Okay, forgive me---because I'm guessing this is one of those religious debates that may have raged here in the past (and I honestly haven't had time to do a search on it)...but I've recently been caught in a tug of war over cuts versus dissolves.

In what may (or may not) be a different angle on this debate, the debate (in our production house) primarily exists between people with video backgrounds (who freely use both cuts and dissolves) and people from a journalistic background (who tend to always use hard cuts).

I'm personally right down the middle: I believe BOTH cuts and dissolves can be very effective depending on the circumstance. (And both have been used exclusively in a piece to great effect.)

But it seems that our journalists-turned-videographers (thanks to HDSLR's of course) all but refuse to ever use a dissolve. They seem to think it's "unnatural" to see overlapping images (even if only for a second). This notion has been reinforced by the likes of Mr. MediaStorm (can't remember his name) who seems to have been on a crusade against dissolves (one of my producers---from the journalism side---actually said "Well, MediaStorm advises against using dissolves...")

It's almost as if there's some bizarre perception that hard cuts = "the truth," and dissolves = "bogus marketing and fiction."

On a practical level (as an executive producer), I find that videos my (journalistic) producers have edited using cuts only are often problematic...simply because when you only use cuts, those cuts damn well better be timed flawlessly (because you notice poor cut timing if it's only off by 15 frames). With a 20-30 frame dissolve (or longer) timing is obviously much less crucial, since you blur the boundary between scenes.

So I'm just curious to get others' views on this notion that "dissolves aren't used in good journalistic video."

Scott

From basic cinematography rules a cut and a dissolve have specific meanings.

A dissolve = a change of time.

A cut = same time.

So if you follow that rule since an event would be happening all within the same block of time the convention would be to use cuts.

Of course rules are made to be broken so what it really comes down to in the end is - use what you want. There is no absolute wrong way.

I'm 100% with Chris, adding that a dissolve adds the "third image" within the dissolve... I use hard cuts almost exclusively these days, excepting a fade in or out of titles or a travelling matte or the like.

And Scott, I AGONIZE over timing in edits so I do make corrections in my cuts for pacing. Mind you, I have been editing for 13 years. Your edit staff may not have as much experience. I only got better as an editor after I resolved to use the dissolve in its "classical" context...

I cut fashion runaway shows and use cut as much as possible, but since the footage sometimes is less than perfect and there is no good way to make a good cut I resort to dissolve, it can be very useful but must be used with restraint.

All transition effects in our visual editing comprise the "punctuation" in our "motion picture flow".

Cuts represent pretty much what we do when we "cut" our eyes from one subject to another. Most of the time no change in time is implied, but it's necessary for one reason or another to change "viewpoint". Even a cut from one activity or environment to another implies little or no change in time element. It can be a "meanwhile back at..." statement.

Fades in at the beginning of a segment and fade out at the end signify something like "chapter" markers.

A dissolve transition can have a broader impact, it can present a "passage of time" on one individual or activity. The length of a dissolve matters also, a long dissolve can signify more "passage of time" while a short one the opposite. I sometimes have to use an extremely short dissolve to cover up an awkward "jump cut" when I haven't covered myself with enough "cutaway" scenes ( I try to get more shots of surroundings or people for this use these days).

This "language" of motion picture (and this is what video is, just in a more convenient for us to use form) has been developing and established in use since the very beginnings of the motion picture industry.

Quoted from original post:

(one of my producers---from the journalism side---actually said "Well, MediaStorm advises against using dissolves...")

End quote

This producer needs to broaden his informed status on this issue. Mindless adherence to something like this will only impact negatively on the jounalistic quality that results. The "language" of motion picture exists and one is either "fluent" or is operating with limited "expression".

Where a dissolve may not be the best transition, I recommend a fast fade to black and an equally fast fade up the next scene as being less "abrupt" than a cut that makes little sense.

Hey, an aesthetics debate - makes a change!

There's no doubt that dissolves get tiring and cloying quite quickly but a well timed cut never does - I find even 4 or 5 frames can make a difference. But I do find dissolves nice when editing very similar shots together without cutaways, as if one is viewing a sculpture from different angles. I don't think this implies a passage of time but a change of perspective.

