Talk:Film editing/Archives/2012

two points
1 I think the discussions of editors and women editors belongs later in the entry. They are secondary to the actual explanation of what an editor does.

2. I'd like to see greater discussion of the ways an editor works and examples of where editors help or hurt specific films. More discussion of how the same pieces of film can be assembled in different ways with similar results.

Wis2fan (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

From B-roll talk I'd like to point out also that separating audio from video also allows great liberty in making potentially unethical edits without those edits being very noticeable. But I'm not sure if that should go into the main article: first off I don't know if people will realize that immediately, and second I'm not sure if putting that there stains a legitimate practice. After all, most documentarians do use B roll footage to hide coughs, sniffs, sneezes, etc. and all the other verbal tics that, uh, a person, um, might have, you know. Dude. --KQ


 * All interviews are cut in this fashion - people simply aren't good enough speakers to get their point across in one nice clear chunk. Edits will always be made and then something must be done to cover jump cuts in vision. Clearly this does allow for the context and intention of peoples words to be changed, but that should not be assumed. Sycophant 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

From shot reverse shot I'm not sure about this language.

The way I've always seen it written, the sequence you describe is: shot--point-of-view shot--reaction shot.

A reverse angle, on the other hand, is a view from a camera set up 180 degrees opposite the initial one. You might have the camera behind a man as he walks towards the exit of a tunnel, then cut to a frontal shot of him as he steps into the sunlight.

What you're describing maybe some third thing, or maybe just another way of talking.


 * Well if it's inaccurate, why not change it? I just moved the material from Shot Reverse Shot; I don't necessarily vouch for it. --KQ

From Talking head ''Is "talking heads" singular or plural? If I would say, "I took that one talking head you gave me and threw it away," then this page should be located at talking head. Also, please see naming conventions.''

--I've heard it in the singular, but I don't know how common it is. On the other hand, I've never heard daily rushes in the singular. Changing this (the film convention) to the singular would solve the name conflict the band will present once the new code is uploaded. (all leading caps) Else if this should stay plural we should append (band) to the, uh, band. And actually, I thought that in the plural it referred to the interview footage from not one camera but two: interviewer, interviewee, interviewer, etc. same medium length shot, similar framing.

Well so I didn't find any reference to it--singular or plural--at http://us.imdb.com/Glossary/T, though I did find it in the singular at http://www.cybercollege.com/gloss_t.htm. I have yet to wade through all the irrelevant google results, and am out of ideas on how to rephrase the search. --KQ

Try http://www.google.com/search?q=%22talking+head%22+%22interview+footage%22

Duh. I was trying "talking head movie term" and variants, then just "movie term definition," etc. Barking up the wrong tree. Yes, it looks common enough in the singular. You get twice the results looking for it in the plural though. Hm.

Actually, no, at least 26 of the 65 returned are about the band still, usually in re: Stop Making Sense, so the term is nearly as common in the singular as it is in the plural (or at least appears to be, based on this google search).

video editing
video editing needs to be merged here. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 07:17Z 

Nah, film and video are different mediums with different a totally different method of physically editing - one is with a computer, the other uses the actual film stock.

-- I think there should be a link on the page somewhere to Video_editing_software. Atomicblue 07:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Video editing uses the same practices as film editing, but it is a completely different medium. I vote for an unmerge.  --tonsofpcs (Talk) 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just realized that Video editing was a disambig page!! UNMERGED. I believe that montage should be unmerged as well, as it appears to have been a disambig page.  PLEASE DISCUSS BEFORE MERGE  --tonsofpcs (Talk) 04:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Film and video are two different mediums, you are correct about that, but all film is transferred to digital format and edited in exactly the same way that video is done. I think that there are two people who actually still cut film physically so there is no reason that these should be separate articles. Please unmerge these articles.


 * The above unsigned comment is from 12:53, 14 June 2006 Gorgonzollas (Talk)


 * Filmmakers have adopted video and computer techniques and video editors adopted film techniques, and both are now routinely cut via computers, but both evolved separately. Discussion of the flying erase head, sync pulses or CMX codes has no place in an article on film editing.K8 fan 20:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with K8. Film and video editing both use similar tools, but there are differences in the mediums.  Think of it like the difference between painting in oils versus watercolors.  They are both forms of painting, both use brushes and paint, but there are specific considerations and techniques that are unique for each medium.  The same goes with editing.  Separate articles make more sense.  I do think that the video editing article requires a lot of cleanup, however.  It only begins to touch the subject.  -Fogelmatrix 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia article?
Quote: ''Not My Job... or is it?'' ''In Hollywood, the film editor only edits the film, the sound editor only edits the sound and the film composer creates the music. But with personal computers, you can now do all three and therefore, you can have complete control how the scene will sound and feel. Now film editing gets really fun!''

"Now film editing gets really fun!"? What the heck? Is this an infomercial for editing software? Where is this text origionally from? Where am I? (Not to say I don't love film editing — I actually do, I find it very fun, which is partly why I looked up this article in the first place.) --Lenoxus 22:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The entire sections 7 and 8 read Wikibooksy at best. I hope someone knowledgeable will rewrite them. -- Jao 14:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would question if that whole secton even belongs here. The process it is really discussing is really 'non-linear editing' which has it's own entry. It seems somewhat out of place here. --Sycophant 09:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No Picture
I would like it if there were pictures showing the process of film editing.

Film editing vs. montage
The first line of the article says film editing is also called montage. Is this right? The section on Methods of montage gives the impression that montage only means 'film editing' in French, but in English refers to a specific type of film editing. Tocharianne 03:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To the best of my understanding, "montage" can either refer to (1) the concept of film editing as discussed by European film theorists during the early history of modern motion pictures or (2) it can refer to a style of editing used to condense time or focuses on a theme without reguard to continuity. The most common definition by 21st century English language standards seems to be the second one, but the first one is not technically wrong.  --GHcool 05:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it worthwhile changing the first line from "Film editing, also called montage" to "sometimes called montage" or "formerly called montage"? (Or even "not to be confused with Montage (film)".) Tocharianne 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would either phrase it "sometimes called montage" or delete it entirely. It is only called montage in a very specific specialized field called film theory.  Film theorists tend to like to sound more high intellectual than they really are and so occasionally resort to archaic French words to both obscure and bring false dignity to what they are saying.  In this sense, "montage" is to "film editing" as "mise en scène" is to "shot (film)." --GHcool 03:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought. I removed montage from the opening line. Tocharianne 15:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Blakla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.178.20 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Art or science?
Is film editing an art or a science?--Mrg3105 (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Like photography, film editing is an artistic endeavor that requires a background in the science behind the craft. --GHcool (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought as much, but just wanted to verify. I have identified a conceptual similarity between discontinuous editing or montage in film with the effect of editing that takes place in Wikipedia, but was told this is 'original' research. However there is no other way to understand or even conceptually approach the problem of editing in Wikipedia. It seems that editors in Wikipedia can learn something from what appears to be the Soviet film editing school :)--Mrg3105 (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Women in film editing?
I'm the first to stand up for women's rights, but the stubby little section almost at the top that seems to go nowhere is bizarre. In fact, it embarrasses the cause of gender equality by making a big storm in a teacup for no clear purpose. I suggest that the paragraph be relocated further down where it can be contextualised more smoothly. TONY  (talk)  12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposal, but I think this information is vital. Film editing is historically a coed field in the film industry and remains so to this day at least in Hollywood and possibly the United Kingdom.  Other fields such as directing, producing, cinematography, etc. have been dominated by men and that remains to this day as well.  --GHcool (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So do you have ideas as to where it might go? And is there deeper information on ... notable female film editors? Companies that employ a high proportion of women in this role, etc? TONY   (talk)  17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, maybe this section out to be removed entirely. I hadn't read the section before responding the first time.  It is important information, but this article is about film editing, not the history of women in the film industry.  --GHcool (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)