Non linear editing

[Sir Dropham Pants]

In hopes of sparking discussion that is about "the job..."

Has the proliferation of non-linear editing changed the way people shoot? For example 10, even 5 years ago, it was almost all straight cuts, tape-to-tape editing for news of the day stuff (at least in my experience). Now with many more stations able to afford computer-based edit systems, do you think the shooting has gotten lazier? No need to shoot certain cover, we can just wipe in/out of that other shot. Can't solve it, dissolve it. That kind of thing. Not trying to bag on the younger photogs who've never used anything else; just asking, has something been lost in the shooting process?
Discuss.

[Soul Doubt]

I agree, to a point. I don't think that photogs have gotten lazier, I think reporters have. Teh Newbie reporters just want dissolves. Photogs at least know that hard news is straight cuts. But before you know it, there will be a star wipe, matrix dissolve or clock sweep in every transition.

[Basically A Nice Guy]

This is precisely the problem with the stuff I get from the photogs in our shop. They never shoot cutaways. And the newer reporters don't ever seem to notice.

Every damn edit is a dissolve.

Hit the nail on the head with this one.

Other than that, I love non linear editing. It's like a light bulb and linear editing is a candle.

[photog78]

Perhaps it has been lost among some.

Even with non-linear editing, I still don't rely on effects to carry a story.

[Soul Doubt]

Originally posted by Basically A Nice Guy:
This is precisely the problem with the stuff I get from the photogs in our shop. They never shoot cutaways. And the newer reporters don't ever seem to notice.

Every damn edit is a dissolve.

Hit the nail on the head with this one.

Other than that, I love non linear editing. It's like a light bulb and linear editing is a candle.Mike, you don't work in a tv shop.

[commercial hack]

My former shop now edits with the Grass Valley System. They have managed to stay away from the "cool" transitions so far and I have noticed the editing has been tighter and better looking video by being able to color correct some shots.

How's that for a run-on sentence?

Edit to add: AVID rules! graemlins/icon_kidra.gif

[ November 09, 2006, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: commercial hack ]

[Basically A Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Soul Doubt:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Basically A Nice Guy:
This is precisely the problem with the stuff I get from the photogs in our shop. They never shoot cutaways. And the newer reporters don't ever seem to notice.
Every damn edit is a dissolve.
Hit the nail on the head with this one.
Other than that, I love non linear editing. It's like a light bulb and linear editing is a candle.Mike, you don't work in a tv shop.</font>[/QUOTE]?

[Fire Hydrogant]

Yes, definitely lazier shooting. I often have to slomo or freeze frame almost every shot because the friggin shooter who shot it didn't hold his shots long enough. Pain in the ass.

[The Fighting Cochrane]

Originally posted by commercial hack:
My former shop now edits with the Grass Valley System. They have managed to stay away from the "cool" transitions so far and I have noticed the editing has been tighter and better looking video by being able to color correct some shots.

How's that for a run-on sentence?

Edit to add: AVID rules! graemlins/icon_kidra.gif Still seeing way, WAY too many dissolves used. :mad:

[ November 09, 2006, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: The Fighting Cochrane ]

[photog78]

I only use dissolves to transition indoors/outdoors or for time/place.

[newsties]

I don't know if the system makes the photogs lazier, but as some previous posts mention when a photog IS being lazy... that dissolve does come in handy. I'm a stickler for cut-a-ways, but I also hate having to remind a photographer to get them at every story. Don't get me wrong, not every photog is like this and I do work in a small market, but for the ones who are... it's a pain in the ass for the reporter who has to edit with the crummy vid. More frustrating for me because I used to shoot my own stuff as well and I know what you need to get to get the job done right. I very much appreciate a good photog with a good eye.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

the things you can do on Avid, and the speed you can do them with, are amazing.

but I'm not sure any of that translates into better quality reporting or better ratings.

what's the most successful TV news program in history?
60 Minutes.

how many snazzy effects do their pieces have?

[imported_Baby Cakes]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
what's the most successful TV news program in history? 60 Minutes. how many snazzy effects do their pieces have?60 minutes benefits from the best writers/producers in the business.

It's not a fair comparison.

[Bill Lumbergh]

Just because you CAN do a dissolve doesn't mean you SHOULD. Evidence of great editing only comes when the viewer only remembers the story, and not the effects. If the effects help meet that goal, so be it. But for the most part, dissolves should stay in the machine.
Editing is an art. Just because you have the tools and the canvas doesn't make you an artist.

[AutoTranz]

Wonderful thread!

[wxgeek]

Dissolves should be used in George Lucas movies. Not in news pieces.

[Fire Hydrogant]

This is a bit of a tangent from the subject of lazy shooting, but:
In my shop, lately I've been having trouble with the computer being slow at processing tasks of the Avid. Almost every time I do something even as symple as adjusting a level in the audio tool, the arrow/cursor takes almost a full second to catch up with the movement of my mouse. Our engineer says it's because we just networked things with the Isis system, and now each time you do something like create or adjust an effect or adjust an audio level, it has to communicate that to the mainframe. I don't know if he's correct, though, as we don't have that fully set up yet, and most of us are still editing our packages on local drives. Also, sometimes I sit in and watch other shooters editing their packages, just barreling through the adjustment of levels and effects, boom-boom-bam-boom, and not once have I ever seen the cursor freeze on them. Then moments later I get on that same Avid computer and it's slower than dirt again. What the hell is going on? It's like the technology doesn't like me.

[Stack It]

I remember when a competitor got some snazzy non-linear editing package a few years ago, they were dissolving between EVERY single shot. It was fricking annoying and ruined so many stories.

