Just to 'reign' this back a tad to some little 'editing tricks' (practically speaking) ... I thought of one very simple tip that's perhaps worth mentioning ...
It's simply to do with cutting from 'one moving shot' to 'another moving shot'. *IF* the transition looks too 'abrupt' - as though lacking a natural flow-on of continuity - it *could be* due to the direction of the moves. For the 'smoothest' transition, both shots would 'ideally' be heading in the same direction.
If though, shot 1 is traveling 'right to left' at the edit point, and shot 2 begins with a 'left to right' motion instead (even if only slightly), then it's no surprise that somewhat of a jarring/jolting transition results. It might sound 'obvious' but it's surprising how often this is overlooked.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please be patient with me ..... I don't always 'get it' the first time 'round - not even the 2nd time! :(  - yikes! ... 

● MSI GT72VR Laptop, i7 7700HQ 4-Core 3.8 GHz 16GB RAM; Nvidia 1070, 8GB Vram ● iClone-7.93 ● 3DXChange Pipeline 7.81 ● CC-3 Pipeline 3.44 ● Live Face ● HeadShot ● Brekel Pro-Body ● Popcorn FX ● iRAY ● Kinect V2 ● DaVinci Resolve17 ● Mixcraft 8.1

More great references Bax ..... thanx.
Yes, I guess it's a matter of 'exposing' yourself to these various directing styles (to become *aware* of the possibilities), then working out your own individual style to run with ... though that of course would be a WIP as you move forward in time - gaining experience ....
But like you say, " ..... Anyone who wants to create film should be studying this stuff obsessively..... "
It would be great to get some 'director's' views (as they 'talk us through') on their 'motivation' for lens and framing choices .... (beyond what we've seen already)....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please be patient with me ..... I don't always 'get it' the first time 'round - not even the 2nd time! :(  - yikes! ... 

● MSI GT72VR Laptop, i7 7700HQ 4-Core 3.8 GHz 16GB RAM; Nvidia 1070, 8GB Vram ● iClone-7.93 ● 3DXChange Pipeline 7.81 ● CC-3 Pipeline 3.44 ● Live Face ● HeadShot ● Brekel Pro-Body ● Popcorn FX ● iRAY ● Kinect V2 ● DaVinci Resolve17 ● Mixcraft 8.1

● The use of 'framing'. How the 'point of interest' of shot ONE, could perhaps 'match' the interest area of shot TWO - if you get my drift.
This would mean your eyes are looking in the right area as the shot change occurs - making it 'easier' to follow ..... just a thought ... :)
This is where using iClone's camera switcher would *really* help (working out the framing) ....[/quote]

Yes, the switcher is an invaluable tool, just not a great editor.

Framing for movies is an complex subject because it has so many elements to consider: the subject (what are you looking at), the aspect ratio/composition, what is it cutting to/from, and what is motivating the shot in the first place.  Great directors and cinematographers (good cinematographers know how to edit) make this stuff look easy.  Spielberg is a master  at blocking a scene, as is Fincher and the Cohens (Joel and Ethan, not the Trump dudes).



And Alan J Pakula with Gordon Willis (cinematography) were an unbeatable combination.

Anyone who wants to create film should be studying this stuff obsessively, because even if you never master it you'll at least have a good time trying to figure out why. :-)

Cheers!

--Bex.

I thought this to be extremely helpful to any and all iClonians who're making a film:
QUOTE:
As a filmmaker, when you are writing or directing a scene, ask yourself:
● What is the idea I’m trying to get across?
● How can I express that idea through conflict?
● What are my two conflicting elements/images? ..... And then ask yourself the most important question:
● Is it best to represent this idea through conflict WITHIN THE CUT (Soviet Montage Theory) or WITHIN THE CONTENT (Chaplin)?
One is not better than the other. The two can coexist in the same film.

Source: http://storyfirstmedia.com/content-over-aesthetic/

QUOTE: (from the above source)
So where is the conflict in the scene from “The Great Dictator”?
It’s within the CONTENT.
Look at the content of the scene.
Chaplin is playing a character based on Adolph Hitler, arguably the single most universally hated man of the 20th century. He is the very personification of evil…

… and he’s performing a ballet.

WHAM! Conflict! An evil dictator (negative element) is performing a ballet with the world (positive element) creating the third idea of “Hitler wants the whole world in his hands. He wants to become emperor of the world.”
3mins 44secs

And here's the '2001 A Space Odyssey' example - showing 'Conflict within the Cut'  (the 'bone' to the 'spaceship')
1min 15secs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please be patient with me ..... I don't always 'get it' the first time 'round - not even the 2nd time! :(  - yikes! ... 

