Case studies Interview with Alexandre Castonguay and Mathieu Bouchard
Générique is a work from the permanent collection of the Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal.
This interview was videotaped on February 22, 2008 at the Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal, following the installation of Générique. The artist Alexandre Castonguay, accompanied by the programmer Mathieu Bouchard, revisits the work and discusses the essential points of its technical aspects and preservation...
Also present:
Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal: Josée Bélisle, Curator of the Permanent Collection, Marie-Noël Challan Belval, Conservator, Anne-Marie Zeppetelli, Registrar, Denis Labelle and Michel Pétrin, audiovisual technicians.
DOCAM research assistants: Marie-Ève Courchesne and Louis-Antoine Blanchette.
Générique - Interview with Alexandre Castonguay and Mathieu Bouchard - Translation of the transcription
1. Générique
Alexandre Castonguay:
If we think about the form, the substance of the work, it’s an interactive installation that uses a projected image, a computer now, a soundtrack and an image stored in a computer and a computer-generated image from a camera. So we have a projected image, a camera, sound and a computer. Plus the space and the viewer, which is absolutely essential to pull it all together.
2. The Concept
Alexandre Castonguay:
Générique came into being, I believe, in 1998, 1999 - well, the very, very first versions. It was a completely different medium, and I remember seeing it in a research lab, it was a company that was doing—not the surveillance of workers the way we mean it today, but it was almost that. It was a company that was using small computers for teleconferencing in offices, enabling people to be more productive and efficient. So when I saw that and then saw their first experiments, which were to put a small crosshair, a small target that tracked the person in front of his or her office, I found it a bit odd. For me, the work and the interactivity have always been a subject in their own right that should be commented on by the work itself. So there’s a paradox, because the work is meant to be interactive, but at the same time, I’m talking about interactivity as we experience it or as it was experienced at the time or as we imagined it.
I think it’s still topical, yes, to talk about how technology was entering our world. How we can perceive our body, our presence in the face of technology. When I personally use interactivity, I refer to that, but I try to change it a bit, to permit an experience that is more open to the viewer, less closed. With Générique, however, because I chose three colours, red, green, blue—it’s nature, yes, but they are also the colours used in CRT screens, light beams—so the composition of colours, of digital images. These images from nature are images that were prefabricated and packaged, then made available for artists. I had to pay user fees as a creator of those images. They were very small video sequences. I think they were 240 by 320 or 320 by 240 then, 30 images per second. And I think that for low resolution, it was something like 60 dollars to get them.
So, the light, I went and got it from EyeWire. It was a company before stocks plummeted, before 2001. So there were firms that provided images of nature for creators. So I said to myself, fine, I’ll use that. So I use the fire that is already available. I use the water that’s already available. I looked everywhere for green, but unfortunately I couldn’t find any. I had to go shoot it at the experimental farm, which itself is a 19th century garden, there was a sort of pictorial quality to it. So I took those three sources and then made reference to them in the work. Well, it’s not a reference, but for me, using them in the work is a way of saying to viewers, “Right, okay, we think we’re free, but…,” hence the title, Générique. Interaction is somewhat generic; we know where we are, it’s like we’re in a hall of mirrors. Then there are these sequences of images that are themselves packaged or prefabricated, ready-made images, so I make people come face to face with it.
It is important to remember that in 1998–1999, there was a very “emancipating” discourse surrounding works of art and interactive and immersive art. There was a sense at the time that interactivity was a way of setting the viewer free. I didn’t want to see it that way, just have to swallow it whole. I wanted to play with it and see what would happen from a critical point of view because of the nature and limits of interactivity. What happened is perhaps the opposite. The piece was successful because it is immersive. People like seeing themselves in it. There’s still the mirror element. In the end, maybe with the sound, too, people experience the work on an aesthetic level. Which is not a bad thing. As an artist, I have often seen it happen: my initial ideas and presuppositions were very conceptual, but in the end, they perhaps got a bit beyond my control. That’s okay, though, because I do not want to create works that are dry or that are going to put viewers off. Because it’s very easy to say to them, “Interactivity is bad; you see how nature is packaged.” So this puts people right inside the image. The idea is that they see themselves in it, they ask themselves why, they’re a bit intrigued. When they invest some time with the work, the sequences begin to change because as soon as they come closer it changes from green to blue, then when there’s more movement, when there’s a lot more movement, it changes to red. That is part of the generic side, because yes, there is interaction, but for me, the interaction is so stupid, that interaction is so finely honed that the viewer actually has very little freedom. It is not a work of art with a content that is going to change in a very rich way depending on the viewers actions. The viewer isn’t choosing different viewpoints in order to move through a video sequence. I saw it as a way of showing interactivity for what it was. It was something very, very limited in 1998–99.
