It seems like a different question, Ana. The difference between analog and
digital media for motion pictures would correspond to something more like
the difference between small and big screen tv's --perhaps.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ana Marjanovic-Shane [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:21 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: seeking leads on folks doing brain research on visual
> I have actually heard that the reason TV is so addictive is precisely
> because it make the brain work to fill the gaps. So we constantly have
> to finish the "unfinished" images and that makes us "spin" the brain. I
> think that McLuhan would argue that analog (film, picture) would not be
> so addictive, because we can easily detach from a passive medium.
> What do you think?
> Judy Diamondstone wrote:
> >A relative of mine in the motion picture industry wants to know of anyone
> >who has done or is interested in doing work comparing the cognitive --
> >consequences? of viewing digitalized vs analog film,
> specifically narrative
> >films (not sports, e.g.). The industry is currently overhauling its
> >infrastructure, & Steven wants to argue against the assumption that
> >"sharper, steadier, cheaper" is necessarily better -- from what I
> >understand, he sees some risk in further diminishing the role of the
> >consumer as maker of meaning -- that is, the digitalized format
> fills in yet
> >more gaps & thus supports more passivity.
> >He is speaking for some conglomerate of organizations, including the
> >Technology Committee of American Society of Cinematographers, Academy of
> >Motion Picures of Arts and Sciences, among multiple others, so if anyone
> >knows of anyone in the field who would like to take on another
> >project, please refer them to me off list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:42:57 PST