Clapper/Slate/

[Mick]

Listening to Mark and Brian on the radio this morning on the way to work. "Ten approved" quiz. Question. What is the marker called that signals the start of a movie take? Answer: Clapper board

I called them and didn't have time to stay on the phone long enough to be on the air but I am certain that "clapper board" is a distinctly English version of "slate". One of the DJs answered "slate" and was told it was incorrect. Just setting the record straight. And Mark was certain that the "clapper boards" were connected to the camera by blue tooth. Am I so far out of the loop that I missed this development in sync technology?

Love those guys, they brighten my morning every day.

Mick

[Marc Wielage]

I'm shocked, shocked do you hear, that morning DJs don't know correct technical motion picture terminology.

A few months ago, Howard Stern was screaming for an hour about how bad his Blackberry was, and I couldn't help but laugh, knowing that all his problems were tied to AT&T service. The Blackberry itself is fine. There's a lot of technical ineptness on the radio, and I think there always has been.

--Marc W.

[RPSharman]

A friend of mine did design a slate which would take a jam from a bluetooth transmitter, similar to what is now being implemented by Denecke and Zaxcom, but in a much cheaper and lower-tech package.  The slate would keep its own time but would re-jam itself whenever in proximity of the limited range transmitter.  The transmitter could be walked onto set every few hours, or the slates could be walked by the sound cart, etc.

[Malcolm Davies Amps CAS]

Ever since I've been in the business (Almost 50 years) what I believe you would call the second or third AC has been known in the UK as the clapper loader who was only responsible for loading the mags, clapping the board and making the tea. This got changed in the late 70's to the Loader and prior to this change the loader was always referred to by the more snobbish Dop's as the clapper boy.

Malcolm Davies. A.m.p.s. Production Sound Mixer (Formerly referred to as a Sound Recordist)

[Marc Wielage]

Agreed, it's always been "clapper/loader" on British shoots. But Mark & Brian are LA-based DJs on KLOS-FM. I think they just grabbed a British reference book and assumed the same terms are used all over the world.

After having worked in post more than 25 years, I have to say, the British "slate" number system always perplexed me. Very confusing. The American system, where the scene in the printed script is the same scene number that goes on the slate, seems more logical to me. I wonder how the British system came about?

--Marc W.

[Malcolm Davies Amps CAS]

It's just that we don't normally use scene numbers Marc.

Just a new slate number for each new shot plus however many takes the camera fairies use to get it right!!

Malcolm Davies. A.m.p.s. (Production Sound Mixer.)

[soundtrane]

I worked recently with an American production and the scripty who was an Indian girl (said she worked two years in NY) came up with a system that was new to me.

If it is Scene Number 12, the first shot would be marked as 12 Take 1, 2, 3 etc

Second shot of Scene Number 12 would be marked 12  A / take 1 2, 3, 4 etc

Third shot would be 12 B / 1, 2, 3, 4 etc.

Sometimes scriptys come up with such complicated numbers, like SC 12 A Part A Pick up 1 - 12APTAPU1/shot 1 / take 1 -> 12APTAPU1/1/1 or SC 12 A Part B Puck up 2 NEW / shot 2 / take 2 -> 12APTBPU2NEW/2/2

I'd run out of space! So i started putting all their "Part, NEW, PickUP" etc., in the comment field and the main metadata would read SC/Shot/Take with the Cantar's designation of the shot type as 'p' for pickup.

I guess this could do with another thread...

-vin

[Jeff Wexler]

I don't think it needs another thread (hopefully it is close to running its course already). The method that Vin mentions is THE method we use here in the U.S. Scene number is the Scene Number in the printed script (for the most part) and the first setup (shot, angle) is just the Scene Number and Take Number. Each other shot gets a letter, A, B, C, D, etc. Sometimes it al gets very messy, as Vin says, with double letters, pick-ups, alternate takes, etc. I am not going to defend the system, it has its merits and its liabilities.

I have done several jobs with what we refer to here as the "European method" of consecutive slate numbers. he first shot of the first day is Slate 1, next time the camera rolls it is Slate 2, etc., etc. It is the script supervisor's job to key these consecutive slate numbers to the script Scene. The obvious and immediate benefit for the production crew on the set is never having to worry "what's the next number?" because it will always be the next number. The disadvantage is that the numbers get really BIG on a long shot. The disadvantage, for those in post, even beginning at the daily level, is that the consecutive numbers without the script supervisor's notes, tell them NOTHING about what we shot.

[Matthias Richter]

I have done several jobs with what we refer to here as the "European method" of consecutive slate numbers. he first shot of the first day is Slate 1, next time the camera rolls it is Slate 2, etc., etc.

although Germany is part of Europe this certainly is not the method common over here.

We use the Scene-number and thereafter another number for the shot (camera-angle) and then Take-number (Scene 123, shot 4, take 5 then reads:  "123/4/5" on the board)

The old German way is that each shot get its designated number, means: Master shot1, medCU 2, CU 3, reverse 4 and so on. That sometimes means you are starting the scene with shot 4 and do shot 1 in the end. Not very common to start with a CU and end up with a master but might happen. With that sytem you never know what the next shot number will be unless you ask your scripty.

