Tony WIlliams gets close to one of the veins of this discussion in pointing
directly at the quality of the image; he writes
 
 
>  Re, Mike Frank's point of June 28, 13.54 concerning the video projection
> method. This may parallel the cinematic viewing situation assuming that
> the projected video comes from a very good master copy. Otherwise, the
> watching process is very difficult with explicit lines, fuzzy color, and
> blurred images resulting in severe eyestrain. This effect is not just
> confined to EP video versions. Some SP versions of Hitchcock's UNDER
> CAPRICORN do not project very well. This problem may be eliminated if
> the company concerned brings out digitally remastered images. But, in
> most cases, it depends how good the actual video copy is in the first place.
> The inferior ones would easily be seized upon by the traditionalists as
> ammunition for the exclusive use of film.
>
to which i raise one very tendentious question:  it obviously is easier, less
annoying, more pleaant, to read a poem that is printed clearly on clean
paper, than it is to read the very same poem handwritten over the print on an
old sheet of newspaper . . . but isn't the poem exactly the same in both
cases? . . . does the text itself change when the medium of delivery changes?
. . . on the face of it, it would seem not
 
mike frank
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]