The theme of the show was undoubtedly 3D, with a lot of blu-ray worked in on the side (and often at the same time). I’m beginning to understand the appeal a bit more now that I’ve been able to view things such as football and rugby matches in 3D, and now that people are becoming more familiar with the techniques to correctly shoot for 3D.

I’m not bothered about the new technologies and terminologies so much. I generally enjoy the challenges and opportunities to see how new methodologies can be used in storytelling. It’s the creative implications that this could have for editors, as well as the cast and crew of any given production, that concerns me.

Previously, a ‘bad’ shot (from the perspective of the DoP) could be used if the performance justified it, or if the other options were perhaps even less appealing. Consider the number of shots in features which may have an unintentional soft focus on an actor’s mid-shot, or a boom pole in view. The sort of thing that the IMDb fanatics add to the goofs section on a film’s page. During the editing process the DoP may have complained, and there would have been interaction on what they noticed about the shot versus what the audience would ever notice, and the shot would make it in or not based on a range of creative and perhaps technical considerations.

However, with the absolute need for cameras to be aligned correctly in order for the stereoscopic effect to correctly function minus the headaches which so often resulted in the ‘early’ days of polarised 3D (now termed “retinal rivalry”); a performance could be ideal, the most perfect emotional response for the scene, and it would be completely unusable. And not just within a single shot – the transition between shots also comes in to play. Whilst a certain workaround is referred to as making an “active depth cut” in which the transition is smoothened through slight animation, there’s a limit to the damage control that can be done. And to what extent will scenes now have to be storyboarded/ pre-visualised? Will this necessarily be with or without the editor?

A lot of this could be vital to workflow – is a film cut in 2D (with the “left eye”, traditionally) and then merely conformed in 3D, or should all work be done in 3D from the start, with takes selected on their ability to merge with each other and draw attention to the correct part of the screen? All of which will of course have to be done in full-res, with frequent viewings on large screens.

That said, the two full-length features I’ve seen in 3D so far have been amazing – although there is perhaps something to be said that they’ve both been animated films (Up and Coraline), for which the workflow is traditionally much more suited to planning cuts before the action is filmed. And of course both Avatar and Alice were heavily built by VFX crews.

Ultimately, the future may be 3D, but for now I remain skeptical on claims that it’s going to be the revolution akin to the transition from silent films to “talkies” that its supporters claim.

This of course is a subject we’ve all discussed before – what if editing could have the user interface of Minority Report?

In the film, Tom Cruise reviews video footage of a crime (that has yet to happen, but that’s irrelevant here) and utilises all manner of time-lapse, zoom and selection tools via a pair of gloves and a projector.

The potential has always been obvious – mapping functions on an editing system to certain gestures (in the same way they can be mapped to buttons on the shuttlepro) to start with, with more specialist applications being developed to relate those gestures to certain areas of the screen/room or depending on the toolset you’d like to access at the time…. but with the wii remote and now the promised multi-touch mapping to multiple features and becoming a part of regular useage, the future seems to look bright. We’re getting there. Now just to combine them and not actually need a physical connection to input data.

Another ‘future’ development that came to my attention recently was in the 20th June issue of Broadcast – the UK TV trade paper. Within a more general section hypothesising the technology available in 2012 (with a fair number of mentions given to stereoscopic techniques, also known as 3D and previously discussed in this blog), there was a mention of the implications for post-production involved in tapeless filming. If rushes/ dailies are recorded straight to a disc, could that disc be part of a network which also includes an edit suite? How soon could editing theoretically begin after filming starts? And if an editor is on set/ receiving footage in real-time even in a remote location, how would that alter their role – as well as that of the director and cinematographer?

As a recent entrant to the post-production business, it’s easy for me to think of the current processes as how they’ve always been. My technological progression has more or less been from Premiere to various versions of Final Cut and Avid. As part of the Editing MA at the NFTS we do two excercises on Steenbecks with 16mm film, and I have a vague recollection of witnessing linear editing at Oxford Road in Manchester during some BBC outreach programme I participated in during my school years. Unless an article or book is specifically referring to the physical techniques involved, the view seems to be that the editor’s role and input has stayed largely the same over the conversion to digital even if the techniques have changed. But as I prepare to start my professional career (with any luck) with the tools that I think will see me through for the time being at least, I do wonder how different the job will look and be in 40 years’ time.

This is my latest toy.  It’s a Contour ShuttlePRO v.2, USB interface, 15 customisable buttons (plus jog/shuttle), a shed load of application pre-loads, plus import/export on your custom settings whenever you take it anywhere else.

