Oh okay thanks. How about this Instead of showing an OTS shot, I just cut to a close up of the person looking at the screen, or looking through the windshield? For future projects, would a close up of them looking, serve just as good as an OTS shot?

You can't create a rule, but you could do it as long as you locate her in a car. Shooting a CU of her through the windscreen would work. There's a number of ways to shoot a scene like this, it depends on how you wish to create the impression that she's been waiting for some time (and how long) on this guy to get into his car and drive off.

Posted a long reply but it might confuse Ryan more than help him so never mind.

Oh okay thanks. The next project I have also has some surveillance type scenes, so I could apply the same rule in the shot list. I am not really feeling OTS shots for establishing shots and would rather use close ups if possible. On the Timewine short film, I didn't have the actors available for the following shots there, but I won't make that mistake with this new project. Thanks.

As for not needing an OTS shot per say, how come the close up shot of the characters watching the computer screen failed to work though, in the Timewine short film?

My answer would be that you don't know that the full frame newscast is taking place on the computer screen as opposed to, say, somewhere else entirely, or that we've cut to a completely different scene entirely, or someone taped over the end of your movie with a newscast.

A shot of the screen itself mostly filling the frame, with office in the background, video playing, would have made it clearer, even with no actors in the frame.

It's just a weird edit.

Your guy says "Check it out." She walks around, and they look at...something. We don't KNOW they're looking at the screen. We never see them looking at the screen. We never see the back of the monitor in the foreground with them looking at it. We never see the screen with them in the foreground looking at it. We never see a wider shot with monitor on left side of frame and them on the right, looking at it. We never see him hit the keyboard or click the mouse to play the video. We never see the screen playing the video. Those are all things that you could have shown. We see a closeup of them, hear some audio, cut to the newscast full frame. It's just kind of weird.

Oh okay, but since the guy has a computer right in front of him and that she comes over to look at it, can't the audience be smart enough to infer that she is looking at the same computer that is in front of him. Even though you do not see the computer monitor in the same shot, can't the audience be smart enough to figure out that they are looking at a computer screen, since it was in the previous shot?

Actually in the storyboards I had it so the back of the monitor was in the foreground. But the DP said he was not able to frame it in the foreground cause it would lead to a continuity error. So I let the DP frame it that way, to avoid such an error. However, in the future, I can stick to the shot, and tell the DP frame it with the back of the monitor in the foreground anyway, no matter what continuity error it may lead to, if that's more important?

It's kinda clear but you were told it was jarring and it's a weird edit, and no, audiences are not necessarily smart enough to catch that stuff. I made a film with a similar shooting/edit problem, same reaction from several folks. You know the film, they don't. You know filmmaking techniques and language, they don't. "Regular folks" need quite a bit of extra help sometimes.

I just told you like six different ways to make it clearer other than back of monitor in foreground.

I would ask you look at the many many movies or shows where people are watching something on TV or a computer screen that they've just turned on or just started playing and see how THEY handled it. Generally one doesn't just cut from the character viewing the screen to the video itself full frame. There's some kind of transition shot to ease you into it. Or the shots before the full frame are wide enough to make it clearer what's happening. There've got to be a billion examples on youtube.

You seem to be working in a very mechanical way, how you frame a shot can reveal a lot more than she's looking at a computer screen. There',s the subtext of the scene; relationships, the power structures and a number of other elements.

Regarding continuity, you have to think ahead when shooting scenes, although there's an amount of cheating that you can do, changes that don't manage reality, but work on screen.

I was going by the timecodes he mentioned when talking about things that were allegedly jarring due to lack of establishing shots. If there was another issue (besides the many many issues mentioned) then never mind about screens and car windshields.

Sorry, it was aimed at Ryan, not you Josh.

I understand; I'm just wondering I got him obsessed with something wasn't even (newest) issue at hand.

Usually the best idea is to get someone else to edit your film, they can usually spot all the flaws and lost narrative connections better than the director. Plus they don't care of you spent 4 hours getting a shot, if it doesn't work they'll cut it out.

Oh okay thanks. I just edit my own project save money so far, but want to try to get better at it. It seems that the rougher edits may be better, cause in the final edit, I may cut too much, so I can try not to do that.

It's kinda clear but you were told it was jarring and it's a weird edit, and no, audiences are not necessarily smart enough to catch that stuff. I made a film with a similar shooting/edit problem, same reaction from several folks. You know the film, they don't. You know filmmaking techniques and language, they don't. "Regular folks" need quite a bit of extra help sometimes.

