How many see something (technically) egregious in this?
- Thread starter Chris Santucci
- Start date
simonpwood
Well-known member
I though that was one of the big selling points of 4K - when delivering to HD you can zoom in and reframe cuts as you please.
The cuts didn't bother me. At all.
The cuts didn't bother me. At all.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yeah, doesn't bother me a bit. This isn't a narrative scene between two or more people. It's a simple punch-in. I wouldn't call it egregious, or even a flaw. I'd probably be bothered more by a second angle than I would by the jump-cut. Note: that's for THIS SPECIFIC TYPE OF INTERVIEW/TALKING HEAD. If you were doing dialogue in a narrative film, the jump cut would indeed be egregious. But that's not what this is...
It's a case of evolution and acceptance of visual language and convention that's understood by all. Once upon a time at the dawn of cinema, a closeup was considered bizarre - for that matter, any cut was strange, it had to be established as a specific act of editing... they used to just shoot stuff and then stop either when the roll ended or they lost interest. Then came D.W. Griffith and Eisenstein and the art of editing and cinema language evolved. From that set of conventions other conventions grew - once upon a time there was a standard wide-medium-closeup that was never varied, but then things loosened up. Jump cuts are just another one of those things - it's not strictly speaking a mistake in the sense of violating the 180 rule is, because it doesn't result in confusion... a jumpcut might throw you out of the movie, but that's only because it hasn't been established as accepted - but this is a case of a specific kind of advertisement, and in that world of political advertisement, it is an accepted convention, so it doesn't call attention to itself. I therefore don't think it's a mistake in that sense for this specific use in a political TV ad, IMHO.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Sorry Chris, a punch-in is a stylistic choice, not a technical one.
Are you saying Frank Carpra, Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa and Sergie Eisenstein don't know their onions or are you saying the camera op was a bit sloppy with his framing?
Last edited:
Chris Santucci
Veteran
Some filmmakers are known for use of the axial cut and that's fine. If it works for a given film (or whatever), then it works. In this instance it looks like a mistake and it looks like lazy production. It sticks out like a sore thumb (to me) and I would never shoot a simple talking heads piece this way.
It looks awful and it's distracting in my opinion but I suppose more people are more accepting of jump cuts based on contemporary shooting styles.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
I'm halfway with Chris. Actually there is nothing wrong with a axis jump per se.
But this one was technically executed in a wrong way, that why it looks more like a "fix it in post" than a intended jump cut.
To me, it looks like they just zoomed into the material, instead of moving the camera.
my ct2
But this one was technically executed in a wrong way, that why it looks more like a "fix it in post" than a intended jump cut.
To me, it looks like they just zoomed into the material, instead of moving the camera.
my ct2
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
No, I was specifically looking for 'technical' issues that were in the image. I didn't even have the audio on... These issues would not matter a hill of beans about the political content of the message...
That said, of the various clips of Sarah Palin, none have presented her as 'dowdy' and in need of major hazing to have a 'good look'... again this is independent of differences on political issues that may exist.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
But some have proposed that the cut maybe a post-production effect, which the cinematographer has no part in making, typically.
I think the other issues that people have mentioned which are part of the things that a photographer should attend to while shooting, are more significant. But then 'color and wardrobe' are also not typically a cinematographer's dept ether, but could have more input in prep for the shoot.
If the talent shows up with in 'odd' attire, that has a color that really doesn't do well for the tone of the piece, has a haggard look, that no makeup can 'fix'... the only thing left is angles, lighting and haze filtering...
Chris Santucci
Veteran
No, not at all.
Exactly. It looks like they were either too cheap to pay for a 2nd camera and/or the director just said "punch in" and the camera operator was too lazy to move the camera over 2 or 3 feet. Some genius producer may have decided to shoot in 4K and do the "punch in" in post. Either way - it looks awkward.
Yes, and of the things mentioned here are not related to cinematography.
I wonder if anyone commenting here in favor of this style of jump cut for this style of video has any online examples that they themselves have shot for paying clients? Just curious as to what flies in certain markets. I've gotten into tiff's here and there with directors over jump cuts and have actually relaxed my perspective on them, but in this case, I don't see it working.
Last edited:
Liam Hall
Veteran
The main problem with the punch-in here is the lack of dynamism. The close isn't close enough, the wide not wide enough. Though, I'd say, the punch-in is the least of the issues with this piece to camera. Certainly, not worth getting in a fight over.
Indeed, often it's better to maintain eye contact with the audience than to try a more stylistic approach, particularly with politicians for whom appearing "authentic" is the prime goal. I've shot a lot of politicians and CEO's in this type of set-up and knowing when to reinvent the wheel and when not to it's an art in itself.
