m
, u

. .
iv . d...

L 6:3:-
I ”x

.3:

 

P 1.,- l.
, M , 4.. “in: ,
$3

.8.”

z r.’

:1» £3?

v ., .
t .hFuUa. .
. pwrfiwaarfi
: t ".23: «v.1
. w. it: ..
mm: :23”...
,v ‘npx \LP‘C l- n.

if

y... E. .

H . u .1- ‘ a »
Fug . .. 6mg:
... .fitfihlfin-crg... 1 . ‘ ‘ . .. , <

u .,
12.: 9.9.0

.2
. 43...... IE
, \ :gli. 3124.)“...
. i. as}; N. {Mum {3
2... 32,2 .yflhun... inciting; his}: .
.15. 241.2. A. .fifluflfi. .32.
, l 91Lr.....s§ixxf.§ V
. w; £3.14. .1. .
7:1: is»...

. . l ‘
53.6.32 .A ,9...
Wuhan... i..finw.§e..wfi¢x
:1!!! 521?... 53...; .,
. y??? 32.... h.
.-

3 6 .
. aznhfigbwifitnfin _
.1 4 m: n;
.21...
ants": 0.1!).3...
sfifiunaziuq

. A, an? A)... 3.1.23.1.»

N .

, “W. :fl.
.ihtsnflwmmwh. Mm”
. vi! L

an“! .
:3 Craig}; 1....5thlLMcuH .
\latfl. . .

tit.
I! .-
58,51...“
\xl’ltt
'40:}.

vfy :53... u...‘
...tl.74.i¢w...xx!c$§|?.9
4. \..:.l.\‘iv ’51 v n .

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!llllllllllllllllllll

302074 2015

Lseaanv
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

INTERNET AS AN ALTERNATIVE DISTRIBUTION MEDIUM FOR
TRADITIONALLY MARGINALIZED VISUAL CONTENT CREATORS

presented by
Simon Kim
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

MA Jegree in Telecommunication

 

71/“

Major professor

 

Date (/‘f/a'

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE W with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

iiii‘r'20380200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

moo (:ICIRCJDuoDmpes-p.“

 

INTERNET AS AN ALTERNATIVE DISTRIBUTION MEDIUM
FOR TRADITIONALLY MARGINALIZED VISUAL CONTENT CREATORS

BY

Simon Kim

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Telecommunication

2000

ABSTRACT

INTERNET AS AN ALTERNATIVE DISTRIBUTION MEDIUM
FOR TRADITIONALLY MARGINALIZED VISUAL CONTENT CREATORS

BY

Simon Kim

The digital revolution is redefining the rules of the
traditional media. The Internet shows a promising future as
an alternative distribution medium for traditionally
marginalized visual content creators. Now, creators are
equipped with the means to realize their visions. This
thesis research attempts to prove with empirical data that
the distribution of an independently produced single visual
content can be effectively promoted over the Internet. The
results show that the Internet can be an effective
distribution medium, which transcends the spatial and

temporal limitations of the traditional media.

Copyright by
SIMON KIM
2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................... Vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................ Vii
INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1
WHY BOTHER WITH THE MARGINALIZED CREATORS
......................................................................................... 5
Overview .................................................................. 5
Theoretical Framework ............................................... 5
Purpose ..................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2
TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 14
Overview .................................................................. 14
Multimedia Architecture .......................................... 15
Compression ............................................................. 18
Spatial vs. Temporal Compression ............................ 2l
Streaming ............................................................... 22
Summary .................................................................. 26
CHAPTER 3
CURRENT TRENDS ............................................................... 28
Overview ................................................................. 28
Quality Issue ......................................................... 30
Voices from Filmmakers: Pros and Cons ..................... 32
Doug Block ...................................................... 32
Helmut Kobler .................................................. 35
S. D. Katz ...................................................... 37
Summary .................................................................. 40
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH ........................................................................ 42
Research Questions ................................................. 42
Online Promotion ............................................. 42

iv

 

i. Production ...................................... 44

ii. Promotion ....................................... 45

Audience Profile ............................................ 48

Method ................................................................... 49

Results .................................................................. 51

Online Promotion ............................................ 51

Audience Profile ............................................ 55

Discussion ............................................................ 58

Evaluation ............................................................ 65

Conclusion ............................................................ 67

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Glove Script ....................................... 70
Appendix B: Sample E-mail Sent to List—servs to

Promote Glove ................................................ 84

Appendix C: Online Survey Questionnaire ............... 85

Appendix D: Audience Profile: Survey Results ........ 87

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................ 9 3

LI ST OF TABLES

Table 1
Target Architecture for 12 Major Online Screening Sites

...................................................................................... 16

Table 2
Number of Successfully Loaded Pages (hits) for Glove Web
Site between January 29 and April 21 of 2000 (82 ays)

...................................................................................... 51

 

Table 3
Overall Number of QuickTime Movie Files Requested ”.u.".52

Table 4
Different Versions of Glove Requested ........................... 53
Table 5
Domain Report (excerpt) ................................................ 54

Vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1

Hourly Summary of the Requests ..................................... 56
Figure 2

Daily Report of the Requests ........................................ 57
Figure 3

(Audience Profile: Survey Result) Sex ........................... 87
Figure 4

(Audience Profile: Survey Result) Age .......................... 88
Figure 5

(Audience Profile: Survey Result) Education ................. 88
Figure 6

(Audience Profile: Survey Result)

Occupation/Type of Industry .......................................... 89
Figure 7

(Audience Profile: Survey Result)

Average time spent on—line per DAY .............................. 90
Figure 8

(Audience Profile: Survey Result)

Average time spent viewing on—line video per WEEK ....... 90
Figure 9

(Audience Profile:

Survey Result)

Where did you learn about GLOVE? ................................. 91

vii

INTRODUCTION

One of the most important aspects, which is also the
most neglected, in amateur/independent film and Video
production is distribution. The traditional distribution
schemes, such as television or theatrical release, fail to
recognize such productions. After all, in an environment
where market driven commercialism is the priority, the
amateur/independent film and video production is inevitably
marginalized: "Here’s a sad fact: scores of films are made
every year, and never get distribution beyond some very
obscure film festivals" (Kobler). To a degree, it
illustrates the case of an incomplete cycle of
communication, in which a cultural product is left without
an audience. Is it the fate of amateur/independent
productions to be put away on a forgotten corner of the
producer's shelf, accumulating dust?

Not anymore! The digital revolution, along with the
development of the Internet, promises a future with many
possibilities. Some even call this "...the democratization
of tools" (Peterson 14). Bart Cheever, executive producer
of the Digital Film Festival, an organization in the
forefront of the digital film revolution, explains: "Abbie

Hoffman once said that freedom of the press only applies to

those who can afford a printing press. Today anyone with a
PC and a copy of Microsoft Word has, in effect, a printing
press on their desktop. This same phenomenon is coming to
the world of filmmaking as for the first time in history
extremely powerful, extremely high-quality filmmaking tools
become available on a mass level." The prediction is that
the digital technology will redefine the production and
distribution processes to empower marginalized filmmakers
to realize their vision. Cheever predicts the following

about the digital revolution and the filmmaking process:

0 Low Cost. The low cost/high quality equation of
digital filmmaking means that a much wider range of
people will be able to make film. Many more stories
will be told.

0 Ease of use. Most digital film and animation
software is relatively easy to learn. Powerful
software can be learned in days instead of years.

0 Ubiquity. With computers now in 43% of American
homes powerful filmmaking tools are for the first
time within the reach of a large section of society.

0 Digital Auteurs. Technology is allowing one person
to do what once took an entire team: write, shoot,
mix sound, create graphics and visual effects and
edit.

0 Distribution. The internet will allow filmmakers to
connect directly with their audience and bypass
traditional "filters": Major Studios and Networks.

In other words, this new digital technology will
provide more power and flexibility to the content creators
than ever. Moreover, with the distribution over the

Internet, the creators will no longer be bound to the

hegemony of the traditional media outlets. Rather, it will
provide a possibility to bypass the traditional
distribution schemes to enable direct interaction between
the creators and the audience. Already, the Internet has
demonstrated a strong possibility to become an effective
alternative distribution medium for visual content: a cyber
forum for direct communication with the audience. In his
manifesto, Rutledge observes the revolutionary
possibilities of the Internet:

The Internet is redefining communication,
including static concepts we have grown
accustomed to: concepts like advertising,
television, research, shopping, mail, and games.
Previously 'known' industries are being pulled
apart by a shift in empowerment. Existing forms
of distribution will soon give way to a new
paradigm —- where you decide what you want from
the wealth of entertainment available on the Net,
where the down—streaming form of those digital
files are fluid and constantly evolving, surging
to fill your television screen or computer
monitor or VR glasses, whatever the case may be
(Rutledge, Manifesto).

 

To explore the exciting possibilities of this new
medium, the following chapters will discuss theories to
support the rationale of web—delivery, the technologies
that enable such delivery, and current trends in online
delivery of visual content. Furthermore, research will be
conducted to test the validity of the premise behind the

Internet delivery of visual content. Ultimately, the

research attempts to examine the new possibilities of the
Internet as an alternative medium that could overcome the

hegemony of the traditional distribution methods.

CHAPTER 1

WHY BOTHER WITH THE MARGINALIZED CREATORS?

Overview

Before exploring the new model of alternative
distribution, the following questions need to be addressed:
why do the marginalized creators deserve such an
opportunity? What is the significance of experiencing such
marginalized productions in this new, alternative medium?
Why even bother with them?

In this chapter, discussion of cultural theories by
Newcomb and Hirsch will provide the rationale behind the
Internet delivery of Visual content for the traditionally
marginalized amateur and independent productions.
Specifically, the discussion will compare two competing
communication theories, the transmission and the ritual
View. Based on this discussion, the idea of a cultural
forum will be introduced, as a space in which cultural
representations are examined to construct, maintain, and

transform culture.

Theoretical Framework

 

The basis for Newcomb and Hirsch’s argument is in the

ritual View of communication. Specifically, they quote

Carey, who compares two distinct ideas of communication:
transmission and ritual. The transmission View suggests
that ”...communication is a process whereby messages are
transmitted and distributed in space for the control of
distance and people" (Carey 15). The transmission view of
communication presupposes the existence of a message
distinct from reality, which in turn can be distributed. It
also assumes the communication structure of sender,
message, and receiver, in which the meaning of a message is
consistent throughout the communication process. In mass
media research, it is also referred as the Magic Bullet
Theory, which states that "a media message would reach
every eye and ear in the same way, like a symbolic
'bullet,‘ immediately bringing about the same changes of
thought and behavior in the entire audience" (Lowery and
DeFleur 13). The assumption here is that reality can be put
into a message that can be duplicated to manipulate the
audience. Therefore, the transmission view implies that
reality exists independent from the communication process.

On the other hand, the ritual view suggests that
”...communication is directed not toward the extension of
messages in space but toward the maintenance of society in
time; not the act of imparting information but the

representation of shared belief” (Carey 18). It assumes

that reality is not a given fact, but is shaped and molded
through communication: ”...a ritual view conceives
communication as a process through which a shared culture
is created, modified, and transformed” (Carey 43).
Therefore, unlike the transmission view, the ritual view
assumes that reality is the product of communication, not a
given fact separate from the communication process.
Therefore, “reality is brought into existence...by
communication" (Carey 25).

Goodman’s writing is helpful in exploring the ideas of
communication and reality presented in the ritual view of
communication. He probes the idea of representation in

Languages of Art: ”...representing is a matter of

 

classifying objects rather than of imitating them, of
characterizing rather than of copying...." (Goodman 31). In
other words, representation is based on organization by the
means of classifying and characterizing, rather than a mere
duplicate of reality. In this line of thought, if
representation is organization, it is no longer a
representation as the transmission View might suggest: the
message is not just duplicated and extended in space and
time. Rather, representation is a construction because it
has been molded and provided identity by the organizer who

classified and characterized the events of the world. This

is the idea that reality is perception: events of the world
are classified and characterized, and therefore given a
unique identity, by the perceiver. This implies that
everyone experiences, or classifies and characterizes, the
events of the world in his/her own unique way. Therefore,
what one perceives to be reality may not necessarily be
what others perceive to be reality; your truth may not
necessarily be my truth and my truth may not necessarily be
your truth.

However, the transmission view does not acknowledge
the uniqueness of perception in communication: the
duplicated messages are simply distributed and received.
Therefore, the meaning of the message is singular, which
stays consistent before, during, and after the
communication. The ritual View, on the other hand, suggests
that reality (meaning) is a constructed perception of the
events of the world by the perceiver who experiences them
through classification and characterization. Therefore,
there can be multiple meanings to a message.

Based on the idea of ritual view of communication,
Newcomb and Hirsch develop the notion of culture as a
forum. In specific, they argue that the creators and the
viewers of television are the cultural bricoleurs who seek

and create ”...new meaning in the combination of cultural

elements with embedded significance” (Newcomb and Hirsch
505). These bricoleurs are situated in the liminal stage
(the process of communication) in which ”rules may be
broken or bent, when roles may be reversed, when categories
may be overturned” (Newcomb and Hirsch 505). In other
words, Newcomb and Hirsch look at television as a forum
(liminal stage) where creators and viewers (cultural
bricoleurs) test out their ideas and examine themselves. In
so doing, reality is constructed, maintained, and
transformed.

In summary, based on the ritual View of communication,
Newcomb and Hirsch suggest that events are classified and
characterized by the cultural bricoleurs (perceivers) who
in turn construct reality (meaning) through communication
in the liminal stage where different realities are
examined. Unlike the transmission View, which would argue
that a singular meaning is inherent in the message, the
ritual View argues that multiple meanings arise during the

communication process.

P112088

The important argument in the ritual view of
communication is that reality is shaped by the

communication process (cultural forum). In other words, the

cultural representations, which trigger the communication
process, function as the crucial determinant in
constructing reality. Therefore, it is essential for the
cultural forum to embrace a variety of cultural
representations to construct a reality that is
representative and fair. Just as the idea of democracy,
equal opportunity of representation is necessary to ensure
fair and impartial construction of reality.

However, the current media environment only allows
certain type of cultural representations to be consumed.
Specifically, commercially driven mainstream cultural
products from giant media conglomerates dominate the
culture of today. For example, cultural products of
Hollywood not only rule the domestic but also the global
market, ensuring the cultural domination of certain types
of cultural representation around the world. In this
environment, fair and impartial construction of reality is
impossible. This kind of cultural dictatorship only ensures
the reproduction of dominant ideology rather than fair
representation. Therefore, as creators of cultural and
symbolic representations of the world, traditionally
marginalized producers are entitled to a cultural forum to
help construct broad and legitimate representation of the

culture.

10

Indeed, the traditional distribution schemes do not
effectively serve this goal. Many marginalized productions
do not even get a chance to be presented to any type of
audience. In other words, the ideals of communication, the
fair construction of reality and culture, are impractical
in traditional means. Clearly, the traditional distribution
process is ineffective for marginalized productions in
achieving the cultural forum in meaningful ways.

However, the dawn of the new digital technology seems
to promise many exciting opportunities. Although the
technology is not quite there yet for high quality, full
screen, real time video delivery, the use of the Internet
as a distribution tool for visual content is slowly taking
place. As Leland reports, this trend was evident as far
back as 1998: "The emergence of the video web as both a
marketing and distribution channel for independent
producers was apparent at NAB '98.... [What was] evident
was the Web's role as an alternative to traditional
broadcasting, and the Internet's continuing use as a tool
to enhance the production process" (146).

Already, some Internet sites are devoted to the web
delivery of visual content. The success of such online
screening sites as Ifilm.com and AtomFilms.com proves the

trend, in which independently produced film/video contents

ll

are consumed in large quantities, which could not have had
any exposure with traditional distribution. These movies
are viewed, criticized, and commented on by visitors from
everywhere. For example, as of March of 2000, a short
animated film entitled More has been viewed about 50,000
times and voted as the highest rated film on the Ifilm.com
site. Moreover, the reviews from the visitors enable the
site to function as an interactive forum transcending
temporal and spatial boundaries of traditional media. Such
an environment, filled with rich interaction, which the
Internet is able to provide, both in quantity and quality,
is truly revolutionary.

With the fast growing technology of today, the
Internet as a viable distribution tool for high quality
visual content is only a matter of time. In the end, the
future of technology promises a day when online, high
quality, full—screen, real—time delivery of visual content
could be possible for a mass audience. Moreover, "Someday
the internet will give independent filmmakers the power to
distribute films themselves — creating a direct connection
between filmmaker and viewer. A film uploaded from a
filmmaker's living room in Sao Paolo or Indiana becomes
instantly available to anyone with net access, anywhere on

earth, 24 hours a day" (Film on the Net).

 

12

Without a doubt, the Internet could open more doors to
the liminal stage to enable cultural forum, in which the
inefficient traditional delivery methods can be overcome to
enable meaningful communication. In fact, it means a
possibility of exponential expansion of the cultural forum
full of rich interaction between the traditionally
marginalized content creators and the audience. In the end,
the Internet will revolutionize the way people perceive and

experience visual media.

13

CHAPTER 2

Technology

Overview

Just a few years ago, delivering video over the
Internet was simply unthinkable. Now, it is slowly starting
to take place, developing a segment of industry dedicated
to the delivery of visual content. Truly, the Internet
technology of today is changing rapidly; so much so that,
sometimes, it is even hard to predict the immediate future.

Today, the delivery of visual content over the
Internet relies on certain technological foundations.
Specifically, multimedia architecture, compression
technology, and streaming technology are important to
understand the new medium. Although these technologies may
seem immature at this time, the rate and the quality of
their developments have been more than impressive. To
better understand the web delivery of visual content, the
following discussion will focus on the three technologies.
Due to the vast scope of these topics, in-depth discussion
will not be feasible. Instead, this chapter will focus on

the conceptual understanding of each technology.

14

multimedia Architecture

Before discussing the specifics, definition of the
terms is in order. Multimedia is defined as "...media
presentations which combine various elements such as sound,

graphics, and video" (Glossary of Terms). Multimedia

 

architecture, then, is defined as "software including
system extensions, plug—ins, servers, etc. which provides
for the creation storage and playback of synchronized

multiple media types" (Glossary of Terms). The following

 

illustrates a common confusion associated with multimedia
architecture:

Architectures are often called "formats", which
is misleading. A format is the actual file
description in which files are stored, and are
part of an architecture. For example, the
QuickTime architecture has a QuickTime movie file
format. However, an architecture is much more
than just a format.... For example, QuickTime
controls how dynamic media is handled by the
computer, including how movies are displayed to
the screen, file conversions, and much more. So,
in a nutshell, a format is a subset of an
architecture; they are not the same thing. While
the various architectures have a lot in common,
there are also quite a few differences between
them. Some are dedicated to playback via the WWW,
while others are stronger at CD—ROM. Many work
best on a specific range of computers. There is
no one "best" architecture; choosing between them
depends on your application and needs.
(Introduction to Multimedia Architectures and
Codecs)

 

Currently, QuickTime, RealPlayer, and Windows Media

comprise the three most popular multimedia architectures

lS

for web—delivery. Table 1 shows the target architecture for
12 online screening sites. Currently, both QuickTime and

RealPlayer seem to be the choice over Windows Media.

Table 1

Target Architecture for 12 Major Online Screening Sites*

 

 

Online Screening Sites Target Architecture
dfilm.com QuickTime
ifilm.com RealPlayer, Windows Media, QuickTime
atomfilms.com RealPlayer
ifmp.net QuickTime
inetfilm.com QuickTime
minutemovies.com RealPlayer
shortfilmnetwork.com QuickTime, RealPlayer
thebitscreen.com RealPlayer, Flash
uxoomi.com QuickTime
shortbuzz.com RealPlayer
hollywooddigital.com Windows Media
reelmind.com Windows Media

 

*This information was complied by the researcher.

l6

QuickTime seems to be the choice of many multimedia
producers over other architectures due to its versatility.
The following testimonials reveal the definite preference
of QuickTime by many online screening site administrators:

...this site is 100% quicktime and has always

been, because we think they have the best codec

out there. -— Bart Cheever, dfilm.com (Cheever,

Re: Questions for a research)

We chose QuickTime, because of reliability and

best quality available. —— Editor, inetfilm.com

(Editor)

QuickTime, because RealPlayer is profoundly

limited and phoney. —— Steve Bennett, ifmp.com
(Bennett)

Developed in 1991 by Apple, QuickTime is the earliest
commercially available multimedia architecture. Over the
years, QuickTime has matured into a powerful multi-platform
multimedia software that has became the industry standard
for authoring and delivering timeubased data over the
Internet, CD—ROM, DVD, and other media venues. The
versatility of QuickTime is evident in its multiple
applications other than video, such as "still images,
animated images (sprites), vector graphics, multiple sound
channels, MIDI music, 3D objects, virtual reality panoramas
and objects, and even text" (QuickTime 4 API

Documentation). The following is the official definition of

 

QuickTime from Apple:

17

QuickTime is a package of system—level code, with
C and Pascal programming interfaces, that higher—
level software can use to control time—based
data. In QuickTime, a structure of time—based
data is called a movie. With QuickTime,
applications can create, display, edit, copy, and
compress movies and movie data in most of the
same ways that they currently manipulate text and
still-image graphics (QuickTime 4 API
Documentation).

 

 

Due to its wide-range of possible applications, it is
"...used by software developers, hardware manufacturers,
and content creators to author and publish a wide range of

media" (QuickTime).

 

Compression

The development of compression technology is crucial
to the Internet delivery of any multimedia because of
today's low bandwidth infrastructure. This is especially
true for visual content such as video, which carries a
large amount of data: "Uncompressed video takes up huge
amounts of space (approximately 27 MB/sec), which is more

data than most systems can handle" (Introduction to

 

Multimedia Architectures and Codecs). The following analogy
provides a good illustration:

Compression is like making orange juice
concentrate. Fresh oranges go in one end and
concentrate comes out the other. The concentrated
orange juice takes up less space, is easier to
distribute, and can be easily reconstituted by
the consumer. Video compression takes a large

18

file and makes it smaller. The smaller files

require less hard disk space, less memory to run,
and less bandwidth to play over network or the

internet (Sorenson Video 2 User Guide 10).

The software element that enables the compression of media
is typically referred as a codec, short for
compressor/decompressor. The examples of video codec
include Animation, Video, Component Video, Media 100, Avid
QuickTime, Sorenson, and Cinepak; the examples of audio
codec include Qdesign Music, IMA, and Purevoice.

Essentially, a codec performs both authoring and
delivery functions. On one hand, a codec functions as a
compressor during the authoring process (capture, save as
or export command, for example) to create a smaller file
'using a unique algorithm. A codec also decompresses the
;previously compressed file and rebuilds it during the
delivery process (playback of the compressed clip on the
desktop, for example).

In their practical applications, codecs are further
categorized into authoring codecs and delivery codecs based
CH1 their unique capabilities. Relatively speaking,
evithoring codecs are designed for high quality output, and
ruot specifically concerned with reducing the file size.
TTnarefore, they are more suitable for the production of

nuthimedia. The following provides examples of such codecs:

l9

Authoring codecs, such as M—JPEG and the Media
100, are used during the capture and creation of
content, and not used for actually distributing
material to viewers. They are essentially an
"intermediate" production and storage format....
For capturing your video, you should use the
codec specified in your capture system's
documentation. Generally you'll use a system
specific codec, such as the Avid Media Composer
codec, or Media 100 codec.... During editing and
effects, you should generally use your specific
capture system's codec [Avid Media Composer codec
or Media 100 codec]. For truly lossless
productionmthe Animation codec at 100% quality is
also often used (Media Cleaner 4 User Manual
164).

 

On the other hand, delivery codecs are concerned more with
the file size, data—rate, and streaming capability to cope
with low bandwidth and less powerful computer processors.
Typically, these codecs eliminate parts of the data (lossy
compression), and therefore are not suitable for settings
that require high—quality outputs. Sorenson Video codec is
the most powerful delivery codec today for the web-based
application, which delivers "...excellent quality at low

data rates" (Media Cleaner 4 User Manual, 165). Here are

 

some tips in using delivery codecs:

For progressive download delivery over a network,
you should generally use Sorenson Video. For true
streaming delivery, either Sorenson Video or
H.263 are often used.... For delivery on CD—ROM,
you generally should use Sorenson Video unless
you need viewers to be able to View the video
with slower machine. For slower CPUs, Cinepak is
often the best choice (Media Cleaner 4 User
Manual 164).

 

2O

More in—depth information on codecs with excellent examples

can be found in CodecCetral at http://www.terran.com/

 

CodecCentral.

 

Spatial vs. Temporal Compression

As discussed, the basic idea behind compression is to
remove redundant data to decrease the overall file size.
Different codecs use different algorithms to remove such
redundancies. In general, however, there are two types of
compression schemes in video compression: spatial and
temporal. Spatial compression attempts to remove
redundancies within an image:

Spatial refers to compression applied to a single

frame of data. This frame is compressed

independently of any surrounding frames.

Compression can be lossless or lossy. A spatially

compressed frame is often referred to as an
"intraframe" (Sorenson Video 2 User Guide 11).

 

An example of spatial, or intraframe, compression may be a
footage that includes a large area of solid color, such as
a blue sky; in this case, the coordinates of the blue area
and the color blue is saved, rather than the pixels of the
entire area. In other words, one pixel of blue can

represent a large area that has blue in the image.

21

On the other hand, temporal compression, often called
interframe, is concerned with the relationship between
successive frames in the video:

Temporal compression identifies the differences
between frames and stores only those differences.
Unchanged areas are simply repeated from the
previous frame(s) (Sorenson Video 2 User Guide
11).

 

An example would include a footage that contains a static
interview in which the person's mouth is the only moving
part of the image; in this case, frame 1 can store the
image in its entirety as a keyframe, and frame 2, 3, 4, and
5 can store only the information regarding the changing
mouth. Then, when the footage is decompressed, or
reconstructed for delivery, the information stored in the
frame 1 would fill the missing part of the image in frame
2, 3, 4, and 5, making them a complete image.

Both spatial and temporal compression seek to reduce
the redundant information, whether they be within the frame

(intraframe) or between the frames (interframe).

Streaming

Prior to streaming technology, the whole content had
to be downloaded over the Internet in order to be viewed.
This can be an excruciating experience, especially if one

is dealing with a large file size content over a slower

22

connection speed. Moreover, the lack of immediate access
can discourage the visitors from further exploration.
However, development of the streaming technology changed
all this, providing a possibility of an immediate access to
the contents regardless of the file size. In fact, it is
what made the Internet an appealing delivery medium for
visual contents. John Molinari, CEO of Media 100 Inc.,
notes: "Streaming media is really transforming the Web into
a broadcasting medium. This means every personal computer
user can distribute television programs themselves using
the internet." Indeed, the immediate access to any visual
material over the Internet promises many extraordinary
possibilities for visual content creators.

Currently, there are two types of delivery methods
over the Internet: progressive download and true streaming.
They are often referred to simply as streaming due to their
similarities, but each has its own advantages and
<iisadvantages. The basic difference between the two stems
fronlthe fact that progressive download uses an HTTP
servemy whereas true streaming uses a specialized server
auui protocol designed for streaming:

"Progressive download" refers to online media

which users may watch as the files are

downloaded.... [It] is often called "HTTP

streaming" because standard HTTP servers can
deliver files in this fashion, and no special

23

protocols are needed (Media Cleaner Pro 4 User
Manual 35).

With progressive download, there is an initial downloading
time until the file has enough data to continuously play
the whole content from beginning to end. Therefore,
depending on the connection speed and the file size of the
content, the user may have to wait during the initial
download. Once it accumulates a critical amount of data,
the movie is played as the rest of the data is being
downloaded. The biggest advantage of progressive download
is the control over the image quality: the users get the
quality as intended by the creator. The obvious
disadvantage is the possibility of initial waiting time:
the bigger the file size and the slower the connection
speed, the longer the wait. Terran Interactive Inc.
:provides a good insight on the issue:

Progressive download is best for relatively

short, high-quality clips. The file is downloaded

via HTTP or FTP at a pre—determined level of

quality. The user doesn't have to wait for the

whole file to download to start watching it. If

they have a slow connection, or if the movie was

made at a high data rate, there will be a delay
before the movie starts playing (QuickTime).

Unlike progressive download, true streaming provides

an.iJmnediate, realtime playback of the content:

24

"True streaming" refers to technologies which
maintain the bandwidth of the media signal to the
viewer's connection, so that the media is always
seen in realtime.... Specialized media servers
and streaming protocols are required to enable
true streaming (Media Cleaner 4 User Manual 35).

 

The realtime playback is a significant advantage of true
streaming because it provides an immediate feedback to the
users. Also, because downloading is unnecessary, the user
can access the material at random points. In other words,
the user can jump anywhere in the timeline and still access
the content in real time. However, the image quality may
suffer depending on the connection speed. Again, Terran.com
provides a good insight on the usage:

"True Streaming" is generally best for longer

pre—recorded clips or live events. ... If the

user's connection isn't fast enough, or the

network experiences congestion, frames may be

dropped in order to preserve the realtime

playback. One advantage of true streaming is that

it allows the user to skip ahead -— useful if
you're watching an hour—long lecture (QuickTime)!

 

In the end, the user's experience with progressive
download and true streaming depends largely on the
bandwidth. With high bandwidth, both types can achieve
realtime playback in good quality, provided that (for
progressive download) the download is faster than the
playtack.and that (for true streaming) the connection speed
is fast enough and net congestion is low. In this

emrvironment, the only notable difference between the two is

25

the random access capability, a feature unique to true
streaming. The real difference may only be apparent with
low bandwidth: either (for progressive download) the user
has to wait for the initial download of the content, or
(for true streaming) the image quality suffers a great
deal.

In general, progressive download is a better choice
when control of the delivered image is crucial, and true
streaming is a better choice when the immediate playback is
crucial. Darren Giles at Terran Interactive Inc., who was

an adviser to the creation of the Phantom Menace trailer,

 

agrees:

Even if you don't have a fast internet
connection, the original intended quality of the
clip will be intact when you play it back
locally. By design, Quicktime handles progressive
download clips better than the competition. Of
course, there is no single answer for everything.
If you're going to provide live coverage of an
event or delivery of a long clip, you'll probably
want to use true streaming. But for shorter
content, especially where preserving quality is
key, progressive download is absolutely the way
to go. Broadband is making this more viable"
(Johnson 91).

Summary
Certain technological foundations are behind the
delivery of visual contents over the Internet.

Specifically, the development of multimedia architecture,

26

compression technology, and streaming technology enabled
the Internet to be a viable medium of video delivery.
However, the current technologies and low bandwidth
connections are still limited in providing good quality
visual content. Hopefully, in the near future, new
developments in these technologies and increased bandwidth
will enable web-delivery that is more appealing to the mass

audience.

27

Chapter 3

Current Trends

Overview

Technological development over the past few years has
facilitated the Internet delivery of visual content. In
fact, it created a fast growing industry with a
considerable potential for success in the future. The
growing excitement is evident even for the Hollywood
heavyweights: "Steven Spielberg talked of its 'unlimited
potential.‘ Ron Howard described it as 'stimulating and
liberating.‘ And Jeffrey Katzenberg compared it to the dawn
of MTV. These are the soaring expectations for Internet
filmmaking and animation heading into 2000" (Miller).

Right now, several sites specialize in web—delivery of
short format visual content. Among others, AtomFilms.com,
Ifilm.com, and Dfilm.com stand as the leaders of the bunch.
These sites function as portal sites in which visual
content of all kind (short films, animations, and
(locumentaries) is available for free, 24 hours a day, 7
days a.week. Already, they have a growing but solid
anniience base that is interested in viewing online visual
content: "[the online screening sites] showed that there is

significant consumer interest in short movies and cartoons

28

that can be viewed online" (Miller). Submitting content to
these sites is free, and most sites do not require
ownership rights or exclusivity. In addition, some even
provide personal web pages and E—mail accounts to
filmmakers.

In comparison to the traditional methods of
distribution, the implication of such delivery scheme is
significant. For creators, especially the marginalized
ones, it offers greater exposure than the short format
visual content has ever seen before. For viewers, it offers
an opportunity to see unique content that is not available
anywhere else. This is very closed to the ideals of
cultural forum, in which diverse cultural representations
are examined to construct a fair representation of reality.
The mission statement from Reelmind.com reiterates the
point:

Devoted to the creative process, REELMIND offers

filmmakers and animators an outlet for their work

free from compromise and traditional distribution
constraints. By utilizing the Internet, REELMIND
empowers each individual to reap the benefits of

a united artistic community while promoting their

personal visions to the world (Mission
Statement).

 

In essence, the promise of Internet delivery is that
it would empower the traditionally marginalized visual

content creators, especially those who work in the short

29

format. Ultimately, these services provide a way to realize
the vision of the marginalized filmmakers against the
hegemony of the traditional, market—driven distribution

schemes.

Quality Issues

The image quality of the video delivery on the
Internet today is, to say the least, problematic. This is a
significant drawback that limits its appeal. Unfortunately,
the current compression technology and the bandwidth
infrastructure for the Internet are not optimal for video
delivery, often resulting in blurred and jerky images. When
viewed at low bandwidth, such as 28.8kbps modem, images can
even be unrecognizable. Moreover, with true streaming
technologies such as RealPlayer, the flow of the visual
content can often be disrupted due to Internet congestion,
not to mention the horrible image quality at low bandwidth.
With progressive download, the time required can be a huge
stumbling block, especially for unmotivated users who crave
immediate access. Obviously, such distractions do not
provide a suitable environment for a decent viewing
experience, not to mention a meaningful communication: "The

state of film on the web today leaves a lot to be desired -

30

small window size, low quality, long download times, etc."

(Film on the Net).

 

Essentially, it is a battle against the bandwidth.
Without question, the online screening sites utilize every
means possible to achieve the best results. Still, the
bandwidth is the single biggest problem in attracting a
mass audience. As Miller reports, "Only 5% of the nation's
100 million households are expected to have high-speed
Internet connection by the end of 2000 compared with about
2% now, according to Jupiter Communications. This means
that for the vast majority of home Internet users, watching
even a short cartoon will, for the foreseeable future,
require extraordinary patience and a willingness to endure
low—quality images in a viewing window about the size of a
postcard." Gregory Hall, a program coordinator of
shortfilmnetwork.com, confirms the point: "Full screen
video is available now (you can watch Film Club, for
example, at full screen once it becomes downloadable April
7th.[2000], for example), but the majority of audience
members are using slower transmission speeds. The download
time is excruciatingly slow for small bandwidth pipes."
Certainly, such limitations in technology and
infrastructure need to be addressed for the proliferation

of visual contents over the Internet. As the New Venue's

3l

Jason Wishnow suggests, "...film on the web today is akin
to the turn of the century Kinetoscopes and Nickelodeons
people used to pay to peek into, more exciting for their

potential than their actual content" (Film on the Net).

 

Voices from Filmmakers: Pros and Cons

The candy-coated promises of Internet delivery,
supported by such words as democratization and empowerment,
sound extraordinarily attractive, especially to
marginalized creators. However, will it really deliver its
promises? It is certainly dangerous to be wrapped up in the
idealism of the medium and be oblivious to the limitations
or possible negative effects. What are some of the problems
involved with the Internet distribution of visual content?
What are the practical implications of this new medium to

the working filmmakers of today?

Doug Block

 

Doug Block, an award winning independent documentary
filmmaker of 19 years, has been fascinated by the Internet

and recently produced a documentary entitled Home Page. In

 

an attempt to promote the film, he launched a promotional
web site, and showcased his documentary online at

Ifilm.com. In an interview for Video Systems magazine, he

 

32

suggests that the Internet will bring more opportunities to
documentary filmmakers. Specifically, Block is positive of
its impact on massive audience reach, and also on the
extended experience the Internet can bring to the
documentary audience:

I think it's going to create an enormous change.
First, it's going to more easily allow filmmakers
to reach targeted audiences that fit their subject
matter. Plus, because documentaries are about real
people and real subjects that are important to
viewers, the links on a film's website offer a
great deal of added value to what people are
seeing. I mean, for example, there was an inherent
interactivity with Home Page because the film was
about people who have these great websites. And we
always encourage people to go from seeing the film
to these people's websites and follow up on the
story. You can continued to find out what happened
to them since filming ended, or contact them
directly by email. ... It makes it a more
interactive experience. ...it's like the Web is
made for this kind of organic theater where the
audience can get very, very deeply involved
(Porter 129).

However, despite the wide audience reach and extended
documentary experience, Block also observes that the scope
of the Internet viewing experience is limited to sampling:

So what the Net does, which I think is so great,
is create an experience equivalent to going into a
bookstore where, if you have the time, you can
read the whole book. People don't generally do
that, but they can. And most people think it
encourages sales of books. Likewise, the idea
behind the streaming the film was to give the
opportunity to sample it, knowing that the image
quality was going to vary depending on what kind
of modem they were using. I didn't think people
would have the patience to watch it on a small

33

screen. Even at high—bandwidth, it's still not

going to look fantastic. So, I wanted people to

look at it, get intrigued, and then click on the

video and buy it (Porter 129).
As Block correctly observes, watching online visual content
is a different experience in a different context than the
conventional media experiences such as theatrical or
television viewing. Moreover, he suggests that the quality
will never be equal to the traditional media, even with
high bandwidth access. Therefore, he argues that the
Internet may only be suitable for sampling purposes. In
light of the expected arrival of digital television in the
near future, the image quality on the computer monitor may
never be satisfactory even with high bandwidth. On the
other hand, if the convergence occurs between the two
media, in which the user can access high quality Internet
content through digital television in high bandwidth, the
quality will not be an issue. Furthermore, this new medium
will provide more than samples of visual content. However,
given the current status of technology and infrastructure,
Block's observation may be correct. Nonetheless, his
outlook is positive. Indeed, the Internet is a powerful and
liberal promotional tool with certain benefits such as

extended viewing experience. It clearly helps the

traditionally marginalized filmmakers by providing them

34

with more opportunities than were available before the

arrival of the Internet.

Helmut Kobler

 

Helmut Kobler, video game producer for 6 years and an
aspiring filmmaker, recognized the potential of web
delivery, and produced a short film entitled Radius, which
was tailored to Internet delivery. In his article "Internet
Film: The New Promise Land," he also recognizes the
advantages of mass audience reach. However, he argues that,
for online content to be successful, immediate attention
from the audience is crucial:

...not every film will actually **succeed** on the

Internet —— i.e., get broad exposure, and make a

difference in moving your career forward. The ones

that do will recognize the Internet as a special,
unique medium for film, and tailor themselves

accordingly.... One of the things we were very
conscious of doing with Radius was opening it up
with a bang—i.e., an intense sequence where our

pilot/heroine is shot down behind enemy lines....
The point of all this is to illustrate the
importance of grabbing the audience's attention
almost immediately—i.e., in the first minute if
possible. How you do this is up to you as a
storyteller/filmmaker, but it's necessary if you
want an average audience member to watch your film
from start to finish. The fact is, net film
viewers are probably watching your masterpiece in
a small video window on their computer, sitting at
a desk. It’s not the ideal environment to watch a
film, and there are plenty of other distractions
like other films, e—mail, MS-NBC, and Amazon.com
competing for their attention. They simply won’t

35

have the patience to sit for minutes as you slowly
develop your story (Kobler).

As does Block, Kobler notes that the Internet experience is
different than that of the traditional media. Specifically,
he suggests that it is based not in traditional
entertainment context but in the context of information. In
this peculiar environment, it is certainly difficult to
expect the same kind of attention from the audience as in
television or theater. Inevitably, Kobler defines the
Internet as a stepping stone for an upcoming filmmakers
rather than a medium on its own -- a new avenue to break
into the existing industry:

Now if this audience consisted solely of everyday
film fans sitting at their PCs in Iowa or who
knows where, then such exposure wouldn't be so
valuable. But Internet film is **also** catching
the interest of more agents, producers and even
film studios (for instance, consider that Steven
Spielberg and Ron Howard recently launched their
own net film site called Pop.com, Leonardo
DiCaprio is sponsoring a net film festival,
established sites like AtomFilms and Ifilm were
hot commodities at the recent Sundance Film
Festival, and so on). It’s the fact that 'the
establishment’ is taking Internet film seriously
that makes it a great opportunity for exposure.
**If** you can create a film that entertains
everyday net film fans, you’re also likely to
attract the attention of some people and companies
that can move your career to the next level.
Filmmakers who have done successful net films like
Joe Nussbaum (George Lucas in Love), and Mark
Osborne (MOre), and others have moved on to bigger
and better opportunities (Kobler).

36

Kobler ' s View on this unique medium emphasizes that its

true value to the filmmakers is only as a practice ground.

Specifically, he sees the industry specific, professional

audience to be the real value of the new medium for the up-

and—coming filmmakers. In other words, he does not see the

genuine value in the medium as a delivery tool for broader

and richer communication. Although the future may hold more

than what he suggests, given the particular state of the

technology today, Kobler's observation may be correct.

However, like Block, he still recognizes the potential of

the medium to reach a mass audience.

8. D. Katz

If Block and Kobler are somewhat positive about the

effect of the Internet delivery of visual contents, S. D.

Katz is not. A filmmaker and an author of books such as

Film Directing Shot by Shot: Visualizing from Concept to

Screen, Katz is more skeptical about the impact of this new

medium. Specifically, he warns that Internet delivery will

fragment the already fragile independent film industry:

Desktop video has made everyone a potential
filmmaker, and now we are told the Internet will
allow anyone to launch a micro studio. Anyone and
everyone. And there's the catch. We are all about
to drown each other out. Putting up a website will
be about as compelling as an ad in the Yellow

Pages. The Internet is going to fragment the

37

popular audience for films—-or at least steal from
the margins—-as focused DV publishing efforts
permit filmmakers to target, say, left—handed, bi—
sexual seniors. This, however, may not be a
sufficiently large or loyal audience to support
regular production, even with the bargain basement
cost of DV production and Internet distribution.
What ' s more, viewers only have a certain amount of
time available for film—going, and this will now
be divided between Internet viewing and a night
out at the movies. Television reduced movie
attendance, and now both these older mediums will

have to share some of their viewers with the
Internet (Katz 8).

Indeed, he is convinced that the more opportunities this

new medium brings will fragment the market and saturate the

audience to the point of self-destruction. Interestingly,

however, the assumption behind Katz's argument is that

Internet delivery will be a legitimate outlet for visual

content along with movie theaters and television, rather

than a sampling medium or a stepping stone for aspiring

filmmakers. In other words, he recognizes the possibilities

that this new medium can bring to the traditionally

marginalized filmmakers. However, he also suggests that the

Internet will not stay purely alternative:

A close reading of the many Internet broadband
deals cut in the last 12 months reveals that
Apple, Microsoft, the alphabet networks, the
portals, the telcos, and cable companies are all
buying stakes in each other (or outright buyouts)
and cutting cross—marketing deals. The computer
industry no longer offers an alternative to the
media conglomerates. They are one and the same.
What this means is that we are likely to see the
major studios control mass marketing on the

38

Internet, with a new subclass of filmmakers
creating and releasing their alternative work to
segments of the indie market. If this produces an
audience similar to the short story audience loyal
to a handful of small literary magazines. . . , that
may be sufficient recognition for some filmmakers.
But unlike short story writers, filmmakers will
not be able easily cover their costs—~even DV

production (Katz 8) .
In summary, Katz argues that the mainstream media

conglomerates will control the Internet, and the

traditionally marginalized filmmakers will be further

marginalized in this new environment by the same

traditional forces; so much so that the recovery of the

production cost is impossible. Finally, Katz warns that the

idealism of the Internet delivery may just be a false hope
of the desperate filmmakers faced with a premature medium

of, in reality, limited possibilities:
Despite the hype, the overthrow of traditional
.media venues is not in the cards; the big guys
‘will simmdy co—opt the indie market. We will see
time deck reshuffled over the next few years, but

all the players at the table will be familiar.

indie filmmakers who want to stay out

Meanwhile,
but limited

of the mainstream may have new tools,
means. Many will be shocked to discover that

they'll have to settle for filmmaking as an
avocation (Katz 8).

In light of the merger between AOL and Time Warner this

year, Katz ' s somewhat gloomy prophecy is not groundless. In
"Gatekeepers Inc.," John

an article entitled, fittingly,

39

lfiggins reports a story not too distant from what Katz has

predicted:

...behind the public enthusiasm lies private
anxiety over the power of a combined AOL Time
Warner. Suddenly, the company that serves the
largest portfolio of Internet users will also own
the largest producer of TV shows and movies, as
well as cable programming and cable systems
passing 20% of the nation's households. And those
cable systems can distribute not only TV but high—
speed Web content rich with video and audio. ...
The combined AOL Time Warner will have several
gates that media and Internet rivals will want to
pass. Competing Internet Service providers will
want to access to Time Warner Cable's high-speed
pipes, a fight they had been fighting side—by—side
with Case. Competing Media companies will want to
push their content to AOL customers and ensure
that it's accessible to Time Warner Cable Users
subscribing to other services (Higgins 22).

Certainly, the merger of AOL and Time Warner is a
significant event that can shape the future of this new
medium. Katz's chilling prediction of Internet domination

by the media conglomerates may become true in a very short

time.

Summary

From different perspectives, all three filmmakers
recognize the unique nature of the medium that could
:provoke a significant change in the industry. Whatever
their‘cmitlook may be, they are paying serious attention to

this rmnvxnedium. Indeed, the media conglomerates are

40

looking into the Internet as a medium of substantial
possibilities, just as the marginalized filmmakers have.
The current trends that online screening sites have set are
just the beginning; it is the tip of the iceberg of what is
coming. Sooner or later, the quality issue will likely
become a thing of the past, and high quality video images
and audio will flood the Internet. Nonetheless, the
question remains: Will traditional forces take over the
Internet and dominate, keeping the status quo of today's
media accessibility? In other words, will the cultural
forum still be ruled by the cultural tyranny of today's
media? Or, will the marginalized creators of today flourish
with this new medium, overcoming the status quo? Will it
open new doors to provide a chance to fairly represent the
culture with the diversity of content? At this point,
nothing is sure except that this new medium has a golden
possibility of rich cultural forum that no other media are

capable of today.

41

CHAPTER 4

Research

Research Questions

Many predict that the Internet will become a powerful

medium that transcends the traditional boundaries of the

existing media. Indeed, the Internet is growing faster than

ever, often leaving the industry with uncertainty. The

delivery of visual content over the Internet is one of the
areas facing revolution and uncertainty at the same time.

