Through my type experiment I have learned a lot. My concept is centered around analog( type in front of video) and digital type (text edited in the computer) , to see what kind of relationship they can have. When I tried to do a test for the first time, it was a mess. The analog type was look poorly crafted and the digital type seemed to just be placed on the video. Although it was a failure it opened up my eyes to how type can be anchored to "planes". Usually when arranging type, designers will come up with a grid system in which they anchor the type to sit comfortably around a composition. When dealing with motion, there is the lapse of time. This may seem like very basic typography rules, but when adding motion, I began to understand this concept in a deeper way. With the way that the camera moves is how the analog type will be displayed, by panning in or using zoom, the analog type is put into motion. Once the digital type is added I had to try and visualize where it would go. Going back to the typography basic rules of a grid system. I have found that the digital type has more of a "animation quality" and does not always need to be set in a locked system, like the analog. The digital type can be arranged to help the analog type fit more comfortably. This can be done by completing a thought :where does type.....exist. Or by having the digital type try and conform to what is going on in the footage. Certain ways that I have tested to see how the digital type can be placed within the environment comfortably would be motion tracking (which I am still trying to master), using masks to imply spacial boundaries, or putting it into perspective by using the XYZ axis. One thought that keeps coming to my mind is the ratio of different planes that the digital and analog type can be in. Almost referring back to geometry and trying to understand the differences in space.
One part of the experiment that I did not realize how important was, would be the perspective of type. We are accustomed to viewing text on a 2-d surface. But what happens when the word is panning around to grasp motion, it can become distorted. Or when just a little bit of wind in the film blows at the letters, they move but are in slightly different perspectives. When I was filming I kept reminding myself to allow negative space for the digital type to be placed in. What I did not realize was that with time I was making the analog type be distorted in space. Once again this may seem obvious, but once I added the digital type and it was trying to "conform" to the footage, there was a different relationship. One good point is how hierarchy can be developed through perspective and scale. It could be a close up of the analog type, word for word, to another set of frames that is digital text appearing through a mask and becoming bigger. As we know hierarchy is the most important point, thought, concept, idea really. However, when there is a series of frames with the analog or digital type, I feel like the hierarchy can be shifted. The film can started off with, word for word zoomed in, that is the starting point, to panning outward to see the whole saying, and then adding the digital type in. In my test it was interesting to see how I could grasp an "idea" and with motion.
Timing is a big issue with video. The way the camera moves and displays the analog type sets the tone or content for the video. One part that I have started to notice is how with analog footage time can be slowed down at a more graceful pace. With the digital type and the way that it is usually displayed, it tends to move faster (even when the content is slower). Even looking at entertainment commercials, trailers, interviews, and reels. I think there a level of patience we have with raw footage, because we understand that it is "reality". In the digital world, with intros to movies, or youtube videos graphics and text seem to be at a much faster pace. This is merely an observation, but when dealing with both ends on one screen it is interesting to think of that user experience.
Going off of what I have learned there are many different tasks that I would like to fulfill. Now that I am deeper into the concept I feel as if I have more questions than I did at the beginning. Like, because it is in motion, can the user understand the relationship, without putting both sets of type on screen at the same time? Does that defeat the purpose? (of looking at the arrangement of both set in motion) If a figure was to be added could that help to join the two, or divide them? In the beginning of the experiment I tried to recite a poem, and ever sense then I've wondered how I can combined the analog and digital so that they tell a story.
I have ideas on where I would like to take this experiment. First to really clean up the craft. I though when filming I was allowing for enough time for the digital type to enter, and there was enough time for the text to enter, but now I need to allow myself more so that it can be animated more diversely with the analog text. Also I need to really sharpen my after effects skills, to make a seamless video. Second, I want to take two different typefaces, by now I have just used avenir in both. Third, this would take a lot of planning, but to take the analog and digital type and multiply it. By this I mean filming digital, analog, digital, analog, etc in a seamless matter. I think that by almost overlapping the two ways they would retain a better connection. I believe this would be because it would be in a linear patter, and that is exactly what video is.
Untitled from Janna Johnsrud on Vimeo.
Untitled from Janna Johnsrud on Vimeo.
Untitled from Janna Johnsrud on Vimeo.
No comments:
Post a Comment