I see a human dancer in the beginning, and at the end. All the other dancing is mo’capped. It’s not the costumes that are enhanced, it’s the entire performance that’s been stripped down and built up. I hate to see this confused with an actual dance performance where you can see a human being move.
I’m digitally-enhanced right now!
(I miss papasan)
Very enjoyable. I’ve never been to Istanbul, but this looks much more modern than I was expecting. Would love to visit (once I can travel again).
Very exciting and clearly a lot of work. But I found myself getting overwhelmed at the quick scene changes, making this feel more like a demo reel than an actual production.
I noticed myself feeling calm when the action on screen calmed down to limited palettes, limited extra motion, even no cgi. The reality side of the uncanny valley.
This enhanced feeling of being anchored by reality gives me hope that this could make for some great augmented stage performances combining real dancers with projections. With the focus on enhancing and highlighting the dancing rather than replacing it.
Have you seen Kedi?
It’s a gorgeously languorous film about cats in Istanbul. I think you’d like it!
The preview was just right. Thanks. Not sure I could take a feature length cat movie. But for those who do, JustWatch says it is on Kanopy if you are not a youtube red kinda person.
I wonder why, though, because you see the movements of actual dancers, recorded in an actual dance performance. Would you consider a film of a performance also different to the “actual” performance?
FWIW, a really long time ago I did some experiments with real-time motion capture in dance performances, the dancers were pretty excited, and nobody thought this would be a different thing, they all saw this as an an extension of their performance.
Whoa, that was cool; especially the rusted iron dancer on the quay. I’d be interested to see what could be done with a Dadaist project, like “Doom Patrol” using mo-cap technology. I like the soundtrack too.
What if I told you that every dance video in the world is made up of pixels which recreate images of the original dancers, and you’re not “seeing” an actual dance performance unless you’re there in person.
It’s the confusion I am reacting to, not the performance. The boing boing post makes a mistake that seems pretty obvious, and misrepresents the piece significantly.
If you were to post a link to a vector drawing file, but referred to it as a bitmap… I would probably point out your error as well. I figuratively hate it when people get their file types confused.
I wonder how that piece would be misrepresented: people are dancing, they wear costumes that get progressively weird, and some of these costumes happen to be created in a computer. How this was achieved is a pretty inconsequential technical detail to the audience, because they’d still just click on a link, watch a video, and be amazed. I guess most people wouldn’t see the difference, even the original article was ambiguous.
That is a really good example: If the post were about the amazing artwork that file represents, and the file would display just fine in the browser so everyone who followed the link would be able to experience that artwork, that would be a pretty minor detail, and not in any way a misrepresentation of the artwork.
Gosh I miss Istanbul. It’s got a proper Bohemian artist vibe in a lot of areas, woven in with the grandeur of the mosques and the traditionalism of the markets. So many different faces for one city, and all of them appealing.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.