Intermediate cut
Intermediate cutting describes a technique of video editing .
background
In current TV productions (discussions or interviews ), individual passages are often cut out before the broadcast , in order to comply with the planned broadcasting time . In broadcast productions , all that is required here is careful editing. When watching television, however, the picture also changes: If you cut out just a few seconds, z. B. often moves the camera or the speaker rotates his head a little, which viewers perceive as a jump in the picture irritated. The intermediate cut should avoid this.
technology
Direct cut
Strictly speaking, no intermediate cut is made here; this is technically justifiable if z. B. the speaker did not move his head at all.
Multiple cameras
If the speaker was recorded by several cameras at the same time, after the direct cut, the recording is switched to another camera in the hope that there is no change that the viewer can perceive (e.g. a speaker suddenly crossed his legs ).
Separate sectional images
In doing so - usually after the actual production - separate “slices” of several seconds each are recorded. B. Recordings from viewers. After the direct cut, a “video insert” is made: the sound continues, but the viewer sees a picture that was recorded at a different point in time for a few seconds. Changes such as a turn of the head could then have taken place - for the viewer - during this time, provided that he still notices them. Typical sectional views are:
- For discussions or cabaret recordings : close-ups of the audience
- In interviews: close-ups of the speaker's hands, of objects from the room (such as flower arrangements) or animals present (in interviews with Rudolph Moshammer , his dog Daisy was often used for sectional images).
Political aspect
The technique of the intermediate cuts is not without controversy. In fact, it is typically used to keep airtime or to eliminate insignificant or repeated - and thus irrelevant for viewers - statements without irritating the viewer through a visible interference with the material. This is for the quality of the material sent.
Basically, however, every intercut scratches the principle of journalistic objectivity: the suspicion that intercuts remove unfavorable (stuttering, contradictions) or particularly advantageous (brilliant formulations) for the speaker can hardly be checked. It is even possible to distort or completely twist statements by means of targeted cuts.
The viewer has to rely on the care and objectivity of the journalists and technicians. In isolated cases, however (e.g. in the US presidential election campaign in 2008), uncut recordings were subsequently distributed on the Internet in order to counter accusations of deliberate influence through cuts.