● MSI GT72VR Laptop, i7 7700HQ 4-Core 3.8 GHz 16GB RAM; Nvidia 1070, 8GB Vram ● iClone-7.93 ● 3DXChange Pipeline 7.81 ● CC-3 Pipeline 3.44 ● Live Face ● HeadShot ● Brekel Pro-Body ● Popcorn FX ● iRAY ● Kinect V2 ● DaVinci Resolve17 ● Mixcraft 8.1

Thanks Bex for sharing these thoughts (and videos) ...
Yes, Kubrick's 'bone' to 'spaceship' cut is one that's indelibly etched on my mind ever since seeing it in the late 1960's.

This is great Bex, - getting an 'understanding' of the way different edits can help tell the story.
It's a matter of 'knowing the language' and once understood - can be used to communicate ideas effectively.
Finding the 'motivation' or 'reason' for using certain transitions would help a lot.
There's another thing I've been wondering about .....
● The use of 'framing'. How the 'point of interest' of shot ONE, could perhaps 'match' the interest area of shot TWO - if you get my drift.
This would mean your eyes are looking in the right area as the shot change occurs - making it 'easier' to follow ..... just a thought ... :)
This is where using iClone's camera switcher would *really* help (working out the framing) ....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please be patient with me ..... I don't always 'get it' the first time 'round - not even the 2nd time! :(  - yikes! ... 

● MSI GT72VR Laptop, i7 7700HQ 4-Core 3.8 GHz 16GB RAM; Nvidia 1070, 8GB Vram ● iClone-7.93 ● 3DXChange Pipeline 7.81 ● CC-3 Pipeline 3.44 ● Live Face ● HeadShot ● Brekel Pro-Body ● Popcorn FX ● iRAY ● Kinect V2 ● DaVinci Resolve17 ● Mixcraft 8.1

Actually none of this stuff is over anyone's head -- not if you've seen a movie in the last hundred years.  I'm just not sure I can explain it.  Here is a video covering half of what I meant:


This concept is the principle behind "cinema" as we know it.  It's why movies were the art-form of the 20th century.  It's also why the I-clone switcher is not much good as an "editing" tool -- I'm not bashing I-clone (I can't imagine how they could implement a non-linear switcher), and the switcher at least gives you a chance to examine your blocking and how the angles work together, so I am really happy to have it.

A lot of these ideas came out of Russia during the revolution, and were also interpreted politically: Shot of Peasants + Shot of Chickens = Peasant are like Chickens, etc.  That's one example of what I meant by "between the two frames". Here is a good piece on editing:


and this:


The other half of what I meant is harder to explain.  There is an aesthetic to the cut itself that does not have anything to do with a narrative context.  The Lawrence of Arabia sunrise cut is a good example, and it it something more often found in abstract and experimental material (where there is often no narrative to be served).

Anyone can learn this stuff (and a few might even master it -- I wish I could).  It's also easy to practice -- just rip a few movie scenes and re-cut them.

Hope this helps!

--Bex

Pardon me for 're-posting' at this point, but I was thinking about something that 'bexley' had mentioned earlier, namely;
".... It isn't just the extrapolation of action or narrative (one event following another), but the creation of an aesthetic in the cut itself.  In other words, a great cut is when something happens between the two frames on either side of the edit -- a third idea is created.... "
I was wondering what he was getting at here .... it sounds very interesting (and something really worth knowing!) ....
I admit it's a tad over my head atm - but once I understand what's meant by this - I'm thinking it's probably a very 'valuable' technique...
Does anyone have any clue about this? :crying:

OK ... I found an answer:
QUOTE:
".....5. Intellectual: When done correctly, Intellectual Montage might be the most exciting form of cutting. This method is the END ALL, BE ALL of Soviet Montage Theory – cutting two images together to create a third meaning. The most famous use of this method may also be the single most famous cut in cinema history: when the ape throws up a bone in “2001: A Space Odyssey”, then cutting to a bone-shaped spacecraft in the distant future (idea: the dawn of man)....

.... Ever since learning about Soviet Montage Theory, I have been a huge believer in it. I even went as far as to say that the very definition of a movie is two images cut together to give a third meaning.

“The idea is in the cut!” I would say. The Soviet pioneers, along with other filmmakers such as David Mamet and Alfred Hitchcock had convinced me of this. I would quote Pudovkin: “The image itself is meaningless! The meaning is within the cut!” This made sense to me. Artistic breakthrough! I’d figured out what makes a movie a movie! Through all my independent study and reading I had discovered the essence of great visual storytelling! It’s the end-all, be-all! Surely, this is the only way one should make a movie ...."

Reference: http://storyfirstmedia.com/content-over-aesthetic/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please be patient with me ..... I don't always 'get it' the first time 'round - not even the 2nd time! :(  - yikes! ... 

● MSI GT72VR Laptop, i7 7700HQ 4-Core 3.8 GHz 16GB RAM; Nvidia 1070, 8GB Vram ● iClone-7.93 ● 3DXChange Pipeline 7.81 ● CC-3 Pipeline 3.44 ● Live Face ● HeadShot ● Brekel Pro-Body ● Popcorn FX ● iRAY ● Kinect V2 ● DaVinci Resolve17 ● Mixcraft 8.1

Hey Mike ..... Really great insights you've posted here ..... It's great having the 'switcher', it can act as a very good 'story board' too.

