There are probably a dozen ways to do this. I'm sure others will have better ways, but here goes:

1. Put photo #1 on one track.
2. Put photo #2 on the track below.
3. Use Track Motion on the top track to split the screen in two (if you have a standard NTSC project, a quick way to do this is set X to 360, exactly half the 720 DV width).
4. Now use Pan/Crop on the top and bottom event, along with the keyframes in the top/bottom events, to move the images together or apart.

For an even better effect, take the photo, and if you are good with PhotoShop, cut out the couple and clone in the background (i.e., paint over the hole that is left when you remove the couple). Then, use that background as one track, and put each person on their own track. You can now move and zoom each element independently, and you can create your own "Ken Burns" effect (I just watch part of "The Kid Stays in the Picture" this afternoon and was pretty amazed at what can be done with this technique).

Here we go again with "Ken Burns"
No offense JM, but I personally believe that a technique shouldnt be named after someone who uses it..

"Then, use that background as one track, and put each person on their own track. You can now move and zoom each element independently, and you can create your own "Ken Burns" effect (I just watch part of "The Kid Stays in the Picture" this afternoon and was pretty amazed at what can be done with this technique)."

I agree that this method will have more of an impact, and animating the water with somethign like PI3 would bring that impact out even moreso.. however i call this "Parralax photographic animation"
Why? because your creating a parralel animation from a photograph.
Its a more accurate representation of the techique as oposed to the "ken Burns' and its been around much longer than "his" technique has

They did it in the old Sega Master system games (was called parallax scrolling) , and was mastered when they used 3d warping of 2d images... later on, during megasdrive and SNES, this was much more noticable on games like streetfighter 2, where the ground the fighters stood on would warp left and right in give that sense of perspective.

U can do this with the 3d warp filter in vegas (faster than 3d track motion).. perfect example is to cut out the sky, and throw in an image with some clouds, warp that image with the 3d filter and create a 3d perspective and motion of a 2d image in 3d space.. I do this ALOT.. in fact in almost every slideshow i do for weddings.. it gives a pseudo fake timelapse feel and really messes with peoples heads.. especially if your animating other elements like water, and then zooming in or panning across...
Why am i telling people this.. lol damn im telling ppl my secrets

Either way, the techique is still true for those wanting to create a variety or levels of depth within any given image.

you can create your own "Ken Burns" effect (I just watch part of "The Kid Stays in the Picture" this afternoon and was pretty amazed at what can be done with this technique).

Actually, John, the "Ken Burns" effect and the "Kid Stays in the Picture" method are different animals.

Kid Stays in the Picture: As you describe, splitting a still image into a foreground image and a background image and moving them on different planes to simulate depth. (What DJPadre insists we must all call parallex animation or some such.:) This was made popular by a film of the same name -- though the concept did not originate there. ;-)

Ken Burns effect: Nothing more than panning and zooming on a SINGLE, FLAT still image on a SINGLE, FLAT plane -- generally accompanied by a voice over synchronized to reference whatever portion of the image is visible at the time. Also often makes use of an overlay to darken all but a section of the screen.

Rob

Ah, I thought Ken Burns invented the 3D technique used in "Kid..." Thanks for the clarification.

LOL
i only insist becuase its an accurate representation of teh actual technique.. if u tell a client... "oh well se kids stay in the picture" or whatever, the clietn will jsut give you some dopey look going WTF u talking about..
BUT if u say, we'll run some parralaxed animations across those pics, or well use some parralax photographic animation, at least it gives them teh notion of "parallels, animations <ie motion> and of course the photo itself being the source..

I mean what ELSE could it be called?
photographic depth animation? Photo layer animation? that could work.. but when ur tryin to sell this stuff, you dont have time to mess around with educating people or name dropping techniques to make yourself look impressive.. let the work speak...

Dont get me wrong, im not annoyed or anything, i just dont see how one can associate its current "title" or technique in real world terms.. to those that have never herd of or seen this before..

Whatever you say, man.

If I were with a client, I wouldn't call it anything. I'd just do it, or if necessary, simply describe it. If the client likes it, cool. He's not going to care what I, you, or anyone else calls it, so long as it serves its purpose. A picture (whether on one, two, or three planes) is worth a thousand words. Or, in this case, 100 $10 words like parallax.

For the most part, these kinds of terms are tossed about between editors and compositors, and most of them know what they mean.

Rob

I would definitely use some sort of DJPadre description because, having done this 3D parallax still photo faux-stereoscopic simulation, it is a PIA to do (very labor intensive), and I'd want to make sure the client understands that it will cost $$$ or £££ or ¥¥¥ or €€€ or whatever.