I was merely pointing out two things: (1) even colleges which show real film have a hard time drawing crowds (2) MOST colleges cannot afford to maintain film projection capability. These are unfortunate facts, but they're both generally true (with some fortuitous exceptions). I may have made some other points which you are picking faults in, but I doubt you'd disagree with (1) or (2).

And if you agree with (1) and (2), then it follows that you can simultaneously be acadmically honest and not have the resources to pursue real film projection.

In other words, you can't paint all colleges with a broad stroke -- does this one have film projection? Great. Does this one have NTSC projection? Oh, no matter how poor their department is, it must mean that they're academically dishonest and we should attack them. Of course, you didn't state this exactly, but since you focuses only on the poor quality of NTSC and ignored my main points, that's the meaning I took out of your reply. If that's not what you intended, I apologize and request a clarification. We probably agree on the fundamentals and have just misunderstood each other's main points.

Call 1-800-NOCOPYS (the MPAA video piracy number), and turn them in. I'm sure the college would not like the negative publicity.

quote:

---

Does this one have NTSC projection? Oh, no matter how poor their department is, it must mean that they're academically dishonest and we should attack them. Of course, you didn't state this exactly, but since you focuses only on the poor quality of NTSC and ignored my main points, that's the meaning I took out of your reply.

---

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

They do not represent their "Film Series" as "projection of rented videocassettes".

Because if they did, almost no one would come. Why should they?

You got nothing. You've just got an academic program dishonestly trading on the features of theatrical exhibition which they do not have.

My observation of the academics who misrepresent these showings is that 1) they don't care, as long as it bloats the resume' of arty film things 2) they believe people should come just because they *say* they should, not that there is any reason for them to.

They will typically reason only partially "It's a film series, they should come see these films because it's culturally important", then willfully evade attendant issues of the same material being better available just via rental, but without the rotten NTSC projection quality. They are knowingly trading on an expectation of theatrical film projection, when that is knowingly not offered. When there is poor attendance, the organizers refuse to admit that it is because people have no need of a misrepresented pseudo-theatrical presentation of material they can better enjoy presented *not* via the series' nasty NTSC video projection, & that the audience feels taken in for coming to an inferior presentation & doesn't return. That would admit duplicity & ignorance on the part of the organizers.

#2 is, I'm afraid, a typical example of the cliche' of academics not living or operating in real-world conditions, or even wanting to.

Even if it's free, if you want "customers", the questions are

What are you selling?
Can they get it better & cheaper somewhere else?
Why should they come?

Summary of my last post: colleges which run NTSC are not necessarily academically dishonest. Did you mean to say that just because a college runs NTSC, it is wrong?

Summary of William's last post: Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Anybody who runs NTSC must be fooling the public.

So let's get some basics straight:
Q: If a college willfully distorts its video program, is it being
bad?
A: Me: It's evil. But not all colleges do it.
William: It's evil. All colleges which run video are evil.

Q: If a college runs video but pays license fees and does not mislead
people, is it being bad?
A: William: It's evil. It can't possibly be doing anything right.
All colleges which run video must be distorting something.
Me: No. They don't have resources, and we should not fault them
for not having an endowment of Harvard's size.

Are these answers accurate in the face of the posts that we've both made? I think so, and I certainly hope that William's seeming answer to the second question is a result of the tone he used when posted, not a result of his real beliefs.

That would be like saying that anybody who has a big-screen 4:3 NTSC projection TV and invites his friends over to watch the Super Bowl is misleading them by not having a 16:9 ATSC DLP rear-projection TV. Well, of course it's not ideal. But it's not wrong if you don't go around telling everyone that you have a hi-def DLP TV. And just because you invite people over doesn't mean that you are automatically misleading people.

I remember another seemingly irresolvable controversy on this forum in which one side completely missed the other's points. Can't find it now, but there was a discussion of the relative merits of platters and changeovers. Both POVs were equally valid: in general, changeover booths are better run, but platters are actually gentler on film when done right. It's a matter of opinion -- half full or half empty.

That's what we're arguing here -- does NTSC video automatically mean that the college is bad, or merely that it doesn't have a lot of money? Perhaps our points of view stem from our experiences with college NTSC projection -- William has seen terrible abuses, I've seen good meaning people who've never tried to pass it off as film and are forced to resort to it only because they don't have the funds to run film.

So I think we won't be able to talk on common ground on this issue until William has seen what a non-abused NTSC program is like, and I've seen how bad abuses can get.

For now, I think we should do two things:
(1) Stop arguing about this.
(2) William should turn in the college that's illegally showing
videotapes to the general public.

(1) will save us a lot of effort, since we can argue whether the glass is hall full or half empty until the end of time. (2) will make William feel a lot better, and will actually be doing something about the issue rather than complaining to me (who hasn't yet seen that type of abuse) about it.

I think I should point out in case there is confusion that it can't be assumed that college film series video comes from local rental shops. Videocassettes are available for rental that are indeed licensed for exhibition by educational institutions.

I noticed the videocassette section in a catalog like Swank or something which I associated with 16mm offerings. I don't
remember the small print for those videocassettes -- whether they were
classroom use only, or cleared for educational, nonprofit showings like movie nights, assemblies, etc.

Still, although videocassettes licensed for showings by educational institutions are available, I don't know of any particular *use* of those educational videocassette rental arrangements by college film series, but do have knowledge of some college art film "film series" advertised to the general public as just picking up DVD's & VHS cassettes from particular local consumer rental shops.