There's some idiot selling bogus "replica" Star Wars clapperboards on eBay that purport to be "memorabilia" and "based on" the clapperboards used in "actual filming". And of course none of those things are true. In fact, his "clapperboards" look nothing like the ones actually used, and contain information that clapperboards don't actually have. Plus they don't use the UK slating system, when Star Wars live action footage was of course filmed by English crews.
So, whatever. Another scammer. But it got me thinking about the UK versus US systems of marking clapperboards. In the British system (much hated by American editors, it seems), the second AC/clapper loader writes down the "slate" number. (the clapperboard is essentially a chalkboard surface, and thus is the "slate") This is 1 at the start of a day's filming, and is incremented with each take. The slate number is, according to some sources, then reset for the next setup (camera move or lens swap). Americans don't do this and instead append letters after the take number. Which has its own pros and cons.
But why are the shots I've seen of the Star Wars clapperboards marked with really crazy high slate numbers? This one has a slate number of 582. That couldn't possibly have been the 582nd take since the last setup. Any ideas?
So, whatever. Another scammer. But it got me thinking about the UK versus US systems of marking clapperboards. In the British system (much hated by American editors, it seems), the second AC/clapper loader writes down the "slate" number. (the clapperboard is essentially a chalkboard surface, and thus is the "slate") This is 1 at the start of a day's filming, and is incremented with each take. The slate number is, according to some sources, then reset for the next setup (camera move or lens swap). Americans don't do this and instead append letters after the take number. Which has its own pros and cons.
But why are the shots I've seen of the Star Wars clapperboards marked with really crazy high slate numbers? This one has a slate number of 582. That couldn't possibly have been the 582nd take since the last setup. Any ideas?
Last edited: