Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

working method ? -do you edit shot prior to dropping it on..

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 20, 2004 10:36:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

newbie question - is it more efficient to first edit the top & tail of a
shot and get it roughly to length and apply whatever effects etc prior to
dropping it on the timeline or after ?
Using Vegas4
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 11:22:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Frank wrote:
> newbie question - is it more efficient to first edit the top & tail
> of a shot and get it roughly to length and apply whatever effects etc
> prior to dropping it on the timeline or after ?
> Using Vegas4


Call me old-fashioned but I log everything before I start capturing and then
only capture exactly what I need for the project. I build in an extra 2
sec. on the head and tail of each clip but that's it. No sense filling up
your hard drive with footage that you know you will never use. Then I drop
the clips onto the timeline and do any effects necessary.

Mike
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 6:06:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Mike Kujbida wrote:

> Call me old-fashioned but I log everything before I start capturing and then
> only capture exactly what I need for the project. I build in an extra 2
> sec. on the head and tail of each clip but that's it. No sense filling up
> your hard drive with footage that you know you will never use. Then I drop
> the clips onto the timeline and do any effects necessary.

It's a lot more work to set up a complex batch capture than to just
scan/capture the pertinent sections of your tapes, especially if hard
drive space is no problem. Then you can delete all the clips after
you're finished.

And yes, you should edit the clips in the preview window before dropping
into the timeline. No reason not to.

Gary Eickmeier
Related resources
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 6:06:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Mike Kujbida wrote:
>
>> Call me old-fashioned but I log everything before I start capturing
>> and then only capture exactly what I need for the project. I build
>> in an extra 2 sec. on the head and tail of each clip but that's it.
>> No sense filling up your hard drive with footage that you know you
>> will never use. Then I drop the clips onto the timeline and do any
>> effects necessary.
>
> It's a lot more work to set up a complex batch capture than to just
> scan/capture the pertinent sections of your tapes, especially if hard
> drive space is no problem. Then you can delete all the clips after
> you're finished.


How can a batch capture be complex when all you're doing is entering a
series of numbers? It also saves wear & tear on the camcorder.
As I said, I'm old fashioned because I learned my editing skills in the
pre-NLE days.
Imagine editing a documentary that you may have 20 or more tapes of footage.
This is where good old-fashioned VHS time-code window dubs are still very
worth while. Do a paper edit and then transfer only the clips you want.
Producers did it this exact way for years and I feel that it's still valid
today.
YMMV.

Mike


> And yes, you should edit the clips in the preview window before
> dropping into the timeline. No reason not to.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 3:06:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> How can a batch capture be complex when all you're doing is entering a
> series of numbers? It also saves wear & tear on the camcorder.

How so?

With Scenalyzer, it simply makes one pass through the whole tape,
capturing clips on the fly. Then delete the clips you don't want from the
disc.

With batch capture, you have to preview the tape to find clips that you
want and are usable, note the time codes, enter them in. Then the capture
process has to rewind to the first time code, start capturing, stop
capturing, fast fwd to the next time code, start/stop etc. That's also
assuming that the fast fwd doesn't overshoot the time code and have to
back track. Doesn't sound like less wear and tear to me.

I'm not doubting that your method works for you, but I don't see how it's
less wear and tear on the camcorder. Far from it.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 11:11:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Frank" <anyone@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:zAhhc.12916$CO3.673154@news20.bellglobal.com...
> newbie question - is it more efficient to first edit the top & tail of a
> shot and get it roughly to length and apply whatever effects etc prior to
> dropping it on the timeline or after ?

I suggest cleaning up the clips before adding them to a timeline. I think
the last things that you should edit together are the transitions from the
previous/to the next clip. It's difficult to know, until that edit is being
done, exactly where your in/out points really are.

I have been putting comedy clips together recently and the timing can be
difficult to get right. I might think at first that my 'in' point is at a
particular place, but after seeing the dissolve from the previous clip, I'll
realise that good pacing requires another couple of frames at the start, or
something like that. So it's good if you've already done the small things -
silenced the cough at the start, colour corrected, etc, so your clip is in
its final-candidate form the moment you nudge it back and forth on the
timeline.
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 12:51:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Bob Stedenko wrote:
> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> How can a batch capture be complex when all you're doing is entering
>> a series of numbers? It also saves wear & tear on the camcorder.
>
> How so?
>
> With Scenalyzer, it simply makes one pass through the whole tape,
> capturing clips on the fly. Then delete the clips you don't want from
> the disc.
>
> With batch capture, you have to preview the tape to find clips that
> you want and are usable, note the time codes, enter them in. Then the
> capture process has to rewind to the first time code, start
> capturing, stop capturing, fast fwd to the next time code, start/stop
> etc. That's also assuming that the fast fwd doesn't overshoot the
> time code and have to back track. Doesn't sound like less wear and
> tear to me.
>
> I'm not doubting that your method works for you, but I don't see how
> it's less wear and tear on the camcorder. Far from it.


