Stutter zoom?

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Clint Hill
    replied
    Re: Stutter zoom?

    Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
    Although correct, I would not call it an axial cut. You'd just have to explain it anyway. I'd probably do it something like:

    "In the distance, a car pulls up in front of a bar.
    CLOSER as the door opens. A man steps out.
    CLOSER. His shirt is covered with blood.
    CLOSER. He's got a gun in his hand.
    CLOSER. His face fills the frame. His ear is shot off - dried blood cakes his face."
    This solution idea works well, doesn't stall the read, and shows imagination, too. It could also be written as a paragraph to take up fewer lines.
    Last edited by Clint Hill; 07-14-2013, 03:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jonpiper
    replied
    Re: Stutter zoom?

    I like Jeff's approach because I can see what the writer intends the reader to see as the reader reads the story. Axial cut just tells me that we zoom into the subject in steps not what we focus on in each step.

    With the Hitchcock film, first we notice a body on the floor against the wall. Then we see a blody face. Then empty eye sockets as we get closer.

    As I read a script and get carried away by the story, I like to get a picture of what is happening. I don't stop to imagine how I'd film it if I were a director.
    Last edited by jonpiper; 07-13-2013, 11:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • nmstevens
    replied
    Re: Stutter zoom?

    Originally posted by TigerFang View Post
    Back in the day, us editors used to say "Jump Cut" for any edit without an effect transition (dissolve, wipe, etc.) that showed the same angle on a same subject but at focal lengths closing in tight or coming out wide, or that deleted sections of the zoom to achieve the zoom-in effect without the length of the entire zoom. (see Fortean's excellent link on "Axial cut.")

    In your case, maybe invent the term "Staccato Jump Cuts" or "Staccato Cuts."
    I suppose he could just say, "MOVE IN in on "X" in a series of rapid jump cuts."

    That leaves very little to the imagination.

    NMS

    Leave a comment:


  • Clint Hill
    replied
    Re: Stutter zoom?

    Originally posted by Rhodi View Post
    The thing I'm trying to describe is even more rapid than that action description. It's like Fortean's Axial Cut but way quicker - Like SHOT SHOT SHOT SHOT down onto a specific object.

    Thanks for the suggestions, all. Thought there might be a shorthand I could use, but I'll figure out something on the page.
    Back in the day, us editors used to say "Jump Cut" for any edit without an effect transition (dissolve, wipe, etc.) that showed the same angle on a same subject but at focal lengths closing in tight or coming out wide, or edits that deleted sections of the zoom to achieve the zoom-in effect without the length of the entire zoom. (see Fortean's definitive link on "Axial cut.")

    In your case, maybe invent the term "Staccato Jump Cuts" or "Staccato Cuts."
    Last edited by Clint Hill; 07-14-2013, 03:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rhodi
    replied
    Re: A Suggestion

    Originally posted by Fortean View Post
    RAPID SERIES OF SHOTS (AXIAL CUTS):



    For another example, (more rapid cutting than my previous reference), @ 1:10 to 1:12 in this clip from Hitchcock's THE BIRDS
    Yep. That's it. I've seen it used a lot in Kurosawa, Hitchcock and Capra but also a lot of cheesy exploitation and Western films.

    (Side note regarding your link, a handy tip I've found useful: if you pause the youtube video where you want to start it from, right-click the video and select "Copy video URL at current time" you get a link directly to the specific time - i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...iH8bWFdM#t=69s

    Leave a comment:


  • ATB
    replied
    Re: Stutter zoom?

    FWIW, I would write: "We ST-ST-STUTTER ZOOM in on..."

    ... kidding.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ire
    replied
    Re: Stutter zoom?

    Originally posted by ATB View Post
    STUTTER ZOOM works.

    If that's how you want that shot to play out, absolutely use it. It's not "directorial." It's directing the reader's eye. That's our job.
    How many readers know/understand the term stutter zoom, without taking a moment to think, ask someone, google the term, though? I don't suggest always worrying about what a reader understands, the whole balaclava thread, from awhile back, but as Rhodi described it, it is referring to cuts/editing. But "pull back" and "close in on" read cleanly.

    I mean yeah, go for it, if there are no absolutely other ways to do it, go for it. Maybe if it's given a little specificity like Jeff described, it can read smoothly and keep the reader from doing a Google search, etc.
    Last edited by Ire; 07-11-2013, 11:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • nmstevens
    replied
    Re: Stutter zoom?

    Originally posted by Rhodi View Post
    This one might be tough to explain, but here goes: is there a technical term for a zoom that occurs through a series of tightening shots (i.e. you start wide and then have half a dozen rapid shots closer and closer to the subject)?

    It's often used in Spaghetti Westerns and exploitation films.
    For the purposes of readers trying to figure out what you mean (and who may have varying degrees of familiarity with technical terms), I think "stutter zoom" expresses the idea as clearly and concisely as anything else you could come up with.

    It very clearly suggests that we're moving in on the subject in quick little jumps.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fortean
    replied
    A Suggestion

    RAPID SERIES OF SHOTS (AXIAL CUTS):



    For another example, (more rapid cutting than my previous reference), @ 1:10 to 1:12 in this clip from Hitchcock's THE BIRDS

    Leave a comment:


  • Rhodi
    replied
    Re: Stutter zoom?

    Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
    Although correct, I would not call it an axial cut. You'd just have to explain it anyway.

    I'd probably do it something like:

    "In the distance, a car pulls up in front of a bar.

    CLOSER as the door opens. A man steps out.

    CLOSER. His shirt is covered with blood.

    CLOSER. He's got a gun in his hand.

    CLOSER. His face fills the frame. His ear is shot off - dried blood cakes his face."
    The thing I'm trying to describe is even more rapid than that action description. It's like Fortean's Axial Cut but way quicker - Like SHOT SHOT SHOT SHOT down onto a specific object.

    Thanks for the suggestions, all. Thought there might be a shorthand I could use, but I'll figure out something on the page.

    Leave a comment:


  • ComicBent
    replied
    Re: Stutter zoom?

    Axial cut?

    That completely unintuitive name sounds like something that the U.S. Congress would come up with to obscure what really happens.

    Could we not have had STEP ZOOM or something a little more descriptive?

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffLowell
    replied
    Re: Stutter zoom?

    Although correct, I would not call it an axial cut. You'd just have to explain it anyway.

    I'd probably do it something like:

    "In the distance, a car pulls up in front of a bar.

    CLOSER as the door opens. A man steps out.

    CLOSER. His shirt is covered with blood.

    CLOSER. He's got a gun in his hand.

    CLOSER. His face fills the frame. His ear is shot off - dried blood cakes his face."

    Leave a comment:


  • Fortean
    replied
    Technical Term

    Axial cut.

    Leave a comment:


  • WaitForIt
    replied
    Re: Stutter zoom?

    FWIW after reading "stutter zoom" I knew what you were talking about before you started describing it, and I'm not smart/experienced enough to have known beforehand that it's not an actual term, hah. I thought you were going to ask if you should use it, period.

    Go for it. Then see if any readers trip up on that spot without you pointing it out to them beforehand. I bet they won't.

    Leave a comment:


  • ATB
    replied
    Re: Stutter zoom?

    STUTTER ZOOM works.

    If that's how you want that shot to play out, absolutely use it. It's not "directorial." It's directing the reader's eye. That's our job.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X