In these days we more often start with shot 1 regardless of CU, master etc. and continue to change that shot-number (2, 3, 4) when changing the shot.

Editorial still knows what Scene we were doing when reading the board.

Well if I think about it - it`s almost like the American sytem but with numbers instead of letters used for the shot ...

Anyway now you know.

Best, Matthias

[Jeff Wexler]

although Germany is part of Europe this certainly is not the method common over here.

Best, Matthias

That's why I said that we call it the "European method" in quotes because as you probably know, many Americans sort of think there is the US (us) and then all those other countries that are just EUROPE. I think the German method you talk about is quite similar, as you say, numbers instead of letters, but the practice of trying to have the number or the letter match whether it is the master shot or the closeup or whatever, always gets people in trouble no matter what system. Then you really don't know what number is up. I think that no matter what the first setup (or angle, shot) of a scene is, it should be just the scene number (even if it is an insert or cutaway shot before the talent even gets on the set).

[gabi]

We use the Scene-number and thereafter another number for the shot (camera-angle) and then Take-number (Scene 123, shot 4, take 5 then reads:  "123/4/5" on the board)

In these days we more often start with shot 1 regardless of CU, master etc. and continue to change that shot-number (2, 3, 4) when changing the shot.

Editorial still knows what Scene we were doing when reading the board.

Well if I think about it - it`s almost like the American system but with numbers instead of letters used for the shot ...

Same here in Brazil. We sometimes add letters to the shot number if it is an alternate take, let's say the same angle with slightly closer lens. And sometimes we add PU (for pick up) or RT (for retake).

Gabi

[soundtrane]

Jeff,  when  i worked on that Larry levinson production many years ago, I don't think we used this system - it was something else. the scripty was from LA. Of course it was a motley crew from out there, all out to make a quick buck (might have included hazard pay for shooting in 45 degree plus weather). Maybe she was not a 'regular' scripty.

I do not mind this system at all, but only when it gets way too long, then it is a pita.

-vin

[soundtrane]

Apropos the German system, that's the thing i dont like - to start with shot 4, when i would think it natural to start a scene with shot 1, no matter what the editing order is. this requires some extra effort to communicate and at times, in crazy locations it becomes the achille's heel of this system.

I do like the idea of starting with Shot 1, no matter what and incrementing as the shot changes. The European system that Jeff talks about. I in fact remember doing a short film many years ago with an Indian director from UK who used this system. Boy, it was easy on the set! I wonder if it would be too much trouble corroborating these numbers with scenes in the film in post. After all, it's easy to mark what scenes were shot on what day of the shoot in chronological order, and then it is easy to break it up - 1 to 37 = SC 7, 38-74 = SC 12, etc... And of course, all i have to do is increment the shot number by one, and it does not matter if it is a 3 digit number or a 10 digit number. So long as I know it is a change of shot - different lens, magnification, etc, i am fine EVEN if i cannot get a clear line of communication from the scripty.

-vin

[studiomprd]

first off, it isn't really up to the production sound crew to choose the slare numbering system, that is usually the responsibility of the Scripty, one would expect in consultation with post.

We west coast USA type have become comfortable with the Sc#/ shot=letter/take # with modifiers. often the scene # is preceded with a letter indicating R=reshoot, V=Visual effects, etc. all the world region variations are fine, as whatever you use, you get used to.

one thing has remained a variable: "OK, lets pick it up from...".  sometimes it becomes (westUSA system) next letter (or shot), and sometimes it becomes same shot (or letter) "PU" take 1, and sometimes it becomes just: next take,  and even next take "PU"...

(did I express that clearly??)

[Guest Ken Mantlo]

Sometimes scriptys come up with such complicated numbers, like SC 12 A Part A Pick up 1 - 12APTAPU1/shot 1 / take 1 -> 12APTAPU1/1/1 or SC 12 A Part B Puck up 2 NEW / shot 2 / take 2 -> 12APTBPU2NEW/2/2

I'd run out of space! So i started putting all their "Part, NEW, PickUP" etc., in the comment field and the main metadata would read SC/Shot/Take with the Cantar's designation of the shot type as 'p' for pickup.

I guess this could do with another thread...

-vin

I never put " PU" or pick-up in my slating.  If it's scene 4 take 2 why say "pick-up"?  There's only one scene 4 take 2, pick-up or not.  If the editor looks at it and can't figure out that it's a partial take I'd be amazed. 

[soundtrane]

totally agree. maybe pic edit has assistants working who...

-vin

[studiomprd]

" If the editor looks at it and can't figure out "

exactly!

[John Blankenship]

I've had it happen that the Scripty turns to the director and says, "you want that to be an A?" and the director, trying too hard to overthink it on the spur of the moment, comes up with something out of left field that requires everyone to write way-too-much in a way-too-small space.

