How much movement?

[Shaker Profile Private message]

There is much discussion about how much movement is good in a show. Often those who use it generously are criticised.

But look at typical TV shows and movies prepared by professionals. Movement is generous - and often without the "justification" required by the forum critics. Sometimes we are distracted by something moving in the foreground when it isn't - it's just a change of camera angle. (In my view, that's a sin.)

In the case of our shows, movement gives "life" whereas TV shows and movies have movement and life anyway and there is no need to add to it.

So have the professionals got it wrong?

Or does sensitive "unjustified" movement contribute something worthwhile?

[LEE7 Profile Private messageYIM]

Hi
It`s all subjective anyway, if You want to have a lot of movement, its Your choice.
You are after all making it for yourself & your target audience.
If You post it & invite comments, critisisms et al, a lot of people will tell you you have too much movement etc, but that is their opinion.
Pick up on suggestions & try it it could very often improve it, You have nothing to loose by altering Your show if only to test.

You can always save the original.


Regards.



Peter

[Shaker Profile Private message]

Peter,

Few would disagree with your general statement, or similar statements.

What I am saying is that the professionals' generous ("over")use of movement would be much criticised if it were in a PSG show. Should we not learn from the professionals and be less critical of sensitive movement "for its own sake". It's not really for its own sake - it's to give a bit extra to a show.

[debngar Profile Private message]

Shaker,

Simply because it's on TV doesn't mean it's a good thing. Somethings you see on TV are better than other things seen on TV.

I for one absolute hate all the extra stuff they layer on top of the show to advertise the next show or the one next week, or the one next year, you get my drift.

Much of this started as a result of 9/11 when ALL the networks began putting the stupid ticker tape like thing across the bottom of the screen. Half the time you miss important things to view because it's covered up when they do that.

Some networks were already putting a very FAINT logo at the bottom right corner of the screen say for instance. But that was it.

Now we are subjected to what I would call Pop Up advertising in the middle of the programs and you can't get away from it because nearlyl ALL the stations do it. It all has to do with money and advertising. There are very few that will show a movie or whatever without putting junk on the screen on top of what you're watching. This also circumvents TIVO where you can skip over commercials. If you try to skip over the junk layered on top of your screen, your skipping part of the show.

This is why I don't watch TV very often anymore.

So IMO, just because it's done on TV doesn't make it pleasant to watch.

But if you like to use excessive movement, etc, then use it.

Debbie

[Geo]

I think it's a personal choice. After all, the one that really has to be happy with it is yourself, or the person that it is intended for. I've noticed that when giving away a show of something they tend to like the movement because it is something new to them in a slideshow. I've found that most of my friends and family are putting the pictures on the computer and just having them play like a regular slide show, take what the photo has to offer and there......add some movement, music, transitions, layers and so on, bam! Next thing they are doing is asking for a slide show with some of their pics.

To each his own.

geo

[Mac Profile Private message]

"So IMO, just because it's done on TV doesn't make it pleasant to watch."

I agree 100%. In addition to the intrusions to television shows you refer to (and I'll add TV Land's complete trashing of closing theme songs), there is way too much movement everywhere. It's a complete over-indulgence on the part of whoever edits this stuff. Commercials move way too fast, movie previews flick from scene to scene with little time for the imagery to sink in. "Realistic" cop shows and others use excessively dark lighting that nobody in the real world uses. The moving, shaky cameras with bizarre crops that started back in the 80s doesn't help either. We're supposed to be impressed and I suppose it's suppose to be a visual version of rapid fire stream of consciousness poetry or something. I'm not impressed and I've long since stopped watching commercial television for all of these reasons and more.

So, as the original poster points out, large amounts of movement is ubiquitous on television. One could do the same thing with their slideshows at the risk of making their viewers just as sick as television does. However: as much as I dislike what these television professionals do, they ARE professionals and have the equipment and expertise to at least make it flow. Few of us amateurs can do the same.

I will add though that it IS possible to use tons of movement effectively as demonstrated in ssouto's New York shows and Jeep's America show.

[LEE7 Profile Private messageYIM]

Hi
One of My pet hates is.

At the end of a movie on TV I like to read the credits, why must they move them to the right side of the screen & advertise the next programme etc.
My old eyes have to squint lol.


Peter.

