Talk:Dissolve (filmmaking)

Speedy deletion?

This looks like a good start to an article. It's also more appropriate here as opposed to at dissolve, which should be a disambig. This page should not be a candidate for deletion, much less a candidate for speedy deletion. I vote keep. --Aranae 02:41, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Read the CSD notice, which points you to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dissolve where all should become clear. This article is a GFDL violation. Uncle G 14:59, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

Remove "poorly done"

Anybody else have a problem with the clause "On the other hand, poorly done hard cuts startle the viewer even more than a dissolve"? This assumes that a hard cut shouldn't startle the viewer when some directors craft a hard cut specifically to startle the viewer. The statement assumes that classical Hollywood editing is the "right" way to edit. Schmub (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Taken care of. --Adoniscik (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Lap Dissolve article to Dissolve (filmmaking)

The Lap dissolve article does not cite any references, but it still contains the correct elements that are needed to expand the Dissolve article. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new article name

I'd like to propose the article name be changed to Dissolve (film editing) for reasons of clarification. The process is normally done either optically or digitally, but rarely in-camera (anymore). "Filmmaking" is a broad term that covers the entire field, obviously, but "filmmaking" would also include accounting and script supervising, for example. The dissolve is more specifically attributed to editing and making its point via editing. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Old films / editing

 How is the dissolve done?  In some old films, it looks like with dissolve(-and-fade) that the one piece of film physically stuck on top of the other? 

(Perhaps alternatively it could be done during making a copy? Where it would be less obvious/visible in a physical way)

Can it be called cross-fading in film?

77.172.196.228 (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Fl

1) Oldest: Camera shutter gradually closed to fade out. Film rewound to start of closure. New setup made, camera started with closed shutter and opened progressively, so that the fade out and fade in wererecorded on top of each other.

2) Next: after the invention of the optical printer, the same technique was used, but with positive prints as the originals, printing onto negative stock. Look at dissolves in Blue ray releases: the picture gets grainy before, during, and after the dissolves, because the dissolve footage is two or more generations down from the camera negative.

3) Next: with the introduction of "A and B roll printing" all the odd shots were on one roll and all the even shots on the other (The B roll had opaque black film where the A roll was printing, and vice-versa). To make a dissolve, the outgoing and incoming shots were overlapped, and, for instance, the end of the A roll shot faded out; then the B roll shot, printed later, faded in. This eliminated the excess grain because extra film generations were unneeded. (The process was also cheaper.)

4) Today: all film editing is now performed on "digital intermediates," permitting computer dissolves.Jim Stinson (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't L. Chaney Jr's change into/from the Wolf Man done with lap dissolve? I know it's old, in-camera technology but I am still curious how it was done for those of us that don't have a deep understanding of cinema technology history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.78.194.51 (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3000 (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)