In most situations, if they can't capture a scene in 24 different shots (sometimes leaving out I and O for clarity's sake), there's usually a much bigger problem than numbering the takes going on.

I have worked with a combo method where a "Scene," "Take," and "Sound" number were all used.  The "Sound" number being basically the "European" method with an incremented number.  I did like the fact that the sound number could correspond to the DAT's "ID" number, which also corresponded to my incremented "Event" number on the sound report.  (Yes, way back in the DAT days.)

These days, on Red shoots, I'm frequently running into "Clip" numbers in the "Take" column.  That works fine since it corresponds for post when syncing in the editing system.

I'm in favor of the simplest method that contains sufficient information for anyone to find anything when necessary.  In other words:  Whatever works, but KISS.

John B.

[studiomprd]

and how about a director who mandates that after some nominal number of takes, we up the letter, so it looks better on the production report...

ah, please: KISS!!

[Marc Wielage]

The disadvantage, for those in post, even beginning at the daily level, is that the consecutive numbers without the script supervisor's notes, tell them NOTHING about what we shot.

Yeah, that makes post people crazy. When I was in film school (early 1970s), we were never taught exactly why and how scene numbers were identified in the American system, and despite working in post for more than 25 years, I never really understood it until I read Pat Miller's book <u>Script Supervising and Film Continuity</u>. Only then did I really appreciate how complex the scripty's job is.

I believe the convention is for letters to follow the scene number when it's a variation (close-up, 2-shot, medium, cutaway, etc.). The letter precedes the scene number if it's a new shot -- at least this is my memory. PU is for pickup, and so on.

The reality is that really, only the editor and assistant editor care about the scene numbers, because it helps them organize their bins and pieces later on. The scene names get incredibly complicated with effects-heavy shows, like "VFX-69ZZ-PU3-1." I think Avid convention won't allow using more than 6 characters in a scene name, so this gets very messy very quickly. Ditto with Devas, SD recorders, and so on (though I haven't tried beyond 4-5 characters yet).

Often, I think the AD and directors try too hard on this stuff. Keeping it simple can work fine, assuming the editorial team gets everything organized. I'm reminded of digital shoots that roll for 15 minutes and do five pickups within the take, and there's no additional slates. The assistant editor will still break that down and take care of it manually later on.

--Marc W.

[studiomprd]

" digital shoots that roll for 15 minutes and do five pickups within the take, "

right

or even 5 complete takes, plus 3 pickups, and then two alternates!!!

and that is scripty's gig, to sort that all out for the editor(s), which is why scripty is always so busy during set-ups, and also gets some extra time at wrap.

while it is not my gig, so I just do whatever scripty sez, I just think the PU designation is a violation of the KISS as it is just another take of the same shot, with a different starting point (or else it could be given the next letter, also ok)  the vertical lines scripty draws identify the begin-end of each take.  think of it this way, if the take does not go to the end of the scene, they do not go back and rename it as Sc 35D-inc take 5... the just indicate where that take ended on their notes...

as noted, not our gig to make these choices... and the experienced pro's do use KISS!

[Marc Wielage]

and that is scripty's gig, to sort that all out for the editor(s), which is why scripty is always so busy during set-ups, and also gets some extra time at wrap.

The funny thing is, lots of script sups work very differently from each other, even in the same country. A lot of it boils down to personal preference. Oh, and it's always great when the slate says one thing, the camera report says another, and the sound report says something different. If we have the script sup's notes in post, then we use whatever they say as a tie-breaker. But you'd be amazed how often those notes are not sent to post for dailies.

...I just think the PU designation is a violation of the KISS as it is just another take of the same shot, with a different starting point...

Yeah, it seems a little anal to me. I think the original reason why was so that the editor wouldn't freak out that it was only a partial take and not the entire scene.

What's interesting is how a lot of this stuff is going out the window due to digital filmmaking. When they roll for 20 minutes and do about a dozen pickups without stopping, you gotta figure, maybe the actual scene/take on the slate doesn't really matter. It's whatever the editor and assistant call it later on. In effect, it just pushes that work onto the post crew. I see pros and cons to this, but this may be one of those new modern trends nobody can stop.

--Marc W.

[soundtrane]

the problem with these multiple takes is that sometimes it's difficult to realize this and i cut the recording a couple of times. the onus is on the chief AD or someone on the set to shout STILL ROLLING!!! clearly and loudly when a shot is completed.

[Q]

the problem with these multiple takes is that sometimes it's difficult to realize this and i cut the recording a couple of times. the onus is on the chief AD or someone on the set to shout STILL ROLLING!!! clearly and loudly when a shot is completed.

or don't cut until someone actually calls a "cut."

[RPSharman]

or don't cut until someone actually calls a "cut."

If you actually cut when someone calls "cut" these days, then you will be burned several times a day.  I do not cut until I can confirm the camera has cut.  There are simply too many times, particularly with DP/operators, where the director and AD call cut but the DP will keep rolling.  I rely on my boom operator (if my monitors don't indicate) to tell me to actually cut.

"Is that a cut or a cut cut?"

Robert