4 ms·

> Does adding the 3D parallax not make it the Ken Burns effect anymore? Yes. Specifically, the Ken Burns effect describes taking a still, 2D image and panning

by jlebar 7y ago

> Does adding the 3D parallax not make it the Ken Burns effect anymore? Yes. Specifically, the Ken Burns effect describes taking a still, 2D image and panning and zooming on the 2D image in a motion picture. Adding 3D parallax makes it something quite different in the eyes of many of us on this forum. It is cool! We would just not use the words "Ken Burns effect" to describe what you've made.

jchook 7y ago
On the contrary I think it basically serves the same purpose as the Ken Burns effect, except it tastefully incorporates the natural depth of the image. One might even argue Ken Burns would have paired the panning and zooming with this parallax effect if he could. I look forward to this enhancing basically all photo slideshows for a long time to come.
- sniklaus 7y ago
  That is a nice way of putting it, thank you for chiming in!
  - mirimir 7y ago
    I know nothing about this. But it seems obvious that, whatever we call your work, Ken Burns' use of panning and zooming is a subset of it.
sniklaus 7y ago
Thank you for clarifying, I see where you are coming from! My background is in research and it is fairly common to extend / reuse an existing terminology, but I totally understand and accept your point of view.