Of course everyone knows that moving images exists in the wizarding world, so I probably don't need to go into much detail about that. In our world, we have to resort to still images taken so many times a second to appear like they're moving. There are lots of similarities between moving picture photography and still photography, such as how the light works within the camera. With still photography, the photographer can use strobes to create plenty of light, but in video, one must rely on continuous light. Also, the aspect of motion create a whole new dynamic because sun glares can obscure a whole frame, but the shot is still understandable and beautiful.
Especially these day, with informational TV screens that are situated with portrait dimensions instead of landscape dimensions, video and still photography take on similar rules, like the rule of thirds. And editing a video is done much the same way as editing a photo, except multiplied for each frame making it one of the most tedious jobs in existence.
Still photography has to put a lot more into a single shot to tell a similarly complex story. It has to use a single emotion to express a progression of emotions. Video usually has the added element of sound that can create even more emotion and action. Still photography often uses blur to create a sense of motion, or perhaps the subject taking a step or something mid-fall. A video can show the entire sequence. If a photographer wished to create motion in a still photograph, they could add a blur, which may create that sense of motion.
If I were shooting with a video camera and I wanted to create a very still scene, I would actually probably include some motion, but very very slight motion. I think very slow, calm motion sometimes creates more of a sense of lack-of-motion than a still photograph because you know things can move, they just aren't. When things are too still, people might think it is a photograph.
No comments:
Post a Comment