The Last Analog Motion Graphics Machine [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
The Last Analog Motion Graphics Machine [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wxc3mKqKTk
65 コメント
That just appears to be a fancy pattern generator. The core trick of Scanimate is that it uses the analog synthesis circuitry to modify the raster scan of a CRT displaying an image, essentially allowing arbitrary images like logos to be animated smoothly in real time in very complex ways. Think of it as the analog equivalent of texture mapping.
yes, the direct interaction with the CRT involved in creating the images is essential here, the CRT isnt just displaying some framebuffer esque type image, its central to the actual resultant effects itself, this device would not function without a CRT.
I have to interject here...You could say Scanimate is a fancy pattern generator... You could also say that a violin is a fancy tone generator...
was going to say this equipment is still used quite a bit and there are many working survivors left
There were only 8 Scanimates produced. I have the first R&D machine and the last one produced. I've heard there may be one in storage in Japan, and two in storage in Luxembourg, but mine are the only two I know of that are plugged in and actually function.
You beat me to it. Much like vinyl, this stuff tends to maintain a pretty core following.
The eurorack modular synth boom is certainly introducing a lot of new people to analogue video synthesis. Exciting times!
The eurorack modular synth boom is certainly introducing a lot of new people to analogue video synthesis. Exciting times!
> to analogue video synthesis
Video? Eurorack and modular synthesizers of other format and kinds are about audio, right?
Video? Eurorack and modular synthesizers of other format and kinds are about audio, right?
Eurorack analogue video is a thing. If you’re into learning more about modular synths I can highly recommend the docu-movie “I dream of Wires”.
Yes, an excellent film!
It’s all just voltage, but obviously with video oscillating at much higher rates.
You use most ‘audio’ modules with video modules and vice versa. All the typical logic works like divide, mult, add, etc.
It’s a really fascinating format!
It’s all just voltage, but obviously with video oscillating at much higher rates.
You use most ‘audio’ modules with video modules and vice versa. All the typical logic works like divide, mult, add, etc.
It’s a really fascinating format!
The instantaneous hands on control is enticing, I've played with analog audio and the immediacy of alterations and infinite resolution is palpable in comparison to their digital equivalents. He should live stream some 'art' pieces to music, I'd watch :)
Here's Scanimate + Moog; https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=184&v=1Cywgoftv4...
More at http://www.scanimate.com/index.html
Here's Scanimate + Moog; https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=184&v=1Cywgoftv4...
More at http://www.scanimate.com/index.html
"I've played with analog audio and the immediacy of alterations and infinite resolution is palpable in comparison to their digital equivalents."
This kind of statements bother me because they are simply not true. You can have "tangible" controls (physical knobs and sliders) with digital signal processing back-end and I bet you that you can't tell the difference in a double blind test. This is the same bullshit that is thrown around by designers, artists and any kind of 'aficionados'- cliches of romanticization of the analog.
Oscilloscopes went full digital in 90's not because they were worse than analog counterparts. These are precision instruments that benefit from digital processing. Don't get me wrong - I own an analog oscilloscope for different reasons, i.e. I was fascinated by how things were done back in the day which I believe is the central theme of this thread. These analog motion graphics machines are amazing - NOT because of 'infinite resolution' but the process of creating art: Oscillators, scan rates, amplification, etc.
This kind of statements bother me because they are simply not true. You can have "tangible" controls (physical knobs and sliders) with digital signal processing back-end and I bet you that you can't tell the difference in a double blind test. This is the same bullshit that is thrown around by designers, artists and any kind of 'aficionados'- cliches of romanticization of the analog.
Oscilloscopes went full digital in 90's not because they were worse than analog counterparts. These are precision instruments that benefit from digital processing. Don't get me wrong - I own an analog oscilloscope for different reasons, i.e. I was fascinated by how things were done back in the day which I believe is the central theme of this thread. These analog motion graphics machines are amazing - NOT because of 'infinite resolution' but the process of creating art: Oscillators, scan rates, amplification, etc.