Truly, the new possibilities that the Internet can bring

are fascinating. Specifically, the delivery of

traditionally marginalized productions, such as short

format visual content, promises new possibilities of a rich

cultural forum.

Online Promotion

As reviewed in the Chapter 3: Current Trends, the
Internet delivery of visual content today is a reality.

However, these online screening sites are essentially

;portal sites that function as distributors. Although most

<3f the services are free, they still are gateways for the

fiJJmnakers. Indeed, the established audience base that

tlmmxa sites offer can be attractive to filmmakers.

42

However, once the film is submitted, the filmmaker
loses control over how the film is experienced by the
audience- Specifically, the submitted content can be lost
in the hierarchy of the site, among all the other films
that the site carries. For example, the short film Glove at

Ifilm.com is now competing for attention against more than
800 other films.

Moreover, the choice of the delivery architecture and
digitization, which have a huge influence on the viewing
experience of the end user, is completely up to the site
administrators; in other words, the filmmaker does not have

control over the quality of the delivered contents.
In addition, the design, overall look and feel of the
site is completely up to the site administrators as well.

For example, to the filmmaker's surprise, the web page

given to M2 at Ifilm.com focused e31. lusively on violence

as a strategy to promote the film. Specifically, the page
used bloody pictures that suggest gory violence, which the
filmmaker considers as a misrepresentation of the film. All
this undermines the purpose of using the Internet as the
distribution tool: the power to reach an audience directly
with the content the way the filmmaker has intended.
Currently, however, promotion of one single visual

content on a non—portal site, in which the whole movie is

43

available online, is rare. More often than not, film
related sites are limited to providing samples or trailers,
along with such information as synopsis, production notes,
and credits. Perhaps, it is due to the limited access to
the digitization/compression technology, and also the fact
that a mass audience reach is not as effective as portal
sites. Certainly, it is more advantageous to promote the
contents at portal sites, which provide a strong audience
base and the appropriate technology for free.

In light of this, this research attempts to establish
a direct connection between the filmmaker and the audience
to bypass the media gates, thereby maintaining the power of
the filmmaker. Specifically, it focuses on the web—delivery
of an independently produced content on a non—portal site.
However, in practical terms, is it possible to successfully
promote visual content over the Internet without the
benefits of the existing audience base? In other words, can
it complete the cycle of communication by creating a forum
in which audience can interact with the content the way the

filmmaker has intended?

i. Production

 

In an attempt to answer this question, a short film

entitled.Glove and a promotional web site for it were

44

produced (see Appendix A for the script). The promotional
web site included general information about the film as
well as online versions of the film in QuickTime (available

at http://glove.tc.msu.edu). Specifically, the film was

 

compressed using Sorenson codec to produce 4 different
versions of progressive download QuickTime movies: low
quality, medium quality, good quality, and best quality.
Sorenson codec was chosen because it was the best codec at
the moment in terms of image quality for online delivery of
QuickTime movies. For the delivery method, progressive
download was chosen over true streaming to keep control
over the quality of the movie. Therefore, QuickTime was the
choice over Realvideo and Windows Media because those two
were essentially architectures more suitable for true
streaming than progressive download. Accordingly, for the

control of image quality, QuickTime was the only choice.

ii. Promotion

 

The film and the site were promoted in various ways
over the Internet, such as submission to different search
engines as well as contacting various list—servs. To
prtmmote the film effectively, the audience was isolated as
muufli as possible by focusing on industry professionals,

:hmdependent filmmakers, and those who are interested.

45

The concept behind search engine is for the user to
find desired web content by typing in keywords. Therefore,
it is crucial to equip the web site with relevant keywords
that the likely user would associate with, so that those
words can be indexed by search engines for the display of
search results. In general, search engines index web sites
in two ways: indexing of the meta tags (tags that contain
the information about the site that are not displayed on
the actual web pages), or indexing of the HTML text in the
body of the web pages. Therefore, it is crucial to come up
with keywords that can represent the content of the site,
and then implementing them in both the meta tags and the
HTML body text. Visit http://commtechlab.msu.edu/

humans/kimsimon for more information on the characteristics

 

of search engines.

To optimize for the search engine indexing, the
following keywords and description were incorporated into
time body of the web pages as well as the meta tags:

Keywords, "digital short film, Digital Short
Film, digital short, digital film, Digital Film,
digital, Digital, short film, Short Film, Film,
film, psychological thriller, Psychological
Thriller, thriller, Thriller, suspense, Suspense,
plot twist, Plot Twist, online screening, on-line
screening, Glove, glove, GLOVE, Simon Kim, simon
kim"

46

Description, "Glove is a digital short film by

Simon Kim, a psychological thriller, a tale of

self-discovery"

Subsequently, the Glove web site was submitted in early
February for indexing at the following search engines:
Yahoo, Snap.com, HotBot, Excite, Altavista, Netscape
Search, ComFind, Infoseek, Northern Light, The Yellow
Pages, Lycos, Planet Search, Webcrawler.

In addition, a couple of list—servs were selected to
isolate the audience in the promotion of Glove. Similar to
newsgroups, list—servs are a cyber forum in which
participants share opinions and ideas on a specific topic
through E-mail. Among others, "Webcinema" was chosen due to
its focused yet vast reach to the entertainment—oriented
industry professionals around the globe
(http://www.webcinema.org). Similarly, an Australian list—
serv called "Oz-Short-Film" was chosen due to its focused
reach (http://www.ironclad.net.au/lists/oz—short—
film/subscribing.html). Subsequently, E—mails were sent to
the two list-serves to promote Glove (see appendix B for
sample E—mail).

The purpose of the promotion was, obviously, to access
as many targeted audiences as possible for the online

screening of Glove. Such promotional effort was crucial

because, unlike popular portal sites that have an

47

established audience base, Glove was promoted individually.
Therefore, successful audience reach determined the success
of the premise: the capability of the Internet to achieve a

rich cultural forum.

Audience Profile

Because the employed promotional strategies were
mostly point—to—multipoint in nature (in other words, one
message serves many), the information about the actual
visitors is somewhat ambiguous. For example, the URL of the
promotional site was indexed at Yahoo under Entertainment >
Movies and Film > Titles > Independent. In this case, one
can assume that those who searched Glove via Yahoo were
interested in films in general, and especially independent
films. However, this does not provide who they are beyond
their interest in independent films. The list—serv and
:newsgroups carries the same dilemma. Who are the people
searching the Internet for visual contents such as Glove?
‘What are they like?

The research combined both qualitative and
<quantitative data in an attempt to answer these two

inesearch questions: success of the promotion and audience

profile.

48

Method

In order to measure the success of the online
promotion of Glove, the server log of the site was
analyzed, which contained access data of all the visitors
for the duration of research: from January 29 to April 21
of 2000. The server log analysis was provided by the server
administrator of the Communication Technology Lab at
Michigan State University, whose server contains the
promotional web site for Glove.

The success was measured based on the number of times
the online versions of Glove were requested, commonly
referred as "hits." Therefore, the number of hits on the 4
QuickTime versions of Glove for the period of 3 months will
help determining whether or not the promotion was
successful.

In addition, from the server log analysis, the Domain
iReport was analyzed, which identifies international domains
‘that requested the Glove web site. This is based on the
analysis of a simple domain syntax. For example, a domain
that.ends with ".co.uk" in the place of ".com" is based in
time United Kingdom.

Also, the Hourly Summary was analyzed, which revealed

true average number of hits per each hour. For example, it

49

shows what time of the day the visitors most requested the
site.

Finally, the Daily Report was analyzed to determine
the frequency of the visitors' request on a daily basis
during the research period. For example, it shows which day

had the most requests and which had the least.

To generate an audience profile, a simple survey was
conducted, which asked the visitors' demographic
information and Internet usage (see Appendix C for the full
questionnaire). The survey was conducted online on a
strictly voluntary basis. Specifically, upon a visitor's
request for the online screening of Glove, which is done by
clicking on the online screening icon available at any page
within the site, the visitor was lead to the survey page.
Upon arrival, the visitor had a choice to either complete
and submit the survey, or skip it all together. If the
visitor chose to fill out and submit the survey, the result
'was Ekmuiled to the researcher and archived. If the visitor
Cfnase to skip, he/she was lead to the screening page. The
«overall number of collected surveys was 104. They were

annalyzed using frequency analysis to reveal the audience

profile.

50

Results

Online Promotion

 

The server log was analyzed to determine the success
of the promotion, which recorded transactions for the
duration of 82 days. The overall number of successful

requests (hits) for any given page on the Glove web site

 

was 12,937; and, the average number of successful requests
per day for the pages was 157 (see Table 2). The successful
request means that, when requested, the page was fully
loaded without any loading errors (when the visitor hits
the stop loading button, for example) or any page errors
(broken links that leads to pages that do not exist, for

example).

Table 2

Number of Successfully Loaded Pages (hits) for Glove Web

 

Site between January 29 and April 21 of 2000 (82 days)

 

Total 12,937

Average per day 157

 

Source: Web Server Statistics for glove.tc.msu.edu.

 

The log also showed that the number of requests for

all the QuickTime movies, including 4 versions of the movie

51

and 4 versions of the trailer, was 893 (Table 3). This is
determined by the number of times the files with extension
".mov" was accessed. Specifically, the combined total of
the hits to the movies was 471 (52.6%), and the trailers
420 (46.9%). Interestingly, among the 4 versions of the
movie available, the best quality movie was requested the
most (45.6%), followed by medium quality (25.0%), low

quality (15.0%), and good quality (14.2%) (Table 4).

Table 3

Overall Number of QuickTime Movie Files Requested

 

 

Requests Percentage
Glove 471 52.6%
Trailer 420 46.9%
Uncounted 2 0.2%
Total 893 100.0%

 

Source: Web Server Statistics for glove.tc.msu.edu.

 

52

Table 4

Different Versions of Glove Requested

 

 

Requests Percentage
Glove (best quality) 215 45.6%
Glove (medium quality) 118 25.0%
Glove (low quality) 71 15.0%
Glove (good quality) 67 14.2%
Total 471 100%

 

Source: Web Server Statistics for glove.tc.msu.edu.

In addition, the Domain Report shows that the requests
came from 48 different countries around the world outside
the United States. Even though the English—speaking
countries such as Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia
mark the highest requests, there were many interesting
others, including Japan, Bulgaria, Brazil, Singapore,
Mexico, Norway, and Israel (Table 5).

In terms of the hourly summary of the requests, the

results show that the peak was at 2 p.m. However, the

53

Table 5

Domain Report:

Countries outside the U.S. (excerpt)

 

 

 

Domain Number of Requests
.ca (Canada) 3705
.uk (United Kingdom) 3052
.au (Australia) 2423
.jp (Japan) 1157
.bg (Bulgaria) 1085
.br (Brazil) 958
.sg (Singapore) 746
.nz (New Zealand) 622
.sa (Saudi Arabia) 540
.ae (United Arab Emirates) 503
.it (Italy) 469
.mx (Mexico) 444
.my (Malaysia) 396
{be (Belgium) 381
.2a (South Africa) 375
.fr (France) 370
.nl (Netherlands) 280
SOUrcec Web Server Statistics for glove.tc.msu.edu.

 

54

average requests kept the momentum throughout most of the
day, from 10 a.m. to 1 a.m., until it dropped significantly
during the early morning hours, between 2 a.m. and 9 a.m.
(Figure 1).

Finally, the daily report between March 11th and April
21st shows that the visitors' requests peaked on March 13th
and March 14th, marking 573 and 518 requests per pages
respectively. Otherwise, the requests stayed relatively

constant throughout the research period (figure 2).

Audience Profile

 

To generate the audience profile, 104 online surveys
were archived, and analyzed using frequency analysis. Based
on the analyzed data, it was revealed that the majority of
the visitors were highly educated young professionals. The
following describes the most likely candidate who visited
the Glgye web site: a 20 something male with a 4 year
college degree, who is in the arts and entertainment
industry, who spends an average of 2 hours a day online,
and less than 1 hour a week watching online movies.