Maybe if I give an example of a typical project, you'll see why I do a paper
edit.
I'm doing a project for a non-profit agency to be shown at a fundraiser next
week. I've got a rough script but nothing is carved in stone. The video
will be comprised of comments from members of the agency and some of their
clients on the positive impact the agency has had on their lives.
On this particular project, I also plan to ask a number of questions of the
clients. I haven't told anyone about this as I don't want them to come up
with pre-scripted answers. I've done a number of similar videos over the
years and have found that this is where the most heartfelt responses come
from.
The final video is to be around 5 min. I expect to shoot at least 1 hr. of
material (I've shot much more in the past). Because I'm a one-man band
(light, sound, shoot & edit) on this project , I don't have the time to make
anything other than mental notes. When I get back to the office, I'll do a
VHS dub (with time code) of the footage. I'll then sit back and watch the
tape several times, make some notes about what I liked and formulate the
flow in my head. Then and only then will I go back and pick the exact clips
I want to use and only these clips get captured.

As I said earlier, it's been done by producers this way for a number of
years. It's the way I was taught and the way I prefer to do it. A common
complaint I hear from people who were taught on traditional tape-based edit
systems is that you always saw the 5 sec.tape machine pre-roll before the
edit. This was good because it gave you a chance to see if the
cut/dissolve/effect worked for you. With today's NLEs, too many people
simply drop clips on the timeline in what seems to be a good order and don't
bother looking at it until they're done. Granted, changes are still much
quicker than they used to be but my point is that, if you take the time to
plan your project before you start editing, you'll get it done quicker.

I'm not expecting anyone to say that my way is the best or the worst. It
works well for me so I'll keep doing it.

Mike
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 4:13:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

a definate 'hear hear' from here.

a good video is much more to do with pre production, and a good deal of
thought as to what you've actually got shot than dumping it on a timeline
and choping and changing it around there....

leslie

"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:c674vs$8lju9$1@ID-113661.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Bob Stedenko wrote:
> > "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> How can a batch capture be complex when all you're doing is entering
> >> a series of numbers? It also saves wear & tear on the camcorder.
> >
> > How so?
> >
> > With Scenalyzer, it simply makes one pass through the whole tape,
> > capturing clips on the fly. Then delete the clips you don't want from
> > the disc.
> >
> > With batch capture, you have to preview the tape to find clips that
> > you want and are usable, note the time codes, enter them in. Then the
> > capture process has to rewind to the first time code, start
> > capturing, stop capturing, fast fwd to the next time code, start/stop
> > etc. That's also assuming that the fast fwd doesn't overshoot the
> > time code and have to back track. Doesn't sound like less wear and
> > tear to me.
> >
> > I'm not doubting that your method works for you, but I don't see how
> > it's less wear and tear on the camcorder. Far from it.
>
>
> Maybe if I give an example of a typical project, you'll see why I do a
paper
> edit.
> I'm doing a project for a non-profit agency to be shown at a fundraiser
next
> week. I've got a rough script but nothing is carved in stone. The video
> will be comprised of comments from members of the agency and some of their
> clients on the positive impact the agency has had on their lives.
> On this particular project, I also plan to ask a number of questions of
the
> clients. I haven't told anyone about this as I don't want them to come up
> with pre-scripted answers. I've done a number of similar videos over the
> years and have found that this is where the most heartfelt responses come
> from.
> The final video is to be around 5 min. I expect to shoot at least 1 hr.
of
> material (I've shot much more in the past). Because I'm a one-man band
> (light, sound, shoot & edit) on this project , I don't have the time to
make
> anything other than mental notes. When I get back to the office, I'll do
a
> VHS dub (with time code) of the footage. I'll then sit back and watch the
> tape several times, make some notes about what I liked and formulate the
> flow in my head. Then and only then will I go back and pick the exact
clips
> I want to use and only these clips get captured.
>
> As I said earlier, it's been done by producers this way for a number of
> years. It's the way I was taught and the way I prefer to do it. A
common
> complaint I hear from people who were taught on traditional tape-based
edit
> systems is that you always saw the 5 sec.tape machine pre-roll before the
> edit. This was good because it gave you a chance to see if the
> cut/dissolve/effect worked for you. With today's NLEs, too many people
> simply drop clips on the timeline in what seems to be a good order and
don't
> bother looking at it until they're done. Granted, changes are still much
> quicker than they used to be but my point is that, if you take the time to
> plan your project before you start editing, you'll get it done quicker.
>
> I'm not expecting anyone to say that my way is the best or the worst. It
> works well for me so I'll keep doing it.
>
> Mike
>
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 3:18:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Thu 22 Apr 2004 01:51:35a, "Mike Kujbida"
<kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> I'm not expecting anyone to say that my way is the best or the worst.
> It works well for me so I'll keep doing it.

As I said, Mike, I'm not doubting your methods, and for sure people should
plan their projects.

