Oh I did not realize that I hadn´t published the previous text. Sorry, well now you get 2 texts in one day. Hope you have the strength to read both...well this is short.
Yesterday I went to panic when I came home and opened my messenger and it informed me that I had over 600 new mails in my hotmail. I thought that this was some sort of spam-mail attack but went to look anyway.
Well, all the mails were from Youtube, and since I have this option there that youtube informs me always when someone comments some of my videos, these were all comments to one of my videos: Loose joints.
For some reason it was placed to the front page of Youtube- to the "Featured" section and at that time it was watched over 80,000 times. Well now the count is somewhere over 120,000 and rising..
So, now I have some new subscribers and friends in youtube! :) Here is the video:
And this is a video from last summer! The footage is from my slovenia - croatia trip with Eevis and the music is by Eevis also. Its a short fictional story about a girl travelling! Enjoy!
lauantaina, elokuuta 30, 2008
tiistaina, elokuuta 26, 2008
the almost first version
Soon I have defeated the enormously hard job of fixing the rough cut to first decent cut..but not yet, or almost. There is still some cut-fixing to do, but now the editing is much much more easier when the film is beginning to have some shape.
Few days ago I enjoyed one of the brighter sides of my work. Being at the Sputnik oy, Mr. Kaurismäki visits there occasionally and today I had a chance for a small chat with him. We briefly talked about editing and I whined a bit about this Steenbeck business, being so slow and all, to which he replied "It is much faster than a computer...or have they shot some extra material? If they have shot only what is needed and no more, Steenbeck is a much faster way to edit."
Funny man and very nice and supportive. But this made me think. When I looked at the raw material before I started to edit it, I thought "how nice, this material is really simple and clean". Meaning that it was easy to see what they had thought about in the shootings. Well, during the editing it did not appear so clear to me anymore. I could not tell by looking at the material what was intended and seemed like many shots were shot with out a clear idea where or how to use it.
Well, If I had worked with final cut it would be a clear material, but editing with steenbeck makes you think what you are going to do before you do it, and I noticed that not only is this a challenge for me as an editor, but maybe for the director and cinematographer as well..
It appears so that many directors have completely absorbed the working methods of digital editing. And why shouldn´t they? But it is seen in the material. My guess is, that if, for example all film schools made the directors edit their first film on a steenbeck, they might think an alternate way to shoot a scene, in comparision to being able to edit it digitally.
What I mean is that the knowledge of being able to twist the material to almost any form and try again and again in few seconds might give directors this feel of safety and putting the "decisions" for later, to the editing table.
So in a sense, with digital editing, the emphasis of editing has grown. I did not think like this before I edited with steenbeck. But editors now-a-days usually get all the material, eventhough the selection of shots is usually done with director, but we still have all the material and we can use bits and pieces from here and there and with digital editing the sound editing has become bigger part of film editing, being able to connect different lines to different shots already in the editing room and so on.
And I know, that all this has been possible before digital editing. But it has been much harder. Much slover. Like Kaurismäki said "If they have shot something extra, its slover". Like I assume that he is a man who knows how he wants his picture be framed and knows what he is going to use. That is the reason he often edits his own films. Cause he does not need an editor because he has done most of the editing already in the shoot.
Of course for me, this digital age with "indicisive" directors ( I don´t say this to insult any of the directors I´ve worked with, just pondering about this matter) is much more interesting for me as an editor. I guess I would not be an editor, had there not been this breaktrough in digital editing, about the same time I grew up.
Few days ago I enjoyed one of the brighter sides of my work. Being at the Sputnik oy, Mr. Kaurismäki visits there occasionally and today I had a chance for a small chat with him. We briefly talked about editing and I whined a bit about this Steenbeck business, being so slow and all, to which he replied "It is much faster than a computer...or have they shot some extra material? If they have shot only what is needed and no more, Steenbeck is a much faster way to edit."
Funny man and very nice and supportive. But this made me think. When I looked at the raw material before I started to edit it, I thought "how nice, this material is really simple and clean". Meaning that it was easy to see what they had thought about in the shootings. Well, during the editing it did not appear so clear to me anymore. I could not tell by looking at the material what was intended and seemed like many shots were shot with out a clear idea where or how to use it.
Well, If I had worked with final cut it would be a clear material, but editing with steenbeck makes you think what you are going to do before you do it, and I noticed that not only is this a challenge for me as an editor, but maybe for the director and cinematographer as well..