Here's one I did last year. It's not down the barrel and it's not a politician, but there are plenty of punch-ins and a fair amount of lazy framing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VvyOz6MsUQ8
Now, show us one of yours so we can see how it's done
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Too add some more ct2:
When you do this sort of axis jump, you have to make sure to maintain eye hight.
In Chris' example the eyes drop/jump down - makes it even more awkward.
And yeah, what Liam said - not wide enough in the first place.
My guess is, that it was never intended that way - during editing, the producer probably said, can we zoom in on her, that would make it look much more dynamic?
I heard that sort of lines before.
When you do this sort of axis jump, you have to make sure to maintain eye hight.
In Chris' example the eyes drop/jump down - makes it even more awkward.
And yeah, what Liam said - not wide enough in the first place.
My guess is, that it was never intended that way - during editing, the producer probably said, can we zoom in on her, that would make it look much more dynamic?
I heard that sort of lines before.
did not watch video so not sure if im talking about the same thing here, but i work with a client frequently on shoots for a major oil company. we do many shoots where talent is talking into lens, framed center. he will shoot a wide medium closeup in 1080p, then edit in a 720p timeline. this allows us to zoom in to a cu in post without it getting soft. i think it looks fine (especially on greenscreen where you cant even tell the depth of field isnt changing on the close). we also do the same kind of shoot but zoom in for the cu without moving cam...where would we go? talent is talking into lens and as always, their time is usually pretty tight.
Nate Haustein
Well-known member
I do this quite often as well for certain projects. With a higher end camera and some subtle sharpening, and a product headed for web distribution, I think it can look quite good. Sometimes I think it looks better than using a second camera due to the color/contrast shift. However, a few things I pay attention to:
1) The eyes MUST be in the same place! Put a piece of tape on your monitor if you have to.
2) I pay painstakingly careful attention to sound bridges. The correct timing sells the cut. If you're transitioning thoughts, I believe that occasionally having the next clip's audio coming in before the video cut is generally accepted. Even if the person's mouth isn't moving. These are subtle adjustments but make a big difference in the flow of the video and when cutting together separate segments.
3) I only ever do one punch in or out before cutting to b-roll. Going from wide to tight back to wide again (like the example video) does look sloppy. Using this technique can definitely add emotion to an interview, but only if done in moderation.
1) The eyes MUST be in the same place! Put a piece of tape on your monitor if you have to.
2) I pay painstakingly careful attention to sound bridges. The correct timing sells the cut. If you're transitioning thoughts, I believe that occasionally having the next clip's audio coming in before the video cut is generally accepted. Even if the person's mouth isn't moving. These are subtle adjustments but make a big difference in the flow of the video and when cutting together separate segments.
3) I only ever do one punch in or out before cutting to b-roll. Going from wide to tight back to wide again (like the example video) does look sloppy. Using this technique can definitely add emotion to an interview, but only if done in moderation.
hscully
Veteran
The main problem with the punch-in here is the lack of dynamism. The close isn't close enough, the wide not wide enough. Though, I'd say, the punch-in is the least of the issues with this piece to camera. Certainly, not worth getting in a fight over.
Indeed, often it's better to maintain eye contact with the audience than to try a more stylistic approach, particularly with politicians for whom appearing "authentic" is the prime goal. I've shot a lot of politicians and CEO's in this type of set-up and knowing when to reinvent the wheel and when not to it's an art in itself.
Here's one I did last year. It's not down the barrel and it's not a politician, but there are plenty of punch-ins and a fair amount of lazy framing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VvyOz6MsUQ8
Now, show us one of yours so we can see how it's done
Wow, Liam, this is a clinic for me. I just shot an interview with b roll thing yesterday. I really like that way you punch in on her from the left. I see what you mean about the difference in dynamics. That slight up angle, with the candles framed behind is kinder and much more personal than most punch ins. I think her eye line is perfect. That was two cameras right?
Great light. I'd love to know how you kept those keys so clean and soft, and shadow free on both singers over the piano since that was fairly wide. Even the sound is great on this. The stereo imaging, the mix of the broll audio to the V/O is great. Great piece, thanks for sharing it
Can't say as it bothered me, at all. It apparently isn't much of a problem if almost no one had any thought of it.
My bigger problem with it is the silly guitar track.
My bigger problem with it is the silly guitar track.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
I didn't watch the whole piece but this clearly shows that you moved the camera off axis between close and medium:
Good points. It might be the eye height that's really pissing me off.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Thanks
Lighting was 2 4x4ft Kinos for keys and a couple of Arri 300watt Juniors for the back lights, plus a few redheads hitting the BG. Used the same lamps for the interviews. Yes, two cams, side by side.
It's the same basic principle, there's only a couple of degrees difference on the angle, but it's executed with more finesse. Anyway, Chris, we're all waiting for you to show us one of yours. Come on don't be shy...