IAC DISCUSSION FORUMS

I have now had the pleasure of viewing a number of AV presentations at various Zoom meetings. And very good they are, to a high standard of technical quality, images and sound; well written and presented. Can someone tell me what it is that specifically makes these AVs rather than films? Or conversely what is that prevents a presentation that mixes still images with video and audio being an AV. I do it all the time.
ned c

I used to think that AV sequences needed to comprise still images only. Now I get confused when AV sequences contain live action video. Clarification would be useful. What percentage of live action video is permitted in an AV?

As there’s been no response to my last message I’m guessing that there are no set rules as to how much video can be used in an AV sequence. I can’t help but think that such rules SHOULD be laid out so that we know at what point a piece of work should be deemed as a film rather than an AV.

I suspect the distiction has blurred to have become meaningless and I wonder if it is today more relevant to the audience than the product itself.

Here's a hypoythesis:

Audiences for AV expect very high quality images and sound, used creatively to illustrate an interesting narrative (be that drama, documentary or abstract)

whereas

Audiences film expect an interesting narrative (be that drama, documentary or abstract) to be illustrated creatively through the use of high quality images and sound.

Discuss.

I think that's a fine line which an audiences might find it difficult to see!

Certainly I think a film audience would expect to see high quality moving images..

I'm with Howard on this one. I found the following definition from the Melbourne Camera Club on the interweb:

"AV is a planned sequence of overlayed and/or merged images that have transition effects between each image. Also known as “Sound Slides” and “Diaporamas“, an AV usually includes images, sound, credit text and sometimes maps and graphics.

An AV will have a visual storyline or theme that is usually synchronized with music, sound effects, narration or any combination of these.

Whilst it utilises certain audio and visual elements commonly found in movies, an AV essentially utilises still image photography."

They don't allow video clips in any competitive situations

I'd certainly argue that if moving images took up 50% or more of the running time then it's a film...

Roger Fowles wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 2:06 pm I think that's a fine line which an audiences might find it difficult to see!

If it exists at all, I suspect it is subconscious.

Roger Fowles wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 2:06 pm Certainly I think a film audience would expect to see high quality moving images..

I don't think that's necessarily true. A high quality historical documentary might comprise mainly still images. Ditto some scientific documentaries. Yes, there might be movement added (Ken Burns style, or a development thereof) but that's no more than one might expect in an AV.

Roger Fowles wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 2:06 pm "AV is a planned sequence of overlayed and/or merged images that have transition effects between each image."

I like that definition. It is certainly clear. But it doesn't apply to much of what we see at BIAFF as an AV and I wonder how many AV makers would feel shackled if this was implemented.

It's probably just as difficult defining what a "film" is

Is an episode of "Dad's Army" a film? Most people would say not I suspect, but if made by one of us it would qualify as such for BIAFF entry wouldn't it?

My brain is starting to hurt - maybe this is one of those situations where you can't quite describe something, but you know it when you see it....

"Film" is about motion, they are called "motion pictures" and stories are told combining images of action with the sound of dialog, music and FX. Historically amateurs used systems with very limited image resolving ability, 8 mm, Super and Single 8; even 16 mm compared with 35mm; both as a motion picture and a still frame. So the birth of AV; a method of inexpensively projecting an image of superior quality which was synchronised with an audio tape of music and narration. Add the ability to transition fade between two images and a very high quality audio/visual presentation resulted.

Fast forward to the digital age; the film amateur is working with equipment capable of delivering very fine image quality; often using the same equipment as the professional cinema. Still cameras are now hybrids both motion picture and stills so the AV producers now slip in sections of motion pictures and using the same editing software as film makers combine stills; audio; transitions into a single projectable production. Tell me how this differs from a traditional "film" or motion picture?

If Av makers want to retain a separate identity then they need to ban the inclusion of motion pictures in their productions and use stills only. Look at BIAFF you will find that AV productions have been entered clearly as "films".

Game over.
Ned C

What a load of rubbish!!!

Of course these modern "AV" presentations are films. Some are absolutely brilliant, some rather boring, as with our own films. How people can maintain that AV is a separate art from film is beyond me. It doesn't matter one little bit but it is rather annoying that the AV people claim a special niche and are rather snooty about it. Whether we use still images or moving ones is quite beyond the point, it is all visual art. Answering a previous question, of course an episode of Dad's Army is a film, it is part of a series but still a film. Howard, why seek "rules"? The whole discussion is meaningless, what rules do we seek? We make films, as do the AV people, that's it. By the way, you hardly ever see an AV sequence that doesn't mix between every shot, it is so unimaginative. Very rarely do we see fast cutting to make a point or a different transition.

I love cats. I love dogs. They both make excellent pets and they can get along very well together in any household. But I wouldn’t enter my cat into Crufts. And my dog wouldn’t fare well in a cat show. They are very different, and no amount of protest would overcome this. I wouldn’t get away with, “But they’re both mammals!”

Yes, AV and movies are both ‘visual artforms’. But so are paintings and sculptures, so that’s a weak argument. My view is that the genres are separate because they came from distinctly different starting points. For many years the two genres were precious about their differences. What has changed?

Michael, you ask me why I seek rules.
The way I see it is this. While there are separate competitions for FILMS and AV SEQUENCES, I think there have to be rules as to how much live action video is permitted in AV. Otherwise an entry into the AV competition might include, what, 70% ? 90% ? live action footage. There’s got to be a cutoff point when it ceases to be classed as AV.
Otherwise there’s no point in having separate competitions and you may as well lump everything together and just accept EVERYTHING into BIAFF and scrap the separate AV competition.

This is a little off-topic, but ...

The discussion reminds me of the arguments about what percentage of archive or non-original film could be in a festival entry.

I never gave a damn. My concern was always that the film told a good story (factual or fictional).

Dave says “My concern was always that the film told a good story (factual or fictional).”
This opens up a whole new topic: Does every film have to tell a story?
I remember a Diamond Award winner called “Reflected London” (I think) consisting of images of London reflected in windows, water, mirrors etc. edited to music with no story. And Michael Slowe has made good cut-to-music films with no actual story. Such films can still be worthy of high awards as well-made ‘works of cinematic art’.

Ah ... my mistake. When I say something like that at a club, I go on to explain that I believe every film should take the audience on a journey.

Most journey-films are stories some are documentaries but as Howard points out there are occasional films which are more about opening our minds.

A Reflective View of London showed us a new way of sight-seeing when in the capital.
As for Michael Slowe's works ... one of my absolute favourites is Potter's Lunch which shows a group of potters working together (I think it was a class that his wife took part in), breaking for a snack lunch, then getting back to their clay. It gives the impression of their dedication, of the power of art, the evidence that artists are human enough to stop for lunch, but not for long.

Dave, Potter's Lunch does actually tell a story of these artists, whereas, as Howard points out, I don't really tell stories with my 'cut to music' shorts such as Ski Break, or my recent Zebra. All this goes to show how impossible it is to define the purpose of any art. Art can do anything for the viewer, from entertaining, through to educating, informing and ultimately inspiring. Having said that, the most memorable films generally tell a compelling story, be it romantic, exciting, suspenseful or funny. Just think of your favourite films of all time, going right back to Gone With The Wind.