In general, technologies are born in a context and with a certain purpose, so that then, if it is a valid option for the market, their use becomes massive and covers alternatives that were not contemplated in the original idea.
Flash, from Macromedia, was intended as an animation tool that would allow the sleeping websites of the first hour to have a little more life: moving titles, rotating images and other similar effects. And boy did it succeed: to date, it is the practically standard solution on the market for this type of needs.
This was achieved thanks to the inclusion of the plug-in pre-installed natively in the main Internet browsers (Microsoft Explorer and Netscape Navigator), which turned the users of those browsers into, also and without suspicion, Flash users.
But the truth is that the initial objective has been far exceeded and, at the moment, animators from all corners of the world use it for much more ambitious projects. To date, for example, there have already been several festivals of animated short films made in Flash (in Argentina Mercano el Marciano, by Juan Antín and Ayar B, a series of shorts for the Music Channel MuchMusic that had its own feature film and that became a cult saga).
At this point, when the use of technology is long removed from the original concept, some doubts appear: the main one refers to whether the technology is prepared for the aforementioned activities.
A question of quality
As a creation tool it is out of the question: the generation of animations is simple (in fact, simplicity of use was one of the basic principles of Flash developers) and practically no programming knowledge is required, as they are necessary in other alternatives, such as DHTML (Dynamic HTML, the programming language for creating dynamic Web sites).
In addition, the number of tools, effects and possibilities that Flash includes with a simple touch of a button, through a simple menu function or the selection of an element from a palette, makes it much more versatile to build a large animation work than the other option mentioned.
As for the quality of the final product, Flash may not yet be the best option if you want to reach a broadcast level. Let's agree that, although it is growing by leaps and bounds, the truth is that it was originally designed, as mentioned, so that the resulting products were distributed in computer network environments, in which the quality requirements are not necessarily the same as those demanded in, for example, a television network or a film projection room.
This, however, does not seem to be a very serious barrier in the short term. The MX version of Flash, the latest released, incorporates video as a key component. For now, it is capable of importing any file in standard video format that is supported by Apple's QuickTime players or Microsoft's Windows Media Player. This opens the way to very common formats such as MPEG, DV (Digital Video) or MOV (the native of QuickTime).
The video elements that are imported can be edited with a high level of flexibility and can even be incorporated commands to make them interactive.
The improved timeline is another strong point: it offers folder to organize layers, better cursor response, and the ability to manipulate multiple frames.
This inclination towards the video that the latest version has suffered, then, leads the path of continuous improvement in terms of quality and positions Flash as an excellent integral alternative.
Macromedia's tool, then, seems to have all the push to liven things up a bit. And not only because of its technical characteristics.
