recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : imgur   3

DIGITAL-MATERIALITY-OF-GIFS
HI, my name is Sha.

I love gifs.

Some of my best friends are gifs. One of my sideprojects is GifPop, a site where people upload gifs to print animated cards.

But that's a longer story.

What I do want to talk about is animated gifs as a design material.

But first off, a quick reminder: no one owns language.

People argue about gif or jif, but it doesn't matter. No one owns language, and even if anyone did no one is a jraphic designer or jraffiti artist.

What i love about gifs are their history and their materiality.

First specified in 1987, the creators later stated in their 1989 revision that "the graphics interchange format is not intended as a platform for animation, even though it can be done in a limited way."

And what a gloriously, gloriously limited way it is.

Animated gifs, whether you are hypnotized by them or nauseated by them, have become a visual language unto themselves, an emotive vocabulary made out of culture.

Gifs are now a medium, and their portability and accessibility to anyone allows for endless remixing and reinterpretation.

Gifs weren't always this way.

We all remember the various under construction or dancing baby gifs from the 90s, and all the bedazzled backgrounds on myspace pages.

The gif spec limits color palettes to 256 colors, and must store the pixels that have changed for every frame of animation.

This makes them very inefficient for rendering or storing entire movies, but has made them nicely equipped to capture the most delicate of moments.

Because gifs can specify an infinite loop, they both break time and increase legibility, creating the beauty we call a reaction gif.

But gifs aren't just about cutting up bits of media.

The inefficiency of the file format and the upload limits of the social networks themselves have created a whole ecosystem of experimentation and juggling around constraints.

In Jamie Beck and Kevin Burg's work, they realized that by isolating movement they could make gifs at a much higher quality than most, and still fit Tumblr's strict upload requirements, creating the style they call cinemagraphs.

Sports editors like @dshep25 have taken this technique even further, taking advantage of controlled camera angels to collapse and collage many similar shots into a single gif, like this one of Lebron James.

Artists of course are leading this exploration.

The work of dvdp and 89-a both explore extremely limited color palettes while using tight loops and large swaths of black to reduce file size.

The work of Nicolas Fong explores this dense looping to a ridiculous extreme, creating hyperintricate animations that evoke the phenakistoscopes of the 1800s.

And we even see the seams of the network in the content that's posted.

On Tumblr, where upload limits are small but multiple side-by-side gifs are permitted, people collage snippets of dialogue together.

On Imgur, the preferred uploader for redditors, upload limits are much higher, enough for entire scenes to be remixed.

Here on Newhive, artists like molly soda take advantage of the support for transparency and collaging to make pieces like this, displaying messages from her Okcupid inbox.

Content like this just explodes, and with attention comes money.

Newer networks like Vine have popped up, creating their own medium of looping video.

These days for every Vine THERE are a dozen competing looping apps trying to capitalize on this meme economy.

But while these advances are exciting, the mainstreaming of gifs is not without its losses.

Tumblr now has a minimum resolution size.

Imgur is now promoting its own videogif format.

Facebook and Twitter have started converting gifs to video by default.

While individually these decisions to decrease file sizes or stop gifs from autoplaying make sense, this desire to optimize as well as commercialize gifs ends up siloing these animations from each other, removing the portability and ease of remixing that makes gifs exciting at all.

Gifs are a dumb, limited file format, and in the end this is why they are important:

They do not belong to anyone.

Because of their constraints they become a design material, to be played with, challenged, and explored. to try and domesticate them would be missing the point.

This was written BY SHA HWANG For a Pecha Kucha talk in Brooklyn and made into a remixable newhive. The ideas are from the internet.

Thank you to animatedtext for creating the amazing title gif. more detailed sources are INLINE ON THE PAGE to the right >>>>>>>>>

[Also at this URL: http://newhive.com/shashashasha/digital-materiality-of-gifs ]
shahwang  gifs  animatedgifs  internet  web  facebook  vine  twitter  fileformats  constraints  art  webart  tumblr  memes  remixing  portability  video  animation  emotions  imgur  okcupid  redit  newhive  phenakistoscopes  dvdp  89-a  @dshep25  cinemagraphs  jamiebeck  kevinburg  history  media  legibility  resolution  reactiongifs  accessibility  1987  1989  gifpop  culture  remixculture  multiliteracies 
january 2016 by robertogreco
Upload - PDFy - Instant PDF Host
"Why does PDFy exist? I got sick of documents getting locked up behind login walls of services like Scribd. PDFy exists to offer a place where anybody can instantly upload and share a PDF, much like Imgur does for images. PDFy is free, ad-free, and non-commercial.

Servers aren't free, though. Your donations are much appreciated. You can donate by clicking here, using PayPal, Bitcoin, or Flattr.