Josée Bélisle:
What I found fascinating about the work is that despite the fact that you consider the interactivity to be very simple, viewers are fascinated by their own image. And that is something you can’t get away from.
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes. The mirror effect is strong, the immersive effective is strong. Some of the images, because they’re ready-made, I’m not saying the green, because I was the one who did that, but the blue and the red, are also very static. It’s made to be that way. It’s really a set of related images followed by immersion; it’s hard to get out. Despite it all, much to my surprise, even though for me, from a certain conceptual standpoint, it was a rather cold piece, it was rather logical, there was a poetic side that slipped in. But I’m happy because even when I was doing installations before with mountains of television sets, there was always a warm, human side to them.
3. Some Technical Aspects
Alexandre Castonguay:
The work is designed to occupy a room or large corner, and there has to be place for viewers, visitors, to move in front of the camera.
Anne-Marie Zeppetelli:
Which is always placed in a specific location…
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes, always on the floor.
Anne-Marie Zeppetelli:
Okay. That can’t be changed. It’s always more or less in the same place.
Alexandre Castonguay:
Correct. It should be placed to the left of the image, at the bottom. Here (at the MMMA), it was set up to reverse the projected image to ensure that there would be a mirror effect, ensure that our image followed us.
Camera and resolution - Mathieu Bouchard:
We’re already working below SD. We’re at half. If you take NTSC 4:3 computer, 640 by 480, that’s not bad, higher than what we’re using. We’re using 320 by 240. So half that way (width) and half that way (height). For the incoming signal, it comes in at 640 by 480 in theory, because we know that NTSC plays with the words for resolution, for colours.
Alexandre Castonguay:
In this case, the quality doesn’t matter a great deal provided we have 640 by 480, then it’s NTSC, that’s fine. The camera does have a wide-angle lens, however, which captures a wider field in front of the camera.
Mathieu Bouchard:
Yes, that’s certainly one of the most important parts, the key thing. As far as the rest goes, in this context, almost all of the information is eliminated when we see our own form inside, they’re very leached out for the most part, then we can’t really see much detail, it’s very abstract. So in that case, the quality of the camera, the quality of the colours inside, doesn’t really matter.
Alexandre Castonguay:
For this piece, for Générique, it’s a single effect. It’s computer-generated images that mix up the image, that result from detecting movement and then subtracting from the flow of images. And the images are already stored. It’s simply a matter of putting the two together. Yes, the white, we could show how that works, it’s cute. Let’s say image one, image two like that. Then you subtract between the two and remove all the common bits, which leaves short ends between. Then all that is…at that point, there are some with negative values and some with positive values.
Mathieu Bouchard:
Yes, but the sign is removed.
Alexandre Castonguay:
We do an absolute on that. So everything that just moved turns white. Then we overlay it on the video flow. What’s good about the program is that it can be viewed. The brief moment it happens, it’s a box with crossed wires, like that, with a minus sign between. Then there’s the exit. There’s also the central question, since movement is being detected, which is based on subtraction of subsequent images. If you think of the video flow as a continuous flow of images, but discrete none the less, you can say image 1 subtracted, minus the next image, that’s what I’m doing, give me the result. So when you stop moving, it’s erased, it gets blurry, you can become a viewer, a third viewer of the work. You let the others move. And that’s what we want, you can become a viewer and not be in the work. It provides a resting place as well.
Mathieu Bouchard:
When there are details in what you call the background, then you stand in front, you’re going to see a mix of those details with our own silhouette. But it depends on how it’s adjusted.
