How much movement?

Share your technique and style with others using ProShow Gold
Esteemed Member
User avatar
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Northeast US

Postby Mac » Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:22 am

Shaker: I know where you're coming from and I agree with you wholeheartedly. With a slideshow we're stepping away from flicking through static pictures. It isn't video (lot a movement in those embedded videos by the way), but slideshows have still introduced the elements of movement. Some like to limit them to just the transitions, which are at the least movements between slides; others like to use them to accentuate movement that has been captured in an image. Still others like to use it as part of the show's composition withint the images themselves.

To return to the subject of television: they use that annoying camera movement very frequently. The subject is often a static individual, but rather than keep the camera static, the camera moves around. This is "movement for its own sake", used to establish atmosphere, mood, or to try to add an element of excitement, to animate the senses of the couch potato. They may take it too far, but on some level, they put it there for a reason. And disagree with their excess or not, I don't think many of us here would claim that they're not visual artists who're very effective at reaching certain groups of people. You and I may not agree with their use of sledgehammer subtlety -- and that's what I always thought the complaints about too much movement here were referring to and apparently I was wrong -- but we can can also agree that we LIKE some of this movement. Subtle movement can be an effective part of a show's composition. It isn't simply "movement for its own sake": that description deliberately undervalues what the user's intent is (though sometimes a user may not have a specific intent and yes, their use of it could be a detriment to their show). I might also suggest that there are some keyframe users who routinely violate the "laws of movement" in huge ways, though they're rarely if ever called on it (and that isn't a manifestation of my admittedly great keyframe envy :wink: ).

Subtle movement can be a way of establishing some sort of momentum, perhaps as a way to match the accompanying music's momentum. If used with sledgehammer subtlety, it can be disastrous (though there have even been times here when people have raved to the effect of, "normally I don't like so much movement, but . . .". In "sensitive" hands, this can be very effective indeed.

I've even used some of this excess movement to my own satisfaction. I'll post a link to the show if you want to see what I'm talking about: zooms, complete pans, rotations; even a point where it took me dozens of slides of the same image to recreate that camera motion on a static object that I typically dislike so much.
http://www.photodex.com/sharing/viewsho ... 1483&alb=0

Active Member
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:37 am
Location: England

Postby kat » Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:37 am

I just have to comment on this one. WOW!!! I absolutely loved that show, one of the best I have ever viewed. Movement is movement, as long as its appropriate to the viewer who cares? I know I use too much myself at times and its great that the constructive criticism pointed it out to me. Now when making a show although I still use a lot I am a bit more subtle and I recognise the improvement, its all down to personal preference and the learning curve.

There is only two comments I would make, and apologies for hijacking the subject with my appreciation. I would have liked a little longer to view some of the stills in the beginning and I would have loved to have seen a translucent ghostly figure in the background occasionally, the same one so as if the children were being watched. Very well done.


Kat

.
User avatar
Posts: 9321
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: E. Greenbush, NY

Postby BarbaraC » Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:57 am

Mac, I haven't the foggiest notion of what you were trying to say (could be due to the fact that I currently have a fever), but you certainly had a lot to say with your slideshow. It's a fine description of using movement to further a vision. Can you honestly say you threw in movement anywhere just for the heck of it? Didn't look that way to me. An excellent show.

One question: one of the photos was of a little girl in the foreground and a gravestone in the background. Both seemed to be in perfectly sharp focus. How did you manage this?

I agree with Kat about wanting a little longer to see the pictures, but for me, it was only periodically to give me a moment to rest before it all started up again.

That incredibly quick take of "The Scream" was priceless.

Barbara

RonHenry

Postby RonHenry » Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:42 am

Mac makes a good point. Sometimes excessive movement can be used to establish a mood or feel that's just not possible if following convention too closely. The rules are there are no rules. That doesn't mean everything works and I disagree it's all subjective. Mac, your show is a very good example of how to break the rules in an effective way.

.
User avatar
Posts: 9321
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: E. Greenbush, NY

Postby BarbaraC » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:02 am

What rules did Mac break?

Barbara

.
User avatar
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Sioux City, Iowa

Postby duglas50 » Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:07 pm

Mac, what an unusual show. I don't know what to say other than - It was awsome!!!

RonHenry

Postby RonHenry » Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:08 pm

BarbaraC wrote:What rules did Mac break?

Barbara


The way he uses motion. He is sparing with it, but using the same kind of motion in a show with a different subject matter wouldn't work. There are several disorienting zooms but in this case disorienting just preserves the dark mood of the show. Used on a show about puppies and kittins? Not so effective.

.
User avatar
Posts: 9321
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: E. Greenbush, NY

Postby BarbaraC » Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:28 pm

Then he broke no rules. Besides, as has been already mentioned, it's really tough to find rules where none exist. Probably the only rule that exists is to use what works. It reminds me of the so-called Rule of Thirds, which would have been better named the Rough Guideline of Thirds, which is particularly rough since it's based on the Greek's Golden Section that just so happens to be not quite in thirds. Some rule, eh? Occasionally, there's nothing for it but to put the subject smack dab in the center of the picture or even peeking in from the edge of the frame. Odd composition should have a reason for existing--something should be communicated through the placement. Getting attention for deliberately odd placement may not get quite the attention one desired, and this is exactly what my point was with motion. To my mind, it should be more than an effort to merely keep people's attention.

