YES! These are all things I've heard from them. I would also add that a lot of filmmakers enjoy the scarcity of their medium. They aren't all that interested in everyone being able to do what they do- -some are horrified by the idea. They often (and I'm making generalities here) are elitists who don't think that everyone should make moving pictures or just ANYONE should have an equal chance to be seen. Some others are luddites who have a strong distaste for anything digital. And others are old technology fetishists who think that actual FILM is the greatest imaging technology ever invented and refuse to lower themselves to working in mere "video."
Yup. Thats pretty much the case. Not for all, but many of them. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com www.garagepunk.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > around the 20/3/07 Steve Watkins mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: > my two cents that: > >--- In > ><mailto:videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com>videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, > >"Jan McLaughlin" > ><jannie.jan@> 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 >
