Quote:
Originally Posted by QuantumIguana
Not a chance. Video is very good at showing you what things looked like, but only gives you a shallow look. Text allows you to have perspectives that are difficult to give with video.
|
Ever heard of voice? Who needs to read what someone said when you can simply listen to one saying it? This is a first in mankind's history: that you can listen to Homer instead of reading a tome about it.
Quote:
|
Much of the depth of a book is lost when it becomes video.
|
Of course, it's a different medium! Same from video to book, actually losing more detail.
Let us not focus on difficulty in conversion between media here.
Quote:
|
Video and audio are very linear. It comes at you at its pace, not your pace. When you're reading, you can read at whatever speed works for you. If you want to flip back and check something that came earlier, it's much easier to do this with text than eith video or audio.
|
what makes you think the same is true in a device in your hands? In the movie theather, perhaps, not in your tablet. Go forward, back, slow mo. I think it's a stupid way to watch a movie, but they do put controls under your fingertips after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeshadow
Bwahahaha.
Look historically.
While we have serious trouble to restore or recover info about ancient the audio heritage of cultures gone the least troublesome (never said NONE) is the recovery of written records.
It was only recently archaeologists discovered that the stairs of Mayan pyramids are an acoustic device for mimicking the call of their holy bird.
So much about how great audiovisual data storage is.
|
Faithful audiovisual data storage is something as recent as some 200 years ago. Photographs almost 200 years and temporal data that needed mechanical means of reproduction only when electricity came up some 120 years ago, thus movies and audio. Until then, only pictures and second-hand accounts via written records or oral traditions.
We actually devised a written system for music in western sheetmusic, but even it isn't as accurate as a recording of a musician actually performing and we have no real clue how, say, Bach playing the harpsichord actually sounded. Did he play with loose tempo, akin to jazz musicians? Or did it really sound like a soulless computer as current classical performers strive to?
Point is, we have far better recording tools now than pencil and paper. Let's not weep for it.