Please refer to Appendix D for the graphic figures of
the following discussion. In terms of the sex of the
'visitors, male (77%) was dominant over female (23%) (figure

3) ..As far as the ages of the visitors, the dominant

55

___._.__._____.__.___.__ ._____~._.________. __J:

 

qoo
w moon) (W11 ,l(l (ll) (5!) ll) ([1)-!5fl 1,)! l l) l:l( ll)!
t r
S
e moo , 1 ,, , ; l. l l l l r , x
u _
q r
% eoo h ,l, l 1, ; 2 : 1 , ; i l , l x ; , l
e _
qr woo n4 ., , , l , i z x l ; l l ,1, : l : i ,1 l
m
moon 1 if 1 - ( 1.1+ at i .1 (i l, , ll
f
o r
as Hoo w- llé‘Lifz ,,1!1(.17;!.)I-l((l i- (--1fllzllié I - l
_ .

O L l in l) 4 J1. l is l i) d? 4 (is (I

yv .d 0o ./ 9 >( 8 co \/ 9 2x .6 y. no no 0 J» Y no no 0

J. >1 J. >« J. as J. «v J. .6 so / / / / ,« J. )« J. 21 .6

Umnm

WHDCHm w

UmHHK meOHn Om arm wmncmmnm

mOCHom" 2mg mmH<mH mnmnemneom mow ©Ho<m.no.8mc.mmc.

 

56

 

Hmooo :;

 

 

Heooo
Hmooo
Hoooo
mooo
mooo

@000

Number of Requests

 

Nooo

 

 

 

H w w a m m 1N m oHowpemewprwwquwmeomomwwwwwmp

mocw

WHOCHm H
mOCHHK mCSBmHK 0m now wmQCmmnm

mocwnmu 2mg mmH<mH mnmnwmnwom mow OHo<m.no.BmC.mQC.

 

 

57

segment was mostly in their twenties (48%), followed by
thirties (33%), and forties (11%) (figure 4). The
educational level of the visitors turned out to be quite
high: most of them had a 4 year college degree (27%) or
Masters degree (21%), and some were still in college (15%)
(figure 5).

Not surprisingly, arts and entertainment (45%)
dominated the occupation or the type of industry, followed
by Internet/multimedia (15%) and education (6%) (figure 6).
The majority of the visitors spent 2 hours a day online
(33%), followed by less than 1 hour (20%) and 3 hours (17%)
(figure 7). For the viewing of online movies, the greater
number of people spent less than 1 hour (58%), followed by
none (18%) and 2 hours (12%) (figure 8).

For the question "Where did you learn about Glgye?,"

the result was split between list—serv (28%) and search

engine (25%), followed by other (22%) (figure 9).

Discussion

The measurement for success was ambiguous in
determining the success of the promotion, due to the lack
of established criteria. Indeed, for some filmmakers, one
Ineaningful interaction with an audience could mean a

success. For others, millions of audience at the box office

58

may not be satisfactory. How does one determine the
criteria for success? Specifically, with the promotion of
Glove, how many hits represent a successful audience reach?

One useful criterion is the Ifilm.com's standard, in
which 1,000 viewing is deemed significant. Specifically, on
Ifilm.com, the number of views is listed only if the movie
exceeds 1,000 hits from the audience. In light of this
standard, the result of 471 hits could mean that the online
promotional effort of Glove was barely acceptable. However,
considering the unique situation of a non—portal site
without the benefit of the established audience, the result
can also be interpreted as satisfactory.

Still, the overall results indicate that the
individual promotion of visual contents is not entirely
impractical. In fact, it shows a strong possibility of a
meaningful forum in which the audience can interact with
the web—based visual content. The feedback from visitors
who enjoyed the film reaffirms the point:

I did watch the whole thing as it was very well

paced and nicely shot (Rutledge, The Glove
Feedback).

 

 

...I viewed your work and I like it. It had a
little twist and twists are good. ... It is
obvious that you put a lot of time in your
project (Coury).

...the film was the best film I've seen on line.
I've watched many films because they were on

59

line, but the montage effects in this film
appealed to other senses too (Reed).

Certainly, as evident in the feedback, the Internet
provides new possibilities in distribution that are
meaningful for the independently produced content such as
Glove.

To be certain, however, not all of the 471 requests
for the movies were successful. In other words, there was
no guarantee that the visitors who clicked on the movies
watched it in its entirety. According to the visitor
feedback, there were various problems associated with
accessing the QuickTime movies. For example, Jude, a
visitor from Australia, had to stop halfway through the
movie:

I didnt watch the whole film as I couldnt get it

to finish downloading :( It stalled twice at the

point where he meets X in the toilets. It took me

nearly two hours to get the download to this
point twice... [...] I was viewing the 'medium'
quality version as I am only on a 33.6 modem and
even 8meg is a huge effort (Jude).
In this case, accessing from Australia may have been a huge
factor for slow downloading, considering all the gates
Ibetween the two countries. However, in some cases, the
access to the movies was completely unsuccessful for
unknown reasons:

[...] nothing happened with the screening ..... I

tried best, medium, good for both the trailer and

60

Um film yet nothing showed once the download

finished (Bapscene).

mronly question is: HOW can I watch the film?
mmhing happened (Bakker)!!

flue fllustrates the limited state of the current

hfirmxructure for viewing online video. Whatever the

gmobhmimay be, it is a fact that some visitors will

conthme to have technical and/or infra-structural

probhms. What this means to the research is that the
acUmfl.number of visitors who viewed the entire length of
uncertain. However, it is certainly

the movies is, at best,

below 471.

 

Nonetheless, the complete analysis of the Web Server

Statistics shows unique and powerful features of Internet

 

the close analysis of the Daily

delivery. For example,

Report suggests that the number of visitor requests is

releniively consistent throughout the research time period,

witli the exception of the March 13th and 14th (figure 2).

TTME pmaak on March 13th and 14th can be explained by the

facfl: tluat the promotional E—mail to the two list—servs was

Specifically, the E—mail

senit iri the afternoon of the 13th.
to Webcinema was sent at 1:46 p.m. on the 13th and to Oz—
Since all of the list—serv members

Short—Fihnm:2fl7pxm
the requests to the

received the E—mail at the same time,
However,

site were heavily concentrated on those two days.

61

even after the initial concentration of more than 500
requests per day dropped to the average of 157 requests,
the flow of requests stays relatively constant until April
19th. Since the search engine was the second popular means
(25%) to locate Glove site against list—serv (28%) (figure
9), this constant stream of requests has to be attributed
to the search engine. What this means is that, assuming the
average number of requests stays constant after the
research period, the overall hits to the Glove web site
will increase. From this, one can infer that the number of
views of the film will increase as well. Therefore, it
indicates that the audience reach of 1,000 is a matter of
time. In other words, user access of Glove is free of
temporal constraints; as long as the site is up, audience
will keep visiting. This is a good indicator of the
possibility of reaching a mass audience.

Furthermore, the research demonstrated that the
geographical boundaries are not significant for the content
delivered over the Internet. Indeed, with the 48 countries
around the world clicking on the site, Glove received a
global exposure that transcends geographical boundaries.
This is a significant accomplishment that the traditional
Inedia cannot possibly offer to the marginalized independent

production such as Glove.

62

 

Moreover, as the Hourly Summary illustrates (figure
1), the site request was not restricted to certain time but
shared across the day, except for the early morning hours.
This result can be applied to the viewing of the movies on
the site. This on—demand quality of the Web illustrates the
powerful benefit of Internet delivery, which transcends the
temporal limitations of traditional media distribution. ?‘

However, the research also reveals a crucial g
inconsistency in the promotional efforts. Specifically, why
is there a huge discrepancy between the overall number of
successful requests to the pages in the site (12,937) and
to the movies (471)? In other words, why are visitors
viewing the site and not even click on the links to the
movies? This is especially curious since the promotional
efforts focused on the industry—specific audiences who are
interested in the area. Moreover, the promotion was
specifically done to entice the visitors to the online
screening of Glove. The splash page of the site (the first
page that loads up when visitors click on the URL) even
contains a flashing icon that says "online screening" to
get the immediate attention from the visitors. In this
environment, it is hard to imagine that the willing
visitors, who came into the site knowing that the online

screening of Glove is the major attraction, do not even

63

click on the link to the movies. This may prove to be a
significant flaw in the promotional efforts. What would
cause such behavior? Is there a possible explanation for
the discrepancy?

Perhaps, many visitors came into the site and, after
gathering basic information about the film, turned off by
the subject matter of the film. Or, due to the lack of
solid infra-structural foundation, many were scared off by
the idea of watching a moving image on their computers.

However, more convincing theory may be that, in fact,
such discrepancy makes sense, considering the structure of
the Glove web site. The key to this theory is that the
number of successful requests (12,937) does not equal to
the number of visitors. In fact, successful requests mean
successfully loaded pages without loading errors or page
errors (see page 51). Considering that there are 62
distinct HTML pages in the Glove web site, including 9 main
pages and 36 sub—pages dedicated to the production photos
and film stills, one visitor can cause up to 62 successful
requests (this is without counting the number of times the
visitor uses the "back" button on the browser window). If
one assumes that there were in fact 471 distinct visitors
who attempted to watch the movies (in other words, assuming

each visitor clicked on the links to the movies only once),

64

all it takes to reach 12,937 successful page requests is
less than 30 successful page requests from each visitor
(471 times 30 equals 14,130). Therefore, the likely
explanation for the numerical discrepancy would be: out of
471 total visitors, each visitor entered into the site and
explored the different pages, causing up to 30 successful
page requests, and eventually clicked on the link to the

movies. Again, assuming that there were in fact 471

_____.__
is . QJA;,.‘_V [All

distinct visitors exploring 62 HTML pages, the total
successful requests of 12,937 make sense. In other words,
the term "hits" need to be clearly defined in order to
correctly analyze the statistical data, because it can be
easily misused during interpretation. Therefore, the
discrepancy in the numbers does not stem from the flawed
promotional process, but from the misinterpretation of the

data caused by the confusing term "hits."

Evaluation

In retrospect, the promotion methods employed in this
research were somewhat limited. With the search engine
promotion, the selection of keywords was somewhat
arbitrary; they were chosen based on the researcher's
assumption of what constitutes good keywords for promoting

Glove. The selection of keywords could have been more

65

concrete if it were based on empirical data collected from
the target audience. This could ensure the implementation
of legitimate and diverse group of keywords that are more
relevant and, therefore, effective.

Moreover, more list—servs and newsgroups could have
been chosen to promote Glove rather than the just two. Even
though the chosen list—servs had wide and focused audience
reach, there are more of those that can be exploited.
Therefore, compilation of various list—servs and newsgroups
could help the efficacy of the future promotion efforts.

If there was a single most important element that this
research has neglected in evaluating the possibilities of
Internet delivery, it was the data on the visitors'
connection speed. Admittedly, the biggest problem of the
Internet delivery today is the low bandwidth
infrastructure. Therefore, obviously, it is a crucial piece
of information that could provide an insight into the
nature of the visitors' viewing experience of Glove.
Without empirical data, one can only assume what the actual
viewing experiences were like. Therefore, it could be a
possible future research item that could provide more

insight into the actual infrastructure of the users.

