8 thoughts on “Question of the Week”

  1. Both. And it will evolve over time. Just as the weblog has become both a text-specific medium and a net-specific medium, having evolved from etexts on the one hand (downloadable via gopher before the browser was deployed), and from the static website on the other.

    Video introduces specific challenges. What is the point of recording motion graphics and audio if text and static images convey the same message. To paraphrase MacLuhan, “The motion is the message.”

    I haven’t seen much in the way of motion-to-motion links, the vog equivalent hypertext (hypercinema?) Flash can do it. It’s coming, and when it comes, vogging will move beyond the home movie and the feature film.

  2. QuickTime can do it, most of my video work does it in some way. Actually, not much of my video work does it, so it is time to return to just putting simple time based links into my videos.

    I agree with wondering what the point of video might be. Specific media have their own specifities (duh) and I do think that web specific video must be as porous to the network as text is.

  3. Adrian, your question has stimulated some ideas:

    In standard cinema multiple cameras shoot the same subject, then an editor intercuts the shots. On the web, the viewer could click on different areas of the moving image to change the camera and the camera angle: same motion, different POV. The videographer could vary the effects so that the viewer would not always get what he expects, and that would be part of the art and the work.

    Although those rotating 3-D images that are used for product shots do something like this, I have never seen it used for “regular” video, that is, realtime motion shots of things occurring in the natural world.

  4. Thanks again for the comments Jonathan. Yes, this would be interesting, and once upon a time wasn’t that difficult to make in QuickTime (the demise of LiveStage Pro could well have killed QT as an interactive environment for ever). Alternatively rather than just different PoV’s you could have an event, clicking different parts and different times leads to different episodes/sequences/PoVs.

  5. A video online can be a net specific media. A media that is based to its appropriation made by by the use of the net users. The net related video is used in a different way than the video. In the net I think, the spectator of a video, is somebody who sees the video by taking part, or searching in communication threads. A net related video is viewed as a part of an open database of videos [example: youtube]. The database technology is allready asked to be viewed on the video image.
    What an open database can do, it could be done by a video.
    The capture of a video.net could be based in the open exchange of net sources and net referrences.

    Working with the concept that the video is a net specific media, it comes a new concept about video.
    The moment of the video capture is no more related in what we “see” and we decide to capture, but the video capture is related to an open database of refferences.

  6. Thanks for the comment Dimos,(do you have a url?). I think database based things are only half the equation. For example wordpress is a database collection but is more than merely stuff pulled out of the database because of the links that can be contained within it. This is the part that things like YouTube currently still haven’t implemented.

  7. Both.

    I am digging deep into your blog.
    I am overwhelmed with the wealth of information you have here.
    Looking forward to reading up later tonight…

Comments are closed.