qdesjardin: (Default)
You might imagine the writing life to be glamorous.. the images of bookshelves, the rich scent of freshly-brewed coffee by the tabletop, the dude in a warmly-lit room, typing on his MacBook Pro on Scrivener, the hopes of reaching out to so many people in the world with his vivid world and characters who breathe alive in your imagination. The likes of J. K. Rowling or George R. R. Martin, who have become household names.
 
Then you come across your writing being ignored. You face indifference, apathy, and even outright rejection, as it seems like your stories carry an anemia of interest. People who lavish praise for the amount of words you've put on the page, like calories you have shed in a weight loss plan, but never bother to invest themselves in reading.
 
Suddenly, you are painfully aware of it all being mere words on a page -- a combination of letters, spaces and punctuation.

A medium so easily accessible to all who possess a keyboard, it takes no special skill or talent; all you need to do is text your bro on your phone and put a screenshot of it as a meme, slave over an essay in academia under fear of being graded, or write a BDSM about a rich, tortured man in your spare time, with a hapless girl caught under his enthrall. It can be said that artists enjoy what they do, while for writers, it's "having written."

The idea here is to smash that wall, that distances the reader from feeling, experiencing your story. Demolish anything that impedes getting to the reader's instincts on your own terms.

You want the reading process to be so invisible, it becomes as natural as breath, and everything besides your story fades out from awareness into an intense and unforgettable dream. In other words, you're creating a nostalgia for moments that had only existed in your heart.
qdesjardin: (Default)
I don't like it. Movies today, and around the last decade or so are shot on digital -- usually with RED or Arriflex cameras, and are processed digitally (on computers, where they're free to tinker with the lighting levels, colour hues). It's much faster, more convenient, compared with having to splice and chemically process real film.


This is what footage would look like from a digital camera; it's very grey-ish, because all of that is residual light information as captured by the sensors, so you're left with the responsibility of having to tweak the image, so it looks appropriate to the eyes -- something like this:



Now, in most movies, and maybe it's not something you'll pick up on if you're a casual viewer, is look how the colours tend to be muted, with maybe some underlying shadow hues (cyan or yellow-ish). It's like an cinematic Instagram filter that's slapped on to artificially establish a mood. Maybe you enjoy how 'crisp' the image looks, thanks to the high resolution, but at the same time, it's disconnected from everyday reality that you see, feel and breathe.







The 'flatness' quality of these digital images, it also contributes to skepticism over if something in a shot is done in-camera, or artificially generated by CGI, because it doesn't look organic. Even if say, a director has proudly announced that an action scene was done for real, that Tom Cruise has actually hung himself by a plane for Rogue Nation, you don't really feel it and a part of you still thinks it was green screen.

Let me show you something from an earlier time. This is the Wedding Singer. Look how vibrant and naturalistic the scenes feel:





Even though it's an Adam Sandler comedy, you'll realise those images feel more true-to-life, because there's a quality to it that just breathes -- as opposed to the sterile feel of the 2010s. Here is Single White Female:






It might bring to mind the whole "vinyl vs. FLAC/MP3" debate, but I don't think it's that. You can look at say, "Only God Forgives" which is done digitally, but has such an immersive look of neon and shadow. Rather, the crappy colour grading is a testament to the limited originality and passion you'll find in a lot of modern movies. The people who think primarily in current trends, about what has apparently worked (so many remakes/planned cinematic universes), without caring about the essential spirit or any hope for the undiscovered country.
qdesjardin: (Default)
This is the "Dairy" scheme - primarily aimed for roguelike players, but also for everyday command use, as well as programming. With other colour schemes, there were one or more tidbits that I didn't like, that made it unfeasible to use in the long run:
  • ugly/indistinguishable colour combinations
  • too monochromatic
  • dark blue is difficult to read, and blue is hard to distinguish from cyan
  • cooler hues that wouldn't play well under redlight
  • base16 colours that made it guesswork to figure out if a colour was meant to be "bold/highlighted" text
  • coloured text which grew tiresome after a while
After years of intense tweaking, I came up with something definitive, in the sense you won't be fiddling around for a long while. All colours are original, and do NOT obey modern trends. The colour scheme (hex) is as follows, and can be applied to terminals, or anything which uses 16 colours:

 darklight
black#070605#865870
red#9a0b20#ee3a43
green#19b25a#a9ecad
yellow#a35834#f5db7b
blue#003d79#009ada
magenta#b269ff#f4b8f4
cyan#007485#7be3f6
white#f0cbbe#ffffff

Below are examples - "Dairy" on left, default Windows/xterm scheme on right.