I like it a lot. The way he replicated the same shot for most of the image to limit the movement to what he wanted is pretty neat. Seems to work to a great effect - particularly when there's eye movement in the subject, and for some of the candle-lit stuff.
And technically, it IS a video, in that it's several frames being played in order, just like a video. It's just that the GIF format has always inherently supported this, in addition to being an image format. I've watched several minute clips of sports that were just a giant GIF file.
Yes it is interesting in a photo you see everyone is still but only one person filliping the page of a news paper.
I thought it must have been a few shots just playing like video, still it is amazing that so many thing are still in the scene that they could have been moving. I am not good at digital post processing, I think there is a large amount of PP done on those images!
Posted by David Bostedo on June 20, 2011 at 11:22 AM
I think there is a large amount of PP done on those images!
Yeah - I think so too. Even if you took the shots from a tripod and there wasn't a lot of other movement, there would still be some small things moving. Leaves rustling, or other people flinching, blinking or breathing. (Maybe the indoor shots would still be similar.) Seems to me that all of the frames must be derived from the same shot, using something in PP to replace only the moving parts.
Discussion
3 repliesIt is a moving photograph but it is not a video!! Here is the link
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2011/04/jamie-becks-animated-gif-photography.html
Have a look and give your opinion on that.
Thanks
And technically, it IS a video, in that it's several frames being played in order, just like a video. It's just that the GIF format has always inherently supported this, in addition to being an image format. I've watched several minute clips of sports that were just a giant GIF file.
I thought it must have been a few shots just playing like video, still it is amazing that so many thing are still in the scene that they could have been moving. I am not good at digital post processing, I think there is a large amount of PP done on those images!
Yeah - I think so too. Even if you took the shots from a tripod and there wasn't a lot of other movement, there would still be some small things moving. Leaves rustling, or other people flinching, blinking or breathing. (Maybe the indoor shots would still be similar.) Seems to me that all of the frames must be derived from the same shot, using something in PP to replace only the moving parts.