Film editing/Talk

I put the pieces into sub-divisions, as some of these topics like A Roll and B Roll should be [film editing/A roll]? -- mike dill

---

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

---

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).

---

Ugh, why move these pages to subpages? The topic names aren't ambiguous. --LMS

sorry, I thought that it all belonged in one article, and I was getting the strays cleaned up before doing that. KQ and you both put up a different Point of view, and KQ put them back.

So when should some minor part of something be a seperate page, and when should it be a subpage like in the poker pages?-- mike dill

Almost never should it be on a subpage. Often, what seems like a "minor part" of something can also be seen as a "minor part" of something else entirely. I don't know where I'd draw the line, really, but see [1], [2], and [3] for why I don't like subpages generally. In these particular cases, I would say that it seems wholly arbitrary that the topics should be made subtopics of film editing in particular, rather than a half-dozen other things they might be made subtopics of. The poker articles are all as it were parts of one pretty much self-contained article about the game of poker--and not about anything else. (For example, Lee hasn't made "how to win at gambling with cards" a subpage of poker--which wouldn't be right, because that topic isn't limited just to poker, and indeed, making it a subpage of "playing cards" wouldn't be obvious because it could also be a subpage of "gambling" or "game"...for more ranting along these lines, see my essays.) You'll notice that Lee rather subtly made several poker pages not subpages of poker. There's a certain logic to how he's done it, and it makes some sense to me.

If we had disambiguating parentheses (see [4]) I would probably be advocating that we not use subpages ever (as parts of the article namespace, anyway). --LMS