For my visuals I have applied various different effects to make it more interesting. The main one is the Gaussian blur which is prevalent throughout the video, I adjusted the blurriness so it varies from very blurry to more recognisable in terms of shapes and movement. At the least blurry stages one can only barely make out the mouth movements.
Then I also used different scaling for the interview parts to make variations in frames. Because the interview part looked too static all with the same framing and with very little motion I have cut it at different stages (when the topic changes) so I have close ups and mid frames. To add additional movement to the static interview I have also varied the opacity, this engages the eyes more and makes it look less static. The idea came from something Paul said, that blindness can change depending on the mood of the person, time of the day and other factors. I found that very interesting as we think of being blind just like a black screen with no variation whatsoever. This is not true and if only for very few people (only 1% don’t see anything at all). Although I don’t want the blurriness to re-enact a ‘real’ vision of a blind it certainly does the key job of preventing the viewer of receiving a clear image. I stepped away from the idea of the black screen because I felt it was much more interesting to give the viewer a tiny amount of visual engagement than just staring at a black screen (which would also put the idea of a ‘video’ in doubt), yet without taking away from the fact that they should mainly focus on the audio to make sense of it.
I decided to darken the colours in general as I found it too bright when I tried to only blur it, the darkened colours certainly resemble a ‘darkened’ vision and capture the theme of ‘blindness’ better.
As you can see above there was A LOT of key framing involved, I had to create keyframes for scale, blur and opacity all at different times with difference measures. I think this has definitely improved the visual quality of the video and makes it much more interesting.
As I have stated in my previous post about the audio, I decided to use the textual descriptions rather than the voice over. This is not only because I didn’t want the video to be even longer, but mainly because it adds another layer as to why there is something to see which needs to be described. I mainly used the textual descriptions for the devices, which most people don’t have an idea of how they look like (nor did I when I first saw them) and a few additional bits of information which link to the audio. I didn’t want too much text as it distracts from the audio and tried to put them in places where there is more sound or where it refers directly to what is being said. I feel the amount of text I included is just enough to create an additional layer of information without being too much of an overload.
All of these editing choices definitely work for what I want the video to be, an invitation to step back from the clear visual world and try to adjust to how blind people make sense of it. Also it is a creative approach of using video as a medium, because video can also provide the viewer with visual information without sound whereas my video does the reverse it focuses on providing information through sound with visuals only a reference to what Barthes called the ‘what-has-been-there’ or the indexical.