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]