1. Tell me the story you watched.
2. Tell me the advantages you see in telling the story by using video and stills the way he does. What do you get that you wouldn't get by doing it otherwise?
3. Tell me the disadvantages. What's missing by combining video and stills the way he does?
4. If you were asked (notice I said "if")to do your final project as one piece combining video and stills, how would your story be different? Could you cover both angles or one angle better in a 3-4 minute piece doing it the way Bill did it? Would it be a better story? Could you be more creative? If so, how? If not, why not? Which way would better serve your viewers--two separate stories or one more like what Bill does?
I watched "Holt County Fair." It seems to me that there's a big advantage in telling a story about a community event like this in both photos and video. To me, the photos and the video serve different purposes: photos set the stage by emphasizing the tradition and (because the image doesn't move or change quickly) allow the viewer to dwell on the personal or situational characteristics of the county fair. The still shots are also more aesthetically pleasing: they lend an element of art to the final product while the video gives the traditionalism established by the stills a sort of update. Without the stills, the project would lack that element of currency. The two complement one another quite nicely.
The stills-video format used by Straw Hat Visuals is at an inherent disadvantage when they don't show the people they interview on camera. As a viewer, I found myself wanting to see the person who was speaking. I felt that this took away from the project quite a lot. Had the transitions between stills and video not been pretty smooth, it could have been jarring for a viewer to switch periodically between the two.
I think my final project would lend itself well to this still-video hybrid format. Since the youth center that I'm doing it on has something of a history, I could use stills to show that, bringing the story to the current time-frame with interviews and videos of events. The project would be different in that it would integrate the two subjects--the history and the programs at the Key--into one coherent narrative, so I would imagine it would be longer and feel more comprehensive. I think it would be more creative, because the stills tend to be more powerful than the video footage in storytelling. Where the stills provide a certain history, the video could give it some life; making it look current rather than retrospective. I think it might indeed be a better story as one story than as two separate ones.