CompuServe Messages

Michael, please don't think I'm offended. I sensed an apologetic tone about your message. Since I've become involved with DTV over the past 12 months, I've noticed that there is a huge interest in novelty. To me, this technology is conveyed for mass consumption as 'a string of stunning DVE's'. That's it. Music is even canned. Video content is often stock, or appropriated from the airwaves. This stuff seems increasingly there to simply prop up digital novelty (a la MaxHeadroom). <<you want me to remember the information not the effects.>> I'm not sure. <g> Look at some of the primary work (from Hollywood) done with DTV. That school definately wants you to remember awesome effects (but perhaps you meant that in terms of transitions only). I've been doing some experiments on the density of information I can convey with DTV. Oddly, the first thing I had to sacrifice were those gorgeous dissolves! I discovered that when I'm trying to tell a story in 6 seconds; a one second dissolve is very, very expensive in terms of plot. If I'm going to use such a transition, I'd better be conveying the major change in time or venue; not just a shot! (And Tarantino thought he was straining to meet the 120 minute form. Ha!) My point is, the rules changed from silents, to talkies, to television, and I think they've changed to DTV. Where eye candy is the stuff. The cake is now just a canvas for the frosting.