I guess I'm biased on this, with one son that did photography and another that is in the film business, I'm sort of inclined to feel that an artist has a 100% right to the derivatives of his/her work, but, hey, that's just me!
What it does is a FFT for each point in time (each sample) of the song, which gives it a set of frequencies and magnitudes (let's say for example 8khz*10, 5khz * 7.5, 11.5khz at 2.5, etc -- the actual set of frequencies and magnitudes will be a lot more detailed). Then, if you're slowing it down by 90%, what it does is generate 9 new samples in between those other two sounds, by kind of smoothing out the transition between one set of frequencies and the next, much the same way that you can morph two photos into each other.
so if anything, the slowed-down version is 16 times as long as the original (or 1600% slower)
My thought here is that if an artist like Williams (or, for that matter, any other composer, artist, singer, whatever) creates something as moving as the theme to Jurassic Park, does anyone else have the right to bend it and put a "Jurassic Park Theme (1000% Slower)" by birdfeeder is licensed under a Creative Commons License" tag on it?
Csound's pvoc will interpolate between frames, but too few frames will generate audible distortion; too many frames will result in a huge analysis file.
« Older You've met AZO, the videogame animator that can ac... | Chris Colfer of Glee accepts h... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt