Details

<p>Foreword xiii</p> <p>Introduction xvii</p> <p><b>Part 1. History and Identity </b><b>1</b></p> <p><b>Chapter 1. The Origins of Projection Mapping </b><b>3<br /></b><i>Ludovic BURCZYKOWSKI</i></p> <p>1.1. Introduction 3</p> <p>1.2. Let’s moonwalk! A short crossing through time 4</p> <p>1.2.1. The emergence of the expressions “video mapping”, “projection mapping”, “spatial augmented reality” and “spatial correspondence” between the beginning of the 21st Century and the end of the 20th Century 4</p> <p>1.2.2. From 17th Century magic lanterns to ancient camera obscura 5</p> <p>1.2.3. The screen as a material considered as a void: projection mapping in negative from the 15th Century onwards 6</p> <p>1.2.4. How far back in history can we go? 7</p> <p>1.3. Immersion in hallucinated worlds 8</p> <p>1.3.1. Some films on the theme of nested or fallacious realities in line with the first digital projection mapping installations 8</p> <p>1.3.2. Some philosophies of illusion 9</p> <p>1.4. Examples of visual devices 10</p> <p>1.4.1. Two visual instruments: anamorphoses and X-rays 11</p> <p>1.4.2. Immersive panoramas 11</p> <p>1.4.3. Augmented reality and low-tech virtual reality 12</p> <p>1.4.4. Some visual sequences spatialized since Antiquity 13</p> <p>1.5. The agencies 14</p> <p>1.5.1. The arts of memory 14</p> <p>1.5.2. Feedback, or the chicken and the egg problem 15</p> <p>1.5.3. Some practical uses of the magic lantern 16</p> <p>1.6. A figure of transgression and juxtaposition with a beyond 17</p> <p>1.6.1. Unconditionality 17</p> <p>1.6.2. Magic image imagery 18</p> <p>1.6.3. Anima 20</p> <p>1.6.4. See from a distance 20</p> <p>1.7. The invention of an “empty box” as an image container 21</p> <p>1.7.1. Any precursors? 22</p> <p>1.7.2. Alberti and the invention of the screen 22</p> <p>1.7.3. The humanistic context of the disruptive object-subject disconnect reified in and through the image 23</p> <p>1.7.4. A hypothetical starting point 24</p> <p>1.8. Modern inflexions: obsolescence of old visual devices and tacit challenges to the Albertian model 25</p> <p>1.8.1. Obsolescence 25</p> <p>1.8.2. Challenges 26</p> <p>1.9. Parastatic scenography 28</p> <p>1.9.1. For the eyes: the uncomplicated image 28</p> <p>1.9.2. Living presences and images 29</p> <p>1.9.3. From the screen to film 30</p> <p>1.10. From expedition to investigation 32</p> <p>1.10.1. Resilience 32</p> <p>1.10.2. Ongoing investigation 33</p> <p>1.11. Conclusion 34</p> <p>1.12. References 34</p> <p><b>Chapter 2. The “Spatialization” of the Gaze with the Projection Mapping Dispositive </b><b>37<br /></b><i>Justyna Weronika ŁABĄDŹ</i></p> <p>2.1. Introduction 37</p> <p>2.2. The release of the “cinematographic cocoon” 38</p> <p>2.3. Changing the projection mapping dispositive 41</p> <p>2.4. The spatialization of the gaze or the perception of the projection mapping spectator 44</p> <p>2.5. “Attractions set-up” or real content? 48</p> <p>2.6. References 49</p> <p><b>Chapter 3. Projection Mapping: A New Symbolic Form? </b><b>51<br /></b><i>Martina STELLA</i></p> <p>3.1. Introduction 51</p> <p>3.1.1. Symbolic form and apparatus 51</p> <p>3.1.2. Apparatus and projection mapping 53</p> <p>3.2. A shifting tool 54</p> <p>3.3. The surface 56</p> <p>3.3.1. The environment/projection ratio 56</p> <p>3.3.2. The volume 57</p> <p>3.3.3. The projection plane: the substrate 59</p> <p>3.4. The projection 60</p> <p>3.4.1. The haptic image 60</p> <p>3.4.2. The point of view or the projector 61</p> <p>3.5. Conclusion 63</p> <p>3.6. References 66</p> <p><b>Chapter 4. Points of View: Origins, History and Limits of Projection Mapping </b><b>69<br /></b><i>Ludovic BURCZYKOWSKI and Marine THÉBAULT</i></p> <p>4.1. The origins of a movement towards alternative forms according to Romain Tardy 69</p> <p>4.1.1. Origins and VJing 69</p> <p>4.1.2. Transformation and continuity 70</p> <p>4.1.3. Projection mapping and the screen 71</p> <p>4.1.4. Projection mapping of yesterday, today and tomorrow 72</p> <p>4.2. A short history of projection mapping according to Dominique Moulon 73</p> <p>4.2.1. Projection mapping in the history of light 73</p> <p>4.2.2. The invention of the video projector 74</p> <p>4.2.3. The feeling of immersion with different applications of projection mapping 75</p> <p>4.2.4. The role of ICTs today and tomorrow 77</p> <p>4.3. Projection mapping and its limits according to Christiane Paul 78</p> <p>4.3.1. The New Aesthetic 78</p> <p>4.3.2. Projection mapping as a technology 79</p> <p>4.3.3. Projection mapping as an experience connecting the physical and the virtual 80</p> <p>4.3.4. Projection mapping and museums or art institutions 81</p> <p><b>Part 2. Texts and Techniques </b><b>83</b></p> <p><b>Chapter 5. Listening to Creators in Residence </b><b>85<br /></b><i>Marine THÉBAULT and Daniel SCHMITT</i></p> <p>5.1. Creators, a residence and a festival 85</p> <p>5.2. Capturing the genesis of a work 86</p> <p>5.3. REMIND: a method to capture the dynamics of the situated creative experience 87</p> <p>5.4. Space, tool and solitude 88</p> <p>5.4.1. The instrumental space 89</p> <p>5.4.2. The dynamics of the emotional states of the creators <i>in situ </i>97</p> <p>5.4.3. Work, emotions and troubles 99</p> <p>5.5. New residence arrangements 100</p> <p>5.5.1. Limitations and contributions of this type of survey 100</p> <p>5.5.2. Towards a design of space and experience 100</p> <p>5.5.3. The creator profession 101</p> <p>5.6. Prospects for the future 102</p> <p>5.7. Increased attention to the place of creators in digital arts 103</p> <p>5.8. Acknowledgements 104</p> <p>5.9. References 104</p> <p><b>Chapter 6. Projection Mapping and Automatic Calibration: Beyond a Technique </b><b>107<br /></b><i>Sofia KOURKOULAKOU</i></p> <p>6.1. Introduction 107</p> <p>6.2. Towards a new projection dynamic 107</p> <p>6.3. Automatic calibration 108</p> <p>6.4. Automatic geometric calibration 109</p> <p>6.4.1. Procams methods 109</p> <p>6.4.2. Zhang method (Zhang 1998, 1999) 109</p> <p>6.5. Projector calibration using one or more pre-calibrated cameras 109</p> <p>6.5.1. Fringe Pattern/Structured Light DMD (Digital Micromirror Device) 110</p> <p>6.6. Automatic calibration applied 111</p> <p>6.7. Automatic calibration in France 112</p> <p>6.8. Conclusion 112</p> <p>6.9. References 113</p> <p><b>Chapter 7. Projection Mapping Gaming </b><b>115<br /></b><i>Julian ALVAREZ</i></p> <p>7.1. Introduction 115</p> <p>7.2. Specifying the scope of the projection mapping game 118</p> <p>7.3. The indoor projection mapping game 119</p> <p>7.4. The outdoor projection mapping game 123</p> <p>7.5. Conclusion 125</p> <p>7.6. References 126</p> <p><b>Chapter 8. Projection Mapping and Photogrammetry: Interest, Contribution, Current Limitations and Future Perspectives </b><b>127<br /></b><i>Nicolas LISSARRAGUE</i></p> <p>8.1. Introduction 127</p> <p>8.2. State of the art 127</p> <p>8.3. Photogrammetry for projection mapping 129</p> <p>8.4. Contribution: an automated imaging device for object photogrammetry 130</p> <p>8.5. Current limitations and future prospects 137</p> <p>8.6. References 139</p> <p><b>Chapter 9. Points of View: Sound, Projection and Interaction </b><b>141<br /></b><i>Jérémy OURY, Ludovic BURCZYKOWSKI and Marine THÉBAULT</i></p> <p>9.1. Sound creation projection mapping, a real composition of sound 141</p> <p>9.1.1. Introduction 141</p> <p>9.1.2. The place of sound 142</p> <p>9.1.3. Analysis of works of art 146</p> <p>9.1.4. Conclusion 149</p> <p>9.2. Projectionist: a profession according to Pascal Leroy 150</p> <p>9.2.1. History 150</p> <p>9.2.2. Identity and tastes 151</p> <p>9.2.3. Art and technology 151</p> <p>9.2.4. Limitations 152</p> <p>9.2.5. Projection mapping and cinema 152</p> <p>9.3. Interactive projection mapping by Anne-Laure George-Molland 153</p> <p>9.3.1. Enter interactivity to make it exist 153</p> <p>9.3.2. Small interactivity and projection mapping 155</p> <p>9.3.3. The future of interactivity in projection mapping 156</p> <p>9.4. References 157</p> <p><b>Part 