Alexandre Castonguay:
That doesn’t happen very often. It’s like an interesting moment of discovery when we stand in front of the camera, big time, yes. There was one thing, now what was it? Oh yes, the rules of interactivity, because that’s quite important. When there’s no movement, it has to stay green. When there’s a bit, it changes to blue for a fairly long time. That’s the question: how long is fairly long? It might be fifteen seconds or ten, ten to fifteen seconds with constant movement, but if it continues, it changes to red. Red, usually, when the room is set up properly, the light comes on just infrequently enough and may stay on for five or ten seconds if there is a lot of movement then changes back to blue.
It is important to make sure that when there is movement in the room, one or two people, it stays blue and sometimes changes to red. It’s hard to quantify, because with sound, it’s possible to get a reading with light as well, but how do you quantify that? The best way is to describe it a bit like I just did and say that it’s usually blue when people approach the camera and when there’s a lot of movement it turns red.
As far as sound is concerned, the first time I presented it, it was a CD by Future Sound of London, it’s contemporary music that is very, very cool. But it was a CD that was playing softly, so that effect wasn’t really there. There was still an immersive effect, however, because I made a few changes to the soundtrack that was created by the musicians, because the musicians were playing around with all kinds of samples. So I took their samples and asked Mathieu to create a part of the program that would make sure…based on five levels, five benchmarks.
Mathieu Bouchard:
Unlike the visual part, which is divided into only three levels. There are five different levels of sound intensity, but you aren’t directly aware of them. In other words, you have three videos, then all of a sudden, when it changes, you see it: it’s all green, it’s all blue, it’s all red in the background.
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes. You just jump from one to the other.
Mathieu Bouchard:
Whereas for sound, you have this additional “lack” of direction; the levels are sent to a random generator which is more or less intense depending on the level.
Alexandre Castonguay:
There are some samples that come back more or more often for the parts that are more active, when there is a lot of movement in front of the work, then there are some that come back when there is less movement. When there is no movement for a long time, it should stop.
As Mathieu so aptly put it, it’s a lot less clear-cut in the sound than it is in the images. The amplitude and frequency, or in other words the sonority, do not change directly. You approach and it gets louder or you don’t move around a lot and it gets louder, it’s more theatrical. But there is still a sound chosen from the selection, the probability of selections from the samples. So there are some sounds that play when it’s red, when the light is on, and there are others that are not going to be there.
Josée Bélisle:
In the end, is there a limit on the number of viewers in the space?
Alexandre Castonguay:
In the space?
Mathieu Bouchard:
Well it’s certain that if it’s over a certain number, it’s not really going to work any more in the sense that it’s initially in relation to the viewer himself. What I mean is that from the perspective of the viewer, as one of the people in the room, it’s going to look like a big blob on the screen. That’s all it is at first, then it gets clearer; it’s like that for everyone. People won’t be able to pick themselves out.
Because the silhouettes don’t really look like the actual people.
Alexandre Castonguay:
In our technical description, we forgot to say that this back wall is very important. It has to be completely smooth. The floor has to be a colour other than grey. No carpet.
Mathieu Bouchard:
So in other rooms, that could be a big problem.
Alexandre Castonguay:
But what happens, to explain what Mathieu said, why would it be a problem if there were, say, 50 people in the room; it’s that the backdrop has to be smooth because it is the background for people’s silhouettes. It’s complicated.
But even at openings, it’s rare to get a lot of people. About twenty people is good, even a group. People experiment. Even groups on guided tours, I wanted to avoid someone coming in and saying, “there are three people…wait”. No, that would be the death of interactive installations.
Josée Bélisle:
In a gallery, certainly, most of the time, visitors are able to experience things on their own and ultimately become fairly intimate. But with our groups of children, I have to say that they were so excited. And they liked the fact that there was a bunch of them, you know, so that’s a different thing altogether.
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes, interaction works for children, it’s fantastic. And I think I’ve seen people sit down and get up, experiment that way. Even then, if there’s a blurry image of people in front having fun, it’s perfect.
Anne-Marie Zeppetelli:
Does the computer save any images of visitors?
Mathieu Bouchard:
No, none.
Anne-Marie Zeppetelli:
So you have no interest, in your work…?
Alexandre Castonguay:
No, not in this one.
Mathieu Bouchard:
The only image that’s kept is what happened a fifteenth of a second ago, that’s all. After that, it’s forgotten. It has a short memory, really.
