The one cool thing about the Pope selection process
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
While I agree that that 2013 is a pretty cool image, some of the comments posted are pretty interesting. One person mentions that the top photo is actually from a funeral (of John Paul II), at a different angle, and at a greater distance from the Vatican (I suppose is may also be that case that something is actually happening in the bottom photo, while the people are simply standing and waiting for something to happen in the top photo). While I suspect that there would be many more devices in the 2013 photo, it would be interesting to know how the factors mentioned above might be skewing the perception given by the images.
Another comment there was interesting, too: that most people are now more concerned with capturing the moment rather than being part of it firsthand. My aunt's husband was like this 20 years ago, though, with his video camera. He filmed all of my family during every bit of a 20 minute walk we took on a snowy afternoon, and when we returned to the house afterwards, wanted immediately to sit and watch what he had filmed....(and had missed ??)...
I do agree, though, that we are moving fast towards those devices seen in the movies portraying the not-too-distant future.
Another comment there was interesting, too: that most people are now more concerned with capturing the moment rather than being part of it firsthand. My aunt's husband was like this 20 years ago, though, with his video camera. He filmed all of my family during every bit of a 20 minute walk we took on a snowy afternoon, and when we returned to the house afterwards, wanted immediately to sit and watch what he had filmed....(and had missed ??)...
I do agree, though, that we are moving fast towards those devices seen in the movies portraying the not-too-distant future.
Last edited:
More like the Gargoyles in "Snow Crash." Except in the latter case, it's generally accepted that most people find gargoyles to be annoying and ridiculous.
I can totally relate to this. When one of my children has a concert or school program or something, my wife wants it recorded for for the usual reasons and to share with grandparents who can't be there. Of course I'm the one who gets to take care of the actual filming. I soon learned, however, that I pretty much missed everything because I watched it on the tiny screen of the camera instead of watching it live. It also didn't help that my attention was focused partially on the camera during the event. Now I try to record as little as necessary and don't worry about camera angles/zooming/etc.
I actually don't think this is "cool." Experiencing life through your smartphone or iPad display is rather sad.
Mankind has been doing that since stoneage when men painted their experiences on cave walls.
We're always trying to capture a moment that we are/were part of, so that we can later look at it and remember more vividly.
It's just simpler and more immediate now.
Ridiculous, humans can only experience moments and don't store them well, our brains don't work like that, it's great to have a way to experience it other than our inadequate storage capabilities and what's better, to share it in real time. Obviously you can experience an event and record it concurrently, to think otherwise is pure silliness.
RAMA
Looks positively primitive.
Read farmkid's post. Being stuck behind a camera worrying about how good a recording you're getting can definitely take you out of the experience.
Exactly. While I like taking pictures when I travel, I try not to get too obsessive about it, because you end up realizing you didn't actually experience anything, you just took pictures the whole time, and now those pictures are all you have, rather than actual memories.
I even find that a visual reminder of something is less effective than, say, remembering how something felt or smelled, or how I felt at the time. Visual records are nice to have, but I find they are often emotionally hollow, if you were too focused on getting a good picture to pay attention to what was going on around you.
Besides, the camera is always limited by what is in the frame and that is never the full picture of any event. Those who were there may recall things through seeing the images and videos later, but those who were not will always be limited by that frame, and at the mercy of how it is edited.
Watching an event on a monitor experiencing that event are two VERY different things. You can watch the same event dozens of times, but you can only EXPERIENCE it once.
If experiences and memories could be shared digitally it would be one thing; if your eyeglasses recorded everything you looked at for playback later, that would also be a thing. But witnessing an historical event through a four-inch LCD screen is not at all the same thing as physically being there, immersed in events, with all five senses active and engaged, with 360 degrees of freedom of movement and perception. It is the difference between playing a video game and training for combat; they are NOT the same thing.
It's a well documented phenomenon since the INVENTION of the camera, that the perspective of the cameraman is often highly distorted by his having to experience a large part of the event through the viewfinder of his instrument. This phenomenon can be so overwhelming that a number of TV cameramen have been caught mindlessly recording events that under any normal circumstances they would be better off throwing down the camera and lending a hand; by necessity, the photographer tunes out his other senses and his normal mode of response in favor of operating the recording tool itself.
It's quite a different matter when the recording tools are automated, and that too is well documented. Many astronauts, for example, have been caught doing and saying really strange and unprofessional things on camera or in a transmission simply because they forgot that they were being recorded.
I guarantee you the huge majority of people are not that worried about the quality of the picture and wouldn't take very good pics or video anyway(I also note your use of "stuck behind the camera" as bias rather than fact). Did you see people in the image looking at their cameras over their heads or what was happening...yup, you guessed it...but even if you look at an LCD screen you are usually getting an augmented view, even if you are relatively close, but is magnified if you are further.Also modern tech is starting to take out a lot of the necessary fussing to get images right, this includes making them lighter and smaller. HUD type glasses will also decrease this.