It appears so that many directors have completely absorbed the working methods of digital editing. And why shouldn´t they? But it is seen in the material. My guess is, that if, for example all film schools made the directors edit their first film on a steenbeck, they might think an alternate way to shoot a scene, in comparision to being able to edit it digitally.
What I mean is that the knowledge of being able to twist the material to almost any form and try again and again in few seconds might give directors this feel of safety and putting the "decisions" for later, to the editing table.
So in a sense, with digital editing, the emphasis of editing has grown. I did not think like this before I edited with steenbeck. But editors now-a-days usually get all the material, eventhough the selection of shots is usually done with director, but we still have all the material and we can use bits and pieces from here and there and with digital editing the sound editing has become bigger part of film editing, being able to connect different lines to different shots already in the editing room and so on.
And I know, that all this has been possible before digital editing. But it has been much harder. Much slover. Like Kaurismäki said "If they have shot something extra, its slover". Like I assume that he is a man who knows how he wants his picture be framed and knows what he is going to use. That is the reason he often edits his own films. Cause he does not need an editor because he has done most of the editing already in the shoot.
Of course for me, this digital age with "indicisive" directors ( I don´t say this to insult any of the directors I´ve worked with, just pondering about this matter) is much more interesting for me as an editor. I guess I would not be an editor, had there not been this breaktrough in digital editing, about the same time I grew up.
lauantaina, elokuuta 23, 2008
The cowards way...or the smart way?
So, maybe I now ruined everything, or maybe not. If working with film has something to offer, did I neglect the chances of learning by using modern tool to help my editing? Let me elaborate on the matter.
Few days ago I looked the material and was in anguish because of its complexity. My teacher had said that complex dialogue scenes would be better to plan with a pen and paper before cutting the actual film. So I sat there, watching the raw material I had put together and wondered should I start to draw some storyboards or what.. Then my eyes moved on the table and I saw my mobile phone. Nothing happened yet but when I looked it a bit longer I realized that it has a "good quality" video camera in it.. There was not yet a thought in my mind.. I just slowly opened the videocam-opiton from my phone and pointed it to the screen of Steenbeck. At this point the idea formed in my head. "If I shoot with this the raw footage I´ve gathered and done preliminary editing on, I can do the ´demo´of the final edit using this mobilephone video material!" Isn´t that the same as doing it with storyboards?? Even better!?
(in picture "the nail closet" a real life replacement for "bin" look down for more info)
So I shot some scenes and went home to edit them. The director found this really funny, but in my opinion it really gives me a big help. I can do the thinking as I would do it normally in editing, but then go there to cut the film, using the video as a reference. And it worked, today I cut one of the scenes I had edited with my laptop and it was easy and fun. So, do I now miss all the teachings that editing with steenbeck has to offer? I believe not. I just speed up the editing, cause I don´t edit the whole film like this. Only the few harder scenes. In my point of view it would be stupid not to use this method for help.
After all, in the movie Space odyssey 2001 the monkeys that learned to use tools, bones as a weapon, defeated the monkeys that did not understand to do this. So it is idiocy not to use all the help that is available. And I still work with the film and I had to overcome some problems concerning the sound. And I did! Although I´m still not using 2 soundtracks, cause I find that hard and weird. I just do edits in different places in sound than in picture. Simple, but keeping the sync wasn´t easy at first.
So, I have only one week time to do this, then I have to start editing this tv-show. So after next week I have to do this on the evenings. But now I feel that this will work, that maybe we can get this film edited someday :)
These are the alternate "bins" where I collect the material which I´ve edited out..And this is what I am used to->
Or actually at first I use the nail closet, then I move the film to the bins...
Few days ago I looked the material and was in anguish because of its complexity. My teacher had said that complex dialogue scenes would be better to plan with a pen and paper before cutting the actual film. So I sat there, watching the raw material I had put together and wondered should I start to draw some storyboards or what.. Then my eyes moved on the table and I saw my mobile phone. Nothing happened yet but when I looked it a bit longer I realized that it has a "good quality" video camera in it.. There was not yet a thought in my mind.. I just slowly opened the videocam-opiton from my phone and pointed it to the screen of Steenbeck. At this point the idea formed in my head. "If I shoot with this the raw footage I´ve gathered and done preliminary editing on, I can do the ´demo´of the final edit using this mobilephone video material!" Isn´t that the same as doing it with storyboards?? Even better!?
(in picture "the nail closet" a real life replacement for "bin" look down for more info)So I shot some scenes and went home to edit them. The director found this really funny, but in my opinion it really gives me a big help. I can do the thinking as I would do it normally in editing, but then go there to cut the film, using the video as a reference. And it worked, today I cut one of the scenes I had edited with my laptop and it was easy and fun. So, do I now miss all the teachings that editing with steenbeck has to offer? I believe not. I just speed up the editing, cause I don´t edit the whole film like this. Only the few harder scenes. In my point of view it would be stupid not to use this method for help.
After all, in the movie Space odyssey 2001 the monkeys that learned to use tools, bones as a weapon, defeated the monkeys that did not understand to do this. So it is idiocy not to use all the help that is available. And I still work with the film and I had to overcome some problems concerning the sound. And I did! Although I´m still not using 2 soundtracks, cause I find that hard and weird. I just do edits in different places in sound than in picture. Simple, but keeping the sync wasn´t easy at first.
So, I have only one week time to do this, then I have to start editing this tv-show. So after next week I have to do this on the evenings. But now I feel that this will work, that maybe we can get this film edited someday :)
These are the alternate "bins" where I collect the material which I´ve edited out..And this is what I am used to->
Or actually at first I use the nail closet, then I move the film to the bins...tiistaina, elokuuta 19, 2008
Rough cut - version 0.0
So, today, after 2 weeks. I finally finished the first assembly of the movie. It is still quite primitive version, whit parts of many takes including the same action/dialogue. From this version I start to scrape the final film.
(in picture: the raw cut reels, duration: unknown)
I must say, I´ve gone through some variable emotions during these 2 weeks. The knowledge that the time wont be enough always pops to my head and if I am doing something difficult, the indignation starts to rise.
Sometimes it has been hard to control the rage that boils, but mostly I´ve been doing fine. I guess now I am at the point that every other day feels good and every other bad.
I just mostly think "Why am I doing this?" . Today I thought about development in mechanics and all these electronics. And the over all importance of all these equipments. Like a cellphone is basically totally unnecessary, but when it was invented, suddenly everyone had one and now, it is hard for me, for example, to think about living with out it. So even though the human race managed with out a cell phone for all these years, was there a need for that kind of equipment in our species or culture? Cause if it had been a totally unimportant invention, there would not be so many of them in the world. Like for example, I don´t own a tamagochi or whattehell they were, or a palm-computer...
So, before digital editing was invented, people made good films. No doubt about that. But for me, a person who has never used even an analog video-editing system, just edited some stuff with 2 normal vcrs, but basically learned editing with a computer, it seems really, really odd to be editing with Steenbeck. I mean, yes it is cool to use the old-school method. But it feels so hard. It is so ponderous to do..And I still would like to question the fact that it is somehow more real way to do it or more hard-core. I think it is just more harder.
Cause although digital editing has made editing easier and more approachable to everyone, it still requires some skill to do it well, some understanding about things that not everyone seem to understand. Using steenbeck might be the old hand way to do things and it might include some heavy thinking that "the soft generation" today can not do, but I claim that if you find an old editor who has never used Final Cut pro, he might find it quite hard. It is only a question about what have you become accustomed to. Nothing else. Editing basically stays the same.
So at this point, my claim is that I´ll just learn to use steenbeck, but that is all I am going to learn and what we achieve with this? Well, I just hope that the movie will become as good as it would have been If i´ve edited it the normal way. And I possible will be soo tired after all this.
And still, I feel that using digital editing, lets you sculpt the material in a really special way, compared to steenbeck-editing..
but I think we still sometimes miss the romanticism there was in meeting a person, and not being able to keep in touch with him/her all the time with multiple equipments (like facebook, cellphone, messenger...). So is there something in not using the latest inventions of everything? Or is it just stupidity. Sometimes maybe, not all the time.
(in picture: the raw cut reels, duration: unknown)I must say, I´ve gone through some variable emotions during these 2 weeks. The knowledge that the time wont be enough always pops to my head and if I am doing something difficult, the indignation starts to rise.
Sometimes it has been hard to control the rage that boils, but mostly I´ve been doing fine. I guess now I am at the point that every other day feels good and every other bad.
