If you can't resolve, dissolve. It works well for me on the edit bench, and
most probably will for you too.
If you can't resolve...
-
Ned C
Re: If you can't resolve...
"tom hardwick" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
as a cut. Serious feature films use transitions very sparingly and a lot
of time is devoted by the editor to finding the exact cut point because a
good cut does noy interrupt the flow of the story. Cuts can also be used
to shock/surprise the viewer in a way that is not possible with a transition.
I agree that a well used dissolve is probably the best transition, as someone
once said you are allowed one page turn per lifetime and then only after
a week of penance.
Ned C
Transitions are often used to resolve a change of shot that does not workIf you can't resolve, dissolve. It works well for me on the edit bench,
and
most probably will for you too.
as a cut. Serious feature films use transitions very sparingly and a lot
of time is devoted by the editor to finding the exact cut point because a
good cut does noy interrupt the flow of the story. Cuts can also be used
to shock/surprise the viewer in a way that is not possible with a transition.
I agree that a well used dissolve is probably the best transition, as someone
once said you are allowed one page turn per lifetime and then only after
a week of penance.
Ned C
-
AN
Re: If you can't resolve...
"Ned C" <gills@wet.net> wrote:
didn't have any type of cut/dissolve/transition in it at all?
That would be mighty nerve racking for the cameraman/dolly pusher.
Which film has the longest continuous take in it I am awondering too?
Albert...taking the biscuit.
I am left awondering if a film has ever been made which"tom hardwick" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
If you can't resolve, dissolve. It works well for me on the edit bench,
and
most probably will for you too.
Transitions are often used to resolve a change of shot that does not work
as a cut. Serious feature films use transitions very sparingly and a lot
of time is devoted by the editor to finding the exact cut point because
a
good cut does noy interrupt the flow of the story. Cuts can also be used
to shock/surprise the viewer in a way that is not possible with a transition.
I agree that a well used dissolve is probably the best transition, as someone
once said you are allowed one page turn per lifetime and then only after
a week of penance.
didn't have any type of cut/dissolve/transition in it at all?
That would be mighty nerve racking for the cameraman/dolly pusher.
Which film has the longest continuous take in it I am awondering too?
Albert...taking the biscuit.
-
Michael Slowe
Re: If you can't resolve...
"AN" <AnimatioN@btopenworld.com> wrote:
in the Hermitage in St. Petersberg, can't remember the title 'cos I didn't
see it but meant to, which was shot all in one take! Full length film, difficult
to believe but all the critics, and my cousin who saw it, say that it is
so.
Michael Slowe.
Funny you should ask that because just finishing the rounds is a film made"Ned C" <gills@wet.net> wrote:
"tom hardwick" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
If you can't resolve, dissolve. It works well for me on the edit bench,
and
most probably will for you too.
Transitions are often used to resolve a change of shot that does not work
as a cut. Serious feature films use transitions very sparingly and a lot
of time is devoted by the editor to finding the exact cut point because
a
good cut does noy interrupt the flow of the story. Cuts can also be used
to shock/surprise the viewer in a way that is not possible with a transition.
I agree that a well used dissolve is probably the best transition, as someone
once said you are allowed one page turn per lifetime and then only after
a week of penance.
I am left awondering if a film has ever been made which
didn't have any type of cut/dissolve/transition in it at all?
That would be mighty nerve racking for the cameraman/dolly pusher.
Which film has the longest continuous take in it I am awondering too?
in the Hermitage in St. Petersberg, can't remember the title 'cos I didn't
see it but meant to, which was shot all in one take! Full length film, difficult
to believe but all the critics, and my cousin who saw it, say that it is
so.
Michael Slowe.
Albert...taking the biscuit.
-
Brian the Snail
Re: If you can't resolve...
I simply can't imagine watching a feature length film shot in one take!
A very impressive example of a credible, and extremely creditable, continuous
take is the final scene of Kenneth Brannagh's "Much Ado About Nothing", the
name of the writer escapes me just now
Brian
A very impressive example of a credible, and extremely creditable, continuous
take is the final scene of Kenneth Brannagh's "Much Ado About Nothing", the
name of the writer escapes me just now
Brian
-
Ned C
Re: If you can't resolve...
"Brian the Snail" <brian_hazelden@lineone.net> wrote:
magazine size at the time.
The opening shot of a "Touch of Evil" - Orson Welles
The opening shot of "The Player" - Robert Altman.
All the above shot on film.
The Hermitage production was shot on HD video.
Ned C
Hitchcock's "Rope" taken in a series of 10 minute takes, the maximum filmI simply can't imagine watching a feature length film shot in one take!
A very impressive example of a credible, and extremely creditable, continuous
take is the final scene of Kenneth Brannagh's "Much Ado About Nothing",
the
name of the writer escapes me just now
Brian
magazine size at the time.
The opening shot of a "Touch of Evil" - Orson Welles
The opening shot of "The Player" - Robert Altman.
All the above shot on film.
The Hermitage production was shot on HD video.
Ned C
-
Dave Watterson
One take movies...
Am I the only one who finds excessively long takes on a movie a bit disturbing?
They call attention to the skills of the director rather than concentrating
on the
subject of the movie. TV's "West Wing" and "E.R." frequently make long,
complicated tracking shots which - even given the strong dramatic narrative
of those shows - gets
between me and my enjoyment of the stories.
