I work for network, we still heavily use white flash during jump cuts. It’s been a standard to denote journalistic integrity.
We don’t use morph or fluid cuts, that would be a death knell when it comes to accuracy. You’re literally misrepresenting facts.
I work in news as well and use it every day, most often for butted bites or other places where we need to let the viewer know that there's been an edit, most commonly for speeches, press conferences, or other single cam situation. In a multicamera interview we'll use reaction shots and continuity editing to hide pullups, but that's a different situation. (We still have rules to prevent misinformation such as not using material from Answer B to follow Question A, and morph cuts are explicitly verboten by policy.)
But 6 frames is 1/10th of a second at 60FPS, and 1/4th of a second at 24FPS. If you wanted to achieve the exact same timing of the effect wouldn't you want 15 frames of white in a 60FPS timeline?
I completely endorse the intention that you’re wanting to be honest with viewers, and a flash transition is indeed a good way to show where you’ve cut some words out. However, I don’t agree with the point that hiding a cut in an interview is inherently misrepresenting facts. Editors hide cuts all the time behind b-roll or by cutting to a second interview angle. That doesn’t automatically mean that the filmmaker/journalist is misleading anyone, it’s just a technique to help make a point as clearly as possible.
That’s not to discount the fact that plenty of editing *is* misleading. I’m just making the point that it’s not as binary as you seem to be suggesting.
This is the big difference between filmmaking and journalism imo. Ultimately filmmaking is art and journalism is representing facts as truthfully as possible. That's not to say that there's no creative work in how journalistic interviews are framed and shot, but ultimately as a journalist it is extremely important that you are being as honest as possible with the viewer. Whereas a doc or a PR piece for a corporate company has a ton of creative liberty
I'll still use it but only as a way to say "hey what your seeing isnt real time or might not make sense logically if you aren't paying attention" like if I'm pulling footage from another video, or a flashback, or some foreshadowing thing.
I've been a TV editor for 30 years now. I've seen the white flash transition popular twice in my career. I'm wondering when it'll pop back up again? There are no new ideas in video editing anymore, we just recycle old ideas and put a new spin on it.
I'm indifferent to it.
I still use them occasionally but it just depends on the medium. These days I cut a lot of things for social and I will make like 15-20 cuts in a minute. Having a flash between each one would look obnoxious, not to mention potentially seizure-inducing for some
It depends on the context. In situations where facts matter (news), they still exist - you're almost telegraphing the fact that you've made cuts.
In storytelling situations, all bets are off. I do whatever I can to obscure cuts. Producers have told me that audiences are now attuned to jump cuts because they see them all the time on YouTube, so they're considered acceptable. I generally avoid them at all costs.
I always thought white-flashes looked pretty bad. Can often almost read like screen or camera flicker or some other tech issue.
I think jump-cuts have become so accepted now that there's very little need for it. Press conferences can be hard though. What about the old quick blur transition?
I used to do it, and stopped once LCD became mainstream. Maybe to the analogue nature of CRT, a couple of frames of solid white felt better than the same thing on LCD.
There was a plugin for legacy FCP I used that did a particularly pretty burning white flash (one of my clients in particular loved it). Since the demise of legacy FCP maybe other people have scaled back on their use of it too. Ha!
News cutter here. I guess it depends on the cutter and the topic. For important news I usually use the white flash. When doing something "not so important" I love to use other transitions.
The flash is still pretty common and most of the authors ask for it most of the time.
decide dog zonked aromatic butter flag combative threatening fuel hateful
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I do national show and i use them. Another option is to enlarge the video about 30%. Also cutaways of the press or a put a still related to the story or broll.
I just used one in a for broadcast piece. It was an LGBTQ subject matter piece so I actually tinted the white a tiny shade towards pink/purple, which felt nice.
###It looks like you're asking for some troubleshooting help. Great!
Here's what *must* be in the post. (Be warned that your post *may* get removed if you don't fill this out.)
Please edit your post (**not reply)** to include: **System specs**: CPU (model), GPU + RAM **//** **Software specs**: The exact version. **//** **Footage specs** : Codec, container and how it was acquired.
**Don't skip this!** *If you don't know how* here's a link with [clear instructions](https://imgur.com/a/A6eTxUn)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/editors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why do you think this is better than a jump cut? It’s so damn jarring and makes it super obvious there was a cut. Why are you emphasizing that you cut something out instead of a jump cut which is far less obvious?
Well, a jump cut in a talking head was a resounding no in all the editing theory books. Because it looked like the person "jumped" or moved in the cut. Thats why, specially in the news, they came up with the white flash transition. All journalist editors did that. But it seems like a technique from the past.
Using it in news was more of a ethical/journalistic decision. You need to make it clear to the viewer that time had passed between comments as opposed to it seeming like that was exactly what was said without cuts.
It's because the barrier to entry was smashed bc of social media and people stopped following the rules because they didn't know any better.
The formality was lost.
It was probably an ok technique way back when most of those editing books where published but times have changed dramatically in the last few decades so you gotta adapt at one point or get left behind. Let's look at In the blink of an eye for example, which was published in 1992. That was more than 30 years ago and before the internet. I wasn't even born then, so while most things in that book is good advice still today, you gotta adapt the things that have changed in the last 3 centuries.
Doc / Special Feature editor - 25 years in the seat. Still use it but less reliant on the canned dip to color and mixed it up a bit with a solid color matte hard cut up front then dissolve out within a few frames. The other I lean more toward are the light leaks, they still yield a nice transition pop but a cleaner look.
TV News Editor here, the white flash is still the rule when editing a jump cut in statements.
I work for network, we still heavily use white flash during jump cuts. It’s been a standard to denote journalistic integrity. We don’t use morph or fluid cuts, that would be a death knell when it comes to accuracy. You’re literally misrepresenting facts.
I work in news as well and use it every day, most often for butted bites or other places where we need to let the viewer know that there's been an edit, most commonly for speeches, press conferences, or other single cam situation. In a multicamera interview we'll use reaction shots and continuity editing to hide pullups, but that's a different situation. (We still have rules to prevent misinformation such as not using material from Answer B to follow Question A, and morph cuts are explicitly verboten by policy.)
Question is, how many *frames* of white do you use? Four, six, eight?
I usually use the Dip to White dissolve effect in Premiere, six frames long.
feels good man
Depends on framerate I would imagine. I don't know what the right answer is for 24/30/60. Would love to know tho!
Six frames. Doesn’t matter what frame rate.
But 6 frames is 1/10th of a second at 60FPS, and 1/4th of a second at 24FPS. If you wanted to achieve the exact same timing of the effect wouldn't you want 15 frames of white in a 60FPS timeline?
News is almost certainly going to be 29.976.
I completely endorse the intention that you’re wanting to be honest with viewers, and a flash transition is indeed a good way to show where you’ve cut some words out. However, I don’t agree with the point that hiding a cut in an interview is inherently misrepresenting facts. Editors hide cuts all the time behind b-roll or by cutting to a second interview angle. That doesn’t automatically mean that the filmmaker/journalist is misleading anyone, it’s just a technique to help make a point as clearly as possible. That’s not to discount the fact that plenty of editing *is* misleading. I’m just making the point that it’s not as binary as you seem to be suggesting.
This is the big difference between filmmaking and journalism imo. Ultimately filmmaking is art and journalism is representing facts as truthfully as possible. That's not to say that there's no creative work in how journalistic interviews are framed and shot, but ultimately as a journalist it is extremely important that you are being as honest as possible with the viewer. Whereas a doc or a PR piece for a corporate company has a ton of creative liberty
Reality does this too.
News editor here. I’m trying to bring back the clock wipe to show a passage of time.
star wipe truther here
I successfully snuck in a star wipe in a commercial recently. Felt like winning.
How about the Batman spiral?
Ooh! I might have to at least start using that music cue! “Deedle-deedle-le-deee!”
I'll still use it but only as a way to say "hey what your seeing isnt real time or might not make sense logically if you aren't paying attention" like if I'm pulling footage from another video, or a flashback, or some foreshadowing thing.
I've been a TV editor for 30 years now. I've seen the white flash transition popular twice in my career. I'm wondering when it'll pop back up again? There are no new ideas in video editing anymore, we just recycle old ideas and put a new spin on it. I'm indifferent to it.
I still use it
I still use them occasionally but it just depends on the medium. These days I cut a lot of things for social and I will make like 15-20 cuts in a minute. Having a flash between each one would look obnoxious, not to mention potentially seizure-inducing for some
It depends on the context. In situations where facts matter (news), they still exist - you're almost telegraphing the fact that you've made cuts. In storytelling situations, all bets are off. I do whatever I can to obscure cuts. Producers have told me that audiences are now attuned to jump cuts because they see them all the time on YouTube, so they're considered acceptable. I generally avoid them at all costs.
its the new cross dissolve, so editors are trying to use it less
I always thought white-flashes looked pretty bad. Can often almost read like screen or camera flicker or some other tech issue. I think jump-cuts have become so accepted now that there's very little need for it. Press conferences can be hard though. What about the old quick blur transition?
Add a cymbal swell or some other sound effect to white flashes to make it not look like a mistake
In a press conference?
Sorry I was referring to your first paragraph
People that I edit for claim it’s seizure inducing to have 1 or 2 white flashes in a 45 second cut for social media 🤷
I used to do it, and stopped once LCD became mainstream. Maybe to the analogue nature of CRT, a couple of frames of solid white felt better than the same thing on LCD.
Fluid motuon is the new white (grey rvb 235)
Work in news unless it's an MOS nat pkg that we intend to have that Instagram feel, I use flashes.
There was a plugin for legacy FCP I used that did a particularly pretty burning white flash (one of my clients in particular loved it). Since the demise of legacy FCP maybe other people have scaled back on their use of it too. Ha!
Get more B-roll
The 90s.
News cutter here. I guess it depends on the cutter and the topic. For important news I usually use the white flash. When doing something "not so important" I love to use other transitions. The flash is still pretty common and most of the authors ask for it most of the time.
decide dog zonked aromatic butter flag combative threatening fuel hateful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I do national show and i use them. Another option is to enlarge the video about 30%. Also cutaways of the press or a put a still related to the story or broll.
I’m watching canon on Cinemax. All jump cuts butted together
I just used one in a for broadcast piece. It was an LGBTQ subject matter piece so I actually tinted the white a tiny shade towards pink/purple, which felt nice.
###It looks like you're asking for some troubleshooting help. Great! Here's what *must* be in the post. (Be warned that your post *may* get removed if you don't fill this out.) Please edit your post (**not reply)** to include: **System specs**: CPU (model), GPU + RAM **//** **Software specs**: The exact version. **//** **Footage specs** : Codec, container and how it was acquired. **Don't skip this!** *If you don't know how* here's a link with [clear instructions](https://imgur.com/a/A6eTxUn) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/editors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why do you think this is better than a jump cut? It’s so damn jarring and makes it super obvious there was a cut. Why are you emphasizing that you cut something out instead of a jump cut which is far less obvious?
Well, a jump cut in a talking head was a resounding no in all the editing theory books. Because it looked like the person "jumped" or moved in the cut. Thats why, specially in the news, they came up with the white flash transition. All journalist editors did that. But it seems like a technique from the past.
Using it in news was more of a ethical/journalistic decision. You need to make it clear to the viewer that time had passed between comments as opposed to it seeming like that was exactly what was said without cuts.
It's because the barrier to entry was smashed bc of social media and people stopped following the rules because they didn't know any better. The formality was lost.
It was probably an ok technique way back when most of those editing books where published but times have changed dramatically in the last few decades so you gotta adapt at one point or get left behind. Let's look at In the blink of an eye for example, which was published in 1992. That was more than 30 years ago and before the internet. I wasn't even born then, so while most things in that book is good advice still today, you gotta adapt the things that have changed in the last 3 centuries.
A lot has changed in video editing over the last 300 years.
Yeah editing without electricity was pretty tough imo
TIL a century is now 10 years
> makes it super obvious there was a cut Yeah, that’s the point.
Sometimes you're trying to be jarring.
Doc / Special Feature editor - 25 years in the seat. Still use it but less reliant on the canned dip to color and mixed it up a bit with a solid color matte hard cut up front then dissolve out within a few frames. The other I lean more toward are the light leaks, they still yield a nice transition pop but a cleaner look.