On Feb 13, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Toby Schachman wrote:
I understand why intellectually why you need to shift the frames horizontally as you play them in time, but it's distracting. What does it look like to just fade back to the "start" frame for each cell, or even just a cut?
The problem with cuts on a grid is that it’s not one cut, it’s hundreds of cuts (or fades, or whatever). I’ve never liked the way that looks, whatever fades I’ve applied.
But your question got me thinking about interleaved frames, and the fact that only 15 years ago, you
couldn’t pause video into a still image on most devices! Pressing the “pause” button on a VCR or even DVD player would have you stuck between two frames. Sometimes, the image would be mostly still, but usually you’d get a little flicker in the parts of the image with motion. I’m still experimenting within the parameter space of “which two frames every N frames” but am seeing some promising results. Here’s a representative example (also available
online for the hard-of-gif’ing):
<lurch-1-8.gif>
There’s something lost from the moving frames—when the frames are moving, I have a much easier time scanning my eyes around the image—but I think the moving frames max out at a certain number. This non-moving-interleaving may be a good choice for when you want to see a lot of frames at once, and still have a hint of motion.
RMO