[Shaker Profile Private message]

In spite of the apparently counter views expressed, I think there is no serious disagreement with what I said. I referred to "sensitive" movement.

Some of the movements in TV are sensitive and these are what I am talking about. As an example, a news reader is doing his/her stuff. They could be shown as a talking head and there is absolutely no functional need to pan or zoom. Yet sensitive pans and zooms take place and add to viewer enjoyment.

TV programme styles may not be the same on both sides of the Atlantic and this could explain some of the strength of feeling expressed.

In a nutshell, I am suggesting that the climate of critical opinion should move towards accepting the sensitive zoom and pan practices of the professionals.

[Mac Profile Private message]

". . . I think there is no serious disagreement with what I said."

Right. I think the original post may have confused the issue a little. Yes, there are a lot of criticisms aimed at too much movement, but I don't think this happens so much with the sensitive movement you talk about. In the latter case I agree with you wholeheartedly. For example, I like to use subtle zooms from say, 100 to 108 in a three second slide. IMO, that kind of movement adds another dimension of interest to the image without demanding attention to the movement itself. I may use the same small amount of zoom for multiple slides to add momentum to the show. Still, too much of this subtle movement can also ruin a show. Changes from movement to no movement and back tend to have positive impacts of their own.

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

At risk of sounding opinionated, which I am, I like to go by the old maxim of "form follows function." Movement is excessive when it has no meaning, when it's there for its own sake. Sometimes it serves to further focus in on the center of interest--say, a face in a crowd--or it might be used to pan along a panorama. Other times, it's used so the images "dance to the music." When a photograph is drop-dead gorgeous, even the slightest bit of motion can detract from that beauty. On the other hand, who wants to sit around watching a really bad picture? Let it zip on by and be done with it.

Movement isn't in and of itself a bad thing. It's all in how and why it's used.

Barbara

P.S. to all who've gotten cranky about television: my opinion is the same as yours. Just because someone's a professional doesn't mean this person is a genius.

[LEE7 Profile Private messageYIM]

Hi


They are Experts!!

My version is EX = used to be.
Spurt is a drip under pressure. LOL

Cheers.


Peter.

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Spurt: used as a verb to describe an action and as a noun to describe the result. Here you will find a description of Tarafrost's experiencie with both the verb and the noun forms as they relate to grapefruit spurts. http://www.proshowenthusiasts.com/viewtopic.php?t=6159&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105

Barbara

[Shaker Profile Private message]

Barbara,

If a movement is "there for its own sake" then it has no purpose and I agree with what you say. But if it gives a little life to an unremarkable but worthwhile image then it does have a valid purpose.

Mac and I are on the same wavelength and he has said things more directly and much better than I have.

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Shaker, if the picture is unremarkable, why even use it if the only interesting thing about it is that it moves?

Barbara

[DickK Profile Private messageWebsite]

To me, the issue isn't movement or not. There are some shows where movement in every image is appropriate but that's rare, and typically there's more than needed and to me it quickly becomes distracting. If even a minority of the audience finds something about the show distracting, then I have to pay attention to that. Of course, if the only audience is you, then go for whatever makes you happy.

Okay, here's my $.02:
(Basic assumption: the slide show is a way to show the pictures, vice a demo or illustrate the music).

Every slide show tells a story. It may be the story the creator intended or it may not be. The story could just be "look at what I've learned to do with this software" but that's not the normal case. And if you're trying to tell a particular story with the show, and something helps tell it, then that almost certainly belongs there. If it doesn't help tell the story, then it doesn't belong in that show. That's true of the images, the music, colors, backgrounds and the details of the way it was put together like the zooms and pans. The best shows make all of those things work to help tell the story and keep the viewer involved and wanting to see the rest of the show. And all of those things can be overdone--too many images, too much motion, colors that clash, etc, etc. Oh, and all of that is going to be viewer sensitive--knowing your audience is the key to making any presentation work. But even when I'm building a show where I know that almost nothing I might do with the pictures would fail to please the audience, my thought is still to how I can enhance the pictures or at least do nothing to distract from them.

Anyway, ultimately, you are right--if I'm the creator and the audience, then I can do whatever I want. If I'm not the (only) audience then, I think, I should be listening to what the audience thinks. If we choose to share a show, then some of the audience is right here. I'm always free to ignore what someone or everyone says but, I'm going to listen and, maybe learn.

Dick