|
|
|
-
The still image, hell, the two-dimensional graphic representation, has been around for a little while. I guess around 20,000 years give or take. To me there is something so fundamentally different about pictures, photographs, paintings, drawings -- and moving images, that I don't ever see the line being blurred outside the realm of "art". Certainly in the case of sports reportage or the you-tube phenom, video is now the state of the art. But I suspect (I hope!) there will always be a distinction among serious artists between visual entertainment and visual art. Apples of a different orange, if you will.
-
 Originally Posted by billschwab
The trend in newspapers now that printed versions are on the endangered species list is to use more video in online versions. I know of several "photo"-journalists that have already gone this route. With more demand from publishers for video, it makes life much easier for them. Even my wife, who is a print journalist, is being trained in video production!
So if we can invent the technology to display video images on newsprint media, we'll have newspapers to rivals the ones in Harry Potter.
K.
-
Moving pictures in still frames has been done. Kodak has shown a method of reproducing up to 3 or 4 frames of motion picture in a flat poster like image. It was used for Jurassic park and Star Trek Generations ads. In the first, it showed a tyrannosaurus rex leaping out at you and in the second it showed the Enterprise flying away from you.
Oh, it was also possible in 3D.
This technology, along with incorporated sound bytes never caught on.
PE
-
e-Ink make paper-thick, flexible video displays. They don't seem to be ready for prime time yet, but they work.
-
E-ink is under intensive R&D at Xerox. Our youngest daughter is apparently working on something related to it, but cannot talk about it.
PE
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
This also reminds me of the flaming I took on another forum for referring to a tv news camera operator as a "photographer". I was just quoting a news article about the cops smashing his video camera. They "corrected me" saying it was "videographer". I came back saying many stations still list the job as "photographer", whether they like it or not.
-
Originally Posted by nc5p
This also reminds me of the flaming I took on another forum for referring to a tv news camera operator as a "photographer". I was just quoting a news article about the cops smashing his video camera. They "corrected me" saying it was "videographer". I came back saying many stations still list the job as "photographer", whether they like it or not.
That is correct. The jobs are most often listed as "ENG Photographer" or EFP Photographer"
Whether its semantically correct or not, most TV stations call persons who operate cameras in the field "photographers" or "photogs" for short.
Interestingly, if you run a camera in the studio, you are a not a photographer, but a "camera operator".
Once upon a time, when I worked for a large corporate production company, doing both jobs, I was a "technical operator, grade 14". Boy did that look good on my business card.
-
...and the next trend but one?
A head-torch-like digiwotsit that you wear throughout your holiday so that it videos everywhere you look. Then when you get home just link it to the special software in your PC and it selects and emails perfect holiday snaps to the contents of your personal address book (and shots of how bad the hotel was to your insurance company).
The year after that the damn thing will go on holiday for you!
You heard it here first! (Mr Gates, Mr Perez, send a cheque...!)
The destination is important, but so is the journey
-
It was my understanding that National Geographic uses still-grabs from video for most of their work these days.
vaughn
|
|
Adv Reply
