Commentary:

Using Stills in Motion Picture Media: Keep the Show Moving, or Bring it to a Halt?

Opinion by Berle Cherney from Visual Productions

Watch much television? If you ever stray from the major commercial networks, you�ve seen lots of historical documentaries.

Berle Cherney in his Motion Control suite.

PBS�s American Experience, American Masters, Rick Burns and Ken Burns productions, and series like Building Big. There�s The History Channel, the Biography series, National Geographic specials like Inside the White House, and films originally designed for theatrical projection, but also playing on TV, like Charles Guggenheim�s Johnstown Flood (Academy Award), and Aviva Kempner�s The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg (George Peabody Award). All of these productions use surprisingly large numbers of still images (mostly photographs) to help tell their stories�sometimes more than 50% of their visual content.

The overall craftsmanship of some productions is so high, and the stills are treated so skillfully, you�re never aware that you�re not watching live-action. Other times they seem to bring the production to a halt.

The terminology for shooting camera moves on still pictures has varied over the years. �Motion-control� is the predominant term today, some others are �animatics,� �filmograph,� �photo animation,� and in Europe �rostrum photography.�

I�ve been specializing in shooting stills�helping them come alive�for more than 20 years, and I�d like to share some philosophies and observations.

Film and video are motion picture media. We expect to see something move, and our attention is drawn to the movement. In live-action scenes, our attention is drawn to the action taking place in the frame, and when there�s no action there�s almost always a camera move. Sometimes the move is so slow we have to watch the edges of the frame to notice the movement, but that slight movement keeps and directs our attention. When there�s no camera move, it�s extremely rare that something is not moving, even if it�s a leaf blowing in the wind. Ever wonder why you feel you�re being drawn into a scene in a good feature film? Sometimes I�ve thought �What�s going on? Why is this building in intensity?� Then I realize the camera is zooming or trucking in so slowly that I�m not conscious of it unless I carefully watch the edges of the frame. This is an example of the craftsmanship of filmmaking�using everything available to keep the audience engaged and to tell a compelling story.

All else being equal, motion picture footage is more desirable than stills. Most producers use stills because they�re the best visuals available. They simply don�t have a better choice. Some use them brilliantly. Others simply use stills to fill visual holes, making little attempt to keep the flow as intriguing as their live-action.

This is one of the greatest pitfalls. Some producers shoot a large live-action ratio of original to finished footage�20:1, even 50:1. Production budgets often allow for top researchers, DPs, crews, and editors. And the editors will have loads of choices. But when it comes to shooting stills, it�s considered a post-production, low budget, last minute task. If the stills are inherently less compelling, doesn�t it make sense to treat them with at least the same respect as the live-action? This means giving the editor choices, choosing a motion-control shooter with a good eye and good ideas, and allocating a realistic budget. It�s simple. The stills should be treated as carefully as everything else in the production.

It doesn�t have to cost an absurd amount. On one hand, I�ve seen shows (some I�ve worked on, others I haven�t) that were terrific in every way. When I�m watching these, I�m not thinking about how nicely it�s shot, or cut�I�m engaged in the story. This is the result of good craftsmanship in every aspect of the production. Documentary filmmakers can�t plan everything, but the final product should reflect that the work was skillfully executed. Carefully shooting stills is usually the most cost-effective footage in the production.

In the other extreme, I�ve seen a 60 minute show, with a budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars, allocate $4000 to shoot stills which constituted one-third to one-half of the final production. The stills were added at the last minute, in one weekend, by an assistant editor who was unfamiliar with the project. Does this make sense? The lack of craftsmanship was evident.

There are different ways to approach shooting stills. Some filmmakers treat them like live-action, more like part of the production process, rather than post-production. Even though they�re not sure what will end up in the show, they want to shoot everything that has promise, and they shoot a variety of shots on each still. They look at each photo as a scene, and imagine how it would be shot in film or video if they were actually there. There are times when we put a photo in front of the camera and see important things they�ve never noticed before. They think filmatically � long shots, medium shots, close-ups. Camera moves in and out, pans, tilts, and combinations�sometimes different speeds. When it�s time to edit, they can try different approaches. They see exactly how everything works together, not only the appropriateness of the subject, so they know the pacing works, and when the decision is made, it�s done. They haven�t had to take the time to slate in a static or temporary move on each image for content, so they don�t have to re-shoot everything at the last minute and cut it in.

Many shows shoot the live-action in film, and stills in video. Some people, when making an all-film show, carefully shoot the motion-control first in video, since video is faster to shoot and tape stock is relatively inexpensive. After editing the video, it�s a relatively mechanical process to re-shoot the final shots in film. This gives them the best of both worlds. They have an all-film product, and the creative choices they need because of the inherent economy of video.

Some producers edit the show, slating in each still with a static image, a digital move, or a move made with a DV camera. This gives them an idea of how the move will work in conjunction with surrounding shots. It�s a pretty good idea, but there are some pitfalls. It takes time. If we were to put a stopwatch on the whole procedure, you�d be surprised how long it takes, especially compared to how fast I can shoot a move. By the time this is done, and the stills are re-shot for the final version, and then re-inserted, I don�t believe the savings (if any) add up to being worthwhile. It�s certainly not the best use of an editor�s time.

Another common circumstance is waiting until the very end to shoot the stills, and because of last-minute time limitations, simply duplicating what�s been slated in. With all the last minute details, the stills, which need at least as much attention as the live-action, get very little editing concentration. And it often shows. Typically, the temporary moves are designed by editors. Quite a few do an excellent job, but generally editors aren�t experienced at directing camera movement and creating compositions. It�s not their discipline. I�ve seen some great editors call for compositions that don�t exemplify good craftsmanship. They�ll cut off people�s feet, or frame at the edges of a photograph rather than rotating a little so buildings look like they�re standing up straight. In situations like this, editors are usually terrific when they attend the motion-control sessions. The shooter can easily clean up the compositions, and the editors clearly see the improvements.

There are times when shooting stills at the end of post-production has worked out well. Some clients provide me with a VHS copy of the show with time code. When I look at where and how the stills are to be used, I can refine the timing and shoot alternatives. When clients ask for my ideas, they report that they use at least 60% of them. I�ve been doing this for a long time, and I just think of things that they don�t.

As filmmakers, start being aware of how stills are used when you�re watching documentaries. Does there seem to be a formula approach, or a flow that seems purposeful and orchestrated? How long is each image on the screen? I�ve noticed static images on the screen for as much as 60 seconds. They give me the impression the visual part of the production is on pause, while the audio plays on. A very slow move, however, does a much better job of keeping my interest. There are times when it seems like the producer was never sure how long any image would fill the screen, so they asked for everything to have a 20 second hold on one end of the shot, a 5 second move, and another 20 second hold. After a while, this is very predictable, and not very interesting. Decide what you think works well, and what doesn�t.

Sometimes clients tell me we�re shooting for a fast paced sequence, so they want fast moves. That�s OK, but in general, it�s not the speed of the move that sets the pacing, it�s the energy of the editing. It�s harder to cut in and out of a fast move than a slow one. The most flexible moves are relatively slow. Most people, when imagining how long a move should take, count in their heads �one thousand one, one thousand two,� and so on. When they get to five it seems like a long time, but when they see the move in five seconds it�s much faster than they imagined. A slow move, even 20 seconds and longer, is still purposeful, and you don�t have to complete the move before cutting to the next shot. The editor has choices�in the case of a zoom, he/she can cut from a static long shot to a static close-up; start static, begin the move and cut while moving; cut in and out while moving; or cut in on the move and hold on the static end. Generally, I�m not fond of cutting to a static shot, holding for a beat, then starting the move. My attention is better directed when the cut is made while moving. It just seems to flow better.

Look out for over-zooming. The easiest thing to think of is a zoom. Try to vary the moves. Again, think of yourself as being there and shooting the same scene in live-action. My sensibilities tell me that, generally, a zoom in (especially on shots like portraits) builds in intensity�increases the intimacy, while some photos allow us to discover wonderful things when we zoom out. I always begin by looking for ways to pan rather than zoom. This is usually a more filmatic approach. Don�t forget a variety of short static shots. When I shoot static close-ups within a photo, I�ll often hold a wide version of the CU, zoom in very slowly for about 10 seconds, and hold on a closer version. The editor can use the static shots, or choose to cut between these very slow zooms. It�s very effective. They serve as statics, but the subtle zooms draw us into the subject.

Be careful in collecting your materials. Before computers and scanners, duplication was always a photographic process, and we could count on relatively good images. Now we never know what to expect, so we should always ask, and if there are options, examine them carefully. The people who are in control of the images are not always aware of our need for as high a resolution as possible. I�ve spent many days with a copy stand�shooting negatives and slides of original photos. This works well, but it�s not always possible. Some archives continue to provide photographic reproductions. Higher resolution scanned images, reproduced on fairly high quality printers, can be very good. However, if the resolution is low, it�s just the opposite. Transparencies, and even slides can look surprisingly good. Pictures in books often work well, but there are certain magnifications when the half-tones are not compatible with video, and we see bothersome moire patterns. In general, get as close to the originals as possible.

There are different methods of shooting moves on stills. The most basic technique is to tape a photo to the wall and shoot it with the camera on a tripod, but this is hardly �motion-control.� Making a smooth, controlled move on something as small as an 8�x10� photo is something that stretches the abilities of even the best DPs. There�s the old �Oxberry � type camera stand that would shoot film. You�d make one exposure, move the art and/or camera, make the next exposure, and so on. At 24 exposures per second, it�s very cumbersome. There are some off-the-shelf optical units available that use computer controls. They can do nice moves, but anything other than straight-lines require some trial-and-error�that means time. Straight-line moves look very mechanical and don�t cut as well with live-action. Starts and stops can be abrupt, and take more time to refine. Computer technology can scan and manipulate images. You need very high resolution to get acceptable results, and you�d be surprised how time-consuming it can be. Anything other than a straight-line move takes so much time that people usually give up trying. And there�s my one-of-a-kind �Animotion� system, which is digital, but operates with the freedom and speed of a very smooth moving camera on a tripod (though it doesn�t use a tripod). All my programming and recording is in real-time�even moves with curves. If you saw it, I don�t think you could imagine anything more efficient.

Prices vary considerably, and most facilities charge by the hour. Be careful. Compare systems and prices. One shop may charge three times more per hour, and accomplish four and many more times the work in the same time frame. This not only saves money, but you�ll spend less of your time as well. Some can shoot slides, and transparencies as well as front lit stills. Today most shoot only video, but some are shooting film as well.

Choose your motion-control shooter carefully too. Is it a technical person who only knows how to operate the equipment, or someone you can trust to have a good eye and help you solve problems as much as your live-action DP? This is more than a technical job.

The bottom line�plan to give your stills as much importance as everything else� script, talent, locations, live-action shooting, audio, editing, archival footage, etc. Make the stills work just as well. They are scenes, just like live-action, not visual filler. I�m simply talking about craftsmanship.

If anyone would like to discuss the subject, I�d be happy to participate. Call me at (301)942-8802, or email at berle@visproductions.com.