Edit: In actual fact (the way I see it), iClone's 'switcher' lets you see 'dynamically' how your movie is shaping up ... You get to see how each camera angle 'works' in relation to both 'previous' and 'following' shots, allowing for adjustments to be made 'then and there' as needed, before committing to a render out ....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please be patient with me ..... I don't always 'get it' the first time 'round - not even the 2nd time! :(  - yikes! ... 

● MSI GT72VR Laptop, i7 7700HQ 4-Core 3.8 GHz 16GB RAM; Nvidia 1070, 8GB Vram ● iClone-7.93 ● 3DXChange Pipeline 7.81 ● CC-3 Pipeline 3.44 ● Live Face ● HeadShot ● Brekel Pro-Body ● Popcorn FX ● iRAY ● Kinect V2 ● DaVinci Resolve17 ● Mixcraft 8.1

Despite getting some great advice I will say one thing about the "switcher" versus "editor" -- in Kai's recent tutorial, where he uses the switcher, he at least implies if not downright states the real reason why you might want to consider using it at times versus a more "traditional" approach to editing as per film.

This is because unlike with film, animation takes a lot of time.  With film you can let your actors prattle on, as actors will, and don't really care too much how long the take lasts, with an eye towards fixing all in post.  In point of fact, you want "coverage" so it's ALWAYS better to have more than you need.  With animation, though, the opposite is true.  Your actors ain't gonna act without you, so the more "coverage" you provide the more work you are doing at the back end.

It's particularly significant in that the greatest amount of work in animation is with the actual animation -- posing and animating the people and doing the face work can be incredibly time-consuming to do right.  So in order to maximize your energies accordingly, you want to set up your sets tightly and only animate what you actually need.

Kai shows this by first doing all the camera work, and THEN animating the character's faces, because only then does he know exactly what he needs.  I think this is not a trivial thing to understand.  

Note there are always exceptions to anything -- if you are doing a lot of mocap you will have extra coverage built-in, and thus the need to animate is reduced.  Not eliminated, because there will always be cleanup involved.  I think of all of this as a balancing act -- making the best of the time you have often means compromises, and thus it's always good to have a very tight edit from which you are doing your final tweaks (don't be tweaking things and then decide you need to re-edit.  This is where proxies come into play, as your frames you have brought into your video editor can then be updated with the changes and automagically ripple through.

(And all of this is magnified when there are time pressures -- for our weekly animation series it was a lot more critical to get the edit of the scene together in the animation room rather than cut it afterwards, although we did cut the scenes together in our editor).

---

Alienware Aurora R16, Win 11, i9-149000KF, 3.20GHz CPU, 64GB RAM, RTX 4090 (24GB), Samsung 870 Pro 8TB, Gen3 MVNe M-2 SSD, 4TBx2, 39" Alienware Widescreen Monitor
Mike "ex-genius" Kelley

@bexley .... hi ....  - yes isn't it amazing to think they'd get away with splicing in those extra generation dissolves. I used to think "why don't they just print the entire movie 'beginning to end' to create a consistent level of quality". But then again, the quality loss on printing the dissolves was savage - so probably best they didn't. Plus the additional unnecessary cost. It was *very* noticeable if done within a long lead up shot - not so bad if on an actual shot change. But it does document well 'the lesser discernment level' of past audiences.
● Yes - amazing how much a cut can be made 'more believable' by adding a frame or two of overlap -  same action in both shots - I always think 'door opening'.
● I'd never heard slipping the audio under vision referred to as 'J' or 'L' cuts - (from your reference video), but makes sense given the 'shape' of those letters - plus it's a 'concise' way of describing them.
● Good you mentioned 'cutting on action' - to me this is what creates a credible flow of the film's action. The more it's used, (properly of course), the more believable the edit imo.
I'm yet to 'explore' the possibilities that come with truly 'creative' editing - closely linked to film 'direction'. (Directing's my weaknesses so I'm looking forward to learning) ..... :)
● Btw thanks for the heads-up about iClone's time-line being more accurately called a 'switcher' rather than an 'editor'. I changed my reference to it up above. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please be patient with me ..... I don't always 'get it' the first time 'round - not even the 2nd time! :(  - yikes! ... 

● MSI GT72VR Laptop, i7 7700HQ 4-Core 3.8 GHz 16GB RAM; Nvidia 1070, 8GB Vram ● iClone-7.93 ● 3DXChange Pipeline 7.81 ● CC-3 Pipeline 3.44 ● Live Face ● HeadShot ● Brekel Pro-Body ● Popcorn FX ● iRAY ● Kinect V2 ● DaVinci Resolve17 ● Mixcraft 8.1