Cross-dissolves or clean cuts?

[Swink]

What's the convention for editing within a scene, say, going from shot to reverse angle during conversation--a clean cut or a very very short cross dissolve?

I tried to answer my question by turning on the tv and watching. The cuts SEEM like they have no overlap, but perhaps it's just 2 frames.

Thanks,
Tom

 

[Zensteve]

Clean cut, for your hypothetical instance..

Dissolves typically imply a change of location or passage of time.

 

[Swink]

Thanks. That's what I thought, but someone had told me it was better to overlap 2 to 6 frames so that it's not quite so jumpy.

I like the simple cut ... something "zen" about it.

 

[sonnyboo]

Usually Cross Dissolves (or any special transition) are used to emphasize the cut with some kind of meaning. Cross Dissolves usually mean the passage of space or time, but not 100% of the time.

 

[Tinalera]

I find jump cuts can work in the right circumstances...


IE Character is trying to find something out, and he/she is given a revalation. They're stop and freeze for a moment....then cut to character barging into a house to re-question someone who hasn't given them all the info.


Time passage works well that way...the whole "dawning" effect, followed by a cut that suggests (in this case) the character gunned it to the house in a hurry, and we are in the position of being in the house when they kick the door in/whathaveyou.


Clear as mud?

 

[grinner]

bottom line... ignore all rules. create what you think works best.

 

[Will Vincent]

bottom line... ignore all rules. create what you think works best.

Frankly, that's a pretty awful bottom line. At least until you understand what the "rules" are and why they're in place, so you can make an educated choice to do things differently. Otherwise you're just choosing ignorance out of lack of respect and laziness to learn about the medium.

 

[grinner]

well, you have to unersrtand the rules fully to properly break them.
Limitations will always limit ya. There is no template in any art... hence it being called art. Adhere to what has been done by others and you are really not creating anything.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

well, you have to unersrtand the rules fully to properly break them.
Limitations will always limit ya. There is no template in any art... hence it being called art. Adhere to what has been done by others and you are really not creating anything.

I think the point is that film has a language, and in a film you have to demonstrate to the audience you speak the language before you start making up words of your own. Example: If I don't break the 180 degree rule for most of a film, then suddenly break it, the audience's mind understands that I know the rule, and it was broken for a reason that must mean something. If I just randomly break it they'll think, "This guy has no idea what he's doing".

 

[Tinalera]

I think the point is that film has a language, and in a film you have to demonstrate to the audience you speak the language before you start making up words of your own. Example: If I don't break the 180 degree rule for most of a film, then suddenly break it, the audience's mind understands that I know the rule, and it was broken for a reason that must mean something. If I just randomly break it they'll think, "This guy has no idea what he's doing".

Okay, before I hand out the whips. I only recently learned/relearned the 180 degree rule. Well, I knew what it was to look at it, but not by name. Maybe it's the way I watch films, but I guess I tend to notice more stuff like out of focus, blurred shot, shots that seem to quickly edited, ect. I usually can figure out if there's a reason for stuff like that-but some of the more technical (IMO) stuff like 180 I don't notice as a movie watcher. Maybe that makes me not as good filmmaker. It was pointed out to me in Delivery Day that I broke the 180 rule. I had to look it up to see what was meant. Yet I think only one or two people mentioned it(both on indietalk and others I've shown it too). Maybe everyone else was being nice, or maybe they didn't notice it.
Playing Devils Advocate here


BTW-I use the 180 rule as an example of "technical rules"-this isn't geared to this rule

Does that make me an uneducated film fan? How "educated" should we expect the people who are watch our films to be? What percentage of people watching "Avatar" for example, watched and said "that's good, they didn't break the 180 rule"(or maybe they did- I haven't seen it yet.

It's interesting seeing this thread, it reminds of "Kill Bill" by Tarantino. There was a critic I remember reading who said, (and I'm paraphrasing the gist I got)"Tarantino is trying to show us how clever he is, by showing how he is a fan of the Chinese Theatre, and look at all these little nods and showoffs I'm showing you, aren't I clever?" Do we fall into trap sometimes? I think I did with Delivery Day with the whole meaning of the mask thing (and I admit looking back it could have been clearer)
Could be argued that some of the "worst' film fans are film directors like ourselves? (NOT trying to be personal, I'm not saying anyone is a bad fan here!)

