BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//swoogo.com//NONSGML kigkonsult.se iCalcreator 2.41.90// CALSCALE:GREGORIAN UID:39666333-3265-4639-a263-653962336135 BEGIN:VEVENT UID:07ce83aef295367eab60c39df2a66a15b701137f@swoogo.com DTSTAMP:20260813T003224Z DESCRIPTION:In this new age of computational imaging\, Volumetric Video\, P erformance Capture\, Visual Effects and a myriad of other technologies are creating images that were never captured in the conventional sense.\n\nTh ese new technologies offer an almost infinite range of creative options on ce a production is over: camera angles can be modified\; virtual lenses ca n deepen or tighten the depth of field\, expand or compress perspective an d even mimic the distortion of vintage lenses\; actors can be replaced\, o r even brought back to life decades after they passed.\n\nOn top of this i maging revolution\, the rapidly evolving field of image display means that a final version for today may not be optimal or even adequate for the scr eens of tomorrow\, whether due to increased color gamut\, dynamic range\, spatial resolution\, size\, aspect ratio or frame rate.\n\nThese issues br ing up technical\, financial and ethical considerations about what to cons erve\, in which form\, and for how long\, with sometimes conflicting prior ities between the preservation of the original artistic intent and content owners' desire to maximize the revenue and/or lifespan of a particular as set.\n\nFor example\, if a character is a computer-generated avatar of a p erformance given through motion capture\, should we archive\, on top of th e on-screen performance\, all the motion capture files\, from the initial video capture to the computerized animation to the character models to the final render before it was composited into the shot? Could we\, and shoul d we\, leave that door open for future generations to change characters in the finished product\, eventually without the original creator's consent? On the other hand\, if we do not preserve the original animation\, do we hamper a creator's freedom to upgrade and refresh an asset when new techno logies arise in the coming years? At what cost do all these decisions come ?\n\nIn this paper\, the author proposes a new definition for 'image seque nce based works of art'\, to replace the traditional definition of 'film'\ , and details workflow options that strike the right balance between the p rotection of creative intent and future proofing of assets\, combining tec hnical\, ethical and philosophical considerations.\n\nWith all the advance s we have witnessed in the last 10 years\, and what's to come in the follo wing decade\, the author believes there is an urgency to answering those q uestions and standardizing workflows before what we do today has an unalte rable impact for future generations. DTSTART:20191022T210000Z DTEND:20191022T213000Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260813T003224Z LOCATION:Sacramento Room SEQUENCE:0 STATUS:CONFIRMED SUMMARY:How Will We Archive and Preserve the Movies of Tomorrow ? TRANSP:OPAQUE X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:In this new age of computational imaging\, Vol umetric Video\, Performance Capture\, Visual Effects and a myriad of other technologies are creating images that were never captured in the conventi onal sense.

\nThese new technologies offer an almost infinite r ange of creative options once a production is over: camera angles can be m odified\; virtual lenses can deepen or tighten the depth of field\, expand or compress perspective and even mimic the distortion of vintage lenses\; actors can be replaced\, or even brought back to life decades after they passed.

\nOn top of this imaging revolution\, the rapidly evolv ing field of image display means that a final version for today may not be optimal or even adequate for the screens of tomorrow\, whether due to inc reased color gamut\, dynamic range\, spatial resolution\, size\, aspect ra tio or frame rate.

\nThese issues bring up technical\, financia l and ethical considerations about what to conserve\, in which form\, and for how long\, with sometimes conflicting priorities between the preservat ion of the original artistic intent and content owners' desire to maximize the revenue and/or lifespan of a particular asset.

\nFor examp le\, if a character is a computer-generated avatar of a performance given through motion capture\, should we archive\, on top of the on-screen perfo rmance\, all the motion capture files\, from the initial video capture to the computerized animation to the character models to the final render bef ore it was composited into the shot? Could we\, and should we\, leave tha t door open for future generations to change characters in the finished pr oduct\, eventually without the original creator's consent? On the other h and\, if we do not preserve the original animation\, do we hamper a creato r's freedom to upgrade and refresh an asset when new technologies arise in the coming years? At what cost do all these decisions come?

\nIn this paper\, the author proposes a new definition for 'image sequence based works of art'\, to replace the traditional definition of 'film'\, a nd details workflow options that strike the right balance between the prot ection of creative intent and future proofing of assets\, combining techni cal\, ethical and philosophical considerations.

\nWith all the advances we have witnessed in the last 10 years\, and what's to come in th e following decade\, the author believes there is an urgency to answering those questions and standardizing workflows before what we do today has an unalterable impact for future generations.
END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR