Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday January 24 2018, @08:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the film-at-11 dept.

I regularly read the Knowing and Doing blog of Eugene Wallingford who is Associate Professor and Head, Department of Computer Science at the University of Northern Iowa. In a sequence of blog posts, he artfully raises some concepts of film editing to a much wider application than just films.

We start with a blog post 95:1 that introduces a book he is currently reading:

This morning, I read the first few pages of In the Blink of an Eye, an essay on film editing by Walter Murch. He starts by talking about his work on Apocalypse Now, which took well over a year in large part because of the massive amount of film Coppola shot: 1,250,000 linear feet, enough for 230 hours of running time. The movie ended up being about two hours and twenty-five minutes, so Murch and his colleagues culled 95 minutes of footage for every minute that made it into the final product. A more typical project, Murch says, has a ratio of 20:1.

He continues this thread with a later entry The Cut:

Walter Murch, in In the Blink of an Eye:

A vast amount of preparation, really, to arrive at the innocuously brief moment of decisive act: the cut -- the moment of transition from one shot to the next -- something that, appropriately enough, should look almost self-evidently simple and effortless, if it is even noticed at all.

[...] Reading Murch has given me a new vocabulary for thinking about transitions visually. In particular, I've been thinking about two basic types of transition:

  • one that signals motion within a context
  • one that signals a change of context

These are a natural part of any writer's job, but I've found it helpful to think about them more explicitly as I worked on class this week.

And, more recently, Footnotes, expands on that concept and by noting:

While discussing the effective use of discontinuities in film, both motion within a context versus change of context, Walter Murch tells a story about... bees:

A beehive can apparently be moved two inches each night without disorienting the bees the next morning. Surprisingly, if it is moved two miles, the bees also have no problem: They are forced by the total displacement of their environment to re-orient their sense of direction, which they can do easily enough. But if the hive is moved two yards, the bees become fatally confused. The environment does not seem different to them, so they do not re-orient themselves, and as a result, they will not recognize their own hive when they return from foraging, hovering instead in the empty space where the hive used to be, while the hive itself sits just two yards away.

This is fascinating, as well being a really cool analogy for the choices movies editors face when telling a story on film. Either change so little that viewers recognize the motion as natural, or change enough that they re-orient their perspective. Don't stop in the middle.

I am still digesting this, but it leads me to wonder if the applications with which I've had the most difficulty might be guilty of failing to properly handle these transitions. In some cases the "language" is verb, noun (e.g. Open, File...) and in other cases it is Noun, Verb (e.g. Select text, Italicize). Have you run into this? What are the best/worst examples you have encountered?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by requerdanos on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:27PM

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:27PM (#627390) Journal

    Like Gimp?

    In the 90's, I had to learn Adobe Photoshop for a job [archive.org]. Initially Photoshop version 3 (note: not "CS3" which is Photoshop version 10), and then, excitingly, the Photoshop 4 beta codenamed "Big electric cat." My graphics experience up to that point had been MacPaint (the 1984 black and white edition), PC Paintbrush, and Windows Paint (the 3.1x/95 version).

    I recall that learning "the Photoshop Way" of doing things didn't reuse a whole lot of what I had previously learned from earlier software I had used, and that many operations I initially found insanely convoluted until I had done them enough times to make them seem natural.

    After I moved on from that job, circa-late-90's, I found Photoshop prohibitively expensive and so moved on to the Gimp that you mention. I bought the book "Grokking the Gimp," dead tree edition, and sat down and learned to use it.

    I recall that learning "GIMP's Way" of doing things didn't reuse as much of what I had previously learned than I would have expected, and that many operations I initially found insanely convoluted until I had done them enough times to make them seem natural.

    I have looked also at things like Krita (Just slightly different enough to seem alien to me), and later Photoshop versions (some experience with CS1, CS2, and CS4 for various jobs). My experiences are spotty, not comprehensive, but I don't think that the "motion and context" of a raster drawing and processing program that would make it feel natural has been found yet; I don't think it's just GIMP. I would love it to be proven wrong here.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3