All the 'rules' can be broken of course - look at the effectiveness of jump cuts in certain dramatic situations and some of it is just fashion: I've noticed a recent trend in UK TV interviews that almost dispenses with noddies and cutaways and uses a very quick flash (fade out/in) between edits - too quick to avoid a jump, or sometimes nothing inbetween at all. The jump-cut effect is initially jarring as the interviewee position changes slightly but strangely the more one sees it, the more it seems OK, almost more honest as it unashamedly shows the artificiality of the process.

I used a horizontal push the other day; forgive me Father.

All the 'rules' can be broken of course

I heard this all the time when I used to teach and I stand by what I said back then:

"I agree wholeheartedly! Now, once you LEARN the rules and can explain WHY you have CHOSEN to break them and the merit behind your decision, I won't dock you marks for covering a mistake by 'breaking' the rules"

EDIT: FTR, I agree with Geoffrey...

There used to be a fashion of cutting to a few frames of black when shortening interviews. A sort of letting the audience know that this isn't the full answer.

With jump cuts I prefer a solid jump rather than slight movements. In a talking head interview it seems more like you haven't got the visual material that the interviewee is talking about, or you haven't shot your cutaways or changed frame size during the interview.

Couldn't agree more Shaun. I'm from a music background (and teach it) and I was taught that to be really creative musically you need to learn all (well, realistically, some) of the rules, absorb them so they become second nature then forget them and just get on with it. But it doesn't do any harm to remind yourself of them from time to time either. Same applies to much anything really.

What I say to my students is that at first, the naive / intuitive approach can work and produce really fresh, even startling work but it doesn't last as one just falls back on the same thing again and again and no development happens; for that rules, reflection and method need to come in. Otherwise you end up with the last 35 years of the Rolling Stones' career.

In a talking head interview it seems more like you haven't got the visual material that the interviewee is talking about, or you haven't shot your cutaways or changed frame size during the interview.

But, Brian, is that just editors who worry about that? Your average viewer just sees it as a style, which in the cases I'm talking about, it is?

This sounds like a fun topic with no right or wrong so...

My take on it is each has it's purpose and that purpose changes depending on the project. And theres a bunch of other transition styles other than cut and dissolve. Yes some are cheesy but some work really well in specific applications. I'm also a big fan of dip to black and flashbulb. At one edit house I worked for, the game we used to play as editors was to see what new transition you could add to a piece without the boss noticing. (he had a very good eye) I'd say we added a few acceptable transition types to the catalog. And it only worked when it was tastefully applied.

After watching the Star Wars saga for the billionth time, I have started noticing the abundant use of shape dissolves or wipes which drives me crazy. And one of my favorite shows, Burn Notice, uses additive dissolves or flashes along with what I call the "montage cut". Where the transition is a series of images each on screen for about 5 frames and punctuated with a freeze or flash. I was using a similar transition in corporate pieces where I'd use outtakes as the transition material years ago.

Yeah the rules are there as a guideline but I like thinking outside the box to create flow and mood.
And yes, there's times when the client limits me to cuts or combination of cuts and dissolves or wants crazy transitions like cube spins and glass shatter. The bottom line is the client's the one i have to make happy no matter how silly or boring it may be.


And on an interesting note, i also have a music background! That might be an interesting poll!

But, Brian, is that just editors who worry about that? Your average viewer just sees it as a style, which in the cases I'm talking about, it is?

It's the editors job to worry about that, it's part of their skill in telling a story. Jump cuts in an interview can be a waste of a powerful cinematic device, they need to be there for a reason. Otherwise they become like the meaningless out of focus BBC interview 2 shots with a vase in the foreground sharp, or the worst case (on recently) a low angle 2 shot shot with the carpet (without even an interesting pattern) in focus.

There are connections to be made by a cut, as Stan Brakhage put it: "until a man is excited about the mechanics of putting two pieces of film together, and is thrilled by his own 'sweat' in the matter, he'll never make a connection as meaningful as that expected by any village blacksmith." A bit romantic perhaps about the process... and I guess he'd include "or woman" these days.

The wipes etc in Star Wars are a reference to the old Republic Saturday morning serials in the cinema like Flash Gordon.

I don't really disagree with anything you've said there Brian and I like the quotation.