4. The Installation Parameters
Alexandre Castonguay:
I recall that for the piece, it was important to preserve the idea of a walkway in the middle, and then in order to work, it needed a viewer to be there. For that reason we’re trying to come up with a way to get people to in from the front, which is why it worked well here at the museum, because I remember people entered a sort of rectangular projection space that was longer than wider with the projected image on the back wall and the camera beside it. And there was an entrance that went, shall we say, if you picture a rectangle, it was on the left side of the back wall. People then had to walk in front and exit on the right side, I believe.
Josée Bélisle:
That’s it, exactly. Yes.
Alexandre Castonguay:
It was good, because I think the important thing was to incorporate the piece into the normal flow of visitors through an exhibit. I don’t really like to find myself trapped in a rectangular projection space where the entrance and exit are one and the same.
Mathieu Bouchard:
Because then people tend to come in and then go out at the back as soon as they see that…
Alexandre Castonguay:
That’s right. Come in, stand there, because that’s what people normally do in front of a projected image, then leave. So if people aren’t curious enough to stay more than a few seconds, they see a green wall that doesn’t appear to be moving apart from a little bit of distortion. So the idea of encouraging people to move around, there are two things: install the piece off the normal path a person would take through an exhibit, but then, it’s a bit of getting people to interact with the piece.
There used to be another version of Générique that worked well; it was in Rimouski. At the time, they had opened up the exhibit space. They had set up a sort of deep U with the projected image at the back and then the corridor was more…
Josée Bélisle:
So the corridor was more parallel with the surface?
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes, you really had to go into the space to see it, but still, just walking around, you had to adapt to an exhibit space that was narrower. So reserving a big room would have been hard. It was a bit tighter. It was another solution that had a unique feature: it let light into the corridor.
We’re going to see it shortly. There are fairly specific values for light and the motion sensors. There, too, it worked well. There was this corridor that people could move through fairly quickly or enter the work, but still, they had to cross at least one of the axes of that big rectangle, either widthwise or lengthwise.
Josée Bélisle:
That brings me to a question. That means that as visitors or viewers moved they were parallel to the projection surface, unlike here, where they had to go all the way to the back?
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes, yes. That’s why I believe this installation here at the museum was far better, although it’s another option for installation, opening a corridor. But I personally found it more interesting to see that people could enter and there was this perception of distance from the work. Entering the space occupied by the work because obviously, the closer you get to the device, the camera capturing your image, the more involved you become. You are more immersed.
The dimensions vary. Otherwise, the projected image is big – that’s important. It’s meant to be theatrical and immersive. The image has to go all the way down the wall to the floor. It has to be an extension of the place where the person is standing in the gallery space. It can’t be raised a foot or two, because then people aren’t “in” the image. But the actual image can vary: from 12 feet, I think, in smaller spaces where I have shown it, to 20, I think, as was the case in the exhibit here at the museum, almost, or perhaps 18. Is that right?
Yes, 18. I have the plans upstairs. Something like that. It was at least 18.
Alexandre Castonguay:
The camera is placed very close to the ground so that it doesn’t appear to be monitoring us, tiny in the space. When people approach, they appear to dominate or be in the space. They aren’t dominated by the viewpoint; that’s still very important.
Anne-Marie Zeppetelli:
Are there technical specifications for the sound?
Alexandre Castonguay:
We could measure the dB level, but I think that was taken when it was put together. The loudest sound was measured to see what the limit was. We could do it and satisfy ourselves that the sound seems right for the space.
Josée Bélisle:
Yes, that would be a good idea.
Mathieu Bouchard:
How you do it is that there are people who move around in the room for a few minutes so that there’s lots of activity, then you measure for a specific time, then you take the highest level, something like that. But how far from the speakers do you do it?
Alexandre Castonguay:
So because we know it’s random, the red part, the light, is the one where there is usually more noise. So it’s easy to do what Mathieu says, then try to take an accurate audio reading. But we also have to bear in mind what we said earlier.
Mathieu Bouchard:
If it takes too long, there might be a standardized test. We play a certain combination of samples, I mean several samples together, with a special key, then we measure in relation to that so that it’s faster and less random and then we can say the volume is exactly the same as the last time.
