since it would’ve thrown too much flash directly forward. I needed all the flash to be indirect

Ok, ok, it works better here where a technique is being demonstrated, but I think it would be much less successful for something else, like “Your toddler in the terrible 2s”. This is basically an instructional video, not an “article”.

As a consumer, I prefer print, or at least words and stills. I want to skip around and random access as I see fit.

BTW, I hate vimeo. It doesn’t let you skip ahead until it loads.

I would love to experiment with something like this on my own blog.

A video is driven by the editing of the maker and simply goes from beginning to end. Yes, a user can hit a pause button or scrub to a certain point, but they can do that on a cooking DVD, on a cooking channel with their Tivo, and while looking at a YouTube cooking channel.

A magazine is driven by the reader. It’s interruptable, random-accessible, and things (pages) can be extracted.

We already know that consumers like their content in multiple forms, and they pick the form that fits their needs at the time (like listening to radio in the car, though nowadays some listen to podcasts off their iPod/phone, too). The trick is to get content to the user in the way they want to consume it.

This is a definitional thing. If magazines think they’re in the video business, then they’ll find themselves competing with video companies. If you’re in the content business you have to think about how you provide content in different consumption forms.

But in watching the video I had a completely different idea about where a magazine could take things and still incorporate moving images.

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1493041433/

Nicely done, but this is not photography. I suppose those running to motion imaging leave room for those wanting to do stills, though I think they will run into the video guys who were there first.

brilliant if you ask me…