Occasionally they work in films with a very strongly stylistic auteur,
like Tarantino, where the pleasure of the movie is partly enjoying his bravura.
Dave (short shot) Watterson
They call attention to the skills of the director rather than concentrating
on the
subject of the movie. TV's "West Wing" and "E.R." frequently make long,
complicated tracking shots which - even given the strong dramatic narrative
of those shows - gets
between me and my enjoyment of the stories.
Occasionally they work in films with a very strongly stylistic auteur,
like Tarantino, where the pleasure of the movie is partly enjoying his bravura.
Dave (short shot) Watterson
-
Michael Slowe
Re: If you can't resolve...
"Brian the Snail" <brian_hazelden@lineone.net> wrote:
else (an artist & film maker) who has seen the film that I referred to as
being shot completely in one take.
It is called Russian Ark and was, as I mentioned, a tour round the Hermitage
Palace and fabulous art collection in St Petersberg. Brian, and I believe
Albert, ridiculed the endeavour. I am assured that the film is amazing since
it moves seamlessly around the palace and the camera is the person doing
the journey. It was thought that any cuts would spoil the illusion and everyone
who has seen it considers it a great success. Ned told us that it was shot
on High Def. Video which would make sense.
Michael Slowe.
Sorry to return to this thread so belatedly but I have spoken to someoneI simply can't imagine watching a feature length film shot in one take!
A very impressive example of a credible, and extremely creditable, continuous
take is the final scene of Kenneth Brannagh's "Much Ado About Nothing",
the
name of the writer escapes me just now
Brian
else (an artist & film maker) who has seen the film that I referred to as
being shot completely in one take.
It is called Russian Ark and was, as I mentioned, a tour round the Hermitage
Palace and fabulous art collection in St Petersberg. Brian, and I believe
Albert, ridiculed the endeavour. I am assured that the film is amazing since
it moves seamlessly around the palace and the camera is the person doing
the journey. It was thought that any cuts would spoil the illusion and everyone
who has seen it considers it a great success. Ned told us that it was shot
on High Def. Video which would make sense.
Michael Slowe.
-
AN
Re: If you can't resolve...
"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:
mixed up with that other Albert and his horses head handle,
or yer've got yer knickers in a twist.
Albert...twist or bust.
Cor, not me guv. Never heard of, or seen it. Maybe yer gettingIt is called Russian Ark and was, as I mentioned, a tour round the Hermitage
Palace and fabulous art collection in St Petersberg. Brian, and I believe
Albert, ridiculed the endeavour.
mixed up with that other Albert and his horses head handle,
or yer've got yer knickers in a twist.
Albert...twist or bust.
-
Brian Hazelden
Re: If you can't resolve...
"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:
"I simply can't imagine watching a feature length film shot in one take!"
Perhaps this shows a lack of imagination on my part! You see I can't imagine
why anyone would want to call a video tour of a museum a film. And while
this might be just about the only subject that could work as a continuous
take, I also can't imagine that it would not be better with editing.
Brian - the unimaginative.
What I said was :-It is called Russian Ark and was, as I mentioned, a tour round the Hermitage
Palace and fabulous art collection in St Petersberg. Brian, and I believe
Albert, ridiculed the endeavour."
"I simply can't imagine watching a feature length film shot in one take!"
Perhaps this shows a lack of imagination on my part! You see I can't imagine
why anyone would want to call a video tour of a museum a film. And while
this might be just about the only subject that could work as a continuous
take, I also can't imagine that it would not be better with editing.
Brian - the unimaginative.
-
Atta Chui
Re: If you can't resolve...
I think Brian made a very good comment that perhaps we should wonder whether
the film could be better with editing.
Technically this sounds very hard to achieve. I think most audience recognise
this as well... But then - why would i appreciate the palace more if the
film is done in a single long take?
Camera and editing tricks should enhance the subject, not take over it.
Well, this is just my general comments... since I've not seen the film myself,
I should stop here.
the film could be better with editing.
Technically this sounds very hard to achieve. I think most audience recognise
this as well... But then - why would i appreciate the palace more if the
film is done in a single long take?
Camera and editing tricks should enhance the subject, not take over it.
Well, this is just my general comments... since I've not seen the film myself,
I should stop here.
-
Ned C
Re: If you can't resolve...
"Atta Chui" <iac.web@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Welles to prevent the studio from editing it. I have the write up on the
Ark in American Cinematographer somewhere and will dig out to see if there
is an explanation. The opening shot of the Player was just a demonstration
of how good the Steadicam is now! I agree that editing should enhance a film.
Ned C
The opening shot of Touch of Evil was shot as a long single take by OrsonI think Brian made a very good comment that perhaps we should wonder whether
the film could be better with editing.
Technically this sounds very hard to achieve. I think most audience recognise
this as well... But then - why would i appreciate the palace more if the
film is done in a single long take?
Camera and editing tricks should enhance the subject, not take over it.
Well, this is just my general comments... since I've not seen the film myself,
I should stop here.
Welles to prevent the studio from editing it. I have the write up on the
Ark in American Cinematographer somewhere and will dig out to see if there
is an explanation. The opening shot of the Player was just a demonstration
of how good the Steadicam is now! I agree that editing should enhance a film.
Ned C