Michael Turner wrote:
>
> There's this argument that people can go to smaller screens because
> people rented videos to watch on their (smaller) TV screens when
> videotape arrived.
>
> This argument misses at least one very important point.
>
> When mass-market videotape arrived, virtually all TV watchers had
> avidly watched movies on TV already. Indeed, it was one of the most
> popular "content" categories.
>
> I saw the Wizard of Oz perhaps four times on black and white before
> I ever saw it in color (on a color TV), and was an adult in my thirties
> before I saw it as it was originally intended to be shown: in a theater.
>
> Movies work on TV. They always have.
True. Content, for the most part at least, trumps conveyance.
Flying monkeys were just as terrifying in black-and-white.
>
> But not even TV works on TV, when the screen falls below
> dimensions that keitai screens haven't reached yet (sizes that
> they may never reach in a handset form factor.)
In the context of 'Western' culture this is perhaps true. However, in
vast stretches of the 'undeveloped' world, many folks do not have and
likely will never have access to either the big or small(tv) screen, and
the primary visual communication medium in many cultures will probably
be some sort of handheld wireless device. In that scenario things may
evolve very differently.
>
> To reiterate: I believe video on keitai will work, if it ever does, by
> giving people home videos and wallet-photo animation -- i.e.,
> amateur video products with admittedly crappy production values
> that are more than made up for by the content's personal value
> to the carriers and/or producers.
At inception, film was an archival and scientific tool. The creative
potential of film was not an original intention, but rather a happy
consequence of a technological innovation. One can draw similar
analogies from the realm of the computer and the internet, and no doubt
the same will be true for handheld wireless devices.
>
> And porn, too, of course, as the technology driver, as always.
> Of this I am increasingly convinced.
Without a doubt. Look no further than the evolution of javascript and
its usage. Just one example.
>
> As Dave Barry says, "Men have an entire lobe of the brains
> devoted to boobs."
Indeed. Sometimes two.
>
> And that lobe will suck all the impact it can out of a limited
> number of pixels in a small frame, however fictionalized the
> portrayal may be. The usual rules of willing-suspension-of-
> disbelief need not apply to that category. (When have they
> ever?)
>
> -michael
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Benjamin Kowarsch" <benjk@mac.com>
[schnip]
[ Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Fri Aug 10 00:00:39 2001