I just told you like six different ways to make it clearer other than back of monitor in foreground.

I would ask you look at the many many movies or shows where people are watching something on TV or a computer screen that they've just turned on or just started playing and see how THEY handled it. Generally one doesn't just cut from the character viewing the screen to the video itself full frame. There's some kind of transition shot to ease you into it. Or the shots before the full frame are wide enough to make it clearer what's happening. There've got to be a billion examples on youtube.

Okay thanks. Originally I wanted to do a wider shot where you see them look at the monitor and you see the monitor in the frame with them, as they look at it. But the DP told me it would lead to a continuity flaw and we cannot show them in the monitor in the frame with them therefore he said. But next time I will show the screen, regardless of any continuity errors, if that's more important.

In the film school course I took, they say that the audience is smarter than we think they are, but so far it seems I have to show them more than I things not to be jarring which is fine. Another example in that same short film is the scene at 1:35 where I thought that if I cut that scene, that he audience could still understand the story, and doesn't need to be shown that scene. But then I tested it out, and I was told to put it back in and that it's necessary.

The editor's skill is knowing when to trim frames out. If you're doing this yourself best leave it for a week or two before looking at it, you want tight editing and that can involve using the trim to find that last unwanted frame.

Audiences are smart, but you need to provide them with sufficient information without labouring a point. They're also not mind readers, because you know something you can't always assume that the audience does.

Oh okay thanks. When you say using the 'trim', are you referring to a specific tool in the program?

No he means trim, as in cutting frames, then rejoining. That's what the trim tools do, but it's really a process we're talking about - you can trim at the beginning, the end, and you can do the same on the next clip, nibbling away frame by frame to make the cut tighter. When you cut like this, just a frame or two can really change the feel.

Oh yes I see what you mean. One of my biggest challenges in editing is cutting from location to location. I've been told before that it feels to abrupt. Is there any tricks to ease into one location to another? Others say that if the cut feels to abrupt, to just put a fade over it, but so many movies do not fade from location to location all the time, so is there anything I can do to make it feel more easy?

Try not cutting so fast. Plan how you're going to get from one location to another, characters walk out of frame etc

You could dissolve, but that's currently out of fashion, you can wipe, but it has to fit in with the style of the story.

Oh okay. In that short film I did before I was told the location changes are jarring. Could this cut at 3:47 into the video, be jarring:

Timewine H.264 copy - YouTube

Should I have let it play out a little longer when trimming?

There are a number things that don’t feel right about that scene. It’s probably do to a cramped location but I don’t like the framing or shot selection. The lighting/exposure is off between the two angles, makes it feel like it’s not the same scene. The end of the scene, the sequence of him slamming the file cabinet is too short and too close up, that is the jarring part. But you should have recognized this right away. It’s fundamentally doesn’t work and can’t be defended as an artistic choice. I would followed the slamming of the cabinet with a lingering medium shot of him angry and contemplating his next move.

Okay thanks. Next time I will definitely try to set the marks more accurately. I think I gave the actors too much freedom to move around, when I shouldn't have.

Since real locations are pretty cramped though, is there anything I can do to work around that though, for next time?

-looks at the original question
-looks at the name of the poster
-moves on

Okay thanks. Next time I will definitely try to set the marks more accurately. I think I gave the actors too much freedom to move around, when I shouldn't have.

Since real locations are pretty cramped though, is there anything I can do to work around that though, for next time?
The lesson to learn here is if a shot is too short it’s jarring. It’s especially a good idea to hold the last shot longer to allow the viewer time to let what transpired sink in before moving to another scene.

Oh okay, thanks. For that short film I was told to tighten it up and have it move faster, but I over did it. Next one I will let it play out more.

One thing about that shot is that it's an over the shoulder shot, but it turns into a close up, once the one actress leaves. The camera is focused on the actress, and then after she leaves, it turns into a close up of the actor as he turns to look at her leaving. For that shot, should I have had the camera on a slider, cause then as she leaves I can back it up, so as she leaves and as he turns then he is not so close to the camera? If I want an OTS to turn into a close up like that, should I dolly the camera back?

See message below

I suspect Ryan tends to over cut, he feels the need to put in more cuts than are necessary, which can be distracting. Let the actors drive the emotion, not the cutting

There's nothing wrong with a jarring cut given the right dramatic context.

There are no rules about how you do this. A wider shot with her walking away with him watching would do the same job as all your complicated shots. You could cut into a MS or MCU for him banging the cabinets. The EXT shot of the woman is rather weak with a boring location that doesn't say where she is, not helped by a rather flat performance.

