Lots of luck! Consider the frame rate of video, or even slow motion photography. Then consider the frequency of audio.
6 responses Add your response
[The video image is the only thing we need to worry about now. Audio will be edited into the video separately. We're not even sure if the artist will want synchronicity between the visual imagery and the audio track.]
I think you misunderstand. What Eldartford is telling you is that you'll never capture the movement of the stylus in the groove, because it is moving at frequencies (audio) which are much higher than the frame rate of the video equipment (neglecting the problem of the magnification required).
How are you going to capture the stylus tracing a groove which is modulating at 1kHz, if the video eqpt is only capable of capturing 60 frames/second (60Hz)? Never mind the frequencies up to 15kHz.
Actually, if you could focus on the stylus/groove, you would be getting a series of stills, which when played back would look like stop motion photography.
The artist isn't imposing a preconceived idea of how the video should look. I understand what limitations frame speed vs. stylus modulation impose. I rather suspect the effect, if possible to capture at all, would be like sequenced stop motion photos that would remind one of the films you see when an Olympic luger is hurtling down the luge run with a helmet cam. Very choppy, vertigo inducing cinema.