Alexandre Castonguay:
I’ve shown it in the past with little tiny speakers, and the sound level is really background; it’s secondary in the piece. Here we have great big speakers, and visually, I don’t like to place them directly on the same wall as the projected image, but set back a bit to ensure the sound travels throughout the room but is not necessarily part of what people see when they come in.
So the speakers aren’t placed on tripods, but mounted on the wall wherever possible. It’s important for me to be sure that the sound levels from other installations or artworks nearby do not create any sound pollution. I like to be a good citizen.
Anne-Marie Zeppetelli:
I just wanted to ask one question. Lighting has been added. Does the lighting that was just done have to be added to the piece when it is shown?
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes. The purpose is to make sure people’s silhouettes stand out clearly on the white wall. We add a bit of back lighting. We needed some, but just a tiny, tiny bit. It can be a very low-angle light on the back wall. I mean very dim.
5. Integrity and Preservation of the Work
Alexandre Castonguay:
For example, installation of the operating system. I don’t know if this is the right time to talk about it, but I think we had a good experience here, which shows that it’s necessary to consider the artwork, the software behind the piece and even the operating system as an integral part of the artwork if we are thinking about preserving it.
Mathieu Bouchard:
Yes, perhaps in the same way, the canvas of a painting is part of the painting itself. We call it “a canvas”, but it’s not “the canvas”, it’s the painting on top of it that matters. A painting cannot hold together without canvas, although there are people who apply paint pretty thick.
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes. Exactly. I think the analogy is a good one as far as medium goes. The computer, ultimately, now and for a short time, I don’t know, ten, fifteen years, we could probably change it. But in the long haul, we’re going to have to go back to this version of Ubuntu 7.10. We’re going to have to go back to this version of Gridflow, because when we updated the work which involved transfering the piece that used to be on two computers that were supposed to communicate with each other, which was a bit difficult to explain to the technicians putting it together. We realized as we did it that we had just wasted two hours because we couldn’t remember how to get the work started. So we went from two boxes to one. When we did that, we realized that the version of Gridflow we were using was a bit different. We had to modify the patch, which is the program that runs the actual work, so that it would run in the new version of Gridflow we had. Now I look at that as a whole package: the computer, the operating system, the programming environment and the program that is created. Without those four things, we can’t have the same chain. And that’s where the technical side, obviously, has a big impact on the semantic side of the work, because if we tried to install it on a newer version of Gridflow…
Mathieu Bouchard:
It’s close to the latest one. The adjustment I made yesterday, yesterday’s change, I put the change on a new version of Gridflow.
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes, that’s it. Our update here meant we had to change the software.
Mathieu Bouchard:
So if we upgrade Gridflow and use the absolute latest one, I think it should work the same way. If it doesn’t, we’ll know right away and I’ll have to fix it quickly.
Alexandre Castonguay:
But it’s reasonable to think that in a year or two, not intentionally or without even giving it any though, incompatibilities might have been introduced. In terms of the images, we could almost say that especially with the deterioration, pixellation and imperfection of the images, we may see a lot more bugs in the light and the black lines. There are some lines that are colour but the pixels have been changed a bit. They are there to show first of all that yes, there is movement in the static image of the green hedge, but also to let us know that you can play along because it’s not really you; nothing is happening to you and we’re not recording. There is a sort of low-fi relationship in which the play between theatre and immersion may stop for a bit, then you are really transformed deep down.
I don’t know if you have a question about what the piece might look like in 10 or 15 years when there are no more projectors or we have projectors that work in full light. Part of the success of the work comes from having a theatre-like space, even though I want to get away from that. If we think of the piece in 1998, 1999, 2000, it is still something of a cinematic space. Now I’m starting to realize that perhaps that shadow is needed so that it serves a purpose or does something useful. So I would say as far as light or luminosity is concerned, we should see, we should do tests. I have nothing against it, and it would be in line with my idea of demystifying the work. It would be perfect, in that sense, if we could do without projection altogether or we had the ability to project images in full light. From a different standpoint, I wonder if it’s the nature of the work, the difference between the artist’s intention and what was available at the time. If we want to install it right, we should probably have some shadow, not total darkness, but a different space none the less. Not completely black, for sure.
Josée Bélisle:
Precisely, it’s the difference between the artist’s intention and what was available. But there’s also the space-time ratio, when the museum acquired it, the work was that way, you know.