Analog fetishization is definitely annoying. But there are sometimes desirable features of simple analog equipment that are more complicated to implement in digital circuits. Sometimes that simplicty can be helpful to certain workflows, or aesthetically pleasing in its own right. A canonical example is the gentle peaking behavior of vacuum tube vs. digital amps. Even if it's true that you can get an arbitrarily good approximation of that gentler sound with an all digital circuit, I think some people just like having simple analog circuits that they can reason about more directly. Regardless of whether those mental models are physically accurate, if using an analog circuit allows a person to conceptualize the workflow in a way that leads to interesting art, that's what matters. And again, the aesthetic of the machinery itself can totally be worth something to a user, even if the circuit's functionality as a black box is no different than a digital circuit's.
I do agree about how annoying it is to see people misled about the quality of digital products, though, particularly for consumer goods where people aren't interested in the implementation details anyway. I'm not about to splurge on an analog amplifier for my speakers, and I don't think most consumers should bother doing so either (again, unless they really appreciate the implementation details of an analog circuit).
I do agree about how annoying it is to see people misled about the quality of digital products, though, particularly for consumer goods where people aren't interested in the implementation details anyway. I'm not about to splurge on an analog amplifier for my speakers, and I don't think most consumers should bother doing so either (again, unless they really appreciate the implementation details of an analog circuit).
Yes, it is annoying but you can't say it is false. What is annoying is that he is actually right in practice. Most software developers including those in the industries where it should matter, do not care about latency or realtimeness, because in practice these things are so hard that no one really wants to pay developer time to bring latency from 100 ms back to 5 ms where it should be.
There are good technical reasons to go digital, and in theory, no drawbacks. Yet, is pisses me off that I need to boot a motherf%*$cking oscilloscope and wait several seconds.
I have spent the first years of my career at an AR company whose constant worry was to lower latency and maximize increase rate. I know this stuff is hard and as an unrecognizable handicap I now have an eye for all the small glitches in video: occasional fps slip, brief shearing, dropped frame, etc... I have yet to find a giant advertisement screen that had none of these.
Most people think 60 ms latency and 30 fps is good enough but let me tell you, we had a very different kind of reactions when we had less than 16 ms of latency (i.e. "one frame") and 60 fps display (or rather that annoying 59.94 Hz that TV asked us and forced us to feed to the software through a specific clock plug).
When people talk about the "analog feel", that's what they mean: full fps (usually 50Hz in Europe, 59.94Hz in US an Japan) and <16 ms latency. No glitch, no shear (though analog system can shear) and no framedrops. Very few digital systems actually live up to that standard.
There are good technical reasons to go digital, and in theory, no drawbacks. Yet, is pisses me off that I need to boot a motherf%*$cking oscilloscope and wait several seconds.
I have spent the first years of my career at an AR company whose constant worry was to lower latency and maximize increase rate. I know this stuff is hard and as an unrecognizable handicap I now have an eye for all the small glitches in video: occasional fps slip, brief shearing, dropped frame, etc... I have yet to find a giant advertisement screen that had none of these.
Most people think 60 ms latency and 30 fps is good enough but let me tell you, we had a very different kind of reactions when we had less than 16 ms of latency (i.e. "one frame") and 60 fps display (or rather that annoying 59.94 Hz that TV asked us and forced us to feed to the software through a specific clock plug).
When people talk about the "analog feel", that's what they mean: full fps (usually 50Hz in Europe, 59.94Hz in US an Japan) and <16 ms latency. No glitch, no shear (though analog system can shear) and no framedrops. Very few digital systems actually live up to that standard.
It's possible, yes. It's also true that e.g. when you look at audio synthesizers, a shockingly large portion of the digital gear out there doesn't do it, making this a theoretical argument for a lot of the market, especially the cheaper end. Controllers or intermediate signals being sampled slowly or with too low resolution is a common complaint with digital or hybrid gear. There's also other, more general UX aspects that influence how an instrument feels to play that influence how it is used. So while I'm not fan of people insisting that they can get the perfect sound only with analog gear, I find the "but it's just math" arguments equally annoying.
I was not fully sold on digital synths until I used a Nord Modular. That thing was so responsive it convinced me that analog modeling could be just as fun and expressive.
Now I think some folks want particular analog sounds. There are digital replacements for most of them, and of course they are a lot more convenient, but they don't always sound _completely_ authentic. If you want the tuning instability, noise, distortion, etc., well, go ahead and maintain an antique synthesizer. It's kind of a pain, but if you really _must_ have the original sound, go for it.
What I miss is the quality of the actual keyboards. I had a chance to buy a vintage Yamaha KX-88 keyboard some years ago and I chickened out, and I regret it. If I had bought it, I'd probably be still enjoying it alongside my vintage DX-7.
Now I think some folks want particular analog sounds. There are digital replacements for most of them, and of course they are a lot more convenient, but they don't always sound _completely_ authentic. If you want the tuning instability, noise, distortion, etc., well, go ahead and maintain an antique synthesizer. It's kind of a pain, but if you really _must_ have the original sound, go for it.
What I miss is the quality of the actual keyboards. I had a chance to buy a vintage Yamaha KX-88 keyboard some years ago and I chickened out, and I regret it. If I had bought it, I'd probably be still enjoying it alongside my vintage DX-7.
> Oscilloscopes went full digital in 90's not because they were worse than analog counterparts.
The point, which you might have noticed when using digital and analogue oscilloscopes, is that delays come naturally in digital equipment. You _could_ probably get rid of it in all or most applications if you really made a point of doing so (and that would be very nice), but that is often not done.
The point, which you might have noticed when using digital and analogue oscilloscopes, is that delays come naturally in digital equipment. You _could_ probably get rid of it in all or most applications if you really made a point of doing so (and that would be very nice), but that is often not done.
> Oscilloscopes went full digital in 90's not because they were worse than analog counterparts
Kinda curious example to bring up; I was under the impression that early (ie 90s) digital oscilloscopes were quite seriously compromised, especially in the UX department.
Kinda curious example to bring up; I was under the impression that early (ie 90s) digital oscilloscopes were quite seriously compromised, especially in the UX department.
Just like any technology, it took time to mature. You are hard pressed to find a brand new analog oscilloscopes today. WHY? Because, they provide enormous benefits even if the bandwidth was identical to analog counter parts. For one, you can't fricking store a waveform and look at it later (!!!)
We do a lot of high speed triggering in my electronics lab, and i can tell you that most low grade digital scopes cannot trigger fast enough. The $25,000 digital scope works, as do all of our old analog scopes.
The claim isn't that analogue oscilloscopes are generally superior. The claim is that they have responsive user interfaces, which digital equipment often does not, or at least didn't use to.
It's not even that it is, or was, impossible to make digital equipment with responsive interfaces. It's rather that the easiest way to do it often involves a delay.
It's not even that it is, or was, impossible to make digital equipment with responsive interfaces. It's rather that the easiest way to do it often involves a delay.
Google indicates quite a few new analog oscilloscopes are available. My search term was just 'analog oscilloscope.' New and used ones are available.
Digital tends to have more latency by its nature. Parameter changes often produce zipper artifacts, stepping, etc. It's all solvable, but not uniformly solved.
>> "Digital tends to have more latency by its nature" - So...GPS satellites, atomic clocks, operation of a modern processor are full of latency that humans can detect? Human reaction time is in the order of 100ms. This statement makes zero sense. I honestly don't understand and I'd love you to explain what specific areas you think where this happens.
"I said, ‘No, that can’t be so, Larry,’ ” Eno recalled. “ ‘We’ve all worked to that track, so it must be right.’ But he said, ‘Sorry, I just can’t play to it.’ ”
Eno eventually adjusted the click to Mullen’s satisfaction, but he was just humoring him. It was only later, after the drummer had left, that Eno checked the original track again and realized that Mullen was right: the click was off by six milliseconds. “The thing is,” Eno told me, “when we were adjusting it I once had it two milliseconds to the wrong side of the beat, and he said, ‘No, you’ve got to come back a bit.’ Which I think is absolutely staggering.”"
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/04/25/the-possibilia...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/04/25/the-possibilia...
I play an online game (Overwatch) and I can tell the difference between a 20ms ping and a 40ms one, so I’m not surprised that an extremely proficient musician with a lifetime of practice can tell a difference of a few miliseconds.
In high school physics we were doing some experiments around pendulums and used metronomes to measure the period; I remember the teacher telling us about a former student of hers, a concert level musician, who could keep a beat in perfect timing without using a metronome at all.
In high school physics we were doing some experiments around pendulums and used metronomes to measure the period; I remember the teacher telling us about a former student of hers, a concert level musician, who could keep a beat in perfect timing without using a metronome at all.
You bet! A 20 ms diff makes a whole lot of difference also when you do high speed car racing!
This statement does make sense in the realm of audio processing. Moving from analog to TDM Digital, to Packetized Digital audio does add latency. Compare an analog radio (either two way or broadcast) without any digital signal processing, with a analog one with signal processing, to a digital one - each step in there, the latency goes longer.
On a full duplex phone call, you can tolerate quite a bit of latency, upwards of 600ms, provided there is no echo, as soon as echo is present, we notice the latency - but even on echo free calls, the longer the latency, the more likely both parties will end up speaking at the same time.
On a full duplex phone call, you can tolerate quite a bit of latency, upwards of 600ms, provided there is no echo, as soon as echo is present, we notice the latency - but even on echo free calls, the longer the latency, the more likely both parties will end up speaking at the same time.
Reaction time is not really relevant for musicians, they are more like operating on a continuous feedback loop with the sound and the instrument, so the sensitivity to latency is much higher. Afaik most good instruments aim to well below 10ms latencies.
And yes, digital audio typically inherently has some latency due processing typically being based on some buffers. Sure, you can try to make those buffers smaller but that is not always so easy to do.
And yes, digital audio typically inherently has some latency due processing typically being based on some buffers. Sure, you can try to make those buffers smaller but that is not always so easy to do.
Musicians can detect latency as little as 1ms. It changes the "feel" of the instrument/equipment. It took until recently for digital gear to feel similar to analog, because it's an enormous engineering challenge to get digital equipment to be as responsive as the simplest analog equipment.
It makes perfect sense in this context of graphics software. You're forgetting that computer graphics are a heap of latency issues.
[deleted]
Responding to hyperbole with hyperbole isn’t a very productive way to get your point across.
Firstly, have you tried an analog synthesizer ?
It's very analog-equivalent-to-the-demoscene.
...as I glance at the midi controller I got a few years ago in hopes I would easily be able to map it to parameters in 3ds Max/Houdini. Nobody cares anymore :(.
Of course it wouldn't be the same, but it would be great if someone made a software emulator for this. It's the sort of thing that would be a lot of fun to play around with in a web browser.
Or maybe a panel you could attach to a Raspberry Pi. Children would love this.
The truly amazing thing is that one can say that with a straight face (and not be wrong).
The notion that one could take a device that costs a few bucks and replicate a significant percentage of the capability (at least in terms of results, though not in terms of the creative process) that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and required a whole team to maintain and operate it effectively continues to be ridiculous to me.
As an old-timer who studied and worked in tape-based analog audio recording studios and at a pre-digital television station (barely, I was there when the digital machines moved in, just before I quit), this utter transformation of all of the audiovisual industries within my lifetime has been nothing short of incredible. I've watched it happen, and my mind still boggles at what can be done "in the box", even on modest hardware, today vs. 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Every decade sees an order of magnitude drop in price and order of magnitude increase in capability, at least for the non-physical aspects of the job (cameras, microphones, lenses, speakers, monitors, lights, instruments, room treatment for absorption/diffusion, etc. still cost a lot and probably always will, though even many those things have dropped in price precipitously due to the steadily improving quality of low-end products...once upon a time, a $50 microphone was a joke, today you can make a pretty decent recording with a $50 MXL or similar).
The notion that one could take a device that costs a few bucks and replicate a significant percentage of the capability (at least in terms of results, though not in terms of the creative process) that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and required a whole team to maintain and operate it effectively continues to be ridiculous to me.
As an old-timer who studied and worked in tape-based analog audio recording studios and at a pre-digital television station (barely, I was there when the digital machines moved in, just before I quit), this utter transformation of all of the audiovisual industries within my lifetime has been nothing short of incredible. I've watched it happen, and my mind still boggles at what can be done "in the box", even on modest hardware, today vs. 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Every decade sees an order of magnitude drop in price and order of magnitude increase in capability, at least for the non-physical aspects of the job (cameras, microphones, lenses, speakers, monitors, lights, instruments, room treatment for absorption/diffusion, etc. still cost a lot and probably always will, though even many those things have dropped in price precipitously due to the steadily improving quality of low-end products...once upon a time, a $50 microphone was a joke, today you can make a pretty decent recording with a $50 MXL or similar).
