Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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

[Josh Bass]

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

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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.

Originally Posted by Josh Bass

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Pete Cofrancesco]

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.