Jarring can be useful but not in the context of this scene. The point of this scene is the convo and the shift in emotion between them. The cu of the cabinet feels out of place, unnecessarily thrown in as your visual explanation point. The ext shot should be on his reaction and her departure.

Like Brian said the acting and dialogue is flat. If you could have redone this scene you should have spent more of your efforts on improving their performance.

I suspect Ryan tends to over cut, he feels the need to put in more cuts than are necessary, which can be distracting. Let the actors drive the emotion, not the cutting

There's nothing wrong with a jarring cut given the right dramatic context.

There are no rules about how you do this. A wider shot with her walking away with him watching would do the same job as all your complicated shots. You could cut into a MS or MCU for him banging the cabinets. The EXT shot of the woman is rather weak with a boring location that doesn't say where she is, not helped by a rather flat performance.

Actually I did have a wider shot, of her walking away, but I chose not to use it because I thought the close up of him as she walked away was better, acting wise. Even if the acting is flat, it was more flat in the wider shot I felt. But should I not always choose which shot because of performance, and go for th wide, if it means better framing?

Jarring can be useful but not in the context of this scene. The point of this scene is the convo and the shift in emotion between them. The cu of the cabinet feels out of place, unnecessarily thrown in as your visual explanation point. The ext shot should be on his reaction and her departure.

Like Brian said the acting and dialogue is flat. If you could have redone this scene you should have spent more of your efforts on improving their performance.

Oh okay thanks. The performances I felt were better during rehearsals, but one of the actors became unavailable so I had to rewrite the plot and the dialogue had to changed to support plot changes, and this new dialogue and plot was rewritten hours before shooting, so I think next time if I rewrite, definitely cancel the shoot in order for more rehearsal time, if that's better?

I suspect Ryan tends to over cut, he feels the need to put in more cuts than are necessary, which can be distracting. Let the actors drive the emotion, not the cutting

There's nothing wrong with a jarring cut given the right dramatic context.

There are no rules about how you do this. A wider shot with her walking away with him watching would do the same job as all your complicated shots. You could cut into a MS or MCU for him banging the cabinets. The EXT shot of the woman is rather weak with a boring location that doesn't say where she is, not helped by a rather flat performance.

Well originally when I show the original cut to people, they say there is not enough cuts, and I hold shots too long, and I need to create a faster pace, I was told. So I make more cuts and show them again, and then they say more cutting. Next time I will not put in that many for sure.

When you say that the location does not say where she is, in the previous shot to the location the man explains to her what this file room is and what is in the files. Doesn't that explain enough?

It's not unusual for shots to be tightened up, however, this may only involve a few frames, although sometimes the original length is fine when the shots around it are tightened. You also have the right to ignore or use in part people's comments.

The file room is nothing to do with the geography of the woman in the next shot.

Currently, the cutting in the filing room is very film student and the awkward framing doesn't help.

There are many factors that make something interesting. In this scene you have two characters standing still, delivering flat lines to each other. It’s boring and no amount of cutting is going to help it. You can’t apply a rule as a cure all to fix some other problem.

It's not unusual for shots to be tightened up, however, this may only involve a few frames, although sometimes the original length is fine when the shots around it are tightened. You also have the right to ignore or use in part people's comments.

The file room is nothing to do with the geography of the woman in the next shot.

Currently, the cutting in the filing room is very film student and the awkward framing doesn't help.

Oh okay, so when it comes to cutting from location to another such as the woman being in a different spot in the next cut, how do I do that without the geography becoming confusing. When you say the file room has nothing to do with the geography of the woman in the next shot, how do I make the audience understand that she has left the building in the cutting then?

This could have been accomplished by him walking out of the filing room to the window to observe her getting into her car.

There are lots of creative ways to bridge scenes. Another technique is start and end on cu. For example end with his hand closing the filing cabinet and start with cu her hand opening the car door. Or he using a key to lock the cabinet and she’s turning the key to start her car.

Okay thanks, but I showed her come out of the building by opening the door, and walking out. But I was told by people that she takes too long to open the door and come out and I should skip ahead cause we don't see to actually see her opening the door. Is that true? Or if a person leaves a building, then we should always seem them come out the door?

I couldn't really shoot out the window though to show him observing her because the location didn't have any windows that could show that.

Having the building in the background with her walking away will do the job.

Oh okay, but isn't that what you have in my shot? She is walking away with the building in the background?

