In production, as a medium, how they are used, watched, perceived… and on and on

Magazines don’t have screens. Period. Maybe in 10-20 years but not now.

conversely the power of film is that it creates willing suspension of disbelief-it transports you to another world and another story. All that these bts vids do is transport you to another “shoot”, which is a well fast going dry.

we are still in the infancy of the technology so its adoption is being driven primarily by those interested in promoting the gear. So the ideas are weak. Eventually it will all trickle down, hopefully, or settle into those areas that can afford the (in-the)RED camera and the ideas will come out and the gear will be secondary.

At that point, either this new niche or form is created, whatever it is, or it gets absorbed into already established forms like commercials, documentary, film, television.

Where the vid is clumsy is where you have the video doubling the still shoot, but the lighting is not right for video, so it has none of the drama of the still shoot. The other thing you run in to is that you don’t have the subject’s attention-the weaker stuff is when she is paying attention to the “real” shoot going on, so it loses the viewer there.

On the whole it tries very hard to be a music video but since the loyalty is divided it does not really come off, the best part is the ending and credits where he uses the walk off screen to segue into the credits.

I think overall it highlights the issue that for film or whatever you want to call it, you need a storyboard and a sense of how the shots are going to relate. Just taking a bunch of over the shoulder stuff is not going to cut it.

there is a reason why we pay to see films and don’t pay to see film stills or go to see museum shows of film stills….the stills photography is the ugly stepchild and suffers for it not being a priority.

same thing for this but in reverse.

The rest is just packaging isn’t it?

There’s a place for both stills and “living art” in the future, along with stop motion, (Dan Chung just did a nice one on a Chinese military parade), slideshows, drawings, animation, cgi, or whatever, but getting hung up on one technology over another is just missing the point. It’s the gearhead’s response. Next year it’ll be vr, holographic projections or brainstem hookups, and they’ll all be saying video’s dead. If reading had disappeared with the invention of the phonograph then I could see something in this, but video has limited uses like any other medium. Essentially the experience is too passive – it lacks the interactivity and immediacy of reading text and pictures. You can’t take some things in at a glance, linger over others, pause for thought, re-read, or cross-reference in anything like the same fluid manner. Gawping is the past, not the future.

And as for magazine stands stacked with motion covers – c’mon. What advantage does buying an e-paper magazine have over downloading the magazine to your own e-paper device? Get a grip.

Oh, and I can stir my coffee with an electric drill, but using a spoon doesn’t mean I’m a luddite. I was totally convinced of the move from film to digital from day one. This, Giullio, is very different.

If a magazine cover could tell a story with moving images and editing it might work, but this to me seems like a commercial-15 seconds of a little story. The trouble with commercials is that they are really a product of television, and television was a medium defined by flow, at least in the beginning. You could not change channels, or the flow of the program made you not change channels so you sat through the commercial.

Flow is unique to television since “they” program the flow. So good luck trying to position commercials in other areas, we have too much control now.

My prediction is that motion for motion sake will be like 3D for 3D-sake, a gimmick that will not last long.

Don’t get me started on the effects of media consolidation caused by technology-the only reason we are getting the red shoved down our throats as content producers is that it suits the suits. Nearly all of the defining imagery of the twentieth century was created by one person with one camera-so tell me why exactly we want to lay a dolly track now for every “shot”?

Laying dolly track, and catering, for this…?

http://i44.tinypic.com/2lkr4ew.gif

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/

So the internet is being molded to become more like television, and now magazines are being molded to become more like television. Why must every media become television?

You mean, like with my Cracker Jack surprises in the 70’s?

And somebody tell me what was worth writing that check for that beach thing? Just a guy running down the beach, with some side fill…? That content was worth that Purchase Order?

And if the magazines are dying off, due to lack of advertising, how many guys running down the beach could one issue support?

The only time I *ever* buy a magazine is when I’m in an airport, and yesterday, my American flight offered WIFI, so that’s the last bastion eaten up right there.

What am I gonna do, carry a 15″ laptop, and also some kind of electronic ink magazine in my bag too? Why would I do that? Why wouldn’t I just look at a web page? What am I missing here?

All I know is that I use a pirated version of Photoshop and Lightroom etc. ect, download movies to watch for “free” as well as all my music. Not a cent paid. Good luck with going digital, old media.

I did, however, buy a book last month (yes, a real one – I prefer them) as well as a magazine at the newstand along with my subs. and the Sunday NYT twice to have the magazine in the flesh. Yes, I prefer the real one because of it’s content on the printed page…and their photos.

I’m always surprised that people who need a union most are anti-union.

Rental houses in L.A. have been renting to non-union companies, no big deal.

I’m retired from the IATSE now, but I worked NABET and non-union shows as well. Just don’t rub their face in it, i.e don’t light up six blocks of Hollywood Blvd. for a night scene for a non-union show.