I just mostly think "Why am I doing this?" . Today I thought about development in mechanics and all these electronics. And the over all importance of all these equipments. Like a cellphone is basically totally unnecessary, but when it was invented, suddenly everyone had one and now, it is hard for me, for example, to think about living with out it. So even though the human race managed with out a cell phone for all these years, was there a need for that kind of equipment in our species or culture? Cause if it had been a totally unimportant invention, there would not be so many of them in the world. Like for example, I don´t own a tamagochi or whattehell they were, or a palm-computer...
So, before digital editing was invented, people made good films. No doubt about that. But for me, a person who has never used even an analog video-editing system, just edited some stuff with 2 normal vcrs, but basically learned editing with a computer, it seems really, really odd to be editing with Steenbeck. I mean, yes it is cool to use the old-school method. But it feels so hard. It is so ponderous to do..And I still would like to question the fact that it is somehow more real way to do it or more hard-core. I think it is just more harder.Cause although digital editing has made editing easier and more approachable to everyone, it still requires some skill to do it well, some understanding about things that not everyone seem to understand. Using steenbeck might be the old hand way to do things and it might include some heavy thinking that "the soft generation" today can not do, but I claim that if you find an old editor who has never used Final Cut pro, he might find it quite hard. It is only a question about what have you become accustomed to. Nothing else. Editing basically stays the same.
So at this point, my claim is that I´ll just learn to use steenbeck, but that is all I am going to learn and what we achieve with this? Well, I just hope that the movie will become as good as it would have been If i´ve edited it the normal way. And I possible will be soo tired after all this.And still, I feel that using digital editing, lets you sculpt the material in a really special way, compared to steenbeck-editing..
but I think we still sometimes miss the romanticism there was in meeting a person, and not being able to keep in touch with him/her all the time with multiple equipments (like facebook, cellphone, messenger...). So is there something in not using the latest inventions of everything? Or is it just stupidity. Sometimes maybe, not all the time.
keskiviikkona, elokuuta 13, 2008
"So, you think you are a good editor?"
First full day of real 35mm film editing behind. Before today I was just syncing the material and we watched trough with the director and my teacher came to give me some advices with the editing yesterday.
I tried to do something yesterday, but suddenly I realized the magnitude of work needed and the work being so slow that our timetables would not hold. I got really anxious and could not work at all. Luckily clock was something about 6´00 p.m. so I went home to cure my anxiousness with some jasmine tea.
Today I started fresh but it still seemed hard. It is hard to explain. People call me "a fast editor" or "a good editor". But the thing is, that like with writing, which I prefer to do on a computer because for me it is much faster and more pleasant to write with keyboard, cause with a pen I must concentrate to every letter, cause my handwriting turns really really bad if I write too fast, same thing applies here.
With Final Cut Pro, for example, I don´t need to use the program to edit. What I mean that I don´t feel like I am using some tool to shape the material. I am just shaping it. I feel like I have almost straight contact with the material cause all the versions of all different ways of cutting appear in front of me right a way, almost simultaneously when I think about them. ALMOST. Working with FCP is so fast, when you´ve learned it, of course, that just seeing the material, and with few clicks seeing the cuts, lets you imagine in a very concrete way.
People always talk about the different way of thinking. Well, that is true. But right now I am not convinced that the thinking method with steenbeck-editing is in any way better than with digital editing.
It requires that you visualize the cuts beforehand in your head. This you can do with a computer instantly. Here you look at the material, think that "this might work" then you do it, then you evaluate. The process is in its simplicity the same with digital editing, but at this stage, I feel that there is a machine between me and the material. This is of course present with all new instruments.
But the way I´ve learned to use digital editing, which enables me to work fast with it, I cut corners with some stages of thinking, editing with digital edit is more like feeling for me. I never think about my first versions. Or not that much, I just make what feels good, then I watch it, and see that some of it is good, some of it is bad.
This sounds bad, I know. "with digital editing you don´t have to think". But that is not what I mean. Or even if it was, that still would be a good thing I think, cause for editor, feeling is as much important than thinking rationally. Even more important and for me, it is good that feel comes before rational though and not the other way around.
What I mean is just that with Steenbeck, it takes a very long time to complete a single cut. So during that time, at least for a beginner, you have to concentrate on doing the right markings, keeping the sync and rolling the left over material to left-overs reel and do all the taping and cutting. All this time is away from thinking about the film itself.