In Avid, the inner dial will move your playhead along one frame at a time (at just the right sensitivity), and the outer will play your video at normal speed, increased speed, reverse speed…. basically the same as tapping the J and L keys multiple times, but in a far more ergonomic and inutitive way. One minor grumble that there’s no lock to keep the video playing at normal speed as you’d get on a Steenbeck or a Lightworks console, but it’s easy enough to adjust your hand and/or map a button or two to the relevant function.

I’ve put it on the left of the keyboard so that I can simultaneously use the shuttlepro and the mouse, though I’m not sure it’s possible to entirely omit the need for the keyboard – I have settings for digitising, assembling/ editing and trimming (see below the cut), and rather than go up to the drop down menu to select the exact setting I need for a certain splice, it’s easier to just press the corresponding key.

I’m still changing some of the settings and buttons since I got it a fortnight or so ago to find the best positions and keystroke replacements, but so long as I remember it’s there I’ve found that my editing speed has significantly increased as I’ve become more used to the shuttlepro interface.  I’d definitely recommend it – and for video editing, the 15 button shuttlePRO is a must – its smaller cousin the ShuttleXpress has just 5 buttons in addition to the jog/ shuttle wheel, and finding your way around the larger version isn’t as intimidating as it may look at first.

Top row (some repeats to save switching modes constantly):

Digitise: 1 - Capture tool (control-7), 2 – Audio tool (control-1), 3 - Record (control-G on my keyboard), 4 - stop capture (Esc)

Assemble/ edit: 1 – Trim mode ([), 2 – Toggle trim (control-[ on my keyboard settings), 3 – toggle source/record (Esc), 4 – Timeline window (control-0)

Trim: 1 -  Trim mode ([), 2 – Toggle trim (control-[ on my keyboard settings), 3 – toggle source/record (Esc), 4 – Timeline window (control-0)

Buttons 5-9 are the same on all of my settings, and although the jog/ shuttle is customisable by angle there’s really no better use in video editing than being able to scroll along your clip or timeline at your chosen speed.

 All: 5 - mark in (I), 6 - play backwards (J), 7 - play around (space bar), 8 - play forwards (L), 9 - mark out (O)

Buttons 10 and 11 are the major addition to the v2, and actually rather handy to have so close to the shuttle for most modes

Digitise: 10 - mark subclip in (F1), 11 - mark subclip out (F2)

Assemble/ edit: 10 - zoom out on timeline (up arrow), 11 – zoom in on timeline (down arrow)

Trim: 10 – back one frame (,), 11 – forward one frame (.) – larger trim amounts can be achieved by using buttons 6 and 8, which are mapped to the J and L keys

Buttons 14 to 17 are the ones which change the most according to what I find I’m reaching for most often, and are often swapped since it’s significantly easier to reach buttons 16 and 17 with my thumb than it is to get 14 and 15.

Digitise: different coloured markers (F3-F7)

Assemble/ edit:  14 – segment mode lift/overwrite (‘), 15 – segment mode extract/splice in (;), 16 - overwrite (B), 17 – splice in (V)

Trim: 14 - match frame (F2 on my keyboard), 15 - add edit to black (alt-H), 16 - select all (control-A), 17 - deselect all (control-shift-A)

Download settings.

So here’s the new blog, which I can also update from school – which may be slightly dangerous. In any case, I’m currently officially half-way through my winter fiction edit (last fiction before the graduation films) – though only just past the first cut stage because of spending the first week waiting for the year above’s grad films to play out on the HDCAM deck I needed,  then sorting through the rushes once I’d digitised them. But it’s now resembling a film, however lumpy.

I’ve now teamed up for my graduation animation film. I’m working with Hye Bin Lee, who I’m really happy to be working with again after an excercise last year, and Michelle ‘BAFTA nominated‘ Eastwood. As some called her at the time. We’re getting our documentary pitches later this week, then fiction after our Easter break. Presumably once we’ve finished editing the current project and the directors have had time to properly think about their films.

Oh, and Walter Murch visited the school for a day. Weird guy, but great. Covered a lot of the stuff that’s in In the Blink of an Eye, but also had some very entertaining images and techniques. And my fellow editors at school no longer see me as hyper-organised, relatively speaking (though they still mock my colour scheming). But he’s very careful to stress that these things are what works for him - different people may find different styles. Just because he likes to wear the same jumper when sound-mixing, and take photos of the buildings where he’s edited (with his window circled) he’s not suggesting that we all do!

