BOOKS AND ARTICLES In-frame editing The term - "in-frame editing" - has nothing to do with the process of cutting a film (especially not film, but videotape) into pieces and gluing them in a different order (such editing is used today only in very backward technically film productions). Intra-frame editing is the different techniques used by the operator during one frame: "focus transition", "panorama", "zoom in", "departure", "camera movement". Such a frame is called "complex". In-frame editing is the result of the operator's work with the camera during the shooting of one frame, from "REC-start" to "REC-STOP". One American film begins like this: two people, a producer and a director, are walking through a film studio. The camera follows how they, talking animatedly, walk between the pavilions, giving way to cars, oncoming passers-by, enter one of the pavilions, find themselves in the cramped bustle of corridors along which workers carry the scenery, go to the set through a crowd of extras, lighting, dodge a moving camera crane with a cameraman and, finally, being close to the camera, they stop - it becomes audible what they are talking about: about some kind of film. "You know," one says to the other, "the first frame of the film is five minutes and thirty-two seconds long!" This shot of two characters going through is exactly five minutes and thirty-two seconds long! Of course, it was nothing more than a movie joke (there were opening credits in this shot), but the shot was directed so interestingly and filmed so inventively that it did not at all give the impression of being drawn out. Why? - Because a successful combination of natural movement was found in it (the characters are walking, the cars are driving, the workers are moving the camera (panoramas behind the characters, parallel passages on the cart, with departures and arrivals at the characters). The first conclusion: the more natural movement in the frame, the more interesting it is. Your dog, for example, will come out much more alive in the frame if he jumps, barks and runs around the yard, rather than sitting on a leash with his tongue hanging out at the kennel. The second conclusion: the less noticeable the movement of the camera in the frame, the more natural and easier it is for visual perception. Any panorama, zoom-in, zoom-out, or transition of depth of field is equal to the movement of the head or eyes of your future viewer, if he were to view the scene the way you offer him in your frame. Do not force the viewer to turn their heads and run their eyes, this is very annoying. Any movement of the camera must be precisely determined by the content of the frame. And you need to take into account a very important point that the same intra-frame editing technique (transition of depth of field, panorama, zoom-in or zoom-out) SHOULD NOT be used in adjacent frames. Imagine two frames glued together: 1st - "tracking panorama" of a car driving down the street, + 2nd - "tracking panorama" of another car driving along the same street, but in the opposite direction. - Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? With such a montage, you put the viewer in the position of a moron who accompanies the “cars” that drive back and forth in front of them with a meaningless look. If you conceived a plot on the topic "and parted like ships in the sea" (the hero missed the heroine), then it would be much more accurate not to panorama "back and forth", but one static frame, in the middle of which they would part in different directions in their auto he and she. Approximately the same can be said about the two neighboring shots with collisions: you seem to persuade the viewer, like a small child: "look carefully here ... and now here ..." - It is unlikely that any of the viewers will like it. In general, try to intersperse complex shots with camera techniques with simple and static shots, "pictures" - this will allow the viewer's attention to rest and "digest", decipher that, say, "zoom with a panorama and transition of depth of field" that you did in the previous frame. By the way, if you remember, before the people used to call a movie like that - "picture". Is it because the frames of the old cinema were very stingy with the techniques of intra-frame editing, mostly static and strict in composition and associated with the viewers with the canvases of artists? If so, wouldn't it be better to think ten times over the composition of a static shot than to wind one camera technique on another and turn the home story "Vasya's friend's birthday" into a kind of music video in the tradition of "MTV". Publication: videomount.blogspot.com We recommend interesting articles Section video art: ▪ Lack of lighting when shooting video ▪ Professional wedding photo. Questions and answers See other articles Section video art. Read and write useful comments on this article. Latest news of science and technology, new electronics: Artificial leather for touch emulation
15.04.2024 Petgugu Global cat litter
15.04.2024 The attractiveness of caring men
14.04.2024
Other interesting news: ▪ Problems of overweight people News feed of science and technology, new electronics
Interesting materials of the Free Technical Library: ▪ site section Power supply. Article selection ▪ article Milling cutter in the garden. Tips for the home master ▪ article What are microbes? Detailed answer ▪ article Master of construction and installation works. Job description ▪ article Plastics. Encyclopedia of radio electronics and electrical engineering ▪ article Smithy at home. Encyclopedia of radio electronics and electrical engineering
Leave your comment on this article: All languages of this page Home page | Library | Articles | Website map | Site Reviews www.diagram.com.ua |