Twenty Thousand Still Images
April 2, 2008 9:13 PM Subscribe
Global Warming Video, From Still Images Twenty days. Twenty thousand still images. A single message. Toronto Star photographer Lucas Oleniuk captures the issue of global warming in a video created entirely by using still images.
"more than 1/4 of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation..."
I was surprised to find, after sitting in traffic on it, that apparently the busiest stretch of highway in the world runs along the edge of Toronto.
posted by LeLiLo at 9:27 PM on April 2, 2008
I was surprised to find, after sitting in traffic on it, that apparently the busiest stretch of highway in the world runs along the edge of Toronto.
posted by LeLiLo at 9:27 PM on April 2, 2008
Dah, but this is done with a still camera. I guess that may just be interesting to us still photographers. And Koyaanisqatsi was done with "motion picture film" not still a still camera.
posted by doug3505 at 9:28 PM on April 2, 2008
posted by doug3505 at 9:28 PM on April 2, 2008
That was surprisingly not as interesting as I thought it might be. Now if this was a still film camera (not digital), I might be impressed at the "twenty-thousand" still images claim. Most digital cameras (even cheaper ones) will take time lapse images by recording an image every one or two seconds. I have done it myself and it looks pretty much the same as this.
But mine usually don't have the global warming message so this wins by that alone.
And are there supposed to be two links to the same page or am I missing something?
posted by paddysat at 9:38 PM on April 2, 2008
But mine usually don't have the global warming message so this wins by that alone.
And are there supposed to be two links to the same page or am I missing something?
posted by paddysat at 9:38 PM on April 2, 2008
A single message ... captures the issue of global warming
if you tell the audience what to think about it, it's not art, it's pedantry.
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:55 PM on April 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
if you tell the audience what to think about it, it's not art, it's pedantry.
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:55 PM on April 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
Yeah, the line between 'still' and 'motion' camera is mainly an ergonomics/design issue. Most camcorders can take stills and most still cameras can take video.
Also, the point about passenger jets. I wonder how hard it would be to switch hydrogen fueled jetliners. After all, the space shuttle is hydrogen powered, and it uses much more energy then a jetliner. The fact that you only need fuel stations at airports (which already handle lots of fuels) would make it a lot easier then switching to hydrogen powered cars.
Another interesting thing about passenger planes is that when they came out of the sky after 9/11 the temperature whent up most likely due to all the dust in their exhaust actually having a cooling effect. (this wouldn't cancel out global warming as it's a very short term thing, while CO2 is a long-term thing) (link)
posted by delmoi at 10:02 PM on April 2, 2008
Also, the point about passenger jets. I wonder how hard it would be to switch hydrogen fueled jetliners. After all, the space shuttle is hydrogen powered, and it uses much more energy then a jetliner. The fact that you only need fuel stations at airports (which already handle lots of fuels) would make it a lot easier then switching to hydrogen powered cars.
Another interesting thing about passenger planes is that when they came out of the sky after 9/11 the temperature whent up most likely due to all the dust in their exhaust actually having a cooling effect. (this wouldn't cancel out global warming as it's a very short term thing, while CO2 is a long-term thing) (link)
posted by delmoi at 10:02 PM on April 2, 2008
I wonder how hard it would be to switch hydrogen fueled jetliners.
hard, and pointless. hydrogen gas has to be produced from some other hydrogen-containing material, because while it is the most abundant element in the universe, it is far from the most abundant one on earth. there are no vast reserves of untapped H2 out there. you have to generate it, and doing so requires energy input, and where does that come from? burning coal? nuclear power - hardly a renewable resource? vast photovoltaic installations that don't exist? you have to pay the piper somewhere along the line.
hydrogen is no more an energy source than the power lines carrying electricity to your home.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 10:47 PM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
hard, and pointless. hydrogen gas has to be produced from some other hydrogen-containing material, because while it is the most abundant element in the universe, it is far from the most abundant one on earth. there are no vast reserves of untapped H2 out there. you have to generate it, and doing so requires energy input, and where does that come from? burning coal? nuclear power - hardly a renewable resource? vast photovoltaic installations that don't exist? you have to pay the piper somewhere along the line.
hydrogen is no more an energy source than the power lines carrying electricity to your home.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 10:47 PM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
if you tell the audience what to think about it, it's not art, it's pedantry.
So... are you telling me to think it's pedantry?
posted by Dave Faris at 12:06 AM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]
So... are you telling me to think it's pedantry?
posted by Dave Faris at 12:06 AM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]
delmoi> Also, the point about passenger jets. I wonder how hard it would be to switch hydrogen fueled jetliners. After all, the space shuttle is hydrogen powered, and it uses much more energy then a jetliner.
