I haven't watched the video yet, but there are definitely analog graphic synthesizers being made today, most notable those by <a href="https://www.lzxindustries.net/" rel="nofollow">https://www.lzxindustries.net/</a><p>There are also quite a few software packages that implement analog synthesis techniques, like <a href="https://lumen-app.com/" rel="nofollow">https://lumen-app.com/</a> and <a href="http://v002.info/about/" rel="nofollow">http://v002.info/about/</a>
The instantaneous hands on control is enticing, I've played with analog audio and the immediacy of alterations and infinite resolution is palpable in comparison to their digital equivalents. He should live stream some 'art' pieces to music, I'd watch :)<p>Here's Scanimate + Moog; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=184&v=1Cywgoftv4o" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=184&v=1Cywgoftv4...</a><p>More at <a href="http://www.scanimate.com/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.scanimate.com/index.html</a>
Of course it wouldn't be the same, but it would be great if someone made a software emulator for this. It's the sort of thing that would be a lot of fun to play around with in a web browser.
I wonder how much it costs to keep it running; I bet the comment "phew its got hot in here" is no coincidence, the equipment looks like it will draw some serious power.<p>Props to the guy for maintaining the equipment, it is definitely cool thing even if I struggle to think what I'd do with it.
The machine looks fascinating and I would've loved to learn more about the intricacies of how it worked (and that's the sort of content I come to HN for), but sadly, nearly the entire 5 minutes ended up being about this guy being nostalgic, saying how this old system was the best and how the new systems will never be as exciting.
> It is very tangible. You can effect the image with your hands. You can almost touch it. You can't touch any of this digital stuff, it is in the computer somewhere.<p>My first camera was digital and my first exposure to photo editing was with photoshop in high school. When I took a B&W photography class as a senior in college it was eye opening. We were in the darkroom dodging and burning photographs on the enlarger with our hands; it was exhilarating. I may not see eye to eye with Dave Sieg on digital, but I completely agree with him on physicality of creation. There is a qualitatively different feel when you are working with physical controls and within constraints of a non digital system.<p>> You plugin in things to make your animation. That is really where the term plugin came from.<p>Also this bit is also quite interesting. Is this etymology true?
Background music sounds very modern and digital. They should have chosen something analog.<p>Go back in time even to early 1990s and any video editor would tell you they'd kill for what we have now with modern digital video including effects.<p>I recall editing on u-matic tape in the 90s, man that was painful. You couldn't quite grab a frame, it was hit or miss if you wanted frame accuracy. I did enjoy the ergonomics of big control panels, switches, dials, but not the leads and plugs, and not rewinding tapes or losing quality when copying; 4:3 ratio everywhere and the list goes on.
Analog is amazing! I'm 3-bit & analog computers fan, but mobile VM platform much more better under control <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk58kWIAqMM" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk58kWIAqMM</a>
Nothing goes better with Scanimate graphics than Raymond Scott music!<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stX3zM2oL8g" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stX3zM2oL8g</a><p>"Strict rules of conduct" -- pff! How retro!
For a great demo of an analog video graphics processor looking at itself, and a deep explanation of the chaos theory behind video feedback, to some cool mesmerizing boop boopity boop electronic music, check out Jim Crutchfield's video, "Space-Time Dynamics in Video Feedback":<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Kn3djJMCE" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Kn3djJMCE</a><p>"Self-Organization and Pattern Formation in an Image Processing System"<p>"A video camera views its monitor: information flows in a closed optical-electronic loop"<p>Here is his paper about it that he published in Physica (1984):<p><a href="http://csc.ucdavis.edu/~cmg/papers/Crutchfield.PhysicaD1984.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://csc.ucdavis.edu/~cmg/papers/Crutchfield.PhysicaD1984....</a><p>SPACE-TIME DYNAMICS IN VIDEO FEEDBACK<p>James P. Crutchfield<p>Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratories, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA<p>Video feedback provides a readily available experimental system to study complex spatial and temporal dynamics. This
article outlines the use and modeling of video feedback systems. It includes a discussion of video physics and proposes two
models for video feedback dynamics based on a discrete-time iterated functional equation and on a reaction-diffusion partial
differential equation. Color photographs illustrate results from actual video experiments. Digital computer simulations of the
models reproduce the basic spatio-temporal dynamics found in the experiments.<p><a href="http://csc.ucdavis.edu/~chaos/" rel="nofollow">http://csc.ucdavis.edu/~chaos/</a><p>A great youtube comment on the video:<p>Ross Oldenburg<p>Crutchfield's paper is massively influential for video artists. I've done very similar things to this. The key is to have an image processing system in the feedback loop. In this case, he's using a Sandin IP (you can see it at 1:05), which is an early video synthesizer (that you had to build yourself. there weren't even kits. Just a manual). That's where the colors are coming from, and I would guess the black and white fields that are obscuring parts of the image at points. I would bet he's using a black and white camera, too. To pull of video feedback like this successfully, you need to have control over all aspects of the video signal and you need a camera that allows you to manually control the iris and focus. That said, it's amazing and a lot of fun. And LZX industries makes something similar to the Sandin IP today.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandin_Image_Processor" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandin_Image_Processor</a><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qh6jRzjmcY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qh6jRzjmcY</a>
TFW you grew up obsessed with video graphics but lived in middle-of-nowhere Appalachia, then find out this guy's studio was half an hour away the whole time.
Note: I haven't watched the video in full, so what I say below may already have been answered in it...<p>===<p>Part of me thinks this should be in the Computer History Museum and not in this guy's garage - simply from a preservation standpoint.<p>At the same time, I'm not sure if this could be considered "computer history" or not - though it certainly has elements of analog computing.<p>The Scanimate was one of those iconic machines that ultimately helped to lead us to where we are today with computer graphics - if this is really the only operating one in existence (I don't necessarily doubt it, from the history I have read about it and early graphics), then proper preservation should be paramount.<p>But I can understand if the guy didn't want to give it up.<p>On a side note - how many here have seen this?:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj9pbs-jjis" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj9pbs-jjis</a><p>Basically - computation of fractals using analog video feedback...kinda amazing that (in theory) something like could have been done in the 1950-60s using Eidophor projectors of the era (amazing analog tech in its own right)...