|
|
Posted by Rick Merrill on 04/19/07 22:17
Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Rick Merrill" wrote ...
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>>>> If the video isn't worth the $5/hour cost of the tape, then
>>>>> it wasn't worth shooting, and not worth archiving, either.
>>>>
>>>> It depends on the time-value of the content to the clientell doesn't
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> I don't think I understand the argument?
>>
>> Recordings of Town Meeting are worth what next year?
>
> Depends. Is the videotape the official/legal "transcript" of
> the meeting? Anything happen that somebody might come
> back and take issue with, etc. etc. Perhaps as I get older,
> the value of historic records seems more important to me.
>
>> Weddings?
>
> Dunno. I try to avoid anything to do with weddings. OTOH,
> as we get more and more TV channels to fill with some
> sort of "programming", some of those wedding videos
> may have some sort of voeuristic value in the brave
> new world. :-)
>
>> Wild Animal shots that took days or months to get?
>
> Seems to me that the longer it took to get, the more
> valuable it would be.
>
>> Value varies over time, n'est pas?
>
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
> To each his own.
Oh come ON down: time increases the value of some things and decreases
the value of others - not that we can always tell which is which!-)
When you say (above) "we get more channels to fill" are you referring to
a public access station?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|