I'd love to contribute, I just dont encounter that much worthwhile.
I agree about the first - the effect gets in the way.
McLaren again, letting the dancer be seen but also playing with time.
Pas de Deux, 1968
The second is quite lovely.
John Whitney, Catalogue - 1961
Kim Pimmel, Compressed 02
Parker, at one time I thought that was the coolest design ever. In retrospect I'm not sure it holds up.
AY, that wasn't done by hand so to speak. It was created by stepping and repeating on an optical printer. After shooting the dancer, McLaren would expose a positive of that onto a neg in an optical printer. Then he would rewind the neg and repeat the process a few frames later in the action. He could expose each frame many times to get the desired effect. It's a mathematical nightmare. On one of my first films I used a technique called a cascading dissolve which meant reexposing each frame three times as I advanced through the artwork. If I was off by 1/3 of a frame/exposure at the end the entire night of camera was lost. It was a tough few weeks of shooting.
What's interesting about PdD is the similarities to some early cubist/modernist work. Nude Descending a Staircase comes to mind.
Mclaren was one of my early influences and I had the pleasure to talk with him a few times when we crossed paths at the NFB in Montreal. His most important quote was "that it wasn't the images that were important, but rather the space between the frames." Interestingly, Monk once said the "it's not the notes, but the space between the notes, baby." I think adding "baby" makes it infinitely cooler.
Here's a little article on PdD: http://people.wcsu.edu/mccarneyh/fva/m/Pas.html
McLaren was painfully shy and awkward in public. He was asked to give the opening speech to the Montreal Film Festival but was too frightened to do so in person so he sent this film. You have to understand that this isn't a rigged mic. This entire film is stop-motion animation shot one frame at a time.