Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
[Oliver Peters] “So does that mean that you think a track-based system more closely approximates feature film-style editing?”
Oliver,
I think that’s a bit of a skewed question.
I suppose the short answer would be that a track-based timeline (or “open timeline” as David Lawrence likes to call it) is distinctly not based on A/B editing. In a way, it sort of asks the user to bring a model to it. Many, no doubt, brought A/B editing to it. FCPX, on the other hand, has the A/B model built in as a starting point (even if editors might transcend it).
I suspect that sequence-based editing (outlined above in contrast to browser-based editing) may, indeed, have a closer affinity with film editing past, but I don’t think I could make that claim without hearing from a lot more film editors of yore.
Franz.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Well, in this context yes. But A/B-rolls are also a lab construct, where film negative can be assembled as single-stand (one reel with opticals inserted for dissolves) or checkerboard A and B reels, which run through an optical printer and dissolves are created by the printing process.”
Oliver,
This was my point above, though.
In 16mm neg cutting, the A/B roll designation was a technical distinction. Any given shot in roll A or roll B had no reason for being in that roll other than the technical necessity of checkerboarding (alternating) between one roll and the next, strictly mechanically.
(As a side note – prints from A/B neg rolls were usually contact prints, not optical.)
The A/B roll designation that came to us from broadcast was no doubt in the first instance a technical designation, but quickly developed an ideological component – shots in the A roll carried a different weight or meaning or function from shots in the B roll.
To this day, “B roll” means something that has been quite separated from the physical, technical reality. That meaning comes not from the mechanical necessity of A/B film neg rolls, but from the broadcast use of “cutaways for the radio edit”.
These are two very different meanings with different histories, and I felt your reference to the broadcast meaning as “film editing” was unduly confusing.
Franz.
-
Oliver,
I think David Roth Weiss was referencing this in one of those old threads when he talked about passing negative through film-chain projectors.
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/21071
I can’t find much about this stuff in a quick search.
But – and this is more germaine to your original post – these are all broadcast paradigms – not film. Even in your description – the “radio cut” – comes to us from broadcast history, not film history (except as it has served broadcast).
A/B editing is a broadcast conception of what editing is, and this is what has informed FCP X design.
Franz.
-
[Oliver Peters] “When news stories were cut on film you typically ended up with an A-roll reel (dialogue, a la the “radio cut”) and a synchronized b-roll reel for cutaways. The A-roll reel’s audio was striped on the picture edge. Both would be sync-rolled in two projectors and the director would switch between. This is similar – but not identical to – A/B-rolls as the term is used by film labs for printing.”
Oliver,
Live switching sync-ed projectors? This I did not know about. I would be interested in further details.
Franz.
-
[Andy Neil] “From the news perspective, A-roll refers to the interview footage that makes up the bulk of news stories.”
Andy,
Yes, you and I have posted about precisely this before. (links above)
Oliver was referring to this specifically as a “film editing” paradigm, where I associate its roots with broadcast (where its ideological meaning followed on from the practical roots of having two source decks). That is what I was asking about.
Franz.
-
[Bret Williams] “I wouldn’t say superimpositions are analogous to multiple audio channels.”
Bret,
Superimpositions and multi-frames would be analogous to parallel audio techniques (ie. mixing).
A multiple-screen video installation would be analogous to multiple audio channels.
Additionally, 3D “placement” work is maybe an interesting parallel with mixing, though I have no experience with it (so I’d be interested to hear from those who have done more work changing convergence or placement in space, for example.)
I wouldn’t dismiss these examples as particularly “bizarre”, though multiple-screen video is perhaps more exceptional.
Franz.
-
[Bret Williams] “One never routes video tracks on output.”
Bret,
I’d be careful about “never”.
There have been questions about multi-channel video installations here before.
[Bret Williams] “Just saying there is a more logical reason for audio tracks than video tracks.”
Image does tend to more serial arrangement (one shot after another) and audio at least as much to parallel arrangement (mixing) but in fact both motion picture and audio can be arranged and edited both serially and in parallel.
For image, good examples of parallel are multi-frame sequences and super-impositions (both with a long history).
However, it does seem that video tracks and audio tracks serve different purposes.
Video tracks serve at least dual purposes (as layers, and as organizational tools – Craig Seeman has pointed this out before) but I’d add a third function too which is more editorial in the case of multi-frame or superimpositions (ie not quite layers, more akin to how audio tracks function).
As for the “logic” of it – I think it’s sort of more preference in terms of how you like to think of your material and organize it.
Franz.
-
Oliver,
I’m not sure of your premise here, but I thought I’d write to clarify some of your references.
It’s clear to me that FCPX was developed around two fundamentals: A/B editing and browser-based editing.
The A/B editing as a model has been discussed before:
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/21027#21054
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/41526#41644There seems to be at least 2 distinct meanings:
– from broadcast, where A/B referred to source decks
– from film neg cutting in 16mm, where shots had to alternate from one roll to the otherI’m not familiar with your “newsfilm/documentary A-Roll (dialogue) / B-Roll (cutaway) approach” and I’d like to hear more about that process and your experience with it – it would represent a third meaning predating but similar to the broadcast meaning. Still, it seems very specific and certainly did not inform “film editing” as a whole, where rolls of film were not typically organized that way.
I could only find one discussion of this history, and it’s not very authoritative, so I’d be interested in more info if you have it.
https://www.theindiefilmblog.com/history/the-history-of-the-term-b-rollBy “browser-based editing”, I mean the approach to editing where the browser is used as the main organizing and selection space; this in contrast to “sequence-based editing” where almost all organizing and selecting is done sequences. I think there’s an argument that “sequence-based” editing is more rooted in the history of film editing, but I don’t know how conclusive that is. It seems that FCPX was developed around browser-based editing.
I have talked about this before as well:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/49642 (most recent)Given the above, I find your comparisons of FCPX and film editing a bit unclear.
Franz.
-
I have to say that I’m amazed at the low light stuff I’ve been working with off of Red Epic. Late dusk. Early dawn.
And in slow motion …
Really astounding stuff with great detail and low noise that just would not have been possible before.
Franz.
-
[Oliver Peters] “I am describing what I witness …”
Oliver,
Thanks both for your original post, and following up with this thoughtful response.
I think one thing you may want to elaborate on is the scope of what you’re commenting on – numbers of facilities or editors, and generally where or what environments.
Franz.