At our shop, even though we have all the bells and whistles, photographers still go crazy and shoot the daylights out of stories. With our desktop system, you can't do all the fancy effects stuff, so it's kind of a given that you better bring back plenty of video and if appropriate, sound.

[omb]

As someone who shoots and edits for himself, I appreciate the tools but try to make sure I could do without them first. I agree with whoever say they use the effect as a bridge and not ever edit. If you use them sparingly, it makes them more dramatic when you do.

I see them most useful for series pieces when you might want something more eye-catching. Something like a veteran looking out the window and you half dissolve a rippling flag behind him. The key is not to over-saturate the story. I was out of town this summer and saw a simple car accident vo with dissolves all the way through.

[Sir Dropham Pants]

Originally posted by newsties:
I don't know if the system makes the photogs lazier, but as some previous posts mention when a photog IS being lazy... that dissolve does come in handy. Thats kind of what I was getting at with the original post. In the olden days (takes dentures out), when a photog shot him/herself into a corner and there was no way to edit out of said corner without a dissolve, they made a mental note: "Don't do that again. Get an extra set of ECUs or different cutaways. Give yourself an editing 'out.'" Now (again, with SOME, not all), it's too easy to not make that mental note and just say ehh... dissolve/page turn-wipe.

[booyah]

They use those effects way too often at my shop,IMO. I think it takes away from the story. I agree that hard news should not be all jazzed up with wipes and dissolves, especially when they are just not necessary. I thought the whole concept of cutaways, avoiding jump cuts, close-up/medium/wide shooting was to shoot and edit as the eye sees, so as to not jar the viewer.

[ November 10, 2006, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: booyah ]

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Baby Cakes:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
what's the most successful TV news program in history? 60 Minutes. how many snazzy effects do their pieces have?60 minutes benefits from the best writers/producers in the business.

It's not a fair comparison.</font>[/QUOTE]Translation:

"I'm not a great writer or producer, but special effects can compensate for that."

Huh? Do you really believe that?

[Stimpy]

Which is more honest. Putting two sound bites together and covering the edit with a cut away or using a 10 frame dissolve to butt the two bites?
Dissolves have their place. We have been all Avid for almost ten years and I never want to go back to editing tape to tape.

[AutoTranz]

I say leave the fancy stuff to the production...not the content.

[Fire Hydrogant]

Originally posted by booyah:
They use those effects way too often at my shop,IMO. I think it takes away from the story. I agree that hard news should not be all jazzed up with wipes and dissolves, especially when they are just not necessary. I thought the whole concept of cutaways, avoiding jump cuts, close-up/medium/wide shooting was to shoot and edit as the eye sees, so as to not jar the viewer.I don't think dissolves jar the viewer, unless of course there are too many of them. When I first got access to Avid, I did a LOT of dissolves, because for years I'd worked in shops where if you wanted a dissolve you had to take your raw to production and have the production monkeys do it on the switcher the old fashioned way. I guess I had been suffering from what I would call "disssolve-capability-deprivation-syndrome..."

The same was true of dichroic filters. For years I'd worked at small market shops that didn't have dichroics or blue gels. When I finally got one, I went ape-sh!t with it, wanting to use it to light every daytime interiew. -Dichroic Deprivation Syndrome.

[ November 10, 2006, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Fire Hydrogant ]

[DoneThatToo]

Originally posted by Fire Hydrogant:
. . . because for years I'd worked in shops where if you wanted a dissolve you had to take your raw to production and have the production monkeys do it . . .Way to give props to the folks who helped you deliver a better product. :rolleyes:

[AutoTranz]

Originally posted by Fire Hydrogant:
you had to take your raw to production and have the production monkeys do it on the switcher the old fashioned way.Wow.

[ November 10, 2006, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Auto Tranz ]

[The Fighting Cochrane]

Originally posted by DoneThatToo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fire Hydrogant:
. . . because for years I'd worked in shops where if you wanted a dissolve you had to take your raw to production and have the production monkeys do it . . .Way to give props to the folks who helped you deliver a better product. :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]I prefer to call them "production carnies".

[thebrain]

Originally posted by photog78:
I only use dissolves to transition indoors/outdoors or for time/place.I also like them going into graphics and sometimes coming out of a graphic. Also it helps to bring a little emotion out of some stories. Otherwise, it slows the pacing down and is not needed in most stories.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

We're tape to tape(I've worked at another shop that used Non-lin), and the photogs shoot like they've never shot a cutaway. I'll have 10 great wide shots though. And before one thinks I'm photog bashing....these guys are fresh outta school(sad bc I'm in top 80), I've repeatedly shown them how to shoot 3 depths from each shot, and cutaways....but when we get back to the station, 10 great wide shots. Sometimes I wish I did have non-linear so I could at least do away with the white flash!

[CKMD]

Originally posted by wxgeek:
Dissolves should be used in George Lucas movies. Not in news pieces.There are some stories that could use dissolves: time change, season change, indoor/outdoor. It's a transition.
But, it has to make sense. Our photogs aren't allowed to just throw it in because they can.

[Boots]

I don't think photog's are lazier. There are more shows and crap to shoot. Period.

For most of the packages there should be and are plenty of cutaways with no dissolves. Any photog who has shot more then a year should know cutaways and anticipate them in the field.

On a side note. I was told my tape had too many dissolves, but the station I was interviewing at was deck to deck, good luck with those A/B rolls. My tape had plenty of cutaways.

The laziness you speak of is more from slamming a pack together to make that "dog lick" live then anything else. No time to edit = crappy package.

It also depends on what your shooting on. The newer tapeless camera's save video as clips everytime you hit record and stop. This makes it easier in the edit bay to find the cutaways and use them when your cramming to edit to make your shot.

[ November 10, 2006, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Boots ]