All good commentary! Glad my preservation efforts have gotten this group talking about Scanimate and analog. -Dave Sieg
I wonder how much it costs to keep it running; I bet the comment "phew its got hot in here" is no coincidence, the equipment looks like it will draw some serious power.
Props to the guy for maintaining the equipment, it is definitely cool thing even if I struggle to think what I'd do with it.
Props to the guy for maintaining the equipment, it is definitely cool thing even if I struggle to think what I'd do with it.
One of the first things I noticed was that the knobs, sliders, and faceplate labels weren't worn out. They are all clear and even the demarcation lines were all clear.
Given the ages involved, I'd expect those to be worn and faded to the point where they aren't visible.
I suspect he has done a while lot of maintanence and restoration on the devices. Even his jumpers appeared to be in new condition.
Given the ages involved, I'd expect those to be worn and faded to the point where they aren't visible.
I suspect he has done a while lot of maintanence and restoration on the devices. Even his jumpers appeared to be in new condition.
I can imagine this having massive potential in music videos.
Perhaps more as cool equipment that appears in the video than for what it can produce. :-)
The machine looks fascinating and I would've loved to learn more about the intricacies of how it worked (and that's the sort of content I come to HN for), but sadly, nearly the entire 5 minutes ended up being about this guy being nostalgic, saying how this old system was the best and how the new systems will never be as exciting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHjkMThH0aE and the subsequent videos might be more interesting. I remember seeing a really good video explaining and demonstrating this system a few years ago, but can't find it again unfortunately.
> It is very tangible. You can effect the image with your hands. You can almost touch it. You can't touch any of this digital stuff, it is in the computer somewhere.
My first camera was digital and my first exposure to photo editing was with photoshop in high school. When I took a B&W photography class as a senior in college it was eye opening. We were in the darkroom dodging and burning photographs on the enlarger with our hands; it was exhilarating. I may not see eye to eye with Dave Sieg on digital, but I completely agree with him on physicality of creation. There is a qualitatively different feel when you are working with physical controls and within constraints of a non digital system.
> You plugin in things to make your animation. That is really where the term plugin came from.
Also this bit is also quite interesting. Is this etymology true?
My first camera was digital and my first exposure to photo editing was with photoshop in high school. When I took a B&W photography class as a senior in college it was eye opening. We were in the darkroom dodging and burning photographs on the enlarger with our hands; it was exhilarating. I may not see eye to eye with Dave Sieg on digital, but I completely agree with him on physicality of creation. There is a qualitatively different feel when you are working with physical controls and within constraints of a non digital system.
> You plugin in things to make your animation. That is really where the term plugin came from.
Also this bit is also quite interesting. Is this etymology true?
Background music sounds very modern and digital. They should have chosen something analog.
Go back in time even to early 1990s and any video editor would tell you they'd kill for what we have now with modern digital video including effects.
I recall editing on u-matic tape in the 90s, man that was painful. You couldn't quite grab a frame, it was hit or miss if you wanted frame accuracy. I did enjoy the ergonomics of big control panels, switches, dials, but not the leads and plugs, and not rewinding tapes or losing quality when copying; 4:3 ratio everywhere and the list goes on.
Go back in time even to early 1990s and any video editor would tell you they'd kill for what we have now with modern digital video including effects.
I recall editing on u-matic tape in the 90s, man that was painful. You couldn't quite grab a frame, it was hit or miss if you wanted frame accuracy. I did enjoy the ergonomics of big control panels, switches, dials, but not the leads and plugs, and not rewinding tapes or losing quality when copying; 4:3 ratio everywhere and the list goes on.
Sounds like the confessions of a heroin dealer!
5:21 "The true skill of the flying asshole wipe is in the timing."
5:21 "The true skill of the flying asshole wipe is in the timing."
Analog is amazing! I'm 3-bit & analog computers fan, but mobile VM platform much more better under control https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk58kWIAqMM
Nothing goes better with Scanimate graphics than Raymond Scott music!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stX3zM2oL8g
"Strict rules of conduct" -- pff! How retro!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stX3zM2oL8g
"Strict rules of conduct" -- pff! How retro!
