Re: [-empyre-] Re: flash mx and vogs

[Brandon Thomas Barr <barr@mail.rochester.edu>]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Adrian Miles wrote:

> At 21:54 -1000 19/6/02, diana jeon wrote:
> >flash mx allows video to be played within the flash environment, you no
> >longer have to export it as a quicktime movie after processing..a great
> >thing in my opinion.
> 
> thanks diana,
> 
> that's what i thought and from my perspective i'd (provocatively) 
> argue that flash has just figured out a way to be a better tv set.
> 
> the great thing about flash is that it plays everywhere, which is not 
> the case with something like quicktime. so flash as a container is 
> brilliant.
> 
> but in terms of interactive writing with video it is more about 
> assimilating video into its file structure (whether internal or 
> external) but not, if i'm right about this, making that video 
> interactive in and for itself. the interactivity will still live 
> outside the video.

Just imported a video file into Flash MX, and it actually allows you to
map each fram onto the MX timeline.  What this means, is that you could do
many things--add buttons to video objects, link back and forth between
different sections of video, draw on the video frames a la "Waking
Life."  In other words, MX allows you to make a video fully interactive in
all the ways that any other Flash element can be (of course, with a much
larger file size).  The penetration of the v6 player is 80% and climbing
quickly, so that makes MX a very possible route for this sort of thing.  I
may just have to go film 15 sec movies with my digital camera and vog
something myself.  :)  MX seems to make it easy-peasy.

{deletia}

> which brings me to another point. earlier i was asked about how much 
> work it takes to make a vog and that it was different to blogging in 
> terms of technological literacy. that's true, but i'd use flash as an 
> example here too. it takes quite a commitment to learn how to use 
> flash, and that doesn't seem to have stopped a lot of graphic workers 
> think they're hypertext authors (and a lot of hypertext authors think 
> they're graphic artists). the tools to write interactive quicktime 
> are the same price as flash, and if you haven't used flash are no 
> harder to use (they are if you step in with the flash paradigm), and 
> the scripting language is certainly no harder than actionscript, and 
> i reckon it's easier to point a camera and record than to make vector 
> graphics :-)
> 

That makes sense I guess, Adrian.  Thanks for your response.  

> this is what i mean by colonisation, flash is interactive, writing in 
> flash is brilliant, i think flash is crucial because (my mantra) it 
> has let a lot of people write interactive graphic content. all my 
> students want to learn how to write in flash, not look at yet another 
> kewl flash web site. i am suggesting the same thing can happen with 
> video, and flash mx is not the answer (it isn't interactive video).

I really DO think MX allows you to do exactly what you do in your
vogs. MX isn't just a version upgrade--their support for interactive, and
it does look to be interactive, as best I can tell--has VASTLY improved in
MX.

Thinking about vogging now,

Brandon