Ink Punching
May 7, 2014 8:52 AM   Subscribe

Parisian tattoo artist Gue T Deep made a slow motion video of his hand at work.
posted by gman (12 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite
I don't know what I expected but that was really ... visceral.
posted by exogenous at 9:17 AM on May 7, 2014 [1 favorite]

posted by darkstar at 9:27 AM on May 7, 2014 [1 favorite]

Deeply unsettling.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:28 AM on May 7, 2014

Very cool.
posted by spicynuts at 9:30 AM on May 7, 2014

If you prod my belly it wobbles like that. But for much longer.

Very cool video.
posted by dowcrag at 9:49 AM on May 7, 2014 [1 favorite]

Neat. Far worse than the pain is that awful buzzing noise. How tattoo artists can stand to listen to it all day is beyond me.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:58 AM on May 7, 2014

Wulp. I am now the artist formerly known as Considering A Tattoo. I'm going to, uh, go barf for a totally different reason.
posted by Mooseli at 10:00 AM on May 7, 2014 [1 favorite]

this was great.
posted by dogwalker at 11:00 AM on May 7, 2014

You know, I'm usually the guy who quickly gets all quasi-barfy over blood and guts stuff of any sort, but perhaps because I have tattoos already (?) this didn't bother me at all. It did make me think that I'd love to see slow motion video of some other sorts of fine-motor skills work up close: sculpting, throwing pots, etc.
posted by BigHeartedGuy at 11:08 AM on May 7, 2014 [1 favorite]

Yay, physics! That was awesome; it's like the best parts from How It's Made but tattooing. Certainly doesn't put me off more tattoos.
posted by fiercecupcake at 11:34 AM on May 7, 2014

As someone who thinks tattoos are very cool.. i still found it unsettling. I think that we just aren't use to seeing the surface of our arm behave like the surface of water. Even if that's what weren't primarily composed of.

Would it still be.. wavy on someone who's very thin and has low muscle mass? Or someone very muscular?
posted by royalsong at 1:00 PM on May 7, 2014

A bunch of new digital high speed cameras have flooded the market in recent years that make high speed cinematography feasible for any reasonably skilled photographer. It has been a convergence of technology from the realm scientific high speed photography and the resolution and aesthetic demands of cinematographers.

Notably, Vision Research, but also fastec, are leading the charge. The compactness, sensitivity, and relative affordability of the sensors used in these cameras have essentially made the impossible possible. Grainy B/W images from scientific high speed digital sensors of just a few years ago had unacceptably poor image quality, and high speed film cameras, well... They were machines of byzantine complexity, and the photographer had to choose between either a total record time of fractions of a second, or a film spool as large as an entire room. Not to mention problems with chemical film like reciprocity failure. I have heard a first person account that the really, really, really fast high speed film cameras used to document missiles exploding and the like, were powered by gasoline motors and used wire film leads miles in length strong enough to withstand the change in momentum required to get the spool up to speed - and then, miles of film being passed through the gate in just a few seconds.

Back to digital: >1000 FPS rigs (where it really starts to get interesting) are still priced out of the range that any one individual might afford, but rentals have come down to a few thousand a day so that production companies (and very rich tattoo artists, I guess) can afford to do cool stuff with them. I suppose the day will someday arrive when CCD recharge times are fast enough that even a smartphone could do high speed photography. Wouldn't that be cool and scary at the same time?
posted by Halogenhat at 7:29 PM on May 7, 2014 [2 favorites]

« Older WHAT KINDS OF MINDS CREATE A STORY LIKE THIS?   |   Christies is hip, I mean cool, no? Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments