[-empyre-] softcopy

[Adrian Miles <adrian.miles@uib.no>]

hi all

just some comments, sorry if this is all obvious or well known (if it 
is say so, otherwise i'm gonna write more).

in hypertext theory quite a few years ago a theorist called Balestri 
(Diane i think) came up with two simple terms, softcopy and hardcopy. 
hardcopy is when we use a computer to generate hard output, in her 
case she's talking about word processing and getting onto paper. 
softcopy is when we use a computer and the output is only ever screen 
based - in her case hypertext.

i see a similar thing happening in digital video. using things like 
final cut pro, after effects, even possibly DVD studio pro (which i'm 
not yet familiar with) are tools orientated towards hard copy. The 
hard copy here is something like tape or cd.

working in quicktime is writing for softcopy, the output is only the 
screen but a completely different idea of screen than what you get 
via tape.

example. i can import a photoshop image into final cut pro, after 
effects, etc and then make it's duration, say, 1 minute. i can then 
turn that into a quicktime movie. these programs are designed for 
hard copy, so what they do is assume a hard copy delivery environment 
and so will take that 1 minute of still image and draw 24 frames per 
second for 60 seconds. since it's still it will compress real well in 
quicktime, but basically you've made a 1440 frame movie.

if i use quicktime pro and import a photoshop image (which quicktime 
does happily read, layers and all) i can stretch it's duration to 1 
minute. quicktime is designed for softcopy. if i save this 1 minute 
movie as a new quicktime movie quicktime does not draw 1440 frames, 
it draws one frame and holds it on screen for 60 seconds. if the 
original image is 64K, the one minute movie is pretty much 64K. same 
if i make the movie 2 minutes. it's a radical difference in 
methodology and outcome.

that's a beginning.

now, go back to our hard copy dig.vid programs and add text over your 
movie. save as a quicktime movie. the text becomes rendered into the 
video, as you'd want if you were wanting it to run off tape or DVD. 
open this movie in quicktime player and get info, you'll see a video 
and audio track (assuming you have a sound track). fine.

now, open  simpletext or notepad. write a couple of paragraphs. save 
as text. in quicktime pro go file import and select the text file. it 
is now a quicktime movie. select all, copy. open your one minute 
still image movie. select all, under the edit menu select add scaled 
(only works in quicktime player pro). your text movie is now a new 
track in your quicktime movie.

the softcopy difference? get info for your movie. it now has a movie 
and a text track. they're completely separate, independent objects. 
unlike the hardcopy approach. this means they're independent of each 
other. you can script the text to scroll, scroll backwards, start 
forwards and then on some user or other event scroll backwards. turn 
it off, change fonts, change font size. all dynamically. in other 
words i can have a movie where the text starts in one direction, then 
goes another because you moused over there. can't do that if i do my 
text in hardcopy dig.vid

yeah i know you can probably do this in flash, but just as i can do 
this with the text track in relation to the video, i can treat the 
video the same way in relation to the text. the video, 24fps video 
(if you want to deliver in that way).

this is my hypertext history kicking in. the softcopy way of writing 
(this is what i mean by writing *in* quicktime) treats each track as 
more or less like a separate node in a hypertext. it may be visited 
(made visible for instance), it may not, i might make its appearance 
or behaviour dependent on the user (what they do and don't do, or 
their reading history), or on another movie, or an external variable, 
or on a timeline, or on an internal variable. this applies to every 
track and pretty much every track type in my softcopy quicktime 
movie. this is sorta what i mean by vogging.

i got oodles more to say 'bout this, but nuff for now. if this is all 
bleedingly obvious *please* say so, otherwise you won't shut me up.

oh, and i'm supposed be the guest here, so you're supposed to set the agenda :)

thanks for reading
adrian miles
--

+  lecturer in new media and cinema studies 
[http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/vlog]
+  interactive desktop video developer  [http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/]
+  hypertext rmit [http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au]
+ InterMedia:UiB. university of bergen [http://www.intermedia.uib.no]