So, it might be that this procedure becomes mechanic for me that I don´t have to think about all the stages, but still... There is some reason that I still write with computer and not with a pen. And I believe that it is not only because it is just easier.
This connects straight to one other thought I´ve had aboud editing. It´s about all the people that talk about the beauty and power of editing and use examples of Eisensteins´ montage. . . Yeah that is a cool thing.and interesting. But the real power of editing comes with the feeling of the material. The ability to evolve already shot scenes with actors to the next stage, only with choosing the right moments and what to leave out and what to show and editor also can think about how to show it. Emotional editing. And I don´t mean pictures connected with weird ways. Just a simple conversation scene for example. A really good editor is found through these kind of scenes.
I tried to do something yesterday, but suddenly I realized the magnitude of work needed and the work being so slow that our timetables would not hold. I got really anxious and could not work at all. Luckily clock was something about 6´00 p.m. so I went home to cure my anxiousness with some jasmine tea.
Today I started fresh but it still seemed hard. It is hard to explain. People call me "a fast editor" or "a good editor". But the thing is, that like with writing, which I prefer to do on a computer because for me it is much faster and more pleasant to write with keyboard, cause with a pen I must concentrate to every letter, cause my handwriting turns really really bad if I write too fast, same thing applies here.
With Final Cut Pro, for example, I don´t need to use the program to edit. What I mean that I don´t feel like I am using some tool to shape the material. I am just shaping it. I feel like I have almost straight contact with the material cause all the versions of all different ways of cutting appear in front of me right a way, almost simultaneously when I think about them. ALMOST. Working with FCP is so fast, when you´ve learned it, of course, that just seeing the material, and with few clicks seeing the cuts, lets you imagine in a very concrete way.
People always talk about the different way of thinking. Well, that is true. But right now I am not convinced that the thinking method with steenbeck-editing is in any way better than with digital editing.
It requires that you visualize the cuts beforehand in your head. This you can do with a computer instantly. Here you look at the material, think that "this might work" then you do it, then you evaluate. The process is in its simplicity the same with digital editing, but at this stage, I feel that there is a machine between me and the material. This is of course present with all new instruments.
But the way I´ve learned to use digital editing, which enables me to work fast with it, I cut corners with some stages of thinking, editing with digital edit is more like feeling for me. I never think about my first versions. Or not that much, I just make what feels good, then I watch it, and see that some of it is good, some of it is bad.
This sounds bad, I know. "with digital editing you don´t have to think". But that is not what I mean. Or even if it was, that still would be a good thing I think, cause for editor, feeling is as much important than thinking rationally. Even more important and for me, it is good that feel comes before rational though and not the other way around.
What I mean is just that with Steenbeck, it takes a very long time to complete a single cut. So during that time, at least for a beginner, you have to concentrate on doing the right markings, keeping the sync and rolling the left over material to left-overs reel and do all the taping and cutting. All this time is away from thinking about the film itself.
So, it might be that this procedure becomes mechanic for me that I don´t have to think about all the stages, but still... There is some reason that I still write with computer and not with a pen. And I believe that it is not only because it is just easier.
This connects straight to one other thought I´ve had aboud editing. It´s about all the people that talk about the beauty and power of editing and use examples of Eisensteins´ montage. . . Yeah that is a cool thing.and interesting. But the real power of editing comes with the feeling of the material. The ability to evolve already shot scenes with actors to the next stage, only with choosing the right moments and what to leave out and what to show and editor also can think about how to show it. Emotional editing. And I don´t mean pictures connected with weird ways. Just a simple conversation scene for example. A really good editor is found through these kind of scenes.
lauantaina, elokuuta 09, 2008
Syncing is done!
Now I´ll rest for the weekend and see on Monday if the reels really are all in sync. After the screenings begins the editing, which will be interesting.
Before the film cutter was invented, or the film splicer, editors cut the film with scissors, stropped the frames with sandpaper and glued them together. After adding the glue they hold the glued frames with 2 fingers for about 10 seconds. Then the cut was done.
Dr. Leo Catozzo was editing Fellinis´La Dolce Vita (Now if I am wrong, please correct me), and during the editing, I guess he got frustrated to the constant changes and versions Fellini wanted to see, and he started to think that there must be an easier way to do edits. Why cant we use just simple tape? would it hold? what about the perforation-holes on the sides? Well, he started to design a machine and soon enough the guy invented the Self- Perforating Adhesive Tape Film Splicer.
