Jim Simon wrote:Dude, I'm beggin' you...OFFER A COURSE FOR YOUTUBERS!
90% of the clips I'd like to check out are absolutely unwatchable with jump cuts. Even coming from (ahem)..."professionals".
Thanks Jim but I fear it would be wasted; though I've thought about it and do teach from time in colleges; and I agree with you totally!
Marc Wielage wrote:Yeah, a lot of that is distracting and bizarre. I get that it's a "style," but it doesn't exactly look real and natural to me.
Two of the things we often did in local TV news: we'd get a reverse angle of the interview subject from the back while the interviewer was nodding and/or taking notes. Perfect for B-roll when you had to (say) cut a minute out of the middle of an interview and juxtapose two sentences together just to get to the point.
And another was the (somewhat amateurish) "shot of the interviewee's hands moving," without seeing their face in the shot. Not exactly smooth, but for some it's better than a jump cut.
The third thing I often see on the big news shows (60 Minutes, 20/20, etc.) is going to the "Killer Wide Shot" from the back of the room that shows the lighting setup, the cameras, the sound guy, the director, and so on. If it's far back enough, you can't see the people's mouths enough to worry about lip sync. So that'd be a worst-case scenario of a 3rd angle to fall back on.
Yes Marc, all witnessed and experienced here too - Oh God, the meaningless hand shot they used to take
If there is a journalist/interviewer, very sound advice and I would/do shoot the reverse too. Most films I work on now there will be a master interview, where there is no interviewer, i.e the researcher is asking the questions with the subject's eyeline looking off camera at them; and their questions removed in the edit.
Most good camera people now will be more creative and purposeful with their B-roll. It could be family photos in the room, even a shot out of the window etc. Often there is a second camera from the side too. Years ago there was a brilliant filmmaker here, I forget his name, who made a film about the Everly brothers; and they being twins he shot Phil straight on and Don side on, and it was a very powerful interview.
If you think about it, and this is what I do teach; editing is the most cinematic of all cinema's elements: Photography, sound, music etc. all come from elsewhere; but the pure juxtaposition of shots, is unique to the moving image. And the reaction shot can be the most cinematic of all.
If there is a conversation between two or more people, it is not always the person talking who is the point of interest; as in life. The other person's reaction might tell the story better.
And the example I always use is from The Hustler, cut by the brilliant Dede Allen; where George C. Scott is haranguing Paul Newman, Fast Eddie, telling him he's finished; Everyone is just looking at the floor embarrassed; and it's all a series of reaction shots.
rsf123 wrote:For my videos, they're like interviews with a person where you don't go jumping to B-roll. Moreover, the cuts are quite frequent, so it'd look funny with numerous jumps to B-roll.
In the era of DALL-E and SORA that can create videos of everything, it might not be too big a hill to climb to just fill in the gaps between a Jump Cut.
My friend, I can't ever imagine what kind of interviews would they be; better to 'jump' to something meaningful than jump-cut and jar. Though I will add this, if it's absolutely necessary (Court legal Video may be an instance) then it is much better to leave it as a jump-cut; since in my mind some kind of attempt to be invisible, is dishonest - you are manipulating what was said rather than acknowledging editorial choice.
One day we'll be able to just sit back like drones and let AI do everything; and have to do nothing creative ever again. I love AI as an aid but I never ever want it to cut for me.