I guess understanding the "rules" is good and the more you know the better-but I wonder if sometimes I wonder if we get so caught up in trying not to "break" the rules, we limit ourselves.


Anyway, whip away!

 

[bird]

Does that make me an uneducated film fan? How "educated" should we expect the people who are watch our films to be? What percentage of people watching "Avatar" for example, watched and said "that's good, they didn't break the 180 rule"(or maybe they did- I haven't seen it yet.

The majority of your audience will not opine in terms of a specific technique (or film jargon) being *broken*, but it is a matter of how we humans organize visual elements into 'unified wholes'. So when a filmmaker breaks, say this 180 rule, with no discernible (intellectual or formal) reason, it results in a sort of psychological jarring for this audience, something is 'felt' to be wrong.

Personally, I'm all for experimenting and twisting the rules.

 

[2001 Productions]

Learning to think in terms of the 180 degree rule comes with experience, mostly. There really is no substitute. Like so many other aspects of film making, you need to translate the three-dimensional world around you into a coherent 2-D world on screen (and, yes, this goes for 3-D movies as well). The cardinal rule is to not let the viewer withdraw from the experience. Any distraction, whether the audience member is conscious of it or not, is a potential violation of this rule.

Having said that, I notice occasional 180-degree rule violations in almost every movie. Even the best directors and DP's can lose track sometimes. Usually the editor is able to cut it so it isn't too noticeable. In some non-professional films, though, it's really blatant and jarring and is best avoided when possible.

 

[PositiveFuture]

I've used 2-6 frame cuts a few times while editing. I do it when standard 1 second cross dissolves are too slow, and 1 frame cuts are too jarring. Works for me, and adds a fluidity to the scenes.

 

[Tinalera]

I know when I started out (and even now) I do a lot of "well, I saw that in a movie, let me try it"-I'm a very visual learner, and ofter learn by doing and imitating what I've seen.

Often my first impression when watching my work in editing is "does it feel right"? Unscientific, but it helps. Then as other people watch it and give advice, I see where they are coming from.

I try to edit my work that there's both dissolves and cuts work and even out(I don't like using wipes, for whatever reason-maybe it was watching "Revenge Of The Sith" and seeing that Lucas seem to decide to try and do each "type" of wipe at least once

 

[sonnyboo]

I try to edit my work that there's both dissolves and cuts work and even out(I don't like using wipes, for whatever reason-maybe it was watching "Revenge Of The Sith" and seeing that Lucas seem to decide to try and do each "type" of wipe at least once

George Lucas' use of wipes in all 6 Star Wars films are a big homage to the Samurai films of Akira Kurasawa in SEVEN SAMURAI, SANJURO, YOJIMBO, and a much bigger nod to HIDDEN FORTRESS which also has a ton of plot similarities to STAR WARS.

Notice that each time either of them used the big wipes it was to emphatically show a change in space or time.


To say there are "rules" is not the best way to describe things like transitions or jumpcuts or or the 180 degree "rule". They are proven and effective techniques at orienting the viewer and evoking an intended response. If you want to not use these tried and true methods, that is anyone's prerogative, but as someone else stated, the audience will inherently feel that something is "off".

BY calling these "rules" instead of techniques means people want to break the rule as opposed to use a technique that helps the filmmaker communicate with their audience.

 

[Tinalera]

George Lucas' use of wipes in all 6 Star Wars films are a big homage to the Samurai films of Akira Kurasawa in SEVEN SAMURAI, SANJURO, YOJIMBO, and a much bigger nod to HIDDEN FORTRESS which also has a ton of plot similarities to STAR WARS.

Notice that each time either of them used the big wipes it was to emphatically show a change in space or time.


To say there are "rules" is not the best way to describe things like transitions or jumpcuts or or the 180 degree "rule". They are proven and effective techniques at orienting the viewer and evoking an intended response. If you want to not use these tried and true methods, that is anyone's prerogative, but as someone else stated, the audience will inherently feel that something is "off".

BY calling these "rules" instead of techniques means people want to break the rule as opposed to use a technique that helps the filmmaker communicate with their audience.

Well said

As far as Star Wars, oh I understand that He just used a different type each time, and I found it distracting in ROTS (that's my taste)

Watched Hidden Fortress recently, and it was fun to point out "oh, that's where he got that" during the film. A well done film.