It has a track for the film to go in, and little metallic holders for the perforation holes. The topside opens and you can put the film there, and on the right side there is a blade to cut film with.
After you´ve cut the film you move the film to the right side of the splicer, so that the end is in the middle, and the other end, which you want to cut to, to the other side, so that the cut is in the middle of the splicer, and use the tape which can be seen in the middle of the splicer in the photo. Then you press the thing down with some strength and the splicer cuts the tape and does perforation holes also. This thing takes about 10 second. So in its time this was an awesome improvement, and possibly saved many editors lives out of stress-related deaths.
So the good doctor Catozzo got a patent for the machine became very rich, stopped editing films, bought a mansion at an island somewhere and lived nicely there. And might still be living, I could not find any birth dates or like that on the net, so lets hope he enjoys himself where ever he is.
Of course, from my point of view even using the film splicer takes a lot of time, cause I am used to the little "razor icon" on the screen that i can click. Or even better the fast key for it on my keypad.
Before the film cutter was invented, or the film splicer, editors cut the film with scissors, stropped the frames with sandpaper and glued them together. After adding the glue they hold the glued frames with 2 fingers for about 10 seconds. Then the cut was done.Dr. Leo Catozzo was editing Fellinis´La Dolce Vita (Now if I am wrong, please correct me), and during the editing, I guess he got frustrated to the constant changes and versions Fellini wanted to see, and he started to think that there must be an easier way to do edits. Why cant we use just simple tape? would it hold? what about the perforation-holes on the sides? Well, he started to design a machine and soon enough the guy invented the Self- Perforating Adhesive Tape Film Splicer.
It has a track for the film to go in, and little metallic holders for the perforation holes. The topside opens and you can put the film there, and on the right side there is a blade to cut film with.
After you´ve cut the film you move the film to the right side of the splicer, so that the end is in the middle, and the other end, which you want to cut to, to the other side, so that the cut is in the middle of the splicer, and use the tape which can be seen in the middle of the splicer in the photo. Then you press the thing down with some strength and the splicer cuts the tape and does perforation holes also. This thing takes about 10 second. So in its time this was an awesome improvement, and possibly saved many editors lives out of stress-related deaths.
So the good doctor Catozzo got a patent for the machine became very rich, stopped editing films, bought a mansion at an island somewhere and lived nicely there. And might still be living, I could not find any birth dates or like that on the net, so lets hope he enjoys himself where ever he is.Of course, from my point of view even using the film splicer takes a lot of time, cause I am used to the little "razor icon" on the screen that i can click. Or even better the fast key for it on my keypad.
torstaina, elokuuta 07, 2008
Proceeding with syncing sound with images
On Tuesday I worked 10 hours, on Wednesday 11 hours and today, Thursday 12 hours. There seems to be too few hours in a day. Today I left work just because I counted that I won´t get enough rest for tomorrow, if I don´t leave now.
(in picture: film cutter )
My working tempo has improved and if everything goes well I have all the scenes in sync by tomorrow evening. But if everything doesn´t go well...Like today at around 7:30 p.m when I had been working already over 11 hours. I was going to ad one shot to a reel, when I noticed that almost the whole reel, except few of the last shots are out of sync about 2 frames. I started to fix this, and when I was nearly finished, I realized that I had not gone from the beginning to end fixing the mis-sync, but from end to beginning, rewinding, and fixing the sync. This was a great mistake. The problem would have been fixed by adding 2 frames to the beginning of the reel, but now I added 2 frames to 10 different shots in a reel, so the first shot that I fixed was now something like 18frames out of sync. I realized this when I was nearly finished, and started to fix it again, removing all the other "fixes"besides the first one...how foolish of me.
But this is something that at least I need to work on: Linearity. Computer editing is non-linear. And it truly is that. I sometimes hear that in comparison to Steenbeck editing, digital editing has different "direction" in editing than in Steenbeck. People sometimes speak about editing "on the right side" on the computer, or "on the left side" on Steenbeck. Yes, on Steenbeck you do the editing on the left side of the table, but on a computer, there is no sides. You can edit however you want. Not on the right or the left, but on both or in the middle or up and down if you will. So..Nonlinear editing has made it difficult for me to always understand that things are linear.. but of course this is not a major problem.
Here you can see some film cases on the upper shelf. Below that you can see (from the right) some empty film, for the beginning of the reels or where there is no image but it is needed, some empty sound (the blue thing) for the same purpose. Some cleaning liquid for the sound sensors, and some sound reels for syncing.