3. Production and Dissemination </b><b>159</b></p> <p><b>Chapter 10. The Factory of the Future, Augmented Reality and Projection Mapping </b><b>161<br /></b><i>Pascal LEVEL</i></p> <p>10.1. Introduction 161</p> <p>10.2. The factory of the future 161</p> <p>10.2.1. The process 161</p> <p>10.2.2. The technological challenges of the plant of the future 163</p> <p>10.2.3. A digital and connected factory 164</p> <p>10.3. Augmented reality 165</p> <p>10.3.1. Simple definition 165</p> <p>10.3.2. Some chronological references for augmented reality 166</p> <p>10.4. Factory of the future and augmented reality 169</p> <p>10.5. Augmented reality and projection mapping 170</p> <p>10.6. Future plant and projection mapping 171</p> <p>10.6.1. Some preliminary considerations 171</p> <p>10.6.2. Some examples of projection mapping in manufacturing 172</p> <p>10.7. Conclusion 175</p> <p><b>Chapter 11. Heritage Mediation through Projection Mapping </b><b>177<br /></b><i>Alexandra GEORGESCU PAQUIN</i></p> <p>11.1. Introduction 177</p> <p>11.2. The symbolic value of heritage 179</p> <p>11.3. Projection mapping as a means of cultural heritage mediation 180</p> <p>11.3.1. Transcending mediation 181</p> <p>11.3.2. Combined mediation 186</p> <p>11.3.3. Self-reflective mediation 189</p> <p>11.4. Conclusion: monumentalize the monumental 194</p> <p>11.5. References 196</p> <p><b>Chapter 12. Projection Mapping: A Mediation Tool for Heritage Resilience? </b><b>199<br /></b><i>Hafida BOULEKBACHE and Douniazed CHIBANE</i></p> <p>12.1. Introduction 199</p> <p>12.2. Architecture, a heritage trace and an art to be preserved 200</p> <p>12.3. The architectural heritage between preservation and mediation issues 203</p> <p>12.4. Meeting between architectural heritage and projection mapping 203</p> <p>12.5. Classification of architectural projection mapping 205</p> <p>12.5.1. Communication issue 205</p> <p>12.5.2. Information issue 208</p> <p>12.6. Meeting between architecture and projection mapping 209</p> <p>12.7. Conclusion 210</p> <p>12.8. References 211</p> <p><b>Chapter 13. Architectural Projection Mapping Contests: An Opportunity for Experimentation and Discovery </b><b>213<br /></b><i>Jérémy OURY</i></p> <p>13.1. Introduction 213</p> <p>13.2. Different projection mapping projection contexts 214</p> <p>13.2.1. Limitation of projection mapping orders 214</p> <p>13.2.2. Contests, platforms of creative freedom 215</p> <p>13.3. Interests and functioning of the contests 216</p> <p>13.3.1. The organizers’ point of view 216</p> <p>13.3.2. Functioning of the contests 217</p> <p>13.4. Analysis of the 2018 season 220</p> <p>13.4.1. Perspective of the artists 220</p> <p>13.4.2. Results of the 2018 contests 223</p> <p>13.5. Conclusion 226</p> <p><b>Chapter 14. Points of View: Supporting and Highlighting Projection Mapping </b><b>229<br /></b><i>Marine THÉBAULT and Ludovic BURCZYKOWSKI</i></p> <p>14.1. Video Mapping European Center according to Antoine Manier 229</p> <p>14.2. Lighting design and sustainable projection mapping installations according to Alain Grisval 231</p> <p>14.2.1. Lighting designer 231</p> <p>14.2.2. Durable devices 232</p> <p>14.2.3. Economy 232</p> <p>14.2.4. Legal aspect 233</p> <p>14.2.5. Identity and taste 233</p> <p>14.2.6. Interaction for all audiences 234</p> <p>List of Authors 235</p> <p>Index 237</p>

<p><b>Daniel Schmitt</b> is a teacher-researcher in information sciences and communication at the Polytechnic University of Hauts-de-France, France. His research focuses on lived experience and instrumented mediations.</p> <p><b>Marine Thébault</b> is a research engineer at the DeVisu laboratory of the Polytechnic University of Hauts-de-France. Her research focuses in particular on the analysis of the activity of artists and their audiences.</p> <p><b>Ludovic Burczykowski</b> is a doctor in aesthetic phenomena and sciences and technologies of the arts, a specialist in the relation of digital images with the physical environment, and a research engineer.</p>

US