STILLS

[Dave Watterson]

More and more films are coming along which make use of still images. I don't mean the sort of historical evidence presented in some documentaries where you have to use paintings or old photographs to illustrate the topic. I am concerned with general movies of many genres which insert a still now and then. These may or may not be enhanced by "the Ken Burns effect" - i.e. tracking slowly over them or zooming slowly in or out on them.

Is such a film truly a movie?

Dave

[Stephen]

a burning issue with some peeps Dave !!!!

with the advent of convergeance upon us its only a matter of time when the likes of the main camera manufacturers produce the all singing all dancing stills/video camera combination (Canon Mk2 5D is a pretty good example of the quality obtainable even now ie depth of field in video mode blows most affordable video cameras into the weeds)

but ergonomically the canon is not so good for us videographers !!

I hope the trend continues to use stills in movie making... it can enhance a film by stoppng time.... by using differential focussing techniques not available (at the moment) on video cameras.

[ned c]

For the best stills based film I have ever seen view "La Jetee" by Chris Marker, you can get to it on Google video. This is a narrative film amd uses everything except motion to get across a stunning story. There is music, voice over, title cards and all stills. There is also a send up of it "La Pupee".

In my opinion these still based films are easy to make but very difficult to make well. There is a tendency to string together a series of high quality photos with a vague theme and slap it to some music.

ned c

[Mike Shaw]

I've seen some pretty amazing AV presentations done purely with 'manipulated' stills - there was one at the AGM weekend for example. I don't like to see a 'static' still amongst video - often a static still is used because the 'video' is too jumpy or too short. So giving a still some movement to me is the answer to that. That doesn't always mean doing a 'Ken Burns' though - there are more ways to animate a still than 'simply' panning and zooming (if I may be so bold, one way is described in a video tutorial on my webpages - http://www.mikeshaw.co.uk/animstills.htm If it doesn't play, there's a link to a downloadable version on the same page ).

[Michael Slowe]

I agree with those that say good films can be made with stills but they have to be very carefully done to avoid the sometimes boring effect of some AV shows. I recently made a film about a group of fellows who trekked in remote places throughout the world for twenty years. I only had thousands of 35mm Fujichrome slides (I had been the 'official' photographer) and some three hours of reminiscing on camera from the group. I actually filmed the slides I wanted to use (small bright projected picture) and panned and zoomed where necessary to keep the action going whilst the group talked. The film was an immense success (had a cinema show) and many people thought that it was all filmed live! Of course I could have scanned the slides and done the effects in post but scanning would have taken forever. The quality of the filmed slides (in HD) was great, so much so that I was worried at the mismatch with the live material.

Once again Dave is being provocative as he well knows that anything on the screen constitutes a film and the only criteria concerning judgement is whether it entertains.