XPUB
/
project.xpub.nl
65
1
Fork 0
Code Issues 2 Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity
You cannot select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
master
Branches Tags
${ item.name }
Create tag ${ searchTerm }
Create branch ${ searchTerm }
from '9a0fe55dc6'
${ noResults }
project.xpub.nl/how-to-make-your-server-run...
History
km0 9a0fe55dc6 first test and frightening sparse checkout 2 years ago
..
backp first test and frightening sparse checkout 2 years ago
frontp first test and frightening sparse checkout 2 years ago
cover.jpg first test and frightening sparse checkout 2 years ago
dis1.png first test and frightening sparse checkout 2 years ago
dis2.png first test and frightening sparse checkout 2 years ago
dis3.png first test and frightening sparse checkout 2 years ago
index.html first test and frightening sparse checkout 2 years ago
pngs.png first test and frightening sparse checkout 2 years ago
readme.md first test and frightening sparse checkout 2 years ago
terms.json first test and frightening sparse checkout 2 years ago
webps.png first test and frightening sparse checkout 2 years ago

readme.md

3d spin !!!

cover eheh

An impostor 3d spin that uses pictures of a rotating object (in this case: soupboat) to fake 3d rotation.

This is a prototype for the grad project website! Actually the plan is to use real pictures of the soupboat and its 3d printed legs. But need to take pictures first, so here a tryout with a render.

Bonus: this happen twice: one for the background and one for the foreground. In this way we can fake depth having something passing in front and something in the background. Checkmate depth buffer.

Some problems concerning images

This technique uses a lot of images. The script can be easily adjusted to regulate how many of them, for this first tryout i tried with 36 images for a round. (360 degrees/10). Probably could work fine just halving them, and have only 18 angles.

The point is:

  • 36 images for the front +
  • 36 images for the back
  • = 72 pictures in total

Not really the most exciting thing to do in a website right? Take into account also the question of transparency, and suddenly the idea to have seventy png files to swap and change and download on the fly makes your cursor wandering around the browser feeling dizzy.

Then I remember that webp image format exists, and I can apparently use it. It's an image format developed by Google so my inner cop was copmlaining, but look at these:

list of 36 png files: total weight 40mb List of 36 png files, for 40mb

list of 36 webp files: total weight 600kb List of 36 webp files, for 600kb

So i would say webp is definitely a way to go here: you get lossy compression same as jpeg, but with the bonus of transparency like png. I would say that this is a nice deal.

Confront discomfort

While figuring out what to do for my graduation project, the moment to decide where to make this thing public arrived. A collection of readme files is something quite digital, hence I thought ok so then it's a website? So then it's a website! So then it's a website... The instant reflex to associate digital contents with websites caused some discomfort: why do I end up always here? I feel so bored of my patterns.

messages in a chat from the same person writing here: "bc it was the moment of thinking ok so what surface? a website? again a website?", "and we spent a bit of time insisting on this sense of discomfort", "because for me it's really natural like ok there is something to code let's make a website for it", "or let's make it browser based", "bc eventually these are the tools im most familiar with for interaction design etc", "but at the same time they carry along all this problems that i cannot really just ignore", "so one tendency is ok well we can make a website out of it and the other is ew but what about consumption? what about carbon footprint? what about best practices and accessibility"

During a tutorial, Manetta suggested to stay with this discomfort for a while. To scratch a bit under its surface to see what's there. Some months ago I wrote this 30% exhausted vent in the readme of wlist:

A small writing machine to experiment the list format. It's again web-to-print, it's again flask, it's again markdown, it's again it's again it's again. I'm 30% sorry.

a reply in the chat: "Lol I like the 30% sorry" - and I continue "yea she said the same aha", "and this is causing a lot of friction in my head and heart and that's why for example at some point before graduation proposal tried to experiment with bash and other forms of coding not related with the browser", "but then today had this moment with the png and webp etc", "and this is something i arrived just bc it's a surface i know and that i can explore really in depth", "bc im familiar with it and know how to navigate and how to make choices", "and here a bit this friction loosen up", "and i feel that for me it makes way more sense to stay with a tool im familiar with in order to make it work the way i want", "to be less harmful or more accessible or whatever", "than to hop to something new as soon as there is a problem", "idk it was a moment of realization"

Here a bit of context: my relation with the browser started to get complicated following a growing interest in permacomputing practices, that caused an initial allergic reaction to all kinds of javascript based applications included the one i most work with on a daily bases.

( need to elaborate this a bit more )

replies: "It makes sense", "Sounds like an important moment", "So what does this mean" - and I continue "it means that this discomfort probably should play a role in what i make", "maybe not the main role", "but neither a hidden one", "like instead of hiding it or hiding from it to confront", "ok let's rewrite this sentence", "like instead of hiding or hiding from it, to confront it"

( possibly continuing here )