Editing Multicam, yikes!

farss wrote on 5/13/2006, 1:16 AM
I've edited a couple of true multicam shoots of stage productions and apart from the technical stuff which was made very easy thanks to Infiniticam it was relatively plain sailing. Just stick to a few basic rules of editing and all came out looking pretty good, even if I do say so myself.

But Oh Boy, my latest venture is a much harder boat to row. I guess the old hands will just go 'Duh Bob' but it's sure taught me a thing or two.

Some background.

This wasn't a true multicam shoot, just one camera shooting mulitple takes of a single car running in a time trial. Needless to say I was quite concerned about continuity issues.

So I started by carefully lining up two takes shot from different position on the track. Did this using what seemed the obvious, markers on the road. My idea was that if the cut happened with the car in exactly the same physical postion all should be well.

Ha, wrong! The cuts looked quite wrong and it took some head scratching to work out why. The eye isn't looking at the precise location of the car on the track at all, it's looking at the relationship between the car and the foreground and/or background. In fact the closer I got things to perfect visually the worse it'd look. I could almost fudge an effect where the car seems to keep going on it's merry way and the background jumps a huge amount across the frame and that really spins the brain out.

Now this explains something that's always bugged me. Watching live coverage of a car race sometimes the cuts look really off, like the editor lost more than a few frames, yet that's impossible.

So I've learned one thing about this game. Planning a shoot for editing can save pain. Don't slavishly follow the car around the track, let the camera come to rest and the car run out of frame, then cut. This creates some visual tension (where'd the car go???), so when we 'find' it in the next shot the brain is happy and the tension masks any continuity issues.

I did also find that dissolves do a great job of masking many visual warts however I really wanted to do this the Old School Way, cuts only. I could have also used the old standby, the cut away, plenty of them at hand however as each 'race' is very short I resisted, I felt a cutaway has a place only in longer sequences to relieve visual tedium, in a 40 second event they'd look forced.

One thing I learnt out of all this, we can argue all we like about cameras and tapes and tripods and lights but in the end nothing leaps out of the screen and hits you in the face like a Mack truck more than bad editing. For me the jouney seems to involve a lot of learning how NOT to do it but at least they're lessons I'll sure remember.

Bob.

Comments

ushere wrote on 5/13/2006, 3:03 AM
you've made an old man very happy....

it's not technology that tells the story - it's the scriptwriter, director, cameraman, editor, and they may be a team, or simply yourself.

toy's are great, but wetwear will always win out.

leslie
vicmilt wrote on 5/13/2006, 12:03 PM
Hey Bob -

As you become more and more of an editor, you will learn, "Forget about what you WANTED to do" and live with what you've got.

Based on what you've written, I suggest, yes dissolves and try even longer dissolves than the 10 or 20 frame jobbies that I suspect you are using.

Forget your dreams and work with your realities - that's what editors do.

Wish I could be there at your side. Remember, it's the editors job to make the cameraman and the director look good. If you weren't editing your own stuff right now, you'd be much more inclined to simply deal with the footage, since you would never have HAD a "dream". This, by the way, is the reason so many directors will turn the first cut over to an independent editor.

So.... put some music under your stuff (for inspiration) - and try some alternate solutions. You are trying to deal with too many (self-imposed) Rules!! (Want cuts - no cutaways) - Forget about that "mental" crap and start cutting. That's where the fun begins. Seek new solutions and it'll all come out great.
v
johnmeyer wrote on 5/13/2006, 12:50 PM
Jump cuts are definitely a thing to avoid. In addition to the fades you've already discovered can be used, try cut-aways to b-roll or anything else you have. Put next take in a PIP and then zoom out from that . Use wipes. In short, use some of those transitions that normally nobody but a newbie would use because they will avoid that head-spinning jarring feeling.

You can use side-by-side, and then zoom to one side or the other. If you ever saw the movie "Grand Prix" (circa 1965) or the original "Thomas Crown Affair" from roughly the same era, they both used multiple pictures on screen for race cars, polo matches, etc.
farss wrote on 5/13/2006, 5:06 PM
Victor,
this isn't my own stuff. Shot by a very good friend who'se cut quite a bit of drama for broadcast and the odd musicvid as well as worked as an OB cameraman. Given that he only had a A1 HDV camera and a cheap tripod to work with he's done a wonderful job, his coverage is as good as any OB work I've seen.
I did in fact do what you suggested, just for inspiration, once I'd cut around 4 races I took that into SFPro and added some music and needless to say BINGO, it all comes alive.

