Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!rutgers!mcnc!rock.concert.net!jazz!barber
From: barber@jazz.concert.net (Scott Barber)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.multimedia
Subject: Re: CDTV Motion Video
Message-ID: <1991Jun17.145230.17191@rock.concert.net>
Date: 17 Jun 91 14:52:30 GMT
References: <30764@hydra.gatech.EDU> <19750006@hpmwmat.HP.COM> <31024@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1991Jun10.221045.28162@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@rock.concert.net
Organization: Center for Communications, MCNC; RTP, NC
Lines: 59

(apologies for the slight digression from the focus of the newsgroup,
 but John Thompson raises a question worth pondering a bit...) 

In article <1991Jun10.221045.28162@en.ecn.purdue.edu> wwarner@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Art Warner) writes:
>In article <31024@hydra.gatech.EDU> jt34@prism.gatech.EDU (THOMPSON,JOHN C) writes:
>>To me full motion video means 30 fps true life color. I've been wondering if
>>anyone has ever documented the need for this capability in multimedia. Sure it
>>looks great on the screen but does it enhance learning, retention, or provide
>>some other significant benefit. What if it would cost a whole lot less to do
>>only 256 colors at 15 fps, would this change the impact of the message. Do we
>>need motion video at all? Still photos can display a lot of information at a
>>significantly lower cost. Sometimes we seem to push technology for the sake of
>>technology without really understanding if it brings anything new to the table.
>
>Why don't you come over to my house and watch the NBA playoffs on a 12" b&w
>tv while I feed you "framegrabbed" stills of the game every 30 seconds, while
>I watch Jordon "stuff the basket" on my 25" COLOR TV at 30 frames/second 
>TV/monitor?
>
>Does that answer you question?
>
Well, no, I don't think it did.  It is clear to me and, I'm sure, to
Mr. Thompson that watching Michael Jordan play in 30fps full color
video is more fun than watching a lower quality image.  I think his 
question, though, has more to do with the effectiveness of getting 
a substantive message across, which for many people is the main 
justification for using this technology in the first place.  

So, does someone learn something better when the image is sparkling 
clean than they would if the picture was limited?  If someone pulls 
some video off a CD-ROM during an interactive course, do they 
understand the content of the video event better if the picture is 
30fps than if it was 20fps? or 2/3 of the screen instead of full 
screen?  The answer may indeed be yes, but there does exist the 
possibility (heaven forbid!!) in many cases in which it may be no.
In any case, it is rarely as straightforward and clear as many 
graphicphiles have come to believe.  

If nothing else, the question is certainly worth asking, and an 
adequate response to that question should address the overall issue 
of the utility of the technology and it's effectiveness for getting
substantive content of a presentation across, as well as its 
ability to keep the viewer's eye trained on an image.  

Ultimately, it always boils down to the purchaser's decision as to
how important various features and abilities are to him/her.  The 
wise purchase may involve a decision to spend more time on 
researching the topic and creating content quality rather than 
on making sure you keep on top of the latest technology for 
image quality. 

Actually, this is one of the reasons why the Amiga has become
so influential in video these days.  While it does NOT do
as good a job as more expensive systems, it provides a way to do
a decent enough job (for those of us who can't afford high-end
graphics workstations and megabuck video effects devices) to 
get a message across! 

Scott Barber