What I wonder though is that much of what is being discussed here can be seen as being about convention, about 'devices' which now have meaning attached to them through precedent, but do they really have intrinsic meaning or are they simply iconic i.e. just referring to devices used in earlier films? The jump cut in an interview could be viewed as a waste, yes, but only if you think of it as associated with a particular dramatic device rather than just a transparent edit.

The reason I raise this is to suggest that the man who gets excited about the mechanics of an edit (and I do!) might make more genuinely meaningful connections if he questions the fundamental assumptions we make about such mechanics.

Geoffrey, I would say that for many of the conventions that we see in film today, it goes much beyond what we are use to seeing done in film history. A lot has to do with the way we as an observer of a story see things naturally. For instance, when we look from one subject to the next in a real life situation, we don't visualize them as dissolves and fades. We jump from one subject to the next, usually preceded by a blink which is much like a cut in film (Walter Murch discusses this in A Blink of an Eye). The more action there is, the more our eyes jump from around looking at the various things happening. So it makes sense that action sequences have many more rapid cuts.

There are times when we as observers reflect on something we just saw as we observe the next sequence of actions. This situation may feel like a cross dissolve.

For me, the bottom line is that I edit to draw a viewer into the story. Whether it be a narrative or documentary/journalistic piece, my goal is to draw the audience into it and to hold them in that world that I'm creating on the screen. In order to do that, I have to be careful to not create any situations that will surprise the audience out of that world. It could be a continuity error, a line that is so out of place or context that the audience no longer believes, or an edit that is too jarring or does not fit the situation. That's when an edit is just incorrect. The transition is part of the cut and needs to be thought out just as carefully as the timing of the cut itself.

The rhythm, mood, subject, and look of the two pictures you are putting together when editing that dictates what feels right. The right edit will guide the viewer through the story and will continue to draw them into it.

As always, this is just my opinion and there are several others and some who think I'm completely nuts.

-Garrett

To me, there are three situations for fades:

1) A long fade for passage of time.
2) A series of fades for a dreamy feel, like in a photo slideshow. Rather a series of fades than a grab bag of matrix transitions, horizontal pushes, and heart wipes.
3) As a fix, when the script calls for a cut between two clips, but a cut is too jarring with the limited, available footage.

I'm sure there are other uses, but those are the only situations where I've used them.

Of course, there are other solutions for #3. A black or white flash can be used for a jump cut. Recently, I used a subtle digital dolly push (or was it a pull?) to give one of the clips enough motion to make the cut less jarring. Rather than a transition, I was doing in post what I should have done with the camera. And with that trick, the cut looked absolutely natural. I don't know that you could hide a jump cut with it, but for a cut where there is too little motion in the clip, applying false motion can work.

The bottom line: try the cut first, unless the transition effect tells a specific story message or is part of a deliberate style choice. If the cut doesn't work, find the least intrusive way of making the piece flow.

I thought according to the YouBoob film school you should use every dissolve effect at least once : )

I thought according to the YouBoob film school you should use every dissolve effect at least once : )
Buy no NLE unless it has at least 500 cheesey transition effects, then, do use them all! It doesn't matter which or when, in fact you can use them in the middle of a single shot if it's getting boring, like, over 10 seconds or so!

And! Use! More! EXCLAMATION POINTS!!! and ALL CAPS!!! So exciting!

Along those lines, I'd like to use some comic book word balloons containing words like POW! and KABLAMMO! Those would make GREAT transitions.

And don't forget - F*** tripods! Totally useless! Shaky footage is so much more impactful!

Sometimes I think that's what's running through college students' subconscious as they're editing an assignment when I've told them "cuts only for this assignment." "Learn the conventional visual language of shooting and editing, then extend it purposefully."

Buy no NLE unless it has at least 500 cheesey transition effects, then, do use them all! It doesn't matter which or when, in fact you can use them in the middle of a single shot if it's getting boring, like, over 10 seconds or so!

And! Use! More! EXCLAMATION POINTS!!! and ALL CAPS!!! So exciting!

Along those lines, I'd like to use some comic book word balloons containing words like POW! and KABLAMMO! Those would make GREAT transitions.

And don't forget - F*** tripods! Totally useless! Shaky footage is so much more impactful!

Isn't this the formula for most music videos?

buy no nle unless it has at least 500 cheesey transition effects, then, do use them all! It doesn't matter which or when, in fact you can use them in the middle of a single shot if it's getting boring, like, over 10 seconds or so!

