If I can intrude. I'm actually a pretty big fan of Ken Burns, mostly
because I am also a huge history buff and I think his historical
documentaries are of high quality. I somewhat understand the integrity of
the original and shame on derivative works argument, but most of his source
documents are the sort of vernacular street scenes and group scenes that
weren't exactly a single statement of a single idea to begin with. If they
were published in a book rather than part of a TV show, I'd be perusing them
for several minutes with a hand lens. That's sort of what Burns is allowing
me to do. Also, pragmatically, if you have a 30 second narrative about an
event that you have to cover with video, and have exactly one photograph
that's correct, what are you going to do? I like this better that the
talking head of Professor Fluffneagle of the Polytechnic which is what a
lot of history documentaries fall back on.
Anyhow, rave mark II, I guess.
Looks to me like this would be fun software to fool around with the family
album.
J.W.L.
---- Original Message -----
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: Raving... :)
Cotty,
I agree with you in overall sentiment.
The "John Burns effect" is useful when used sparingly, can be very
effective as a transition between themes in an orchestrated
presentation or when using it to make a particular statement. Overuse
of any effects is tiresome and becomes cliché rapidly.
I think this tool, however, is pretty well done and gives options to
the presentation creator in a simpler way than other tools I've used
for presentations of this sort.
Godfrey