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes, it’s the piece as it was then. So we all have to be pretty fair.
Josée Bélisle:
The idea is not to reduce or fight time. There’s a sort of reality there.
Alexandre Castonguay:
I agree with that, too. I’d even given it some thought a few years back. There’s a certain historical aspect to my thought process for this piece, so to speak. That’s the way the piece was. Certainly, if that technology had existed at the time, I might have perhaps done it. But who knows, maybe it wouldn’t have been as successful. We can engage in this discussion that goes against the immersive and theatrical side, but I honestly think it’s played out in the piece. We should do tests and then see if it changes. But if we’re not there in 50 years, we can’t do tests.
Marie-Noël Challan-Belval:
It’s also meaningful in relation to the time it was done.
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes, because it’s one of many installations that used projection in shadow. There is a type of historical motif in contemporary art. And I think that through that, the piece stands or in any event tries to stand conceptually, but it would mean changing it so much. The question is truly a fascinating one. If you look at the document, you’ll probably say, “Hmm…it’s both.”
I’m not sure, but I have to say that we should perhaps remain true to the first installation of the work. That’s the way it is. That said, when I answered that question for myself, I said to myself, “But what happens once there are no more projectors, just walls?” But those are our questions for the work itself. Are we going to need our projector? I don’t think so. We could have a luminescent surface and make sure it’s dark, then have a light behind for the small camera we will have preserved, hopefully. We’ll get through it, but perhaps we should measure the light levels we have once we’re completely finished.
There might be other questions floating around in the conservation community for media pieces. We have showcased the work by making a video of what the piece was and shown it, a DVD or a video. I’m a creator; I’m not too big on the idea of recreating…not recreating, that is, just documenting and presenting the documentation on the work as being the work. To me, obviously, that is not the work.
Anne-Marie Zeppetelli:
You mean after, if ever your work no longer exists.
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes, that’s it, but let’s say that it’s good to be well documented, yes. But interactivity, the viewer’s presence is an integral part of the meaning of the work.
Josée Bélisle:
Can we still think of everything? I don’t think so, because technology is changing so fast. I believe we have this privilege of being able to work with artists because you’re with us. It’s very difficult to imagine in 30 years.
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes, but I think what we’re going to do is take images from each part of the programs, because they are diagrams, they’re the images that make the program. We could emulate the piece. I don’t find the inner workings of the piece that complex. In Éléments, it was a lot more complicated, the things that were going on. In this piece, it wasn’t so bad; the piece could be done again. Perhaps I ought to give you the images in another format, too, because right now they are in an archival format that might be a bit hard to retrieve in 50 years. An emulation, as I said.
Anne-Marie Zeppetelli:
As such…it’s long before getting to emulation.
Alexandre Castonguay:
The programming is going to be much more widespread and it’s divided into fairly logical blocks to make sure it would be fairly easy.
Josée Bélisle:
And you (speaking to collections archivist Anne-Marie Zeppetelli), for the work, would you like, as Alexandre implies, to be able to have these images for your records?
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes, because there are three sets of images: red, green and blue.
Anne-Marie Zeppetelli:
Yes, I could keep them. But they’re in your computer. It’s because it’s hard for us to get them, isn’t it?
Mathieu Bouchard:
It’s just that we saved them in a special format because, at that time, the software I designed simply did not support common formats.
Alexandre Castonguay:
Like JPEG.
Mathieu Bouchard:
JPEG, yes, that’s true, at the very beginning it didn’t have a built-in JPEG decoder, but I was thinking more of Quicktime.
Anne-Marie Zeppetelli:
Yes, of course, that would be interesting. That way, if we wanted to emulate it several years down the road, we would have them.
Alexandre Castonguay:
Yes. In a very common format.
Anne-Marie Zeppetelli:
Yes, we’ll have to put them in a very common format.
Mathieu Bouchard:
But if we want to preserve them exactly as they are, we can’t just use JPEGs, because right now they’re in an uncompressed format, I mean with no loss. So we have to use PNG; it’s a very good format for compressing without loss. It will just reduce the information.
Alexandre Castonguay:
We have to keep every one of those beautiful pixels. We don’t want it to be all fuzzy.
Mathieu Bouchard:
Yes, we’ll even keep the glitches.