----------------------------- Begin Original Text ----------------------------- 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 ----------------------------- End Original Text ----------------------------- Mike Frank continues to frame this issue in terms of literary examples. It is as if he ascribes no value whatsoever to the quality of the image. As long as the literary values are intact, he seems to feel that he has had the entire cinematic experience. Even the improved sound so highly touted in these forums serves to further diminish and throw out of balance the visual aspects of the film. Seeing degraded visual images on tv, surrounded by the highest of high tech sound is NOT a good thing, necessarily. I have repeatedly said that necessity makes the use of video the only way to go for many teachers. But, why oh why this obsession with proving that video is "as good" as film. In terms of visual quality, it is simply not. And all this talk of the "quality of light" is just a straw man. As far as I can tell, no-one has advanced this argument except Mike Frank. What I have said and continue to say is that, given a choice, the cinematic experience is better served on film than on video. I don't see how this is even a question. Since most people cannot take a field trip to the Louvre, reproductions must serve to experience the Mona Lisa. But is anyone seriously saying that the reproduction is better? Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]