h a l f b a k e r y"More like a cross between an onion, a golf ball, and a roman multi-tiered arched aquaduct."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Sound Painting
Oil or other medium painting on canvas of a waveform that you point your smart phone at to hear. | |
This would require development of a skill I'm not sure
humans are capable of, painting wave forms that can be
played back using an iPhone app.
If somebody, after years of practice could even paint a
single word, this would be amazing, and as you can see
by the examples given, they can be quite
pretty too.
No I don't see that you can scan the examples shown to
hear them, it's
just a representation that doesn't play back which seems
odd. I know you can optically scan the grooves on a
record
to play them back so there's no barrier between
graphically
transcribed sound and an optically read playback
mechanism.
But could a human learn such a skill? If somebody could
actually paint the "word" YES to answer that question,
even if it were a muddled, garbled, hard to understand
mess, this would be an incredible achievement.
Visitors to the gallery would be given the downloadable
app to play these back. If I did this I'd have positive and
friendly words with nice messages. "Hi!" for starters.
Could make the walk through form a little story.
This, only painted without technical assistance.
https://www.soundwavepic.com/
The artist just paints words from their memory. [doctorremulac3, Sep 19 2019]
Piet Mondrian
https://en.wikipedi.../wiki/Piet_Mondrian
Strangely compelling [8th of 7, Sep 19 2019]
Kind of baked
https://warmplace.ru/soft/phonopaper/
[pocmloc, Sep 26 2019]
Wikipedia: Phonautograph
https://en.wikipedi.../wiki/Phonautograph
Earliest known device for recording sound. Recorded sound waves as scratches on sooty paper or glass, which could not be played back (and apparently nobody thought to want to do that at the time). They have since been converted into playable sound by scanning and digital processing. [notexactly, Sep 28 2019]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
<Wonders vaguely what one of Mondrian's non-representational abstracts might sound like/> |
|
| |
[8th of 7] I once downloaded (for WinXP) a program that
would turn images into sound. X-axis is time, Y-axis is
frequency; I forget if/how it used colour (whether RGB or
HSV values...). If I can convince my old computer to start
up, I'll find the name tonight.
Not as clever as this idea, of course. |
|
| |
If the sound was represented as a waveform, I'm not sure the resolution
(of the painting and of the camera) would be sufficient for intelligibility.
In the human voice, the lower frequencies carry tone, while the higher
frequencies carry meaning. If it was represented as a spectrogram, you'd
need both the frequency component (what is usually shown in
spectrograms) and the phase component (the other output of the Fourier
transform that's usually discarded) to reconstruct the original waveform. |
|
| |
So could a human do this? Dhunno, but if they could,
it would be something to see. |
|
| |
I love the examples of this. They are really quite pleasing to
the eye. And I love your translation of the idea. So you get
two buns for one. You genius, you. |
|
| |