How much movement?
46 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
- zweck
by zweck » Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:58 pm
It very much depends on the content of the show. Some movement overcomes the static appearance of the projector slide show and will add to almost any show. I still remember the first time I saw a slide show with multiple projectors and fades between the slides and thought this was really cool and a definite improvement in the presentation. Movement has to be appropriate for the subject of the image and also the pace of the sound track. Btw, my last, according to some, severely wacky show is full of movement and has lots of different transitions and I was not bashed for it.
I have not been to Europe for several years but there definitely was and probably still is a big difference between TV in the States and Austria. (Never been to England.) Especially commercials that are only meant to grab the viewers attention are much "wilder" and faster paced in the US.
I have not been to Europe for several years but there definitely was and probably still is a big difference between TV in the States and Austria. (Never been to England.) Especially commercials that are only meant to grab the viewers attention are much "wilder" and faster paced in the US.
by Shaker » Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:44 pm
Barbara, Dick and Sweck,
What I am pointing out is that forum critics are likely to condemn even sensitive movement if it's sole purpose is to give a bit of life to a show. But the best films and TV shows have these. This supports my view that the critics are being too severe in their condemnation of movement "without meaning/purpose". Don't forget that by their very nature, films and TV have movement already and so have less "need" to add to it.
Barbara,
In reply to your question. The opposite of "unremarkable" is "remarkable". Not every image in a show needs to be remarkable.
To a couple of analogies:
1) A good show can be compared to an effective team of people. Among the images/people, there may be those who might eslewhere be considered "unremarkable" but who are valuable members of the show/team.
2) If you wrote down what was said by an inspiring speaker, you would find that individual phrases were ungrammatical and unimpressive. But in context, they work.
Dick.
As I wrote to Peter "Few would disagree with your general statement, or similar statements". Basically it is "Do what ever makes you and your audience happy - but try to do it in good taste".
Sweck,
Form the strong feelings expressed from your side of the Atlantic early in this thread, the differences in TV must be considerable.
What I am pointing out is that forum critics are likely to condemn even sensitive movement if it's sole purpose is to give a bit of life to a show. But the best films and TV shows have these. This supports my view that the critics are being too severe in their condemnation of movement "without meaning/purpose". Don't forget that by their very nature, films and TV have movement already and so have less "need" to add to it.
Barbara,
In reply to your question. The opposite of "unremarkable" is "remarkable". Not every image in a show needs to be remarkable.
To a couple of analogies:
1) A good show can be compared to an effective team of people. Among the images/people, there may be those who might eslewhere be considered "unremarkable" but who are valuable members of the show/team.
2) If you wrote down what was said by an inspiring speaker, you would find that individual phrases were ungrammatical and unimpressive. But in context, they work.
Dick.
As I wrote to Peter "Few would disagree with your general statement, or similar statements". Basically it is "Do what ever makes you and your audience happy - but try to do it in good taste".
Sweck,
Form the strong feelings expressed from your side of the Atlantic early in this thread, the differences in TV must be considerable.
Last edited by Shaker on Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Shaker
by BarbaraC » Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:51 am
It would appear, as Dick pointed out, that it's ultimately a matter of the producer's taste and maybe even related to the makeup of our brains. Furthermore, it's what interests us, what we focus on. Even beyond that, there's a big difference between motion pictures and pictures in motion. One has the movement coming from within--an integral part of it-- while the other has had movement imposed upon it. It's the latter that often upsets my brain system because it can lack the logic I look for. If I'm driving a car past a cow pasture, I'm the one who's moving, but if the cow pasture drives past me, I'm seriously thrown off my feed.
Don't glean from this that I despise movement in slides. Not true. I've created some shows where the movement goes over the edge, most times because I'm illustrating the music, not using it to accompany the slides. I still say that motion should be there for a reason, one that's a little stronger than trying to keep people's attention. The attention should be on the contents of the show. Marie's "peculiar" show was loaded with movement, and she was right to use it because it was focused on fractals, a visualization of infinite motion. She increased the sense of this through her imposed motion.
Then again, maybe it all comes down to whether or not a person is prone to motion sickness.
Barbara
Don't glean from this that I despise movement in slides. Not true. I've created some shows where the movement goes over the edge, most times because I'm illustrating the music, not using it to accompany the slides. I still say that motion should be there for a reason, one that's a little stronger than trying to keep people's attention. The attention should be on the contents of the show. Marie's "peculiar" show was loaded with movement, and she was right to use it because it was focused on fractals, a visualization of infinite motion. She increased the sense of this through her imposed motion.
Then again, maybe it all comes down to whether or not a person is prone to motion sickness.
Barbara
by Shaker » Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:54 am
Barbara,
"Motion should be there for a reason, one that's a little stronger than trying to keep people's attention". Why so, if it makes a show more enjoyable for the target audience?