Click to upload ... or drag and drop a PDF file here, to upload it (max. 100 MB).
What you get:

• Your PDF hosted permanently, ad-free.
• Share-able page with PDF viewer (using pdf.js).
• Embeddable version of the viewer.
• Original PDF can be downloaded by anybody, without registration.
• All public PDFs mirrored to the Internet Archive for preservation.

Please don't upload warez! Terms of Service here."

[See also: https://github.com/joepie91/pdfy ]
pdf  pdfs  pdfy  hosting  ebooks  documents  onlinetoolkit  via:caseygollan  scribd  imgur 
july 2014 by robertogreco
We're sharing more photos but getting less in return
"Theoretically, we could have an up-to-the-minute photo database of any popular location. We'd just need Instagram to include more metadata by default and allow users to sort by location (or let a third-party app do the same).

If we were properly organizing the photos we're already putting online, I could see how a festival was going, and Google Maps could show me all the photos taken from the Eiffel Tower in the last five minutes. I could even see if a popular bar is crowded without any official system. We'd be able to see the world right now, as clearly as we see its past on Google Street View, as quickly as news spreads on Twitter.

We have the data and the technological infrastructure, but we're stuck because no developer can access all the data.

If anyone was going to deliver these capabilities, it would be Flickr. In 2006, it was the canonical destination for photos. If you wanted to see photos of a certain place or subject, that’s where you went. But Facebook replaced Flickr as a social network, killing it on the desktop, and Instagram released a simpler mobile app, killing it there too. That would have been fine if Facebook and Instagram kept their photos data-rich and fully exportable. But both services give fewer tagging, grouping, and other sorting options, and they built their photos into incompatible databases. Facebook won't organize photos any way but by human subject or uploader. Instagram has just a few view options and focuses solely on the friend-feed.

We're photographing everything now, building this amazing body of work, but we're getting less and less out of it.

We do get some benefits from not having one monopoly in charge of photo sharing: Instagram did mobile better than Flickr, Facebook can link a photo of someone to their whole social profile, and Foursquare efficiently arranges photos by location. These advantages, however, have replaced Creative Commons licensing, advanced search, and any other tool that relies on treating the world's photo pool as a mass data set rather than a series of individualized feeds.

Twitter, Tumblr, and Imgur siphon off bits of the photo market without giving them back into the mass set. Meanwhile, any photo service that dies off (RIP Picasa, Zooomr, Photobucket) becomes a graveyard for photos that will probably never get moved to a new service.

Why are we giving up this magical ability to basically explore our world in real-time? The bandwidth is lower than streaming video; the new-data-point frequency is lower than Twitter; the location sorting is less complicated than Google Maps or Foursquare. But no one service has an incentive to build this tool, or to open up its database for a third party. Instead they only innovate ways to steal market share from each other. Flickr recently downgraded its mobile app, removing discovery options and cropping photos into squares. The new app is an obvious Instagram imitation, but it won't help Flickr recapture the market. If any photo service beats Instagram, it won't be by making data more open.

Our collective photo pool suffers from a tragedy of the commons, where each service snaps up our photos with as few features as it can, or by removing features. (Snapchat, for example, actively prevents photos from joining the pool by replacing the subscription model with a one-to-one model, efficiently delivering photos straight from my camera to your feed.) We are giving our photos to these inferior services, they are making billions of dollars from them, and what we're getting back is pathetic.

The best agnostic tool we have is the archaic Google Image Search, which doesn't effectively sort results, doesn't distinguish between image sources, and doesn't even touch location search. The lack of agnostic metadata is keeping us in the past. As Anil Dash pointed out in 2012, the photo pool (like blogs and status updates) is becoming fragmented and de-standardized. Everything we're putting online is chopped up by services that don't play well together, and that's bad for the user.

Dash wrote, "We'll fix these things; I don't worry about that." I do. I don't think technology has to work out right. We can build expressways where we should have built bullet trains. We can let an ISP monopoly keep us at laughable broadband speeds. We can all dump our memories into the wrong sites and watch them disappear in 10 years. We can share postage-stamp-sized photos on machines capable of streaming 1080p video.

Even if we do fix this, it will not be retroactive. There are stories about whole TV series lost to time because the network stupidly trashed the original reels. Now that we take more photos than we know what to deal with, we won't lose our originals—we'll just lose the organization. When Facebook and Instagram are inevitably replaced, we'll be left without the context, without the comments, without anything but a privately stored pile of raw images named DCIM_2518.JPG.

Just a heap of bullshit, really."
nickdouglas  flickr  metadata  photography  2014  instagram  tags  tagging  search  storage  facebook  tumblr  imgur  twitter  picasa  zooomr  photobucket  archives  archiving  creativecommons  realtime  foursquare  googlemaps  snapchat  anildash  googleimagesearch  technology  regression  socialmedia  fragmentation  interoperability 
may 2014 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read