Question: curating/programing digital files

If it's being projected off a computer I would specify square pixels & the resolutions you are prepared to deal with.
SD can imply 4:3 or 16:9 and 720p or 1080p implies 16:9 ( but I think you might end up having to resize 1080p to project successfully from a computer ). It always bemuses me when people ask for PAL or NTSC in this context, surely it's irrelevant…
'Uncompressed' is another irritant -this can generate files of 20GB+ for a few minutes if one takes it literally.
H264 seems to be the most popular codec just about everywhere but I still have a fondness for Sorenson 3 which I think preserves contrast better - H264 can looked rather washed out.
'Uncompressed' is irritating as well because it implies a way of working which would exclude appropriated footage, cell phone video, mixing and matching lo res and hi res stuff… &c.

It would make me happy if I read a call which said:

***Files in QuickTime - SD *actual ratio* 4:3 or 16:9, HD 1080X720 ; codec: H264, Sorenson 3, Photo jpeg or mp4, preferred data rate the best you can/that seems sensible.
If your ratio is none standard please embed it in a black background in one of the above formats.
As these files will be projected from a computer it will almost certainly be worth deinterlacing your project before export.***

( Furthermore In my experience there is then absolutely no problem in authoring either PAl or NTSC DVDs from these, if that was necessary at any point)


I hope this makes sense - I'd be interested in other points of view…

best
michael

Ah - I now realise you're past all that! Forgive me! ( although I'm glad I got it off my chest).
For the viewer I'm not sure it matters so much - I think "digital file" or "QuickTime video" or some such is good.
It seems a bit over fussy to indicate codec or even aspect ratio or SD, HD - they'll see it!
What I do think is important is length, whether it has sound and whether it loops ( and whether this is a straightforward loop or a palindrome).
cheers
michael

depending on the kind of file/perspective of the screening, I think it could be very important to put the codec in the description. You can just follow 'normal/standard' description of a digital work of art and broaden this where needed?
If your work exploits or researches a specific codec or compression, then I think the codec could become more important, as part of the materiality of the work, then for instance the aspect ratio. However, aspect ratio is important for screening purposes, so depending for what / where you are writing or how inclusive you want to be, i think you know what to write.

Writing a codec sometimes and other times not, in for instance a screening program, could also be a way of posing attention to an unusual materiality (compression) that has actually gotten form/importance or presence in the specific work. it is not just part of its formal qualities, but can also part of its procedural/production and reception qualities. in this sense this information can be more descriptive then formal.
This could however be tricky - mentioning a compfression only in specific times. But as this kinds of works are playing with this kind of trickiness, its also meaningful x2 &&.
i think the importance of this data lies somewhere in between description of the work (metadata) and its formal qualities. So as a fast and arguable proposal, what about:
"maker. title, date, carrier/material, place. ratio, size, codec of video/sound, data/frame rate. data-size, re-encoding [for for instance stabilization]?", maybe its also important to write where it was published/copied from [thinking about re-encoding on the web]?.
oh i could think of so many things that could be interesting for particular files, its to much, so I think we have to think about getting away from the standard description and move to a more fluid description of art-works, in which we can point out the important file properties for the specific place where it is shown or the way the curator want the work to be received. The curator was making this kind of choices anyway, just a bit more strict, maybe.

fast ideas for fast posting!

Hmm -I'm not convinced about the codec or some of the other detail such as data rate. It a strikes me as a bit like specifiying brand of paint used in a painting.
I think we should grant the spectator *some* wit. A spectator assumes intention on the part of the maker -therefore image quality , size &c will enter into her judement of the effectiveness of the work .
There might be an exception to this when , say, mobile phone footage is -exceptionally, for example- presented on a large screen, but that would have more to do with justifiying curatorial decisions than anything to do with the work itself. Of course this wouldn't apply if the artist had *specified* projecting a tiny piece of video on a large screen -this then becomes part of the artwork & we should let the spectator judge…
michael
PS I want to say again I *do* think length & whether looped is a crucial factor to indicate -it's something the spectator will not usually know in advance & it makes a difference from the start to how one approaches a piece.

thanks Michael and Rosa, your comments have got me thinking.

Looking back, my post was a bit quick and vague - I should probably clarify some things. As you noticed Michael I'm referring to after the work has already been curated as opposed to a call for work, though I have to say I agree with everything you said (personally I get irritated when my options for "original format" are: 35mm, 16mm, 8mm, miniDV, HD - most of my digital video work doesn't fit into any of those categories - and sometimes its all). For my purposes I'm coming from an archival perspective (which is my role in this screening series). When I archive information from our events (Q&A's, Artist Talks, and Work Screened info) the card reads something like this:

TITLE OF WORK (2010, 16mm, color, sound, 42 min)

Most of the work we screen is film and fits nicely into this formula, but with digital works screened from a computer (which we've begun doing more and more) that "format" section (i.e. 16mm) gets tricky. Would you suggest, Michael, to go with "digital file"? That would, as you mentioned, avoid potential problems, for example the audience wrongly inferring artist intentions. For archival purposes it seems a bit ambiguous and nondescript… I'm split.

You bring up some good points Rosa, we should move away from standard descriptions, especially when they're based on models for other media - digital video and film share common traits but they're fundamentally different and your list of potential properties for particular files is a testament to that. I wonder though, will these properties become irrelevant [obsolete] in the future? Will codecs become a thing of the past as computers get better, stronger, faster? If yes, which are the properties/attributes of these files that are here now and will remain relevant latter?

Thanks again for the thoughts (more welcome and appreciated)
-Nick-

Hey Michael, Nick
Of course the spectator should have some space and not be overwhelmed with technical information that does not really help in any kind of way to watch the work.

But I answered to Nick s question taking in mind that I know his usual work/curating practice, which involves works that conceptually focus on codecs/compressions or other 'material' artifacts and particularities that have to do with the file format. In fact more and more I see technological constraints like datarate, or compression, file format etc becoming the subject of digital works of art, as some kind of political or punk exploration of the mediums materiality.
In the case of this kind of work "genre?" I think a more extensive description is very necessary.
Technologies develop faster and faster and sometimes it is difficult or tricky to reverse engineer/rethink how the technology has been exploited to get to a certain result, while the forgotten working method was key to understanding the work. Therefore I think it is important to curate or describe them, and not dismiss and consequently forget about them.

A more flexible way of curating/describing, and also indeed more flexible "original format" boxes for calls in digital (video) art are needed.