"The attention should be on the contents of the show". I agree that movement should not detract from the images - I think that's the import of what you are saying. But the show should retain the viewer's interest and thus their attention on the contents. Sensitive movement can help to achieve this.
"Motion should be there for a reason, one that's a little stronger than trying to keep people's attention". Why so, if it makes a show more enjoyable for the target audience?
"The attention should be on the contents of the show". I agree that movement should not detract from the images - I think that's the import of what you are saying. But the show should retain the viewer's interest and thus their attention on the contents. Sensitive movement can help to achieve this.
Shaker
by BarbaraC » Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:07 am
Shaker, I'm not sure, but we may be on the same page, though I'm still not sure what you mean by "sensitive" movement. A slight shift in position or size?
But I'd still rather drive past the cow pasture than have it sail past me all on its own. This doesn't mean I'm averse to motion; it just means I don't like it everywhere and all the time. I don't want to have to constantly adjust my focus in an effort to see what I'm supposed to be seeing.
Barbara
But I'd still rather drive past the cow pasture than have it sail past me all on its own. This doesn't mean I'm averse to motion; it just means I don't like it everywhere and all the time. I don't want to have to constantly adjust my focus in an effort to see what I'm supposed to be seeing.
Barbara
by Shaker » Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:48 am
Barbara,
If you still say that movement which has no other purpose than to help maintain audience interest is wrong, then we are on different (perhaps facing
) pages.
I would define "sensitive" movement as achieving that end, without detracting from show content.
I don't see how a moving cow pasture relates to a show, nor indeed how one could ever feel in the situation where the pasture was moving (sobriety assumed!).
In no way am I suggesting movement everywhere and all the time. That would be insensitive!
If you still say that movement which has no other purpose than to help maintain audience interest is wrong, then we are on different (perhaps facing
) pages.
I would define "sensitive" movement as achieving that end, without detracting from show content.
I don't see how a moving cow pasture relates to a show, nor indeed how one could ever feel in the situation where the pasture was moving (sobriety assumed!).
In no way am I suggesting movement everywhere and all the time. That would be insensitive!
Shaker
by BarbaraC » Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:41 am
The cow pasture is an example of a landscape photograph that, for no reason I can fathom, is sliding from one side of the screen to the other. I used that as an example above to illustrate the difference between a motion picture and a picture in motion.
It doesn't really matter, though, because you'll do shows to please you, and I'll do shows to please me. I've no desire to change your viewpoint. I simply enjoy the exchange of ideas.
B.
It doesn't really matter, though, because you'll do shows to please you, and I'll do shows to please me. I've no desire to change your viewpoint. I simply enjoy the exchange of ideas.
B.
- zweck
by zweck » Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:27 pm
BarbaraC wrote:
Then again, maybe it all comes down to whether or not a person is prone to motion sickness.
Barbara you touched on an excellent point. I am not prone to motion sickness myself but I have seen a person turn green in the face while looking into a microscope while the microscopic slide was moving. Obviously we could not continue the session. Such a person may judge movement in a slide movie differently then most other people.
Marie
by Shaker » Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:44 pm
Barbara,
Yes, by arguing stuff through, we get a better appreciation of other points of view, and perhaps fine tune our own. Sensitive movement should not generate anything akin to motion sickness. If it does, it's gross.
I suspect that you and I may be focussing on gross and sensitive movement respectively and since we are not talking about the same thing, this would explain our apparent difference.
Yes, by arguing stuff through, we get a better appreciation of other points of view, and perhaps fine tune our own. Sensitive movement should not generate anything akin to motion sickness. If it does, it's gross.
I suspect that you and I may be focussing on gross and sensitive movement respectively and since we are not talking about the same thing, this would explain our apparent difference.
Shaker
by BarbaraC » Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:18 pm
Actually, it's not quite what you think, Shaker. My style tends to be to move it obviously or not at all. Again, though, it doesn't matter since neither of us is likely to convince the other to stop being who he or she is.
Barbara
Barbara
by duglas50 » Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:23 pm
Wow, I just joined this forum in December and I'm confused as to why the subject of movement creates so much discussion. Obviously, from what I have gathered it is a very controversial subject to which I have a hard time understanding why. To me it is quite simply a matter of personal preference and nothing more. One size will never fit all. It is not for me to tell someone there is to much or not enough movement in one's show, but I am far from being an expert. I do know what I like to see in a show and after having the opportunity to watch a number of sample shows posted on this forum, the shows with a lot of movement keep my attention much longer than shows without it. I think movement adds alot of excitement and interest. Well thats my 2 cents worth.