Leaving aside the viability of hydrogen as an alternate fuel, it is problematic as a way to fuel jetliners because it has a much lower energy density per unit of volume than jet fuel. You need a physically much bigger tank to fit the same amount of 'go' in. For a plane, that has to drag that fuel tank through the air, this is a problem. We either get less efficient planes or a much shorter range. It's a different story for the space shuttle. It still had the volume problem, hence the great big external fuel tank, but it gets a win from hydrogen's far higher energy density per unit weight. When going straight up gravity is a bigger concern than drag so the weight benefit makes up for the volume penalty.
posted by adamt at 12:24 AM on April 3, 2008
Leaving aside the viability of hydrogen as an alternate fuel, it is problematic as a way to fuel jetliners because it has a much lower energy density per unit of volume than jet fuel. You need a physically much bigger tank to fit the same amount of 'go' in. For a plane, that has to drag that fuel tank through the air, this is a problem. We either get less efficient planes or a much shorter range. It's a different story for the space shuttle. It still had the volume problem, hence the great big external fuel tank, but it gets a win from hydrogen's far higher energy density per unit weight. When going straight up gravity is a bigger concern than drag so the weight benefit makes up for the volume penalty.
posted by adamt at 12:24 AM on April 3, 2008
FWIW, we watched this in my photojournalism multiple photos class and we all really, really liked it. I think in terms of photo stories it's a different way to show a message, rather than your standard glorified slideshow.
posted by riane at 4:43 AM on April 3, 2008
posted by riane at 4:43 AM on April 3, 2008
In addition to the screamingly bad inefficiency of using hydrogen, there's also the question of "Who's going to do the crash testing?"
Though admittedly since you're not surviving a plane crash anyway, I suppose that disadvantage wouldn't apply to planes...
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:06 AM on April 3, 2008
Though admittedly since you're not surviving a plane crash anyway, I suppose that disadvantage wouldn't apply to planes...
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:06 AM on April 3, 2008
Well, according to wikipedia liquid hydrogen is only 1/3rd less energy dense then then jet fuel, that's obviously a cutback but it wouldn't hurt as far as domestic flights.
As far as crashing goes, I don't see how it could be any more dangerous then carrying around a giant tank of jet fuel, which tends to explode in a giant fireball anyway.
posted by delmoi at 6:23 AM on April 3, 2008
As far as crashing goes, I don't see how it could be any more dangerous then carrying around a giant tank of jet fuel, which tends to explode in a giant fireball anyway.
posted by delmoi at 6:23 AM on April 3, 2008
excellent. good choice in quotes as well.
posted by quanta and qualia at 11:25 AM on April 3, 2008
posted by quanta and qualia at 11:25 AM on April 3, 2008
On the hydrogen issue, you need to consider the energy requirements of liquefying, as well as producing, the gas. At least, if you want to get fuel with an energy density anywhere near that of kerosine.
Finding alternative fuels for jets seems to be the climate change problem with the fewest viable technological solutions.
posted by sindark at 11:37 AM on April 3, 2008
Finding alternative fuels for jets seems to be the climate change problem with the fewest viable technological solutions.
posted by sindark at 11:37 AM on April 3, 2008
"One common method of obtaining liquid hydrogen involves a compressor resembling a jet engine in both appearance and principle. Liquid hydrogen is typically used as a practical form of storing hydrogen. As in any gas, storing it as liquid takes less space than storing it as a gas at normal temperature and pressure. Once liquified it can be maintained as a liquid in pressurized and thermally insulated containers."
See also: drawbacks
posted by sindark at 11:40 AM on April 3, 2008
See also: drawbacks
posted by sindark at 11:40 AM on April 3, 2008
The energy requirement for liquefaction is substantial. For a plant capacity of 100 kg liquid hydrogen per hour about 60 MJ of electrical energy is consumed to liquefy 1 kg of hydrogen. The specific energy input decreases with plant size, but a theoretical minimum of about 40 MJ per kg H2 remains.
posted by sindark at 11:43 AM on April 3, 2008
posted by sindark at 11:43 AM on April 3, 2008
I don't see how this "captures the issue of global warming." I see a bunch of images of Toronto.
posted by ethnomethodologist at 8:36 PM on April 3, 2008
posted by ethnomethodologist at 8:36 PM on April 3, 2008
« Older The gift that keeps on congealing... | GODKILLER Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by muckster at 9:23 PM on April 2, 2008