Post by franzeska on Dec 15, 2011 11:17:33 GMT -5
The first thing I did when I decided to try vidding was go read a bunch of meta on lj, so I know I must have seen this book title. (Someone had a whole post talking about it. Laura47? I of course can't find this now.) I know it looked vaguely familiar when I spotted it on the bookstore shelf. But I actually bought it because it is wonderfully accessible with engaging prose that's a pleasure to read. (Not something I would expect from most film editing books! Though maybe I'm doing the rest of them a disservice.) So I'd like to rec:
The Eye is Quicker by Richard D Pepperman
It's all about general editing theory and intended to be equally applicable no matter what technology you're using. The examples used are primarily famous films, and not the sort with a lot of montages, but I actually found that nearly all of the advice was directly applicable to vidding, even the parts that at first seemed irrelevant.
The two most important things Pepperman covers are rules for a good edit and the power of visual logic. His basic point about the former is that things like emotional significance can make a cut work even when something else about it seems illogical. It's not that revolutionary a point, but I feel like I have a better grasp of it after reading his book. The latter is fascinating because he comes up with an example of some film with poor visual logic where people routinely get confused about two cars. They're different colors and don't look alike, but the two driving scenes are placed next to each other and are shot from angles that make the viewer expect them to be the same car, so that's what people see. Again, not revolutionary, but he explains how to make things work in a very concrete way that I've found really helpful for sticking disparate scenes together in vids and making them look like they go together.
But the most recent thing I've used from the book was actually from a section on editing sound: I was having a huge problem on one of my Escapade vids where I need two clips next to each other, and I just could not make the transition look right. I thought it was because there was too strong a contrast between the first shot, which is quite dark, and the second, which has a bank of bright windows across the top of the frame. (This is Miami Vice footage, so the end of the scene is shot at a funny angle from above for no particular reason. It's half dark-ish art gallery with two characters finishing a conversation and one leaving and half overexposed windows with sunlight streaming in.) I tried different transitions to try to make the change a little softer. They did help a little bit, but it still felt awkward and obvious on an edit that isn't significant and doesn't need attention drawn to it.
When I read The Eye is Quicker, I was struck by the section on "silence" and sound editing. Pepperman comments that film students will frequently cut in the middle of a shot of a silent hallway, after one character has left and before the next one appears. But silence isn't all the same, and audiences will instantly spot something wrong at the edit. Instead, he says, you should cut right as the second character enters; the audience will notice the discontinuity in the sound, but since there's something new to focus on, the brain isn't bothered by something changing. Change is expected.
Now, in my vid, I had that second clip of the characters standing and then one leaving. The beginning was a little static, but it wasn't long, and I think that worked with the music. However, because the color/light contrast was so strong in the top half of the frame, the eye went to that first, shifting away from the characters. I cut off the beginning so the second clip started with a character turning and walking, and now the contrast doesn't bother me at all, even without mucking around with any dissolves or adjusting colors. (Though this has yet to see a beta, so...)
Granted, more dynamic movement is important in short clips so the viewer knows where to look, but what I found striking here was just how badly the original contrast worked for me even after watching it a bunch of times and knowing what I was expecting to see. It wasn't just the problem of a static frame where the viewer needs longer to figure out what the point is: it was exactly that thing Pepperman described with sound where the viewer knows something's different but can't see a good reason for it and the brain goes nuts trying to figure it out.
So, anybody have suggestions for other film editing books? Are there any that are just deadly boring and out of date that I should avoid?
The Eye is Quicker by Richard D Pepperman
It's all about general editing theory and intended to be equally applicable no matter what technology you're using. The examples used are primarily famous films, and not the sort with a lot of montages, but I actually found that nearly all of the advice was directly applicable to vidding, even the parts that at first seemed irrelevant.
The two most important things Pepperman covers are rules for a good edit and the power of visual logic. His basic point about the former is that things like emotional significance can make a cut work even when something else about it seems illogical. It's not that revolutionary a point, but I feel like I have a better grasp of it after reading his book. The latter is fascinating because he comes up with an example of some film with poor visual logic where people routinely get confused about two cars. They're different colors and don't look alike, but the two driving scenes are placed next to each other and are shot from angles that make the viewer expect them to be the same car, so that's what people see. Again, not revolutionary, but he explains how to make things work in a very concrete way that I've found really helpful for sticking disparate scenes together in vids and making them look like they go together.
But the most recent thing I've used from the book was actually from a section on editing sound: I was having a huge problem on one of my Escapade vids where I need two clips next to each other, and I just could not make the transition look right. I thought it was because there was too strong a contrast between the first shot, which is quite dark, and the second, which has a bank of bright windows across the top of the frame. (This is Miami Vice footage, so the end of the scene is shot at a funny angle from above for no particular reason. It's half dark-ish art gallery with two characters finishing a conversation and one leaving and half overexposed windows with sunlight streaming in.) I tried different transitions to try to make the change a little softer. They did help a little bit, but it still felt awkward and obvious on an edit that isn't significant and doesn't need attention drawn to it.
When I read The Eye is Quicker, I was struck by the section on "silence" and sound editing. Pepperman comments that film students will frequently cut in the middle of a shot of a silent hallway, after one character has left and before the next one appears. But silence isn't all the same, and audiences will instantly spot something wrong at the edit. Instead, he says, you should cut right as the second character enters; the audience will notice the discontinuity in the sound, but since there's something new to focus on, the brain isn't bothered by something changing. Change is expected.
Now, in my vid, I had that second clip of the characters standing and then one leaving. The beginning was a little static, but it wasn't long, and I think that worked with the music. However, because the color/light contrast was so strong in the top half of the frame, the eye went to that first, shifting away from the characters. I cut off the beginning so the second clip started with a character turning and walking, and now the contrast doesn't bother me at all, even without mucking around with any dissolves or adjusting colors. (Though this has yet to see a beta, so...)
Granted, more dynamic movement is important in short clips so the viewer knows where to look, but what I found striking here was just how badly the original contrast worked for me even after watching it a bunch of times and knowing what I was expecting to see. It wasn't just the problem of a static frame where the viewer needs longer to figure out what the point is: it was exactly that thing Pepperman described with sound where the viewer knows something's different but can't see a good reason for it and the brain goes nuts trying to figure it out.
So, anybody have suggestions for other film editing books? Are there any that are just deadly boring and out of date that I should avoid?
