Thanks for all the great information everyone, I guess it is a complex pciure with many reasons, but also many more people than I realised joining in with online video.
Its got me wondering just how many millions of hours of video is out there on tapes etc, that the public have never seen. I dont suppose anybody out there is doing anything crazy like trying to calculate how many hours of online video there are so far? Its kinda fun seing how much music I have in itunes in terms of days-worth of listening, so was just a wondering how many lifetims Id need to watch all the web video that exists already! Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Streeter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > <adrian.miles@> 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 > > >