Thanks
Doug
Thanks
Doug
- DickK
- ProShow Hall of Fame
-
- Posts: 3143
- Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:42 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
by DickK » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:57 pm
People often put shows that they've done up on the PhotoDex site and post a link here. Frequently, they'll ask for feedback and one of the more criticisms (constructive feedback items if you like) has to do with there being too much movement. Some folks don't agree with that, thus, the discussion.
Personally, I know what I like and generally why. If you've asked for comments, then I might just give them, positive and negative--I understand perfectly that you may disagree and ignore any or all of my comments. I claim no "font of wisdom" and I've no illusions that my shows are the ultimate in such things. However, if I asked for feedback and a several people all say the same thing, then I'm going to pay attention. After all, if I asked for feedback, got it, and ignore it then a bunch of folks wasted their time including me.
But -- ya felt that comin' didn't ya -- I really think there are some basic principles that apply to making good (at least better) slide shows. Many of these principles are ones that have been around the photography profession for decades. Others you'll find in nearly any book or course about doing good presentations in general. A photographer, author, creator... is always free to buck the advice and violate some or all the rules. But if you do so, you're counting on the fact that you know better; you know you are the exception to the "best practice" principles. Maybe it's true, but maybe it isn't.
You are absolutely right, there is no one-size-fits-all rule. Indeed, there are shows here that have wild amounts of motion, zoom and crazy effects but they got rave reviews. A few others have gotten feedback suggesting more variety in transitions or more movement. Sometimes the reviewers don't agree, which is to be expected.
The issue is simply that some of us, including me, think there is an appropriate range for choice in <pick one: number of images, motion, zoom, background type, colors, transitions, video effects> that will enhance the show and it's story and that choosing outside that range will distract the viewer and make the show less effective than it could be. Maybe others don't see it that way and simply believe that whatever choices are made are equally fine. I disagree, but that's okay.
Frankly, I don't find the discussion in the abstract very useful at this point. If there's a specific show that "too much motion" comments have been made about that someone thinks is fine, well, then make that comment about the show. Maybe they're right.
Dick
Personally, I know what I like and generally why. If you've asked for comments, then I might just give them, positive and negative--I understand perfectly that you may disagree and ignore any or all of my comments. I claim no "font of wisdom" and I've no illusions that my shows are the ultimate in such things. However, if I asked for feedback and a several people all say the same thing, then I'm going to pay attention. After all, if I asked for feedback, got it, and ignore it then a bunch of folks wasted their time including me.
But -- ya felt that comin' didn't ya
-- I really think there are some basic principles that apply to making good (at least better) slide shows. Many of these principles are ones that have been around the photography profession for decades. Others you'll find in nearly any book or course about doing good presentations in general. A photographer, author, creator... is always free to buck the advice and violate some or all the rules. But if you do so, you're counting on the fact that you know better; you know you are the exception to the "best practice" principles. Maybe it's true, but maybe it isn't.
You are absolutely right, there is no one-size-fits-all rule. Indeed, there are shows here that have wild amounts of motion, zoom and crazy effects but they got rave reviews. A few others have gotten feedback suggesting more variety in transitions or more movement. Sometimes the reviewers don't agree, which is to be expected.
The issue is simply that some of us, including me, think there is an appropriate range for choice in <pick one: number of images, motion, zoom, background type, colors, transitions, video effects> that will enhance the show and it's story and that choosing outside that range will distract the viewer and make the show less effective than it could be. Maybe others don't see it that way and simply believe that whatever choices are made are equally fine. I disagree, but that's okay.
Frankly, I don't find the discussion in the abstract very useful at this point. If there's a specific show that "too much motion" comments have been made about that someone thinks is fine, well, then make that comment about the show. Maybe they're right.
Dick
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle ((PSG, PSE & Fuji HS20 user)) Presentation Impact Blog
by Shaker » Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:26 pm
Barbara,
I agree, barely perceptable movement is weird and disconcerting.
Doug,
You never read criticism that there is not enough movement - the critics seem biased against shows with movement which in their words, is there "for its own sake". And that bias is why the discussion rages.
Your own reaction to movement is representative of viewers who are fairly new to ProShow shows, and these are a major share of target audiences. The critics seem to discount/disparage the enjoyment they experience from motion which has no other purpose than to add a bit of life to the images.
Dick,
I feel we need to think both in the abstract and the specific to get the best outcome.
I agree, barely perceptable movement is weird and disconcerting.
Doug,
You never read criticism that there is not enough movement - the critics seem biased against shows with movement which in their words, is there "for its own sake". And that bias is why the discussion rages.
Your own reaction to movement is representative of viewers who are fairly new to ProShow shows, and these are a major share of target audiences. The critics seem to discount/disparage the enjoyment they experience from motion which has no other purpose than to add a bit of life to the images.
Dick,
I feel we need to think both in the abstract and the specific to get the best outcome.
Shaker
46 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Return to PSG - Style & Technique
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests