SCREEN-L Archives

September 2003, Week 5


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
James Monaco <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:43:30 -0400
text/plain (50 lines)
I haven't seen Maxivision live but I have seen the patents and they
are remarkable. If Ebert is an investor it's likely he bought in
AFTER he wrote that piece. If he bought before someone should blow
the whistle!

I don't know why different psychological responses to film and video,
or even analog and digital (they are two separate issues), should
seem "ludicrous." They communicate in markedly different ways.

I am convinced the psychologies are radically different, but that's
just based on anecdotal evidence.

Does anyone have leads to research that has been done in this area?

For more about Maxivision check out

>One thing: Roger Ebert is an *investor* in MaxiVision, so he is
>certainly not unbiased in this matter. As for digital video not
>"stimulating us mentally" in the same manner as film, the very idea
>seems ludicrous to me. I think that the content of the images in
>question is far more important in initiating mental stimulation than
>whether the images are encoded digitally or on celluloid. That is an
>aesthetic issue. If Mr. Ebert finds digital video to be lacking in this
>area, perhaps he is thinking about it too much, and thereby causing a
>placebo effect of sorts.
>Chris Nuzzi



James Monaco            212 777 5463
UNET 2 Corporation              212 777 5534 (fax)
80 East 11th Street             800 269 6422 (sales)
New York NY 10003     

For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives: