I am a new video production teacher and am having a hard time explaining/demonstrating the difference between cutting on action and cutting on motion. Does anyone have a clear example that they can share with me to explain/demonstrate the difference? I am teaching high school students.
Cutting on action VS. Cutting on motion
- Thread starter sshafer
- Start date
I'm not sure I understand the question but you can pretty much look at any single cut where someone's moving in any movie and see that they cut on the motion (of their arm moving or their head turning). Cutting on "action" is... I don't even know what that means. Are you using that for the example that's wrong? If you just randomly cut on any action, the cut won't be smooth.
Either way, this should probably be in the editing forum. Good luck.
Either way, this should probably be in the editing forum. Good luck.
rsbush
Well-known member
Aren't cutting on action or motion the same thing? Cutting 'after the movement' is a much much less frequently used technique. Usually for approaches on the same visual axis when the movement is neutral or vertical. There are only two 'good' cuts that I know of, on the movement or after the movement.
Nektonic
Veteran
For cutting on action:
Are you talking about a multitake? For example, in T2 when the Cyberdyne building explodes they show it from different angles. It explodes from one angle, then the next shot shows it explode again.
For cutting on motion:
Wouldn't it be the same as if you are cutting two shots together and matching a movement exactly from the last frame of the first shot and the first frame of the second shot, or at least making it appear as if they are synced?
Example: a man is walking down an alley. SHOT 1 is a wide shot, while SHOT 2 is a medium shot. You cut on the man's footsteps. Even though they are two separate takes, you are cutting on the footsteps to make it appear as if there are no jumps in time.
Are you talking about a multitake? For example, in T2 when the Cyberdyne building explodes they show it from different angles. It explodes from one angle, then the next shot shows it explode again.
For cutting on motion:
Wouldn't it be the same as if you are cutting two shots together and matching a movement exactly from the last frame of the first shot and the first frame of the second shot, or at least making it appear as if they are synced?
Example: a man is walking down an alley. SHOT 1 is a wide shot, while SHOT 2 is a medium shot. You cut on the man's footsteps. Even though they are two separate takes, you are cutting on the footsteps to make it appear as if there are no jumps in time.
Capt Quirk
Veteran
I hate it when they do that 4 or 5 times in a row. I think it was a Michael Bay flick, where the same thing blew up over and over, and over.
Ian Slessor
Well-known member
They did that (multitakes) a lot on Homicide: Life on the Street.
Usually in the interrogation room.
They'd shoot a segment of dialogue/action and then repeat it sometimes two or three times, each time a little different.
And I recall watching a segment on editing (can't remember where) that the repeating of movement from different angles (multitake) was originated by...John Woo?
The scene that was referenced was a sniper in a boat in a harbour raising the rifle to his shoulder and the scene repeated the rifle raising two or three times.
ian
Usually in the interrogation room.
They'd shoot a segment of dialogue/action and then repeat it sometimes two or three times, each time a little different.
And I recall watching a segment on editing (can't remember where) that the repeating of movement from different angles (multitake) was originated by...John Woo?
The scene that was referenced was a sniper in a boat in a harbour raising the rifle to his shoulder and the scene repeated the rifle raising two or three times.
ian
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Not to hijack the thread, but yes, smooth audio transitions can make those questionable cuts melt like butta'.
Try and get consistent room tone from clip to clip, add music perhaps. Pretty soon everything will look much better!
stephenlnoe
Well-known member
My explaination would be this:
Let's say the scene calls for the actor to scratch his head. His hand starts at his side and then goes to his head. The "motion" of the hand to the head would need to be matched from different angles to make it seemless, ie cutting on motion.
Now let's say the say there suddenly is an explosion in the room and the actor has to escape stage right. The next shot needs to show the actor entering the scene from stage left for it to be seemless, so the "action" dictates the screen placement of characters and the edit will not be noticed.
Get it? Action = scene to scene
Motion = body/object movement
S.
Spartacus
Veteran
Good one.
rsbush
Well-known member
I know this as 'motion into and out of the shot'. In the case you provide you'd still have to choose to cut on the motion, before the actor exits the screen - or after the motion, a few frames after the actor leaves the frame, and conversely for the entrance (which puts a small hole in my above statement that there are "only two good cuts" as you could conceivably cut before the motion for the actor's re-entrance). I think sshafer needs to clarify his question for us to really help him.