For a great demo of an analog video graphics processor looking at itself, and a deep explanation of the chaos theory behind video feedback, to some cool mesmerizing boop boopity boop electronic music, check out Jim Crutchfield's video, "Space-Time Dynamics in Video Feedback":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Kn3djJMCE
"Self-Organization and Pattern Formation in an Image Processing System"
"A video camera views its monitor: information flows in a closed optical-electronic loop"
Here is his paper about it that he published in Physica (1984):
http://csc.ucdavis.edu/~cmg/papers/Crutchfield.PhysicaD1984....
SPACE-TIME DYNAMICS IN VIDEO FEEDBACK
James P. Crutchfield
Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratories, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
Video feedback provides a readily available experimental system to study complex spatial and temporal dynamics. This article outlines the use and modeling of video feedback systems. It includes a discussion of video physics and proposes two models for video feedback dynamics based on a discrete-time iterated functional equation and on a reaction-diffusion partial differential equation. Color photographs illustrate results from actual video experiments. Digital computer simulations of the models reproduce the basic spatio-temporal dynamics found in the experiments.
http://csc.ucdavis.edu/~chaos/
A great youtube comment on the video:
Ross Oldenburg
Crutchfield's paper is massively influential for video artists. I've done very similar things to this. The key is to have an image processing system in the feedback loop. In this case, he's using a Sandin IP (you can see it at 1:05), which is an early video synthesizer (that you had to build yourself. there weren't even kits. Just a manual). That's where the colors are coming from, and I would guess the black and white fields that are obscuring parts of the image at points. I would bet he's using a black and white camera, too. To pull of video feedback like this successfully, you need to have control over all aspects of the video signal and you need a camera that allows you to manually control the iris and focus. That said, it's amazing and a lot of fun. And LZX industries makes something similar to the Sandin IP today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandin_Image_Processor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qh6jRzjmcY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Kn3djJMCE
"Self-Organization and Pattern Formation in an Image Processing System"
"A video camera views its monitor: information flows in a closed optical-electronic loop"
Here is his paper about it that he published in Physica (1984):
http://csc.ucdavis.edu/~cmg/papers/Crutchfield.PhysicaD1984....
SPACE-TIME DYNAMICS IN VIDEO FEEDBACK
James P. Crutchfield
Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratories, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
Video feedback provides a readily available experimental system to study complex spatial and temporal dynamics. This article outlines the use and modeling of video feedback systems. It includes a discussion of video physics and proposes two models for video feedback dynamics based on a discrete-time iterated functional equation and on a reaction-diffusion partial differential equation. Color photographs illustrate results from actual video experiments. Digital computer simulations of the models reproduce the basic spatio-temporal dynamics found in the experiments.
http://csc.ucdavis.edu/~chaos/
A great youtube comment on the video:
Ross Oldenburg
Crutchfield's paper is massively influential for video artists. I've done very similar things to this. The key is to have an image processing system in the feedback loop. In this case, he's using a Sandin IP (you can see it at 1:05), which is an early video synthesizer (that you had to build yourself. there weren't even kits. Just a manual). That's where the colors are coming from, and I would guess the black and white fields that are obscuring parts of the image at points. I would bet he's using a black and white camera, too. To pull of video feedback like this successfully, you need to have control over all aspects of the video signal and you need a camera that allows you to manually control the iris and focus. That said, it's amazing and a lot of fun. And LZX industries makes something similar to the Sandin IP today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandin_Image_Processor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qh6jRzjmcY
TFW you grew up obsessed with video graphics but lived in middle-of-nowhere Appalachia, then find out this guy's studio was half an hour away the whole time.
Note: I haven't watched the video in full, so what I say below may already have been answered in it...
===
Part of me thinks this should be in the Computer History Museum and not in this guy's garage - simply from a preservation standpoint.
At the same time, I'm not sure if this could be considered "computer history" or not - though it certainly has elements of analog computing.
The Scanimate was one of those iconic machines that ultimately helped to lead us to where we are today with computer graphics - if this is really the only operating one in existence (I don't necessarily doubt it, from the history I have read about it and early graphics), then proper preservation should be paramount.
But I can understand if the guy didn't want to give it up.
