What "style" of edit is this ?

[Gregormannschaft]

On 16 July 2016 at 8:37 AM, Benverine said:

I made a video in this style. Definitely not as good as the Watchtower of Turkey, but I'm pretty proud of it. What do you guys think? 

 

Good effort. Some are more seamless than others and I expect that after a bit of a rest of looking at it you'll see which parts. It's a good skill to learn but I'd keep at it until you feel you can put your own twist on it and then follow that further.

 

[Michael Ma]

It just looks like a lot of hard work in the editing room and in the field to blend as a variety of non-standard very creative transitions.  A lot of brainstorming and time was spent coming up with ways to transition.  For example, he uses something that looks like rolling shutter to blend into the next cut.  Genius!

[DPC]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_cut

Here you can see the technique often applied in a more gentle manner to get from one scene to another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_(film)

 

 

[fuzzynormal]

FWIW, the basic technique of match-cutting has certainly been part of the craft from the earliest days of montage editing.  Now, since the tempo of modern editing is so frantic and kinetic I'd call this evolution of the style "hyper-match-cut" as it's over and above even the fast paced stuff we're used to in more "standard" edits.

Also, the craft to aggressively accentuate the blend of movement is obviously such a huge priority it becomes the prominent aesthetic and the entire justification of the video.

Cool, to be sure.  Enjoyable in short doses as it's style above substance and fun to look at.  Perfect for impressionistic travel films.  

How well does it work for fictional narrative though?  I suppose it depends.  

Alright, so this is going to be a bit of a tangent, but I must say since this thread has me thinking about it, after watching "Jason Bourne" last night, I felt that the fast cut style was pushed beyond my tolerance.  Your mileage may differ, but for me it became unnecessary distraction rather than an effective technique.  

However, it was interesting to note how incredibly short the editor/director was willing to make a shot and still attempt to maintain narrative cohesion.  The answer, as much as I could tell, was about a 4th of a second.  For me, it was like this:  visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, okay I see a knife falling to the ground, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, he landed a punch there, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, okay I see a gun, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, his wound is a liability, etc., etc.  --And all that happens in about 2 seconds.  

I'm actually not being dismissively critical of the "mess" part, (flying elbows, CU's of motion blurred faces) because I realize it's designed (or tolerated?) to be a sort of impressionistic din and then the incredibly short but important visual clues let the viewer connect to the unfolding sequence. I'm just fascinated by deconstructing the technique and the limits they were willing to push.

So, it works for me when it's short and highly stylized as in these travel videos, but kinda annoying when looking at it for extended action sequences.

[HelsinkiZim]

On 16/07/2016 at 9:37 AM, Benverine said:

I made a video in this style. Definitely not as good as the Watchtower of Turkey, but I'm pretty proud of it. What do you guys think? 

 

It's so strange how this technique never dies. I instantly want to know how you you did it. But  there is no 'it'. Its an understanding of camera-hyperlapse-editing. Not even at s crazy level, just diligence.

8 minutes ago, HelsinkiZim said:

It's so strange how this technique never dies. I instantly want to know how you you did it. But  there is no 'it'. Its an understanding of camera-hyperlapse-editing. Not even at s crazy level, just diligence.

Shoot, I didn't give feedback!

Aside from my observer critique, I actually enjoyed this video to the same extent as the Turkey one. This in our day and age was actually better. You didn't have access to balloons or whatever, but it came across as thoughtful underneath the flamboyance.

[OliKMIA]

The essence of that kind of video is:

1. Capture a lot of footage. The author says that he captured 4TB of data to make a 3:30 minutes video in 1080..

2. Match the transition using motion blur, perfect image and frame alignment. This is very important because just a few degrees difference or 1 frame before or after can ruin/win a transition.

Like he says :

"To create a continuous movement, every cut must appear to seamlessly transition into the other. And you can only see if shots really work together while you are cutting them on the timeline. You can have a shot that is very cool but the colour, the content or the movement doesn’t match with the preceding or the following shots. So you have to find another one. It’s like a puzzle. Finding those shots that match perfectly together and that also fit with the story and the overall flow of the edit can be a big problem when you have so much footage."

So it's a game of patience and hard work, can be very very dull sometime because of the amount of raw footage.

For the hyperlpase, I can try to help answer your question if you want. Here is what I do:

 

[samcasbon]

Here is another example. The idea being a flow of matching shots woven together by edits.

[TwoScoops]

The best part about these great edits is when some moron posts in the comments asking which software they used.

[silvertonesx24]

2 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

The best part about these great edits is when some moron posts in the comments asking which software they used.

My favorite part of film Q&As- "hurr durr what camera did you shoot this on"

1- it's probably either Red or Alexa

2- how did you miss the giant "shot on RED" promo in the end credits?

[fuzzynormal]

10 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

The best part about these great edits is when some moron posts in the comments asking which software they used.

Media100?

[HelsinkiZim]

19 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Media100?

Sony Vegas?