Parts of a still image panning over other parts

[ralph.m]

Hi all,

For a while I've been intrigued over videos where you see a panning still image, where the foreground part of the image moves faster than background. You can see examples throughout this video, for example (notice the man with glasses a few seconds in, and then the two men holding wine glasses: the background moves at a different rate):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=QVTi0dknM68

I guess you could just use two pictures for this effect, but is that how they do it? I've also seen this effect in videos where they are using old, black and white images, where they obviously don't have two versions of the image. In that case, I was wondering if they've used a program like Photoshop to cut out the foreground portions and fill in the background portions somehow. Or maybe they have cut out the foreground and enlarged it, so that you don't see the gap in the background.

Anyhow, just wondering if anyone has any insights into this.

[TehYoyo]

Hi all,

For a while I've been intrigued over videos where you see a panning still image, where the foreground part of the image moves faster than background. You can see examples throughout this video, for example (notice the man with glasses a few seconds in, and then the two men holding wine glasses: the background moves at a different rate):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=QVTi0dknM68

I guess you could just use two pictures for this effect, but is that how they do it? I've also seen this effect in videos where they are using old, black and white images, where they obviously don't have two versions of the image. In that case, I was wondering if they've used a program like Photoshop to cut out the foreground portions and fill in the background portions somehow. Or maybe they have cut out the foreground and enlarged it, so that you don't see the gap in the background.

Anyhow, just wondering if anyone has any insights into this.

Yeah. That's quite an interesting effect. It's quite possible that you could do it in After Effects (I don't know about any other programs, sorry). I actually think that I saw a tool (don't know where) that fills in the background of something w/ the background cut out. I think it was Photoshop CS6 (or I might just be crazy).

My best guess is that it was done in After Effects. I'll have to consult my After Effects friend (who is an AFX guru), but there's a technique where you set up the shot w/ cameras pointing at the subject in a 360 degree circle. Like: this.

Once there, there's a tool in AE that can set up a 3d scene. You can do tons of stuff w/ that.

~TehYoyo

[ralph.m]

Thanks for that. Yes, Ps in CS5 has the 'content aware fill' that fills a hole in the background. It's awesome when it works, but isn't always appropriate.

I'd love to know what you friend says about what programs are used to do this sort of thing. Perhaps with the older photos the trick is to use two different photos and superimpose one above the other and pretend they were one photo. Not sure.

One other question for your friend: in that video I posted, where text flies around and letters fall over, rotate etc., I wonder what program(s) can be used for effects like that.

[TehYoyo]

Really, all I know how to use is After Effects (and Sony Vegas, but that's not the right type of tool), so I'll give my perspective on that. Again, I've asked my friend to take a look at it as he's much better w/ AE than me.

The 3d animations are really the only trouble spots (when the "in" flops down, or when the medal folds out, etc). All of the other stuff could easily be accomplishable with basic positioning keyframes and a good eye for perspective.

I'm awaiting his response.
~TehYoyo

[TehYoyo]

There would have to be two layers. It is the only way. You shoot it the first time with the same foreground but a green/blue screen behind the subjects and key them out. you then have the freedom to change position and speed. for the second shot remove the subjects and greenscreen and shoot the back ground. put this layer under your keyed subjects and foreground shot. It is not so much tricky editing that will get you this. You need to shoot it right.

After effects will do the keying but you need to shoot it really well. AS for the text, in AE there is a toggle switch that will show a set of buttons on your video layer. select the button with the open box on it. your layer is then three-dimensional. Up in the toolbar (top left) you will see a 3d orbit button. Use that to rotate the 3d portions but for the most part set a keyframe at your beginning position, move a few seconds into the video and change the position. you shall then have a smooth pan and change of position.

(@ralph.m
~TehYoyo

[kohoutek]

It's called the Parallax effect and it indeed involves lots of cutting of various scenes.

Some samples along with a description on how to go about it: http://vimeo.com/28709243

[RyanKing1809]

I also believe it goes by the name of the "Ken Burns Effect". Here's a tutorial http://blogs.adobe.com/bobddv/2006/0...ben_kurns.html

It can be done in After Effects and Final Cut Pro.

[ralph.m]

You shoot it the first time with the same foreground but a green/blue screen behind the subjects and key them out.

Thanks TehYoyo. I guess if you plan ahead, that would be a good way, but often these effects are created on with old/exiting photos.

It's called the Parallax effect and it indeed involves lots of cutting of various scenes.

Thanks Maleika. Now I know what it's called! (I know it's a JS effect, but it didn't occur to me that it got that name from elsewhere.) The link confirms my suspicions about how it's done.

I also believe it goes by the name of the "Ken Burns Effect".

Thanks Ryan. As I understand it, the Ken Burns effect is for a single image that moves across the screen, rather than layered images that move at a different rate over one another.

[RyanKing1809]

Thanks Ryan. As I understand it, the Ken Burns effect is for a single image that moves across the screen, rather than layered images that move at a different rate over one another.

Huh, you're right. My bad.

[ralph.m]

Huh, you're right. My bad.

No worries! When I was Googling the issue, most results described the Burns effect, so unless you know the name Parallax, it's hard to find good info on this method.

[TehYoyo]

No worries! When I was Googling the issue, most results described the Burns effect, so unless you know the name Parallax, it's hard to find good info on this method.

I know the word from seeing a bit of it on websites. I'm not really a fan of it for web design, though - the movement is minimal and slightly distracting and irrelevant for most of my sties. Note - It was used in this article by Konstantin Kichinsky.

~TehYoyo