new form in our second attempt, where our hands were kept clearly visible in front of the camera, providing both strong visual and audio cues for timing. | ||
The power of feedback in mediating our group dynamic led us to our next experiment. We decided upon a feedback-based "call and response" exercise that would demonstrate the audio, visual, and perceptual latencies present. | The power of feedback in mediating our group dynamic led us to our next experiment. We decided upon a feedback-based "call and response" exercise that would demonstrate the audio, visual, and perceptual latencies present. | ||
Weimar found a way to stream a video file in place of the webcam image, and generated a series of stroboscopic videos displaying a burst of white between lulls of blackness. When darkness fell in San Diego, Weimar began broadcasting. With each flash, Weimar uttered the German word for light, "licht." The San Diegans, from independent locations, monitored Weimar fullscreen. Whenever they witnessed the light of Weimar, they responded in their own native tongues, Spanish and English: "Luz!" "Light!" | |||
With microphone gains and speakers set to maximum, an unsteady but hypnotic mantra emerged. The whole process was recorded by Weimar, who was witness to all three streams. Playback provided clear documentation of the timing discrepancies of audio and video between the three locations. To wrap things further in feedback, Weimar again recorded the viewing of this recording. We present the result here. |
edits