The more I work on my B-roll and video overall, the more I am struck by the reality that if you make a good photo to start with, then a good bit of video should result.

This is one of the potential advantages of being a stills photographer turning to video*.

The stills shooter knows that their image is a single moment of time that has to stand up to extended viewing. This makes them more aware of the whole image, especially when extended depth of field is employed.

Directors like Wes Anderson go to excruciating lengths to create stunning and detailed frames with not a lick out of place. They use deep depth of field (sometimes faked with layered models), employ the whole width of the frame and shoot true wide or anamorphic wide.

Most of us would not see these painstakingly perfect little elements of their frame unless we freeze them and study the still, but if we do, the elements are there. So if they are making a movie frame and most of the small details would only be noticed on repeated viewings and many would be lost without the ability to freeze the frame, why do it?

It still matters. A perfect frame is seemingly invisible but it matters.

I remember many years ago an example in I think Camera and Darkroom magazine of an image that had far too much information for the print medium (news paper) compared to another with exactly the right amount.

You could see the difference. I remember then having a revelation that what we do does matter, even if it feels like it is lost in the end result.

*Another is composing and stabilising with the camera to the eye, which is different and often better.