It didn't look like a building more like a tomb or mausoleum.

Is that bad if the building looks like that?

Just a location fail.

Oh okay, but let's say you like the unusual look of the location and you went for that unusual look intentionally... How do you show a character exit an unusual looking building without it being confusing then?

A location can be unusual, but it has meet the requirements of the world you're creating for your story. There are some eccentric office buildings around, but they usually still look like there are offices inside. In a film that has to come across instantly.

Oh okay, well the location was the building you see at a wine vineyard, since the story is about a wine company, but don't wine vineyard buildings look like that, or at least the ones I've seen in photographs do.

I agree with Brian the location is strange it neither looks like a corporate office or vineyard there is a disconnect between the inside and out. I initially thought when I saw him walking down the stairs it looks like modern house, but the filing room looks like an office. You also don’t do a wide enough shot establishing the building. There should have been signage inside and out ... xyz vineyards. I would have at least used an exterior of another building.

Oh okay, well there is already an exterior shot of the building right after she first enters the file room. So I thought it would be strange to use two establishing shots, wouldn't it? I could have put that establishing shot before showing the inside building at all, if that would have been better.

Do I need to always show an establishing shot of the building before cutting to an interior though, if I plan on having the actors leave the building and go outside?

For example, the next project I want to do there is a scene that starts out in a police station interrogation room, where a witness is being interviewed and then leaves. I want the witness to be escorted outside by the police into a car after. But since I am choosing to show the outside of the building here, do I have to show the outside of it before the interrogation as well?

You're labelling and rule following again. There MUST be an establishing shot, but forgetting to make the link with WHY. If the establishing shot fails, and establishes nothing, or worse - adds confusion. In the time movie we have a person who can alter time with a laptop. For some reason, he does this in a field. We have building where nothing to do with wine appear to happen? If you make wine - then there is an expectation that we will see winemaking, not the HR department, or paper shufflers. The movie was about aging wine, yet how much wine did we see being made, stored, handled, tested? You probably had a shot list, and ticked them as done when shooting, but ticking etablishing shot, close up of X, mid shot of Y, cutaway Z didn't mean they served their purpose, or perhaps even had a purpose apart from being in the list. We've mentioned so many things in the movie that left us confused, yet you still try to rationalise everything in individual terms.

Buying the ingredients for a recipe in a book, don't mean it will be tasty!

It's not an establishing shot if you've already established the location.

If you show the building again depends on the next scene. If they're released and go straight to Pauly's pizza place, which has already been established, you don't need to have them walking out of the police station or even the exterior of the pizza place if we've already seen it and the audience knows where they are,

If they're released and they don't know what to do next in the outside or it's a big moment getting out you'll show the building exterior. as the boys turn up in a hearse with a good time girl in a coffin.

Oh okay, well there is already an exterior shot of the building right after she first enters the file room. So I thought it would be strange to use two establishing shots, wouldn't it? I could have put that establishing shot before showing the inside building at all, if that would have been better.

Do I need to always show an establishing shot of the building before cutting ...
You filmed a close shot of a building that neither looks like an office or a vineyard. You haven’t established anything! This movie is about wine but where are the vineyards, the oak barrels, the grapes... This is so obvious and basic but you don’t get it. This is what I would consider an appropriate establishing shot https://marylandwine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Tuscan-Events-Building.jpg

We are just giving you an honest evaluation but you deflect or defend every point of criticism. In every aspect this is what I’d expect from high school student getting his feet wet. You’ve got a long way to go to make anything of commercial quality.

Oh okay thanks. In my head I did have a lot more shots, but didn't get to have them cause of budget. In my head there was an actual vineyard, with barrels of wine, and these other establishing shots. But I didn't use any of the shots because of budget.

Should I make sure to get more money next time for such establishing shots? Or if I don't have the budget, should I write in dialogue as the person explains the location to another character instead?

It's no use having things in your head, the audience doesn't know what's in there, they only know what they see on the screen.

If it's supposed to be a vineyard, the audience has to see it's a vineyard. the old show, don't say thing. You can cheat like crazy to create the impression of a vineyard, that's what art directors do all the time. .

You're making a movie, not a radio play. Expositional dialogue is death to a drama, unless its used carefully.

This is why it’s a not good to get ideas from movies or write screenplays that you neither have the budget or access to locations you need. You should be looking for things you have around you and build stories around them instead of trying impose a story that you can’t pull off. If you lived in Northern California it would have been a natural fit to this story. I can see a reoccurrence of the same types of problems in your cop thriller.