The first dozen or so responses to my inquiry about the ethics and theory of using video for film were virtually all in favor of doing so . . . the only voice raised against it was that of Gene Stavis, who wrote as follows: > re: Using videos for film -- > > There is also the psychological aspect. That is, seeing a "film" in a theater > situation is a specific environmental experience. You are in the dark; you > are with an audience of a varied nature; the picture is MUCH bigger than you > are; the progress of the experience is completely out of your hands. Short of > a fire in the theater, the film will grind on as the operator is in a > soundproof booth, cut off from the audience. > > Video is the very reverse. The room need not be as dark; you are with an > audience (or without an audience) of your choosing; the picture is relatively > small and unimposing (even projected, the image is degraded to the point > where it is not graphically impressive); the progress of the experience is > almost totally under your control - you can stop, repeat, freeze, rewind, > vary the speed, skip over sequences. And, interruptions are much more > frequent, and tolerated. > > In short, with film the experience is bigger than you are and you relinquish > control; with video, the image is much less impressive and it is always under > your control. > > Furthermore, with video, the image is presented on the same screen which, in > our experience, delivers the most disposable of images: commercials, tabloid > news; O.J. trial coverage; infomercials, etc. Whether a film is good or bad, > trash or treasure, its presentation takes on the element of special event, > even ritual, which is totally lacking in video. > > Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC > > P.S. People who use video in place of films are neither villains nor > charlatans. They are victims of expediency and budget restraints. It is > becoming harder and harder to find film copies of movies, the equipment is > barely manufactured anymore and the film rentals are many times the price of > owning a video. It is a crime, but certainly not the fault entirely of > teachers. Although in his view those of us who use video are not criminals, the procedure itself still "is a crime." Perhaps so, but since his argument has largely to do with a) size of image; b) ambient light and sounds; and c) the viewer's control of the watching experience, i want to raise the following: WHEN I SHOW A VIDEO OF A MOVIE TO MY CLASS, I USE A VIDEO PROJECTION SYSTEM, I SHOW IT IN THE VERY SAME ROOM, COMPLETELY DARKENED, THAT IS ALSO USED FOR 16MM PROJECTION OF FILMS; THE PROJECTED IMAGE TAKES UP ALMOST THE SAME SIZE ON THE SCREEN AS THAT FROM THE 16 MM PROJECTOR; THE ROOM IS EXACTLY AS DARK AS FOR FILM; THE KIDS SIT IN THE SAME SEATS; AND THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL OVER THE IMAGE; IT RUNS TILL I STOP IT. while it's surely true that most of us watch video under dramatically different conditions than we "go to the movies," i wonder whether any of those particular factors ramin in play under the circumstances described above mike frank <[log in to unmask]> ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]