I have some anecdotes to tell, as soon as I get some time to write here properly. Now some sleep.
(in picture: film cutter )My working tempo has improved and if everything goes well I have all the scenes in sync by tomorrow evening. But if everything doesn´t go well...Like today at around 7:30 p.m when I had been working already over 11 hours. I was going to ad one shot to a reel, when I noticed that almost the whole reel, except few of the last shots are out of sync about 2 frames. I started to fix this, and when I was nearly finished, I realized that I had not gone from the beginning to end fixing the mis-sync, but from end to beginning, rewinding, and fixing the sync. This was a great mistake. The problem would have been fixed by adding 2 frames to the beginning of the reel, but now I added 2 frames to 10 different shots in a reel, so the first shot that I fixed was now something like 18frames out of sync. I realized this when I was nearly finished, and started to fix it again, removing all the other "fixes"besides the first one...how foolish of me.
But this is something that at least I need to work on: Linearity. Computer editing is non-linear. And it truly is that. I sometimes hear that in comparison to Steenbeck editing, digital editing has different "direction" in editing than in Steenbeck. People sometimes speak about editing "on the right side" on the computer, or "on the left side" on Steenbeck. Yes, on Steenbeck you do the editing on the left side of the table, but on a computer, there is no sides. You can edit however you want. Not on the right or the left, but on both or in the middle or up and down if you will. So..Nonlinear editing has made it difficult for me to always understand that things are linear.. but of course this is not a major problem.
Here you can see some film cases on the upper shelf. Below that you can see (from the right) some empty film, for the beginning of the reels or where there is no image but it is needed, some empty sound (the blue thing) for the same purpose. Some cleaning liquid for the sound sensors, and some sound reels for syncing.I have some anecdotes to tell, as soon as I get some time to write here properly. Now some sleep.
tiistaina, elokuuta 05, 2008
Editing with the Steenbeck apparatus
So, now that I again do something that differs a bit from my everyday doings I might as well write about it here, cause I feel empty and out of ideas.
Today started the editing of Jalil- shortfilm, at Sputnik-production company. I am editing it the "old school way", I cut 35mm film, I roll the reels. I tried to talk my way out of this, I just wanted to edit it with my laptop or something, you know, the usual way, but the producer and director were quite strict about this and laughed at my worries about working with real film.
Many times I emphasized that I have no idea about how to work with film or with the Steenbeck apparatus. But everybody told me that it was going to be fun and I would learn it in a few days or something.
Well, last week I went to see the horrific apparatus and my teacher from school came to give me some advices about using the ghastly machine. The main thing now is that working with Steenbeck is soooo slow. But it is different than computer being slow. If computer is slow, you get mad and start to hit it and your blood veins start to pop from your eyes and temples, but steenbeck goes as fast as you can use it. You have to rewind the material all the time, you have to check the sync all the time, you have to do your little markings all the time and make sure they are correct. So it is kinda like more natural way of working, even tough you operate an infernal gizmo.
What I noticed right away is that it feels really good not having to work with computer all the time. You can not just click the screen and go to check your facebook site, see the status updates of your friends and you can not check your e-mail every 5 minutes. I find this really soothing. The one thing I hate in editing is the fact that you have to sit in front of a computer all day, and when you have free time at the evenings or weekend, and you have time to write or something, you always end up sitting in front of a computer. If you are not outside.
What bothers me a bit is the fact that picture and sound never really meet while working with film. They are always separate and that makes me feel uneasy. Working with computer you sync the sound and picture to the same file and they stay that way. With film you just make the film and sound the same length. So every time you load a reel you have to check the sync.
But quite quickly I got rid of the first weird feeling of handling the real film material. That you have to really pull and roll and touch and cut the film. This was something that I thought about before I started working with film, that it must feel weird, but that feeling went away fast. At first I didn´t even dear to touch the film, at the end of the day (I worked 11 hours at the first day) I grabbed it and pulled it and made some strange markings to it and cut it with no worries..
So, let´s see what tomorrow brings, I only have this month to cut this film. It should be 28 minutes long. Im not sure how much material I have cause I can not count from the reels given to me.
I got almost 3 scenes to sync on the first day. There were many delays and I worked slowly, I hope my tempo quickens.. but there are 22 scenes so a good start! :)
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)