66

Conclusion

 

Even though technical and infra—structural problems do
exist today, the results of the research demonstrate the
inherent benefit of using the Internet as a distribution
tool. Specifically, it indicates that the distribution of
an independently produced single visual content on a non—
portal site can be promoted over the Internet with
agreeable results. Furthermore, this new medium proves to
transcend the spatial and temporal limitations of the
traditional media to achieve global exposure. What is truly
amazing is that this medium provides an opportunity not
only for the mainstream players, but also for the
traditionally marginalized ones. In other words, the
Internet shows a great potential for ensuring diversity of
the cultural forum, in which more alternative cultural
representations can be examined. Ultimately, the more
opportunities of representation will ensure fairer and more
impartial construction of reality by challenging the
cultural domination of commercially driven mainstream
media. Certainly, the mainstream media will not disappear,
and the equal opportunity may be an idealistic and absurd
optimism. However, more than ever, the creators of
independent visual content are equipped with the means to

realize their visions: low—cost, flexible production

67

process and the delivery over the Internet. Therefore, as
the research demonstrated, the possibilities of achieving
richer cultural forum are extended. It is certainly a
significant first step to the democratization of the

unbalanced media domination of today's culture.

68

APPENDICES

69

E. ._ . In‘wu. 3‘

APPENDIX A

Glove Script

70

P"; ’43 ‘A‘_‘~r tux—'1. " '
_ .l

GLOVE

 

written
by

Simon Kim

Thesis Project Script
Second Draft
2/25/1999

@1999 Simon Kim

71

ENTROPY PRODUCTION LOGO

1” INT. ART GALLERY

Pan from a painting Portrait of a Boy by Thomas Couture.
COORDINATOR and STAFF are looking at sample photos.
College student—aged STAFF seems to be intimidated by the
older and wiser COORDINATOR. Flipping through them, all
they see is pictures of hands.

STAFF
Here are the pictures you F4
asked for. E
II
COORDINATOR i
(annoyed and
skeptical)

What's this? Can't this guy
shoot something else?

STAFF
It's pretty unique don't you
think?

STAFF's cute smile quickly fades away as COORDINATOR gazes
at her. COORDINATOR gazes back at the pictures.

COORDINATOR
What’s the name again?

STAFF
AL.
(looking at her
watch)
He should be here soon. He
said he'd drop off rest of
his photos today.

COORDINATOR

(looking at the
pictures)
What's he do?

STAFF

72

He's the photographer for the
school newspaper and he takes
these pictures on the side or
something.

COORDINATOR
(looks at STAFF)

STAFF
I read it in his resume.

COORDINATOR
(again looking at
the photos)
Hmmmit is kinda interesting.

AL
(off camera)
Excuse me.

COORDINATOR

(looking at AL,

then looking at
STAFF)
Who's this?

AL
(smiling)
I'm here to drop the pictures
off?
COORDINAOTOR

AL? Our Mr. Hand!
(reaching his hand
towards AL)

How arem

He loses words as he grabs AL's hand. AL's hand CU. As
COORDINATOR squeezes, the black glove over AL's hand is
crushed as if it is empty. COORDINATOR looks at AL without

a smile.

CUT TO:

CREDIT SEQUENCE:

73

Title and credit over the montage of hands (with theme
music).

2.EXT. PARKING LOT -- EARLY MORNING

The clicking sound of camera is carried over from the title
sequence, gradually mixing with the natural sound. Heavy
metal music is playing through the radio as AL drives the
beat—up Volkswagen.

The car stops. He pulls the parking break. CU of his face
in pain. He gently shakes his right hand that has the glove
on. He takes out a small bottle of Aspirin and takes one in
his mouth. He squints his eyes. [Al taking Aspirin needs to a.
be exaggerated]

.I.‘ M‘s-nu...“ 1.:
' . .I

In an attempt to turn the music off, AL accidentally hits a
button to make the music louder. Another attempt kills the
music. In an awkward pose, AL reaches to the right side of
the handle, and turns off the ignition with his left hand.
He takes the camera from the passenger side and steps out.

CUT TO:
3. INT. BOOKSTORE HALLWAY

A shot of STACY, putting a ribbon on a baseball bat. She
puts it neatly in the corner. Camera pulls out to reveal
AL and MANAGER walking by.

MANAGER
(looking at STACY
and waving)
Hi STACY, good morning!

STACY waves back at MANAGER.

MANAGER
(looking at AL)
Yes, we have everything a
student needs in one
building. This is a complete
facility with everything you
can imagine.

74

AL
(nodding his head
with a big smile)
That's great!

CUT TO:

4. INT. FITNESS FACILITY

CU of camera lens, and then AL's eye as the camera is put
down. His eyes look around and, as the camera comes back
in the frame, his eyes hide behind the camera lens again.
Click. Click.

There are four or five people (both men and women) working
out on different machines (treadmill, lifting bench) in the
room. AL has banner that has "PHOTO" written around his
arm and black glove on his right hand. He is taking
pictures of LIFTER standing in front of a mirror. MANAGER
is explaining about the room as he takes pictures.

MANAGER
(the manager’s
voice fades in)
So, is there anything more
you need?

AL
I’ll be fine thanks.

MANAGER

(with a big fake

smile)
Well, that's good. We’ll get
the front page tomorrow
right?

(smile)
I'll be in the office, so let
me know if you need anything.

MANAGER leaves. As AL takes pictures of LIFTER, natural
background sounds fade out. All that can be heard is the
clicks from AL's camera and his footsteps. AL notices
LIFTER's hand. The frame freezes as he takes several
pictures of LIFTER's hands. CU of LIFTER's hand is
followed by AL's hand with the black glove. As he takes
pictures of LIFTER, he notices X through the lens. X

75

"1.; purge-a.m.» . mgr

stands out because he is the only one looking at the camera
directly. Erie music and cross cut of CU of AL and X. AL
puts the camera down to see X but X is nowhere to be seen.

All natural sounds come back as someone calls for help. A
STUDENT sitting on a workout bench is stuck with a heavy
barbell——he cannot lift it over his head to put the barbell
back. His face is completely red from agony.

STUDENT
(desperate)
Heymcan you give me a hand?
(grunt)

AL, who stands the closest to STUDENT, hesitates and just
looks at STUDENT.

STUDENT
(desperate)
C'mon manm

AL puts the camera down and tries to lift the barbell with
his left hand only.

STUDENT
(desperate and
yelling a bit)

Both hands, c'mon man!

CU of AL, terrified but trying. In the mean time, one of
the other lifters, STUDENT 2, comes and gives a hand. CU
of the STUDENT agonizing as the barbell is slowly lifted.
Allscreams as a sudden metallic thump sound breaks the
silence-—the weights on the barbell fell.

STUDENT
Shit! Are you OK man?

Cut to AL on the floor, in pain, holding his right hand
with the black glove. STUDENT reaches over to AL.

STUDENT
Is it your hand? Let me see.

STUDENT pulls the glove out from AL's hand. Stunned faces
of STUDENT and STUDENT 2.

76

 

CUT TO:

5. INT. RESTROOM

The restroom is empty except a fellow is in front of a
urinal. Upset AL comes in. AL looks at the fellow and goes
into a stool. AL sits down on the stool without taking the
pants off and holds his right hand. The following sounds
are heard in order: flushing, footsteps, water being turned
on, and off, paper towel being ripped, paper towel being
thrown, a loud cough, footsteps, and the door being open.

AL stands up from the stool but stops as door opening and
footstep is heard. He sits down again.

X
(voice only)
You can come out now AL,
everyone's gone.

Sound of lighter lighting cigarette. AL's stunned face. He
opens the door to find X sitting on the sink. X is smoking
a cigarette with his left hand and has a glove on his right
hand. [NOTE: the lighting needs to be different from this

point]

X
What are you looking so
stunned for?
(looking at AL's
hand)
Oh shit, look at that. Don't
just stand there, wash it up.

X turns the water on. Visibly upset, AL looks at X, then
looks away as AL approaches the sink. He looks at the exit
door, takes the glove off on the right hand and puts it on
the sink. CU of the glove. Blood goes down the drain.

X

(looking at AL's

hand and turns his

head around)
Damn man, that's really
fucked up. You need more than
that tiny one, need a fucking
baseball glove to hide it.

77

S. 3.x;"m
.

5’

AL is visibly upset but reluctant. He keeps washing the
hand.

AL
(quietly)
What do you want now?

X
(with a smile)
Oh, nothing. Don't bother,
I'm just talking to myself.

Looking at AL, X starts to whistle. AL tears paper towel to

dry his hand. His eyes squint in pain as he rubs his right
hand.

X
Does it hurt?

AL
What?

X

(louder with his
hands around his
mouth)

Does it hurt?

AL does not answer. CU of his left hand crushing the paper
towel. He throws it in the garbage can. X looks at AL as AL
is taking an Aspirin from the bottle. X gets his last drag
out of the cigarette. The sound of burning cigarette is
exaggerated.

X

(shaking his head)
You changed so much man. You
used to babble like a little
girl all the time, remember?

(changing his voice

like a girl and

shaking his hand)
Oh mommy, my hand hurts, they
are looking at my hands, da
da dam

78

 

AL
(extremely annoyed)
Shut up!

X
Try to play basketball with
that hand man. Ha! Can you
even shoot? You know, like
this.

X puts two hands together and imitates shooting basketball.
CU of AL's steaming face. Cut to AL's right hand which is
covered by the left hand.

X

(smiling but

extremely

sarcastic)
Oh, I'm sorry, did I hurt
your feelings?
Oh my god, what have I done?
Look here, do you wanna see
what hands really look like?

X takes his right glove off to reveal his hand.

X
Now this is what I call a
reeeeal pretty hand.

X kisses his bare hand. CU of AL's steaming face. Suddenly,
AL’s face crushes in pain. He grabs the right hand with his
left hand. He takes the Aspirin bottle out and tries to
open it.

X
(sarcastic)
Oh no! No, no, no, no. You
think this is gonna make it
better?

X tries to snatch the Aspirin bottle from AL. Both AL and
X wrestle a bit, but the bottle ends up in X’s hand. X
throws it in the corner. X puts the glove back and punches
his palm. X jumps on him. Sound of fist meeting flesh. CU
of the glove on the sink (camera moves in gradually) as the
sound is heard.

79

L'Am‘

DISSOLVE TO:
6. INT. RADIOLOGIST'S OFFICE

(the fist meeting flesh sound carries over, gradually
replaced by the x—ray machine thump) AL is seated on a
bench holding his right arm and a piece of paper. A sick-
looking BOY in a hospital robe walks by. AL follows BOY
with his eyes. A NURSE calls for the next person in line
at which time AL takes his eyes off from BOY. AL stands

up, steps into the office. As he carefully drags his body 5‘
into the office, he squints his eyes in pain. k
NURSE ii

(writing on a piece
of paper without
looking at AL)

May I help you?

She looks up and her face becomes stiff. AL hands over the
piece of paper without saying anything. AL looks away.
The NURSE looks over the paper, looks at AL, and opens up
the file cabinet. She brings out a thick folder labeled
"Al Hide" and slips the paper in.

CUT TO:

7. INT. X—RAY ROOM
The NURSE guides AL to the x-ray table and seats him down.

NURSE
Please take the glove off and
pull the sleeve back.

AL pulls the sleeve back to reveal bruised spots. He takes
the glove off (his hand is not showing). CU of NURSE's
face, looking at AL's hand, then AL's face. The NURSE
helps him putting the arm on the right angle.

NURSE

(polite but cold)
What happened this time?

80

AL
(terrified and not
looking at her)
AhhmMartial arts, I was
sparring.

The NURSE looks at him.

NURSE
Don't move. Hold that pose.

She hands him the lap cover and walks away to the control
room. AL's face looking at NURSE's back. Music kicks in:
"Die, Die, Die my Darling"

T”““YIE

8. INT. CAR -- AFTERNOON

(music is carried over) AL drives his Volkswagen. AL takes
another Aspirin. The reflection of the scenery on the car
windshield goes by like crazy. Music is played loud in the
car. AL is upset. CU of AL's upset face. Face of X is
superimposed.