The overall event in the end I think will come out quite nicely. I know 20 minutes of cars going around the same track sounds like rigor mortis but some are $1M high tech fire breathing monsters and others are grand old lady vintage cars that gracefully chug around the track. With appropriate music it does develop a story to it.

John,
yes I realise there's a zillion tricks and many sources of inspiration.

Thing is I'm a 'WHY' kind of guy, make a pretty bad student.
Sure I spent a lot of time pondering the WHY of what I was trying to do wasn't working, I could have 'just got on with it' using the usual bag of tricks but now I've learned some valuable lessons, it adds to my ability to understand more of the 'WHAT' that I see and people in the know tell me, it gives me placeholders for the information rather than a collection of random facts.

On a different note, I've started using SFPro 4, very useful tool for some quick music. Forget the Mood Mapping if you use Vegas. Where the power lies is being able to export the music as tracks and then mix in Vegas, even add some FXs to the lead to match the visuals. Not a replacement for Acid or Cinescore, I'll still buy the latter when it becomes available. Just sometime you need music NOW, just to get the juices going and for that it's great.

Bob.
vitalforce wrote on 5/13/2006, 6:41 PM
The most meaningful rule I had to learn, trying to write, direct and edit, was "When you write the script, the movie is what you wrote. But after you shoot it, the movie is what you shot."
Grazie wrote on 5/14/2006, 3:19 AM


DOUBLE post - apos!!
Grazie wrote on 5/14/2006, 3:19 AM


VF! - Printed it off and stuck to my LCD screen ! ! ! Well, PINNED to my Board anyway . . .



Spot|DSE wrote on 5/14/2006, 7:55 PM
Two words on learning multicam and story flow....
"Walter Murch."
He talks a bit about editing multiple angles and editing with what you have vs what you want. "In the Blink of An Eye" is very short, but reading it carefully, you'll find some gems in there.
Serena wrote on 5/15/2006, 12:52 AM
There is a big difference between cutting and editing. The first assembles the material (as in cutting the day's rushes according to the screenplay), the second makes a film. Sure, everyone gives the credit to the director and DOP. In the type of job Bob is working on I still suggest that the clips are just the raw material out of which you create an interesting story. Since it was well shot with good coverage, this shouldn't be too impossible. I don't understand reluctance to use good cut-aways. These aren't cover for inadequate material, they're part of the story. Of course I'd have scant respect for the actual time sequence, but maybe Bob been charged with presenting an accurate record (rather than an interesting one). F-1 race TV coverage is excellent, but horribly boring.
farss wrote on 5/15/2006, 1:19 AM
but maybe Bob been charged with presenting an accurate record (rather than an interesting one). F-1 race TV coverage is excellent, but horribly boring.

===================================================

You got it, sadly for these kind of jobs 'interesting' has to play second fiddle to inclusiveness. Everyone buys a copy of the DVD to see THEIR car go around the track, same goes for sports events, miss their Johnny scoring his first try and you're dead meat.


The 'story' is what happened over three days and this part is one of the big highlights for the participants. We've also got some human interest, men and women who've spent decades rebuilding cars, (one who's partner died in the process and the wife finished it), we've got good audio also, so overall we're in good shape and we'll hopefully pickup more of this kind of work.

Bob.
Grazie wrote on 5/15/2006, 1:29 AM
Good on yah Bob!

The 'story' is what happened over three days and this part is one of the big highlights for the participants. We've also got some human interest, men and women who've spent decades rebuilding cars, (one who's partner died in the process and the wife finished it), we've got good audio also, so overall we're in good shape and

My kinda project!!

Grazie
Serena wrote on 5/15/2006, 1:38 AM
Of course I wasn't thinking you should leave anyone out -- just change the sequence of images to enhance the whole thing. Reality can be rather boring. My experience with sail racing is that competitors are happy that my videos are an impression rather than a record. Sure each wants their best bits included -- I'd include those anyway. One quite successful film (ie popular with members of that club) my story had a very well respected older member winning the event, even though this didn't happen. The guys that actually did better (and actually won) still had their good bits and they liked the story. It was amusing and it didn't bore their friends.

But I can't imagine you doing a bad job, so back in my box!!