RAMA
You can experience something and have it be more enriching and longer lasting by what you recorded there, there is hardly any other reason to record many events except personal interest, so your idea doesn't make much sense. Personally the new Pope might be a historical event but I have no interest in recording it...but to those who do it's important for them to have it. The fact so many had phones there recording it may convince you of it(and in quality and capacity highly superior to equipment from 2005 that makes it even more desirable). If you think using a phone at an event means the same thing as not being there and experiencing it then I simply feel sorry for you.
As I've explained before a cell phone is an extension of human perception, doing things we can't biologically do, and no it doesn't make us a cyborg but it's getting there.
RAMA
I don't know what kind of top-end phone you're using, but I would scarcely call what typically shows up on a smartphone screen an "augmented" view. It's usually worse than what you can see with your own eyes, doubly so if the lighting is poor or you are zoomed in. The image becomes very "noisy" in a way your own vision does not.
Current CCDs are a lot better than they used to be, but they're still pretty craptacular in many ways. They're certainly no substitute for seeing something with your own eyes.
Actually, it does mean that, and he explained why.
Digital devices are not "extensions of human perception," they are multipurpose tools. My phone doesn't help me see, read, taste, smell, or touch anything better than I can on my own. What it can do is give me access to information, and yes, take photos and videos of things happening around me. As any kind of substitute for actual perception, though, it falls far short.
I don't know what kind of top-end phone you're using, but I would scarcely call what typically shows up on a smartphone screen an "augmented" view. It's usually worse than what you can see with your own eyes, doubly so if the lighting is poor or you are zoomed in. The image becomes very "noisy" in a way your own vision does not.
Current CCDs are a lot better than they used to be, but they're still pretty craptacular in many ways. They're certainly no substitute for seeing something with your own eyes.
Actually, it does mean that, and he explained why.
Digital devices are not "extensions of human perception," they are multipurpose tools. My phone doesn't help me see, read, taste, smell, or touch anything better than I can on my own. What it can do is give me access to information, and yes, take photos and videos of things happening around me. As any kind of substitute for actual perception, though, it falls far short.
This technology is a bridge, info technology is a tool but like books they expand human capabilities, increasing our "RAM" as it were, but computers and phones are even better..they extend perception and they store it, even make it more accurate. I posted some information on such conclusions here before.
Yes, phones can augment...if you are further away from an event, you can zoom. They do in fact (indisputably) have capabilities we don't...even if eyes are still superior overall. Eyes are still imperfect however.
I must have abilities you guys don't because I can easily experience events and still use my phone/camera. Great for me!
I give up. Rama is the master of "missing the point".
David Brin and many experts "get it" you guys don't.
RAMA
This made me giggle.
Regarding the "capture the moment while you live it" aspect-- every Sunday, I stick my little Sony Bloggie in my choir folder. I made a little stand for it out of paper and cardboard so it's pretty inconspicuous. I film myself singing every Sunday and have a huge Youtube playlist of choir anthems for anyone who happens to stumble into them. What's great is I can play it back and listen to how my choir sounds(albeit with more sopranos since I'm a soprano, but I can hear the harmony). I used to think I'm not very expressive when I sing, but seeing myself on video let me realize that I was wrong, I'm emoting without being aware of it.
There are times where I do look at the camera while I'm singing. It's my way to connect with whoever happens to watch the videos. Here's one where I giggle at myself because of the faces I make when I'm singing, but we're totally NAILING the song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgEHauELpY8 (Mozart's "Ave Verum")
Regarding the "capture the moment while you live it" aspect-- every Sunday, I stick my little Sony Bloggie in my choir folder. I made a little stand for it out of paper and cardboard so it's pretty inconspicuous. I film myself singing every Sunday and have a huge Youtube playlist of choir anthems for anyone who happens to stumble into them. What's great is I can play it back and listen to how my choir sounds(albeit with more sopranos since I'm a soprano, but I can hear the harmony). I used to think I'm not very expressive when I sing, but seeing myself on video let me realize that I was wrong, I'm emoting without being aware of it.
There are times where I do look at the camera while I'm singing. It's my way to connect with whoever happens to watch the videos. Here's one where I giggle at myself because of the faces I make when I'm singing, but we're totally NAILING the song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgEHauELpY8 (Mozart's "Ave Verum")
I give up. Rama is the master of "missing the point".
David Brin and many experts "get it" you guys don't.
RAMA
We get it. We've gotten all of it. We get it better than you do because we're not blinded by it.