foundations!

[schmerica]

So, as a complete and utter newbie, my first places to go for learning about vidding were permetaform's Vidding for newbies links and vidding community's memories -- along with lots of just general quiet lurking and observation of my friends list and friendsfriends list and vidding fandom.

At this point, I think I can say that these are the first three rules I feel fairly certain I have learned about vidding:

1) Cut to the beat
2) Don't be overly literal
3) Always know what you're trying to say (your theme, your thesis, your point, whatever)

There is other stuff I've learned or noted, of course, but I'd say those are the ones I've most internalized. What about you guys? What were the first building blocks you picked up? I'm thinking conceptual rather than technical, which, um, is a whole different thing.

Comments

[liviapenn.livejournal.com]

One thing that I learned from actually making short films in school is that in general, you need a LOT less than you think you do. Just to start with, whenever you put a clip on the timeline and the point of the clip is "Something happens," you don't need to show the entire thing happening.

Like, the newbie director mistake is to write down, "Schmerica gets out of the elevator, walks down the hall and goes through the door." And then you film EVERY SINGLE BIT OF IT. You start the shot just looking at the elevator and you hold for a whole half a second and then the doors open and you follow Schmerica ALL the way down the hall and you hold the camera in one place while she laboriously pulls the key from her purse and fiddles with the lock and opens the lock and opens the door and goes through the door and you let the door close ENTIRELY behind her before you cut away to the next thing. And this shot takes TWO MINUTES.

When, in reality, all you need to do is:

- one second of the elevator door in the middle of opening and Schmerica coming out.
- one second of Schmerica in the middle of pulling the key out of her purse and sticking it in the lock.
- one second of Schmerica going through the door and it half-closing behind her and you cut in the middle of the door closing.

You don't need to SHOW it unless you're trying to make some point, because everybody knows what it's like to walk down a hall, etc. Just skip to the interesting parts.

(And of course this is even MORE true in making vids because people recognize context and meaning even quicker because they've already seen the show. Like, you don't need to show Ray and Fraser yelling and then Ray winding up and punching Fraser. In fact that might almost be anticlimactic, just because everyone knows it's coming and it would be super-predictable.)

It's interesting to actually cut a scene that you've watched a ton of times into clips because you're like, "I want to use this scene, because I want the moment where Fraser reaches for the phone and picks it up," but then in fact what happens *in the episode* is that you hear a phone ring and Fraser looks up and then it cuts to him across the room already with the phone up to his face. They skipped a whole part! Because you didn't need to see it to get the point of the scene.

A really brilliant vid that uses this is "Circles," which is a Dead Like Me vid by... I forget. But you should try to find it-- she does this great thing of ending clips in unexpected moments, like right BEFORE lips meet in a kiss.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

Man, that is an excellent point, Schmivia! It's kind of weirdly counter-intuitive, too, until you actually go and look at the, like, 5 second clip you've made and realize you only need like 10 frames to get the point across, you know?

It's interesting to actually cut a scene that you've watched a ton of times into clips because you're like, "I want to use this scene, because I want the moment where Fraser reaches for the phone and picks it up," but then in fact what happens *in the episode* is that you hear a phone ring and Fraser looks up and then it cuts to him across the room already with the phone up to his face. They skipped a whole part! Because you didn't need to see it to get the point of the scene.

Ahahaha, yes! That happened to me a bunch of times with the vid I'm working on now -- I seem to have remembered the stuff that happens in the scene, and not what we actually see.

[loz]

!! How did you know that my grand plan for today was to embark on making my first vid? You are psychic aren't you? Thanks so much for the links.

(I've a BA in film/tv studies, but that's all theory and not quite the same, you know?! :D)

[sdwolfpup.livejournal.com]

The first thing I learned for myself, the thing I sometimes can't shake to my detriment, is having stuff happen on beat (not just cutting, but hand movements and slamming into walls and stuff) is AWESOME OMG. When I made Buffy hit the top of the bus on beat in "Moving On," I fell in love with vidding.

The next thing I learned, and which I'm still working on, is the literal thing. Don't be unnecessarily literal. That's a tough one for me.

Something I've learned only recently is the power of shots of inanimate objects (ships, paper, pens, Stetsons) and scenery, in the service of my larger theme.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

I am a psychic! Youu have discovered my great secret!

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

The first thing I learned for myself, the thing I sometimes can't shake to my detriment, is having stuff happen on beat (not just cutting, but hand movements and slamming into walls and stuff) is AWESOME OMG.

Omigod, YES. Seriously, that is like MAGIC.

Something I've learned only recently is the power of shots of inanimate objects (ships, paper, pens, Stetsons) and scenery, in the service of my larger theme.

Ooh, this is a really interesting one -- I wouldn't have thought of it.

[nestra.livejournal.com]

Variety. Type of clips, length of clips, types of shots, etc. Most of the people on our TV shows are very pretty, but if all you have are close-ups, things get boring. Sometimes it's really interesting and/or meaningful to see shots of places or things, rather than people.

Oh, I'm sorry, did you want to talk to an actual vidder, rather than an imaginary one?

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

Hee. Dude, if you have learned valuable things without the pain of trying it out yourself, good for you, right?

[elke-tanzer.livejournal.com]

(another imaginary vidder chiming in here...)

Make it a conscious choice to use clips in canonical/arc order or out of canonical/arc order, keeping your theme/thesis/point in mind when you make that choice.

[just-eunice.livejournal.com]

I will echo what was said above about using the power of objects or scenery. Sometimes it's what you *don't* show that works best, and objects can really nail a point or a metaphor as long as you've set up the association (a desolate landscape paired with woobieX standing alone is far more effective than just a sad woobieX *and* you can go back later to other desolate landscapes to slam the point home without being too "Look, doesn't woobieX look SAD? He's LONELY." It's still a sledgehammer but a slightly less expected one.)

Objects and scenery also help...*searches for words*...open up a vid and make it feel less, um, claustrophobic? (damn, there's a reason I vid and don't write).

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

That's one of the things that is hard in general when you're starting, I think -- trying to look at the clips BOTH for what they are in the source and what they can do in the vid.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

See, this isn't something I've thought about before, so this is very useful! *totally saving this post in my memories*