Does dissolve cut from near to wide shot violate any basic editing grammar conventions?

Question

I know that video editing is not a science and there are always exceptions to rules. However, as a beginner I'd like to stick to the basics and conventions.

I've read in the excellent book "Grammar of the Edit" that cross-dissolve usually means change of time or place. But I've seen a couple of times dissolving from a narrower shot to a wider shot of the same scene, most recently here:

• 4:19 (where the ticker tape at the statue shows the scenes of players and fans celebrating)

I find this transition delightful and it's little things like these that separate amateur from (more) professional productions.

Is there some other standard case for using dissolve that I've not thought of? Or is this all down to video editing being an art, not a science?

Answer 1

You hit the nail on the head, editing absolutely is an art. That said, there's a little bit of science too.

Transitions other than cuts should (almost) always be used sparingly, especially dissolves. The primary issue with dissolves is that you can see both frames at the same time. In almost all cases, both shots should be static and should have minimal movement, the big exception being repeated patterns (such as water).

A dissolve can be used when you're transitioning between two shots that are either very similar (a match dissolve) or very different, which is what you're suggesting. Used sparingly, what you want to do doesn't violate any traditional conventions, but that doesn't inherently mean you should or shouldn't do it.

The best approach is usually to just try it both ways. Create two clips, one that uses a dissolve and one that uses a cut, and then just watch them and see what you like better. If you can't decide, ask someone else for their opinion. With that said, though, as long as neither transition breaks flow (think, a jarring transition) they're both perfectly acceptable.