Sequences vs stills

The basic unit of video is the sequence, and it demands thinking in almost the opposite way from stills

The basic photographer’s skill is to capture meaningful moments from the flow of events, while the videographer aims to

capture a sequence of that full flow. So, still photography is about single images, while video is about sequences. You need to think in terms of the several-second clip – how it starts, how it flows, how it ends.

A well-planned video clip usually has a beginning, middle and end. A cinematographer friend of mine, Ron Fricke, had this advice when I was getting started in video: “Start and end with two good, different, frames, then find a way to move smoothly between them.” Start paying attention, if you haven’t already, to the way TV and movie sequences are composed and timed. One basic kind of sequence has the camera locked off, with an event unfolding within the frame. Another uses a moving subject, such as a person walking, to carry the sequence; the camera moves to keep them in frame. There are obviously infinite variations, such as a still shot where someone moves into the frame and the camera then picks them up and moves with them, or vice versa.

Film for slightly longer than you think you need to. Videos need editing, and there are things in post-production that need time. For instance, the start and end of your clip may be jerky because you jogged the camera when you pressed record; or you may want to dissolve from one clip to another, which will take up a second or so. And, of course, the action in front of the camera will vary and you’ll want to select the best parts.

The answer is to take more time rather than less. There’s no disadvantage other than the fact it will take up more memory card space. The rule of thumb is never shoot for less than ten seconds. Also, vary your angles and the focal length of shots, to give you more choice when assembling the video (see Shoot for the edit, below).