around the 20/3/07 Steve Watkins mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: my two cents that: >--- In ><mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected], >"Jan McLaughlin" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hell, I can't even get filmmakers to vlog. Or YouTube (as verb) either. > >Im fascinated by this sort of phenomenon, have you been able to delve >into any of the reasons why this seems to be the case? Its certainly >something that surprised me, I imagined some huge surge of thousands >of people who are involved with other creative or arts stuff, , gettng >excited about using internet video to showcase their work. It happens, >but nowhere near ont he scale I pictured.
film makers fetishise film (or video) and so are much like authors in 1995 when the web first came to attention (to them). So a film maker wants to a) maintain control over the viewer (my work is 22 minutes and you really should see the whole 22 minutes - what do you mean they might go somewhere else? what do you mean they might actually be able to rearrange *my* vision??) b) like the author regards publication (a book) as the top of their tree, film professwional sees TV broadcast, cinema or festival screening as same. c) like authors, real writing happens on white pages, serially ordered, between covers. You are special to get there. Real film makers produce real programs/shorts/features that are serially ordered between credits. You are special to have your work made/selected. On the net anyone can do it, therefore the lowest common denominator rules, and I am not part of that (I'm a film maker after all). d) I own your screen. I own all of it. On the net you own your screen. I couldn't possibly show my film at 320 x 240, or heck, even 640 x 480. e) the quality is too bad (this is result of bad compression but was an issue once upon a time). f) it might get stolen (of course if you don't put it online and you are lucky enough to get into a festival, your work might be screened once at the wrap party, once at your own premiere, and once at the festival...) There are other reasons but I find the easiest way to explain it to others (which I've done a few times in papers and conference presentations) is that if you think about how authors responded to the web in 1995 (you mean everyone can read my work? cool? hold on, links, you mean they can go elsewhere? and you mean my beautiful perfect structure should be granular with links inside, no way) is much the same problem confronting trad. professional video and film people right now. -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au