Barbara

RonHenry

Postby RonHenry » Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:50 pm

BarbaraC wrote:Then he broke no rules. Besides, as has been already mentioned, it's really tough to find rules where none exist. Probably the only rule that exists is to use what works. It reminds me of the so-called Rule of Thirds, which would have been better named the Rough Guideline of Thirds, which is particularly rough since it's based on the Greek's Golden Section that just so happens to be not quite in thirds. Some rule, eh? Occasionally, there's nothing for it but to put the subject smack dab in the center of the picture or even peeking in from the edge of the frame. Odd composition should have a reason for existing--something should be communicated through the placement. Getting attention for deliberately odd placement may not get quite the attention one desired, and this is exactly what my point was with motion. To my mind, it should be more than an effort to merely keep people's attention.

Barbara


You're absolutely correct. I'm absolutely full of poor wording. There are no rules aside from what works. Mac's show is just a great example of such.

ProShow Hall of Fame
User avatar
Posts: 3143
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby DickK » Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:51 pm

Shaker wrote:...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 statement that there's never a recommendation for more movement is wrong. I've made that comment and will do so whenever I think it is appropriate. That's certainly the exception but never is wrong.

I don't agree there's bias--that's too easy a way to dismiss what I think reflects the honest reaction and opinion of the people that make the comment. If someone feels differently about the show, they should enter their opinion to the contrary, in the form of their own comments about the show.

I don't think this discussion going anywhere useful. We're not going get a consensus and that's okay, but simply criticizing the commentary provided by others isn't helpful. Those that feel differently should be taking the time to view the shows and then providing their reactions--which might well be different. Telling people what you think about their show will be a lot more useful than telling people what you think about someone else's comment.

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

Esteemed Member
User avatar
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Northeast US

Postby Mac » Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:55 pm

"Can you honestly say you threw in movement anywhere just for the heck of it? Didn't look that way to me. An excellent show. "

Thanks a lot Barbara (and the rest). I do think to some degree we're speaking at cross purposes. As you suggest, every movement was very well meditated there. There are some movements that I put in there as a compositional device where I felt the show needed some flow, and quite a few places where there were either "random" types of movement or sort of abrupt positional changes. The idea is that I tried to use movement to add a certain feel, whether it be eeriness or just a disconcerting effect. We've probably been on the same page all along.

"What rules did Mac break?"

I break 'em all baby! :wink:
I use a lot when a little will do.
I put all my eggs in one basket and count my chickens before they're hatched.
I don't stop to smell the roses.
I closed the barn door after the horses got out.
I leave every stone unturned.
If it ain't broke I fix it anyway.
I call Barbara "baby" when I have the impression she probably doesn't like being called baby!

"I don't think this discussion going anywhere useful."

Actually, I think it is useful. For one, obviously there is the perception that movement is frowned upon. I think it's come out that that isn't necessarily so. We've also discussed different types of movement, different amounts of movement, and different contexts for movement. Even if different people walk away from the thread with somewhat different conclusions, they've still given the subject a further consideration they may not have otherwise. Criticisms of commentary have been general here, but again, it's the result of a perception that has developed over time from viewing many comments. I think it's less a specific criticism of specific comments than questioning what appears to be a general consensus.

Esteemed Member
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:49 pm
Location: Bristol/Bath UK

Postby Shaker » Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:32 pm

Mac rightly points out that this discussion is probably reaching the end of its natural life.

I very much appreciate all the responses to my original message. I feel that what emerges is:

1) Use whatever movement makes you and your audience happy - but try to do it in good taste (whatever that is).

2) Slight and sensitive movement whose sole purpose is to maintain interest without detracting from the images, is known to enhance the viewing experience of many audiences. Even so, it is frowned upon by some critics.

Very many thanks to everyone - whatever your persuasion.
Shaker

.
User avatar
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:19 am
Location: UK

Postby trulytango » Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:13 am

Mac

I was mesmerised by your show... it was brilliant.

As far as movement goes, and before this thread disappears, I'd just add that sometimes when I watch other's shows the movement seems distracting, predictable or disappointing... my personal opinion. Mac's show was just the opposite... I'd like to see the show posted in the Sample Shows section so that more people can see it!

Thanks and keep posting

Iris
UK

Esteemed Member
User avatar
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Northeast US

Postby Mac » Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:42 am

"Mac rightly points out that this discussion is probably reaching the end of its natural life."

Actually that was Dick, but I'll gladly take credit for it :D .

Thanks Iris. I did post that here last year.

Esteemed Member
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:49 pm
Location: Bristol/Bath UK

Postby Shaker » Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:44 am

Dick and Mac,

Apologies to you both for the wrong attribution.
Shaker

PreviousNext

Return to PSG - Style & Technique

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests