XKCD Critiques 'Ken Burns Effect'

N/t.

Mike
(Thanks to Bernard Scharp)

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Mark Kinsman: "Flickr did not get that memo...."

Jim Bullard: "Given the reference to website operators I don't think Ken Burns was the target."

Mike replies: No, it's just the name of the practice. Wikipedia has an article explaining it. (Note that I had the name wrong at first...I called it "Ken Burns Syndrome" and that's wrong, it's called "the Ken Burns Effect." My bad memory.)

From the linked article: "Steve Jobs and Apple engineers met with Burns to obtain the filmmaker's permission to use the term 'Ken Burns Effect' for Apple's video production software. (The description had been Apple's internal working title while the feature was in development). Burns declined, saying that he didn't allow his name to be used for commercial purposes. Jobs then took Burns aside and the two agreed on a sum that would be donated to charity in order for Burns to allow the term's usage in Apple products.

"Burns says that on occasion, strangers will stop him on the street to enthusiastically describe how they use the Ken Burns Effect on their Apple software. Burns, who writes his speeches longhand and calls himself a Luddite, claims he doesn't really understand what these Apple users are telling him (despite the inherent technical sophistication required in modern documentary filmmaking) and tries his best to make a quick escape." (Citations at the link.)

Bob Rosinsky: "Pan to the right, zoom in. Pan to the left, zoom in. I know the guys (Ed Searles and Ed Joyce) who shot Ken Burns' photo sequences for documentaries such as 'The Civil War' and 'Baseball The Tenth Inning.' They also shot Blackside Inc.'s 'Eyes on the Prize.'

"The two Eds owned and operated a motion-control studio called The Frame Shop in Newton, MA. Their animation stand was outfitted with a 1920s Mitchell movie camera (Mitchells are known for their rock-solid single frame accuracy). They adapted the camera and copy stand to a computerized motion-control system. I think their rig had at least four or five axes. Each move was shot single frame onto 35mm film and then transferred to video. Anybody that has worked in the Boston film and video community from the 1980s up to the turn of the century likes and respects the two Eds. Broadcast and cinematic camera moves on flat art are now executed through software and high-resolution scans. The digital age mothballed their craft. Here's a link that describes the Eds, their studio, and lists many interesting clients that hired them."

Comments

[D. Hufford.]

Take it that the new Flickr full screen mode is not appreciated.

[Rob]

I consider this sort of criticism to be effete drivel. Ken Burns endeavors to make documentaries that will appeal to a broad audience. In the modern era, that means that there has to be movement. Since Burns seems to be rather successful, I would say that the technique works. One can criticize other aspects of his documentaries, but this is just plain silly.

[You did notice it's a cartoon, right? --Mike]

[toto]

I didn't realize Flick does that. But then, I don't visit often.

[Koen Lageveen]

"Flickr did not get that memo…."

Me thinks it landed on the stack of other memo's they apparantly didn't get….

[OldBean]

@Rob

The cartoon is a criticism of web developers aping the Ken Burns style inappropriately, not of the documentaries themselves.

And yes, even as someone who's defended Flickr's redesign (yeah, I'm the one), that new fullscreen mode is just awful.

[David Stubbs]

Loved the XKCD. I also noticed it was aimed at Flickr and not Ken Burns. I would say "Ken Burns Syndrome" describes the making of outstanding documentaries. A technical restraint Burns faces is how best to present still photos for on-screen viewing. To put them up corner-to-corner for static viewing does not let viewers see much detail. Burns' camera moves through parts of photos to show detail that can not be seen otherwise. If you do not buy this, pay attention to your own eyes next time you look at a picture. We zoom in and out of the whole image and the longer we look, the more we do so.
This is very different from any online photo sharing that just lets pictures wander around.

[Marshall Smith]

That cartoon is just perfect!

I used to favor Flickr's slideshow, especially so in their "lightbox" mode, and the link I supplied was to that when I alerted people to sets that I had taken they might be interested in.

But no more. I admire Ken Burns and his wonderful documentaries as much as anyone, but enough with the movement, already!

[Jacques Gilbert]

I did not read it as criticism of Ken Burns Effect, I saw it as criticism of any effect that is overused to the point of becoming a cliche.

[Dennis]

I've done video slide shows to music using the effect - family and vacation shots - and enjoyed the results. And yet I find it very distracting on flickr. I'm not sure why the difference.

[Doug]

The "Ken Burns effect" isn't mandatory in Flickr's slideshow mode. Starting with a single image if you step through the menu under the "three dot" icon on the lower right you get a normal slideshow. Still, the default set up for slideshow mode is boneheaded and annoying. There ought to be a simple way to shut off the sliding image effect.

[keith b]

The term 'Ken Burns Effect' has now, alas, become lingua franca. But it demonstrates a common contemporary condition of cultural myopia and historical ignorance: The technique of panning and tilting across still photos in a motion picture was used prominently in documentaries produced by David L. Wolper's company in the 1960's, and, as I recall, was hailed by TV critics at the time as being a marvelous way to "liven up" historical stories for which there was no actual motion picture footage available.
Another point: Neither Burns nor Wolper RANDOMLY panned and tilted across the old photos; the fact that people actually wish their photos to be RANDOMLY panned and scanned is a monument to human stupidity.

[Jeremy]

If that was a critique, I'm a critic. But it WAS funny. Except to my clients, who wouldn't understand why I was showing it to them. "Oh cool, we like that too," would be the universal response.