The Inclusion of Video in the Tauranga AV Salon:
Research into what is happening with video in other countries showed that FIAP, the Royal Photographic Society (Britain), the Photographic Alliance of Britain and South Africa allow the inclusion of some video into an AV which is comprised primarily of still images. Not only do advances in technology make it easier for a photographer to capture video clips, they also make it easier for people to use AV making software to use still images to simulate video. We decided that the Fusion category was not well supported and in someways was encouraging the inclusion of video for the sake of including video. Video is just another tool that the AV worker can use to tell their story but it should only be included if it adds something special to the AV - not just for the sake of including video. This year video clips along with other images from other media such as historic photos can be included in the AV but in total these third party images including video should not be more 20% of the viewing time of the AV. (See Rule 6)
Inclusion of Video in Other Countries:
Internationally, in photographic circles anyway, there is an increasing acceptance of including video in an AV which is created mainly from still images.
From the RPS website:
The Audio Visual Group is one of the larger groups, catering for the interests of photographers who enjoy and make Audio Visual sequences. Almost exclusively digital these days, AV sequences combine projected photographs and possibly video with a sound track.
The FIAP statutes do allow for video clips to be included (at the organisers discretion) and I believe that some AV Salons do allow for them. The statement is made that overall the AV must rely on still images, however video can be accepted in an AV sequence as long as it does not predominate … and it relates strictly to the dramatic thread of the work.
From South Africa: An Audio Visual (AV) is a compilation of still images, which may include movie/video clips, with an integrated theme ……… and from the same document: Video/movie content is permitted but should not dominate the presentation. It is advisable not to prescribe or suggest a limit or ratio. The end product will determine whether the inclusion of movie content added to the overall effectiveness of the AV or not.
From the Photographic Alliance of Great Britain’s definition of an audio-visual:
An AV production submitted for a PAGB Award should predominantly consist of a sequence of still photographic images ………. The use of third party images, animated graphics, video clips or other visual material, whilst not excluded, should be limited and should be appropriate to the production. Applications with more than 25%, in photographs or duration, of such third party images, animated graphics and video clips are unlikely to be successful.
Observations from Recent AV Salons:
It is becoming increasingly difficult to identify video from other similar effects made possible by recent software developments.
1. An AV which included a fire sequence, two still images of the smoke were put on different layers and the layers were moved in different ways to make it look like billowing smoke.
2. Most time-lapse is shown at a rate of 24 or 25 frames per second which is the same as standard video. The main difference is that you are aware of the individual images because of the time between taking each frame. The issue for us is that technically these sequences comply with the ‘video’ rules and therefore only a short sequence is allowable. A AV created from mostly Time-lapse sequences is not permissible.
3. An AV where the story was told by moving the still images. Graphic? video? still images even though they were moving?
Is Video a useful Tool for an AV worker?
There are times when the video clip shows something which still images alone cannot show. Examples are a time-lapse sequence of a plant flowering; the traffic in a busy intersection of a third world city like Hanoi, a lion making a kill or a dance sequence.