Except you should always stand up – he’s quite clear on that. Good old Walter.

Ever since you first got into music, you’ve been waiting for one of the world’s biggest bands, U2, to play a live gig that you can get to. Finally, they announce their tour. You buy your ticket, you take some holiday time away from work, you drive down to the venue, you queue for 3 days. When they finally open the gates, you run to the very front barrier as fast as you can. This is your chance to be the closest you will ever be to the greatest band in your world. You get to the front…. And find that just in front of the barrier you’re heading towards is a rather large camera crane. With TWO cameras mounted, and a larger than normal crew. All inbetween you and the stage.

The reason? U2 3D. Now in cinemas nationwide.

Last Friday 22nd February, through the NFTS, I was able to go to a Masterclass in the Cineworld at Shaftesbury Avenue (currently showing the film) which was hosted by the UK Film Council, and had a panel of people who’d been involved in the film and the technology involved from the start.

Things have come on a long way from the red/blue glasses and headaches usually associated with 3D. Polarisation has been around for a while now, but the ultimate application that they’re heading for is home viewing of sports without the need for eyewear at all (via hi-res lenticular screens… apparently already working on a small scale). But they decided to build the technology on the most complex thing they could think of – a 9 camera position (18 altogether, given the need for two cameras to function together as human eyes would to provide a natural 3D effect), multiple venue, 14 song live music tour of South America. In natural lighting. We didn’t actually get to see any of the final film because of time issues, but you start to get the idea of the scale of the project when you learn that they were in post for one year (including R&D).

They actually did the basic edit in 2D on an Avid. But had to think differently from the outset. For a start, fast cuts of the type usually associated with live concert footage were right out if the film was to be released in 3D. In their place, layering effects were utilised, and cuts made only when the drama of the shot naturally took you to a different angle. Balancing the depth of the 3D between one shot and the next was vital in order to avoid rapid eye fatigue from constant refocusing, and recreation of shots where the cameras weren’t working perfectly together (through tape change, lens issues, foreground objects, or any other number of reasons) had to be done to the pixel. An IMAX grade had to be performed separately because of the necessity of printing onto film rather than distributing digitally – and the 3D had to be imagined on that scale as well when deciding how extensive it should be.

In this film the 3D wasn’t to be used as a gimmick – it was a means of immersing an audience within a scene, rather than relying on things flying out of the screen at them. And it seems to be fairly appropriate. But the claim put forward that this is as big a technological step as going from silent to talkies seems a little far-fetched. Dreamworks’ plans to go entirely 3D starting 2009 as opposed to adding 3D elements to a finished 2D film sounds exciting, but certain film genres will never lend themselves to 3D. The limit on the speed of cuts will surely be a major sticking point in narrative film, and it seems possible to me that it will be pushing a bit too hard on the suspension of experience which allows editing to work in the first place – to view a 2D image jumping across to the other side of a room isn’t intuitive to the human eye and personal experience – but it still works. To effectively place someone in a room, then have them jump around within it, to another scene in a different location, back to that room… physically it seems disruptive, psychologically invasive and voyeuristic, and generally uncomfortable. You learn fairly early on that there are more important aspects of a cut than continuity on the screen or within the frame – but along this ‘z’ axis out of the screen, continuity will be key if people aren’t to reject the images because their eyes are constantly refocusing. The 3D elements invoking a very specific point in the overall image that an audience should be looking at – leaving open a massive space for action to be missed, and trust to be lost if that space is exploited. Once that trust is lost, we may as well all give up.

It sounds like a great tool, and it’s clear that a massive amount of thought, time and skill has gone into the development even in these relatively early days – but as things stand, I don’t see a major place for it in the non-specialised filmmaking process.

http://www.reald.com/

http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/13641

Well today I upgraded. Surprisingly not technologically – I can’t be fussed with all of that PDA stuff – charging it up, spending even more of my life gazing at an LCD screen, being laughed at by the Blackberry brigade… no, I’ve gone for the good old fashioned filofax. Last seen in the 1980s. So it must be coming round again soon, right?

I’ll attribute my excessive joy at looking through it and buying it accessories already as a mix of the girly need for stationery at the start of a new school year, plus sheer utter boredom and a need for life to restart again soon. For now, my NFTS dissertation’s about as close as it gets. And let’s face it – watching endless Red Dwarf reruns on Dave is more interesting than that.