Light ROM 4/Light ROM 4 - Disc 1.iso/text/maillist/1996/041596.doc/[e-mail] _Sat Apr 20 02:23:07 1996.msg

Internet Message Format | 1996-04-25 | 2KB

Received: from e55.webcom.com (e55.webcom.com [206.2.192.66]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.5/8.7.5-MZ) with ESMTP id CAA02792 for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 02:23:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost by e55.webcom.com with SMTP
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA024161274; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:21:15 -0700
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:21:14 -0700
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LW in April CGW
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:

Tim Krego writes:
>>He also mentioned that MAX was barely visible at the show, while LW 5.0
>>was absolutely everywhere.
>
>I guess this depends on who you listen to. I've heard others say MAX was the
>big hit of NAB.

Quite frankly, you would have to be walking around with your eyes closed
to not realize that LW had a much stronger presence at NAB than Max.
This has nothing to do with feature sets or relative strengths of either
program. But it does seem to indicate that pre-announcing all of Max's
features at Siggraph made its showing at NAB less spectacular. And the
number of non-NewTek booths showing off LW, LW imagery, and LW related
products was unprecedented.
  *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
  *           Mark Thompson           http://www.mv.com/ipusers/fusion  *
  *         Fusion Films, Inc.              [e-mail]          *
  * Director of Animation and Special FX      [phone]            *
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~