And! Use! More! Exclamation points!!! And all caps!!! So exciting!

Along those lines, i'd like to use some comic book word balloons containing words like pow! And kablammo! Those would make great transitions.

And don't forget - f*** tripods! Totally useless! Shaky footage is so much more impactful!

Sometimes i think that's what's running through college students' subconscious as they're editing an assignment when i've told them "cuts only for this assignment." "learn the conventional visual language of shooting and editing, then extend it purposefully."

lol!! Go seth!!!

Great discussion!

Though not on a campaign against dissolves, I am currently trying to minimise their use in most of my projects. It's just a style choice I've made because I want that sense of being in the moment. I have become rather fond of the flash transition, particularly for weddings, as an alternative to a dissolve. But I'm really trying to stick to cuts as much as possible.

For news and journalism, I think it is not ideal to use dissolves. One of the main news critiria is "immediacy" and using film language that suggests the passage of time deteriorates the sense of immediacy and urgency. It would be the equivelant of having chapters in a newspaper article. Of course, this only applies to news bulletins and not to current affairs, which often allow a wider template of editing styles. Current affairs, complete with re-enactments, undercover footage, time-lapses, soundtracks, etc can make good use of dissolves ("Watch this security footage closely as the man arrives... *dissolve* then leaves with the suspiscous package an hour later"). However this is purely because these types of stories do not require the sense of urgency and immediacy that news bulletins do.

The use of transitions and their meanings (ie dissolve = passage of time) might be convention based on their application and use historically, but so is all language. Film language is no different to the English language, in that a word or technique has no meaning until we give it a meaning. Why is a fork called a fork? Who cares, it just is. Same goes for dissolves/transitions - they might only have a meaning that has accumulated through their use over time, but that meaning is valid nonetheless.You can break these conventions if you wish - but, the same as if you called a fork by a different name - nobody will know what on earth you are talking about.

If you're doing jump cuts have them jump. Here's some "Breathless", which could be the first real systematic use of them:
Jump Cut - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nonxxwfedIY&feature=related)

Or make a cut that takes a leap:

The Most Famous of Edits - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypul7nPcMII&feature=related)

Best Single Edit #1 - 2001: A Space Odyssey - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP4riIK0fa0&feature=related)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkRHwCsP8os&feature=related

Best Single Edit #3 - Women in Love - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOlg5mxZXE8&NR=1)

Why is a fork called a fork? Who cares, it just is. Same goes for dissolves/transitions - they might only have a meaning that has accumulated through their use over time, but that meaning is valid nonetheless.You can break these conventions if you wish - but, the same as if you called a fork by a different name - nobody will know what on earth you are talking about.

You know, some people do care why a fork is called a fork!

And the accumulation of time does not always give validity to meaning - it can be just empty gesturing: music in a minor key is always sad - no it isn't.

And breaking conventions may mean people get confused but that's the whole point - it makes people think and as long as you don't lose them completely, can have a much more profound impact. It's not the same as calling a fork a chair but maybe similar to calling it a frok, or even a spoon.

I love 'Breathless', Brian.

Some of the silent films of the 1920s can make many MTV music video look pedestrian at times. Really wild editing that works on a different level,, however, much of this got lost with the movement into sound and increasing reliance on dialogue..

Great discussion (I started the thread, and am just now getting around to catching up).

If we follow the rule that dissolves = the passage of time, then one could reasonably ask, "How much time?" Therein lies (in my opinion) the doorway to using either cuts or dissolves as one damn well pleases. :-)

As someone mentioned earlier, take a series of nature shots---landscape portraits, for example. If all we're seeing are a tree here, a mountain there, a closeup of a flower here, a wide shot of a lake there...then how do the rules apply in this case? Has time passed between when we saw the flower and when we saw the lake? (Maybe the flower was on the shore of the lake?)

My point is in a situation like this, the conventional rules go out the window. Cuts and dissolves become purely a technique for grouping scenes, for controlling the flow, for suggesting a story.

---
Another point: there is a world of difference between a straight cut, a 15-frame dissolve...and a 2-second dissolve. In fact, I think we could legitimately refer to the cut as a "hard cut," a 15-frame dissolve as a "soft cut," and the 2-second dissolve as a "dissolve."

