Do you really cut on the blink?

Celebrated film editor Walter Murch famously said that you should almost always cut on the actor’s blink; and less famously explained that you never cut on the actual blink, but sometimes before and only when it made sense for other reasons.  What I’ve never heard explained is why that technique so often works: it’s because unlike people in daily life, people on camera usually blink intentionally.
 

For actors, dialogue and physical movement are both considered actions. Script analysis reveals each character's objective, and the various actions they take to obtain their goal.  They speak in order to reach their goal, to convince another character do something.  Actors will identify the beats (or sub actions) that determined when an action is complete.  The action, for example, may be to intimidate the other person.  They'll accomplish this by probing their vulnerabilities, insinuating that harm might come to them, and escalating to a blunt threat.  Each sub-action (probe, insinuate, threaten) is a beat that makes up the action, and they'll only give up on a sub-action when it's clear their not reaching their objective.  They’ll push through each beat with 100% intensity until its done.  Then they’ll blink.  It's a divider, a rest, before they begin their next action.  The actor’s “beat,” therefore often coincide with cuts.  What this means is that you can often predict when an actor will blink just by analyzing the script for beats.  Though you'd never want to edit so blindly, you could almost edit without watching the actor at all.

Actors are trained to do analyze beats and actions (Stanislavsky is the most famous teacher of this technique), but non-actors also do a gentler version of action-blink when they know a camera is pointed their direction.  People tend to become more directed on camera.  No one wants to ramble or fumble or stare meaninglessly into space.  So they make sure there’s a reason for everything they say.  An action.

A blink is a “rest” on several levels: resting the eyes, arresting the action.  As editors, though, we often want to keep forward motion of the action, which is another reason why cutting just before the blink works.  It keeps the action moving at top pace.  What’s fascinating (and rarely seen in movies) is when an actor blinks as an action, rather than a rest.  Takeshi Kitano in Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence is a wonderful example of that, in a film that's getting a second life of sorts.  Next time you watch a movie, look at when the actor blinks, what it means, and why the editor chose to cut or not cut.

Two Types of B-Roll

Up until this past week I really only thought of B-roll (the non-subject matter footage in a video) one way.  It was a filler meant to add depth-- through contrasting visuals or supportive ones-- to the main footage.  It was a moving snapshot: the fidgeting hands of a speaker, the cut-away to what they're describing.  All of these are shot one way... as snapshots.

But in working on my current project, a promotional video for a local company, I realized that my footage needed to be much more.  It needed to tell a story, too.  To do so, I needed the footage to follow basic shot format: a wide establishing shot followed by close-ups and points of view. The sequence of shots needed to have the same continuity; I couldn't jump from an establishing shot to a close-up of an entirely different moment.  It needed to cut on the action.  The narration was in support of the b-roll, not vice-versa.

Not all B-roll requires this level of structure; often times, the simple "snapshot" does exactly what it's supposed to.  But now I'm on the lookout for times when the b-roll is the narrative, rather than the support.

Color Grading Slog Video - Without the Headache

For me, Slog profiles are both a siren and a curse.  I'm drawn to the promise of greater dynamic range and the protection from blow-outs; I'm demoralized by the difficulty of transforming Slog 2 and Slog 3 footage into vibrant, rich video.  Admittedly, I'm not the greatest of color graders; most of us aren't.  In fact, I suspect that much of the "stylized" color grading I see is simply an effort to cover up the fact they couldn't create a natural looking image.  I'm sick of green-hued images.  But I can't throw stones because I have the same difficulty-- even after 20 minutes of futzing with levels, color wheels, and contrast, I'm dissatisfied. So what the heck is wrong with Slog footage and how can I grade better and faster?

I don't have an answer to the first question.  The problem is probably me.  To give myself a break, photos are rarely as pug-ugly as Slog 3 images, and the tools in Lightroom and Photoshop are much much better.  But I have figured out a great way to quickly grade my footage to an even more satisfactory level than before. 

Personally, I think the Sony a7Sii color is a bit wonky.  Not all the time-- but sometimes there's a muted hue, and it's on full display when you color grade from Slog. So here's a technique I've discovered:

1. Before shooting your footage, take a photo of the scene.  Make sure it's properly exposed, since your camera settings for Slog may be too far to the "right," i.e. slightly blown out for still photography.
2. Now film in your Slog profile of choice.  Whenever you move to a different scene, take another photo.
3. Import both the photo and the video into your video editor; I use Sony Vegas Pro.
4. I believe all the major editors have a color-match function.  In Sony Vegas, open the Color Match FX to apply the photo color to the video. Be sure to tick the "match brightness" box.  It should look like this:

 

If you're unfamiliar with this tool, I'd suggest Google for a more complete explanation.  But quickly, the Source Image will be your photo (the color you want); I make sure the still image is on the Preview screen and then click "Preview" to capture it.  The Target is your video; I bring up the video on the monitor and hit Preview in the Target box.  The color adjusted image will appear in the Result section. 

This will get you 80% of the way there.  Typically, I use the Levels FX to bring the image into perfect exposure.  If you don't know how to use a Waveform scope, learn, because it's amazing.  And for a little extra punch I'll boost the overall saturation using the Color Corrector, and individual colors using AAV Color Lab.

Here's a before image of the footage:

It's the typical washed out footage of Slog 3.  Now here's the color matched and tweaked image:

The great thing is that this only took an extra 15 seconds during filming, and about two minutes of grading in post. After tweaking the levels and saturation, the resulting image is better than the original photo.

While I've known about the Color Match feature for a while, I only now just thought to apply it to my Slog footage utilizing a reference image.  It's really the same technique film photographers used to employ, taking a Polaroid to check exposure.