On Sat, 08 Jun 2002 02:48:23 GMT, "David Mullen" wrote:

>Obviously the difference between a still image and a moving one is.... (drum
>roll)... the movement -- so some photographic tricks do not always work as
>well in motion picture work -- for example, when zooming or panning or
>tilting, you will be more aware of a fixed position for a grad filter, you
>will see the polarizor affect different objects as the camera pans, etc.
>
>But a lot of shots in moving pictures are static, so many of these
>techniques work.
>
>In film, you also have the issue of moving grain per frame sort of blending
>over the next frame during projection due to persistence of vision, versus
>the static grain of a still photo, which seems more obvious even if the
>actual grain is the same as the frame of movie film.
>
>Another issue is one of composition -- the average motion picture shot is
>pretty brief, compared to a still photo or painting that the viewer can take
>as long as needed to absorb. Therefore the meaning of the motion picture
>shot, conveyed through composition, has to be understood much faster. It
>can't be TOO complex or subtle unless it will be held on screen for a long
>time; generally the composition has to be clear and dynamic, letting the
>viewer quickly know what's important, where to look, what the emotional
>"point" of the shot is. Also, a motion picture shot is usually part of an
>EDITED sequence, so it's the arrangement and juxtposition of the shots that
>can also create the total meaning.
>
>Anyway, one of the common mistakes of beginners shooting film or video is
>not designing a frame with a clear emotional intent and a storytelling point
>in mind, but being vague and indecisive about the framing -- or being too
>primitive (like simply centering everything.) There are few rules to
>composition, but one can start to get a feeling about it after shooting for
>awhile.
>
>Resolution (of the image capture and the display technology) does become a
>factor in how one composes, how one uses filters, etc. But that's less of a
>"still versus moving picture" issue.
>
>David Mullen

NEAT POST!
Thanks.