FADE OUT
9. INT. X-RAY ROOM
FADE IN

It is a few days later: AL is wearing different cloths and
his right hand is wrapped with gauze. AL is seated on a
stool in front of the x—ray table. He glances over to
NURSE who is in the office looking for something. AL looks
down at his right hand wrapped with gauze. Suddenly a
knocking sound from window is heard. AL turns his head to
see. X is staring at AL through the window showing his
middle finger. CU of upset AL. The NURSE steps out from
the office with papers in her hand.

NURSE
Let's take anotherm

The NURSE stands alone in an empty room.

CUT TO:

81

10. INT. BOOKSTORE HALLWAY

Loud footsteps. CU of running feet. AL runs through the
hallway, frantically looking for X. AL slowly turns around
a corner and stops. Out of breath with sweat rolling over
his head, AL gazes. Shot of smiling X behind a glass door
looking right at AL. AL walks into a store located next to
the corner, grabs a baseball bat with a ribbon, and walks
out. STACY notices him.

STACY
(pointing at him)

f3

Hey!

 

c A .ca-...)“ o.

Without noticing STACY, AL passes the doorway. Store alarm
turns on. A shot of AL's angry steps with the bat dangling
on a side. CU of AL walking into the frame, he stops and
looks at X. CU of X. AL starts pounding the bat. Up and
down motion of the bat as the thumps get louder along with
the store alarm. AL's CU while in motion. CU of X's feet——
they shake in interval as the thumps are heard.

' ...
_

A hand drops the bat on the floor. Out of breath, AL drops
onto the floor in fatigue. Face down, he breathes heavily.

VOICE
(whisper)
Heym

As AL is facing the floor, XCU of AL's eye. CU of AL
looking up. AL is stunned as he looks at the body on the
floor-—it is AL instead of X who is on the floor with a
pool of blood. AL gets closer to the body and sees the
face of the body closely. Bloody AL on the floor suddenly
opens his eyes.

CUT TO:
11. INT. RESTROOM
Profile view of AL in front of a mirror looking at the
mirror. As the camera moves to reveal the reflection in
the mirror, it is the face of X. Over—the-shoulder shot of

stunned AL with the reflection of X in the mirror. Sounds
of children playing.

82

DISSOLVE TO:
The painting Portrait of a Boy by Thomas Couture.

THE END

83

APPENDIX B

Sample E—mail sent to list—servs to promote Glove

 

Hello webcinners,

I've been very interested in the digital
technology for filmmaking, and experimented with
it for my master's thesis. Basically, I wanted to
produce a professional quality short film with a
bare minimum resources. To do this, I made a
digital short film called GLOVE and put the
entire thing (15 minutes) on the web for people
to see. Quicktime was my choice for the Internet
delivery. The overall budget was around $1,200.
It was produced digitally with the following
tools: shot in DVCAM format with Sony DSR300,
edited on Avid Xpress, used After Effects and
Photoshop for post production. For the web, it
was digitized by Final Cut Pro, and compressed
with Media Cleaner Pro. Please visit the
following URL for more information and to see the
the short film: http://glove.tc.msu.edu

84

APPENDIX C

Online Survey Questionnaire

The following is the reproduction of the online survey
questionnaire:

Please fill out the quick survey before you get to the
screening page. The survey result will be used for Simon
Kim's masters thesis research.

Sex:
Male( )
Feamle( )

Age:
under 18 ( )
18—24 ( )
25-29( )
30—40 ( )
40—50 ( )
over 50 ( )

Education:

In highschool now ( )
Some or no highschool ( )
Completed highschool ( )
In college now ( )

2 year college degree ( )
4 year college degree ( )
Masters degree ( )
Doctoral degree ( )

Other ( )

 

Occupation/Type of Industry:
Agriculture/Landscaping ( )
Arts and Entertainment ( )
Internet/Multimedia ( )
Construction/Building ( )
Consultant/Contractor ( )
Education ( )

Financial Services ( )

 

85

‘»._\

 

 

 

 

Healthcare/Medicine ( )
Fitness/Nutrition ( )
Hospitality ( )

Law ( )
Maintenance/Repair ( )
Professional Svcs ( )
Public Service/Govt ( )
Retail ( )

Sales ( )

Social Services ( )
Travel, Leisure ( )
Other ( )

Average time spent on—line per DAY:
None ( )
Less than
2 hours (
hours (
hours (
(
(
(

 

hour ( )

hours
hours
hours
More than

\IONUTVDLAJ

l
)
)
)
)
)
)
8 hours ( )

Average time spent viewing on—line video per WEEK:
None ( )
Less than
2 hours (
hours (
hours (
(
(
(

 

hour ( )

hours
hours
hours
More than

\lONLflID-UJ

l
)
)
)
)
)
)
8

hours ( )

Where did you learn about GLOVE?
Internet—search engine ( )
Internet—links from other sites ( )
Internet—list serv ( )
Internet-news group ( )

Film Festival ( )

Involved in the project ( )

Other ( )

 

86

 

m

APPENDIX D

Audience Profile: Survey Results

(Source: Web Server Statistics for cas.msu.edu)

 

 

 

maleg;s:

 

femaletIq

 

 

 

 

(%)

Figure 3. Sex

87

 

unde 18 ‘

 

 

18—24 , 

 

   

25-29 pf.‘ I ', . ‘17.‘

 

 

 

 

   

  
  

    

40-50 - .. f 11'
. W‘m¢°*&m\X‘WM’>

over 50 (.

 

 

 

 

(%)

Figure 4. Age

 

In highschool now
Completed highschool
In college now

2 year college degre

 

4 year college degre
Masters degree(*
Doctoral degreei‘

Otheri.

 

 

 

<%n

Figure 5. Education

88

 

F) F)

 

 

Arts and Entertainme (

Internet/Multimedia.

Construction/Buildin .“"""W

Consultant/Contracto .

Education.,

Financial services .

Healthcare/Medicine.

Fitness/Nutrition!

Hospitality.‘

Law.

Professional Svcs

Public Service/Govt

Sales

Social Services

Travel/Leisure
Other.

 

 

 

 

(%0

Figure 6. Occupation/Type of Industry

89

50

w:
\n‘

 

 

 
    
        

Less than 1 hour

 

2 hours ’33 I
3 hou r S ”“:*"-‘/~w>o-w
4 hours
5 hours
6 hours

7 hours

more than 8 hours

 

 

o 10 20 30 4o
(%)

Figure 7. Average time spent on—line per DAY

 

none: 18 I
WW. .

Less than 1 hour

”meV/IWW >»:ot¢xv-:vw:-\n bif/A'é‘dn' ‘1 MW!’AVI\VAVWI‘-WM~I

12

”Dome-sow. .

2 hours 1
3 hours I: l
4 hours a '

we.

5 hours .
6 hours
more than 8 hours u

o 10 2o 30 4o 50 60 7o
(%)

 

 

 

Figure 8. Average time spent viewing on—line video per WEEK

90

 

 

Internet—searc engi 1" i 3. ',. 1". “'  25

 

 

 

Internet—links y'4

 

 

 

Internet—list—serv ‘

 

   

Internet—newsgroup -  : ‘ V F.178

 

 

Film Festival . 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Otheru” , b f'.=.'-22~
0 16 2'0 30

(%)

Figure 9. Where did you learn about GLOVE?

91

BIBLIOGRAPHY

92

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bakker, Jurjen. The Glove Feedback. [Online] Available
email: kimsimon@msu.edu from jurjenb@worldonline.nl,
March 25, 2000.

Bapscene. Re: Visit the online screening of GLOVE, a
digital short film. [Online] Avaliable email:
kimsimon@msu.edu from Bapscene@aol.com, March 13,
2000.

Bennett, Steve. Re: Questions for a research. [Online]
Available email: kimsimon@msu.edu from
ifmp1@worldnet.att.net, March 19, 2000.

Carey, James W. Communication as Culture: Essays on Media
and Society. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1988.

 

 

Cheever, Bart. "D.FILM: Mission Statement." [Online]
Available
http://www.dfilm.com/new_site/about_main.html, 1999.

-—-. "Re: Questions for a research." [Online] Available
email: kimsimon@msu.edu from bcheever@earthlink.net,
March 19, 2000.

Coury, John. Re: The Glove Feedback. [Online] Available
email: kimsimon@msu.edu from jcoury@netstream.net,
April 10, 2000.

Editor. Re: enquiries for the inetfilm editor. [Online]
Available email: kimsimon@msu.edu from
editor@dspfilms.com, March 21, 2000.

Film on the Net. [Online] Available
http://www.dfilm.com/new_site/online_main.html, 1999.

 

 

Frazer, Bryant. "Defining Multimedia." On the Verge. Mar.
1999: 42+.
Glossary of Terms. [Online] Available

 

http://www.terran.com/info/glossary.html

Goodman, Nelson. Languages of Art. Indianapolis: Hackett,
1976.

 

93

 

Hall, Gregory. Re: Questions for a Research. [Online]
Available email: kimsimon@msu.edu from
inthecan@shortfilmnetwork.com, March 27, 2000.

Higgins, John M. "Gatekeepers Inc." Broadcasting & Cable.
17 Jan. 2000: 22—24.

 

Introduction to Multimedia Architectures and Codecs.
[Online] Available
http://www.terran.com/CodecCentral/GenInfo.html, 1999.

 

Johnson, Nels, "Encoding the Phantom Menace Trailer." 2V.
Mar. 2000: 90~91.

Jude. The Glove Feedback. [Online] Available email:
kimsimon@msu.edu from brite@iinet.net.au, March 13,
2000.

Katz, S. D. "Too Much of a Good Thing?" The Independent:
Film and Video Monthly. Nov. 1999: 8.

 

 

Kobler, Helmut. "Internet Film: The New Promised Land."
[Online] Available http://www.cyberfilmschool.com/
htm/articles/helmut.htm, April 5, 2000.

Leland, Jon. "Webcasters Create Their Own Convergence at
NAB." Videography. June 1998: 146—148.

 

Lowery, Shaearon A., and Melvin L. DeFleur. Milestones in
Mass Communication Research: Media Effects. 3rd ed.
N.p.: Longman Publishers USA, 1995.

 

 

 

Media Cleaner Pro 4 User Manual. N.p.: Terran Interactive
Inc., 1999.

Miller, Greg. "Online Movies in Infancy, but Showing
Promise." [Online] Available

http://www.latimes.com/news/reports/millennium/y2k/199
91226/t000117964.html, December 27, 1999.

 

Mission Statement. [Online] Available
http://www.reelmind.com/help/mission.php?ck:19615,
2000.

Molinari, John. Why Streaming Media? [Online] Available
http://www.media100.com/streaming/why.html, 2000.

 

94

Newcomb, Horace, and Paul M. Hirsch. ”Television as a
Cultural Forum." Ed. Horace Newcomb. Television: The
Critical View. New York: Oxford University Press,
1994.

 

 

Peterson, Matthew. "Shift of Tools." On the Verge. Mar.
1999: 14.

 

Porter, Stephen. "Taking Documentaries into a New Medium."
Video Systems. Jan. 2000: 130+.

 

QuickTime. [Online] Available
http://www.terran.com/CodecCentral/Architectures/Quick
Time.html, 1999.

 

QuickTime 4 API Documentation. [Online] Available
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/quicktime/qtdevdoc
s/INMAC/INTROS/xxIntroductions.3.htm#, 1997.

 

Reed, Gregg. The Glove Feedback. [Online] Available email:
kimsimon@msu.edu from reedg_l999@yahoo.com, March 14,
2000.

Rutledge, R. Zane. "Manifesto: Thoughts on the Digital

Future." [Online] Available
http://www.rzanerutledge.com/us/thefuture.html, April,
1998.

——-. The Glove Feedback. [Online] Available email:
kimsimon@msu.edu from zane@rzanerutledge.com, March
14, 2000.

Sorenson Video 2 User Manual. N.p.: Sorenson Vision Inc.,
1999.

 

95

 

"lllllllllllllllf