On a side note - how many here have seen this?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj9pbs-jjis
Basically - computation of fractals using analog video feedback...kinda amazing that (in theory) something like could have been done in the 1950-60s using Eidophor projectors of the era (amazing analog tech in its own right)...
===
Part of me thinks this should be in the Computer History Museum and not in this guy's garage - simply from a preservation standpoint.
At the same time, I'm not sure if this could be considered "computer history" or not - though it certainly has elements of analog computing.
The Scanimate was one of those iconic machines that ultimately helped to lead us to where we are today with computer graphics - if this is really the only operating one in existence (I don't necessarily doubt it, from the history I have read about it and early graphics), then proper preservation should be paramount.
But I can understand if the guy didn't want to give it up.
On a side note - how many here have seen this?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj9pbs-jjis
Basically - computation of fractals using analog video feedback...kinda amazing that (in theory) something like could have been done in the 1950-60s using Eidophor projectors of the era (amazing analog tech in its own right)...
Watch the video and note the condition of the equipment. I'd say he's doing a fine job preserving it.
I also haven't watched the whole thing :/ but I have worked in many areas of film/video production. I have always been amazed at how these machines and their operators performed this magic for decades but were overlooked by both their audience and industry. This studio and this machine are glorious wonders of 20th century media technology and art history but almost nobody realizes this. Very sad. :(
It is similar to the CGI industry's hard work being overlooked over the years, but maybe that is changing retrospectively as more people come to realize the feats they accomplished on antique hardware.
It is similar to the CGI industry's hard work being overlooked over the years, but maybe that is changing retrospectively as more people come to realize the feats they accomplished on antique hardware.
He addresses this at about 4:05 into the video.
Basically he wants it working, not as a standing display
Thats probably my biggest complaint about CHM, is they have no living displays - thats what I love so much about the LCM in Seattle, its all living, breathing tech, that you can touch.
When did that happen? When I was living in the bay area, I'd visit every few months, and they always had scheduled demos of some of the big equipment. Hell, you could see the Babbage engine running every weekend.
But, they also had a working PDP-1 with Space War that you could play, demonstrated and described by some of the people who'd built some of the original software and the game itself.
Admittedly, most of the equipment was display-only, but I think that's reasonabe...given the cost and effort to restore even one such device of that complexity, in an era when parts have to be scavenged from NOS or from donor machines or built from scratch using spotty design docs, it's entirely reasonable to focus on the devices that are either of notable significance (the first of a thing, or whatever), or things that the most expertise is readily available for (a lot of the docents and people who work/volunteer at CHM are computing pioneers, usually with a history of working with specific devices).
I love CHM, and think they do a great job, and have always really enjoyed my visits. I used to drag every visitor I had out to the CHM even if they had no interest in computers. Most people still enjoyed it. There's something wonderful about seeing the scale and intricacy of early computers.
But, they also had a working PDP-1 with Space War that you could play, demonstrated and described by some of the people who'd built some of the original software and the game itself.
Admittedly, most of the equipment was display-only, but I think that's reasonabe...given the cost and effort to restore even one such device of that complexity, in an era when parts have to be scavenged from NOS or from donor machines or built from scratch using spotty design docs, it's entirely reasonable to focus on the devices that are either of notable significance (the first of a thing, or whatever), or things that the most expertise is readily available for (a lot of the docents and people who work/volunteer at CHM are computing pioneers, usually with a history of working with specific devices).
I love CHM, and think they do a great job, and have always really enjoyed my visits. I used to drag every visitor I had out to the CHM even if they had no interest in computers. Most people still enjoyed it. There's something wonderful about seeing the scale and intricacy of early computers.
I've been twice, and they had nothing of note that was interactive when I visited.
They're scheduled events, so you have to sort of plan ahead.
Check the section labeled "Demonstrations": http://www.computerhistory.org/hours/
There's a PDP-1 lab, an IBM 1401 lab (that's new to me), and a RAMAC demonstration.
Check the section labeled "Demonstrations": http://www.computerhistory.org/hours/
There's a PDP-1 lab, an IBM 1401 lab (that's new to me), and a RAMAC demonstration.
There are also quite a few software packages that implement analog synthesis techniques, like https://lumen-app.com/ and http://v002.info/about/