2-Frame Movie

Discuss 2-Frame Movie. Process? Assumptions? Considerations? Approach?

posted by Tony Brock on January 25, 2007 | comments: 8 | post a comment

Process: Two fungus spores fell in love so far.

Assumptions: The paper is t he world i inhabit.

Approach: Played with paint and stop motion first time around, will try something else soon.

Posted by Koger on January 26, 2007 11:43 AM

Our first screening of these made me think a lot about frame rates and their overall effect on the outcome of the film. As a result, I applied the discussion to my Walk Movies; they all have less than 30 frames per second.

I've also been pondering Tony's comment about "no production crew" for all these movies. I spent a lot of time constructing images for the first 2-frame movie; it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. I'm going to try working more quickly/spontaneously with the material to see how that affects my outcomes.

Posted by Kellissima on January 26, 2007 01:16 PM

After the critique on the two frame movie I was a little disturbed. I guess I wanted to feel the challenge of addressing the project, but the loosness in defining frame and transition was too open ended. Restricting myself felt arbitrary. Using After Effects you can't get two frames to play over 20 seconds. You can get two static images though, which was pretty boring for 20 seconds with a hard cut. I should have abanoned the use of the word frame at that point, because from studying animation the single frame has a greater significance. I selected several parts of the page and juxtaposed them with others to start thinking about how I would relate the two images. The page was interesting, and I liked the contrasts in view, pattern, texture, image type, and so on, but with two frames at that duration I couldn't simulate what that felt like.

At this points, I am thinking about it as two states, or keyframes, with a transition. Transition I assumed meant a cut or dissolve but I am just thinking about how to get from point A to point B without a particular frame inbetween standing out as something that is seen as a particular state other than part of the progression. So the two frame movie for me is more of a study of transitons, duration.

I tried to fiddle with the image to make it more interesting, but that had little to do with manipulation of time as it did trying to hold the viewers attention with the still image. For the next project (the walk movies)I tried to leave out the manipulation and just record and cut.

Posted by keyframe on January 27, 2007 05:50 PM

i guess my paper pages (the ones i passed around after that awesome awkwardness) could have been scanned and animated in two frames with after effects, but then you wouldn't have been able to touch them. i abandoned the time constraint in favor of a physical experience. though maybe that wasn't the most appropriate approach for a time-based class. so i guess i'm going to make some after effects versions next. and try to see how much interest i can milk out of only 2 static frames.

Posted by dptrentl on January 27, 2007 05:58 PM

at first, i took two frames literally. which made for a really boring 20 seconds. i wanted to do stop frame animation on the first one but didn't think i could because 60 still pictures is 60 frames... not 2. so after the first viewing i thought so two frames is out (unless you had a better idea than mine?) ... so then i tried playing with some animation on the next one since it was what i wanted to do in the first place. my paper was all cut up so i tried using what i had and did a little study in light. not the best. but i have a hard time with this project because the boundaries were so bent by everyone that it was hard for me to figure what is acceptable. its a challenge.

Posted by tuesday on January 28, 2007 02:32 PM

i definitely thought two frames meant absolutely and only two frames. and i learned that is called a "hard edit." while working on one of my iterations, i was listening to a song, and it seemed to fit, the "were going to the country" song. so i included that. and then the next video i made, i watched it, and then decided what music should go with it. i had tony last semester. my problem last semester was that i never got much of anything done. so, in approaching this, i decided i would spend a little time developing concepts or ideas and produce them quickly. thats nicer than wasting a lot of time, which i am better at doing. our pages also have words. mmmmmmmm...

Posted by critter on January 28, 2007 08:32 PM

Two frames. My first plan was to show the page, burn it, and show the ashes. Transition!

I am trying not to use software for the things that you should obviously use software for. It is a chance not to go back in time, but to take a simple tool and extend it as far as I can.

When playing around with the image, I realized that the image on the other side showed through when held up the light. IT WASN'T A 2D OBJECT ANY MORE.

Well -- that is interesting. What happens when I expose the image for 2 seconds, 5 seconds, 15 seconds (upper limit of my camera). The text becomes much cleaner. What happens when I show a bright light through the image, and leave the shutter open?

So -- a 20 second movie -- 15 seconds of a 5 second exposure, 5 seconds of a 15 second exposure. It is literally an inversion of time -- but the audience doesn't know that, nor should they have to.

Posted by general malarky on January 29, 2007 04:20 PM

mmmmm! combining the time needed to make something with the time it is shown on screen to meet the twenty second requirement.. niiice.


Can you make a movie in zero seconds?

Posted by critter on January 31, 2007 01:43 PM