---
A few people mentioned that we see in cuts. If you make a point of trying to notice how you actually look around, it isn't hard cuts at all---it's VERY fast pans. Okay, so the pans our eyes make are so fast they might just be called cuts...but consider this:

If you fix your gaze to the left (without turning your head)...then to the right (without turning your head)...you do, in fact, see two images at once...because there is the object/focus of your gaze...*and* what lies in your peripheral vision.

So it could be said that seeing overlapping images (in a way) is NOT unnatural.

Scott

I miss the old Video Toaster wipes.

Amiga: Videotoaster System 2.0 Demo from NewTek - YouTube (http://youtu.be/c7O4xqRqhPY)

Kiki Stockhammer's best work EVAH!

It's almost as if there's some bizarre perception that hard cuts = "the truth," and dissolves = "bogus marketing and fiction."

If one's approach to editing is formulaic, then the results will be a mystery no matter what technique one uses. The editor must 'know' when a dissolve will have more impact - temporal, emotional, aesthetic or at least stylistic - and whether such a transition does justice to the story. The only way around this problem is to plan for it during the scripting stage. Lucky accidents do happen though - but the big question is: will it happen to you?

Dissolves are still out there, you see them all the time in commercials, even as very short ones that become almost soft cuts.

Here Kevin Brownlow discusses Abel Gance, one of the great pioneers of cinema including fast cutting, and shaky or wobbly cam.
Kevin Brownlow discusses Abel Gance - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ2kRzJajyo&feature=related)

Let's see how many old timers we have on this thread. Why go with a dissolve when you have a "sheep wipe" :)
On a serious note, I do a lot of live events. I tend to use the dissolves for a couple of things.
1. During a graduation when someone is singing or the band is playing a piece. Why, because I like the softness and flow to go with the music. Plus you can go into more creative and less standard shots and add a little something to the video or live feed.
2. During participant entering and exciting. This helps to hide and make it easier to break the 180 screen direction rule.

Use the tool you need to tell the story effectively.

Dissolves are still out there, you see them all the time in commercials, even as very short ones that become almost soft cuts.

Here Kevin Brownlow discusses Abel Gance, one of the great pioneers of cinema including fast cutting, and shaky or wobbly cam.
Kevin Brownlow discusses Abel Gance - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ2kRzJajyo&feature=related)

Great link! That was fascinating (I'd never heard of Abel Gance). Did you see this?
Abel Gance's Napoleon Presented by San Francisco Silent Film Festival - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1m5Q09eEqY&NR=1)

I REALLY want to see this! But alas...can't fly across country for it...I hope it comes to the east coast somewhere...looks incredible.

Scott

That should be a full evening session: Napoleon – Kevin Brownlow Restoration (no 4) Wonders in the Dark (http://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/napoleon-kevin-brownlow-restoration-no-4/)

Channel 4 screened it in the UK, but that's not quite the same as having a live orchestra... Those silent movies were never really silent.

When my son dances (he's 18) his style is built around the jump.

When my wife and I dance, typically we waltz.

As he evolves he watches us and sometimes, just for fun, he glides like we do.

And when we're having fun goofing around with him, we bounce just like him.

The point is sometimes good editing bounces. And sometimes good editing glides.

It's up to the editor to know the difference. If you're okay working in an environment where someone is allowed to tell you that they prefer that everyone bounce, or glide for that matter, as much as possible - you can see that as their STUDIO STYLE and go with it. Or you can decide that you aren't comfortable doing the same style of dancing over and over and over again and find ways to bounce on your own time.

This is the essence of life.

Choices that appear simple at first, but become more complex when you give them more consideration or learn to see them differently over time.

For what it's worth.

I've in the middle of watching the recovered version of Metropolis, recently shown on TCM.

For those of you who aren't aware, the lost footage from Metropolis was recently discovered in Argentina. The 35mm nitrate original had been scanned onto 16mm and destroyed for safety reasons decades before. They didn't realize that this was the only copy of that lost footage at the time. They had never screened the cut down versions in Argentina.

Metropolis Refound (2010) [trailer] - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3DfFkEOrqQ)

Back then. dissolves weren't just for transitions. They were the basis of special effects. And many of the sequences are symbolic. Today's high budget films are shallow-minded by comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j8Ba9rWhUg&feature=related

I use both, primarily hard cuts based on my project but there is always a time and place for a dissolve.