I was merely doubting that batch capturing has less wear & tear on the
camcorder than a dump of the whole tape to disc. What people do with the
clips afterwards in another debate. :) 
April 23, 2004 11:16:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"kay & wand" <l_wand@REMoVEaBUSehotmail.com> wrote:

>a definate 'hear hear' from here.
>
>a good video is much more to do with pre production, and a good deal of
>thought as to what you've actually got shot than dumping it on a timeline
>and choping and changing it around there....
>
>leslie

You guys have completely lost me on this one!

The original question was whether or not it was better (in Vegas) to
trim clips before they were placed on the timeline, or to wait until
they were on the timeline and then trim them?

That got turned into an argument as to whether or not it was better to
batch capture, or to capture everything and then select/trim what you
wanted, followed by the weird observation that direct (one pass)
capture caused more wear on the camcorder than batch capture!

Then, that got changed into the statement that it was better to make
a dupe and watch that many times while you decided what to do, then to
make a batch capture.

Now, you are saying you have to do all your thought as pre-production
before you dump anything on the timeline, as if once video is captured
and placed on the timeline, it is no longer possible to think or plan.

Using Mike's example, in what way is it superior to make a VHS dupe
and watch it many times to decide what you want to do, than to capture
his "hypothetical" hour tape, put all of it on the timeline and watch
it several times as you make your decisions?

In my view, it would be highly preferable to capture the tape once and
do all you work from there. All of your planning before and during
the shoot would be the same, but the work flow from then forward would
be greatly different. For one thing, as you worked through your
footage on the timeline, it would be possible to actually implement
your ideas in a non-destuctive way. If you cut something our or moved
a clip, it could always be moved back into place if you changed your
mind.

At one time when hard drive space was slow and expensive, it made
sense to only capture what you absolutely needed. Now, an hour's
worth of DV is only 13GB (or 26GB to have room to play), and any
editor who doesn't have 26GB free should upgrade immediately.

I'm not saying it isn't important to pre-plan and to do a LOT of
thinking before and during the edit, but today I feel it is foolish to
think about NLE in the same terms used in Hollywood 30 years ago, or
TV ten years ago.

To get back to the original question---

It really doesn't make any difference whether or not you trim before
you place a clip or not, but both Vegas and Premiere are set up to
pander to "old-fashioned" editors who like to trim before placing on
the timeline. I used to trim before, now I trim on the timeline using
Premiere Pro, although you have to work harder because Premiere still
has ripple editing as an afterthought, rather than the default.

Hopefully, by the time the next generation of Premiere and Vegas
arrive, the powers that be will come into the Twentieth Century, and
who knows, by Premiere 9 they may be up to the Twenty-first Century!

But, will today's editors ever leave the Nineteenth?

Susan
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 3:43:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

i rather like being old fashioned - i tried being modern, but the clients
didn't like it and the projects took much longer....

i wish you every success in your editing career, and would love to talk to
you about your experiences editing the modern nle way when you retire.

should we get together in a couple of years?

leslie


>
> To get back to the original question---
>
> It really doesn't make any difference whether or not you trim before
> you place a clip or not, but both Vegas and Premiere are set up to
> pander to "old-fashioned" editors who like to trim before placing on
> the timeline. I used to trim before, now I trim on the timeline using
> Premiere Pro, although you have to work harder because Premiere still
> has ripple editing as an afterthought, rather than the default.
>
> Hopefully, by the time the next generation of Premiere and Vegas
> arrive, the powers that be will come into the Twentieth Century, and
> who knows, by Premiere 9 they may be up to the Twenty-first Century!
>
> But, will today's editors ever leave the Nineteenth?
>
> Susan
>
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 3:02:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:16:25 GMT, Susan <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>But, will today's editors ever leave the Nineteenth?

I don't know if your realise this, but the whole industry, whether it
is film or video, is constantly improving and changing. If there would
be better methods, do you really believe that editors would not
embrace them, and beg "the powers that be" to introduce them? There
are plenty of tradeshows where new ideas are launched, and where
manufacturers are listening to their clients what they think of them.
Maybe you should refresh your ideas about editors ;-)

cheers

-martin-

--
filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
Sydney, Australia

"The world is on the move. Adopt, adapt, survive."
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 7:20:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Susan wrote:
> "kay & wand" wrote:
>
>> a definite 'hear hear' from here.
>>
>> a good video is much more to do with pre production, and a good deal
>> of thought as to what you've actually got shot than dumping it on a
>> timeline and chopping and changing it around there....
>>
>> leslie
>
> You guys have completely lost me on this one!


Me too! That's why I changed the subject. Hope it makes more sense :-)


> The original question was whether or not it was better (in Vegas) to
> trim clips before they were placed on the timeline, or to wait until
> they were on the timeline and then trim them?
>
> That got turned into an argument as to whether or not it was better to
> batch capture, or to capture everything and then select/trim what you
> wanted, followed by the weird observation that direct (one pass)
> capture caused more wear on the camcorder than batch capture!
>
> Then, that got changed into the statement that it was better to make
> a dupe and watch that many times while you decided what to do, then to
> make a batch capture.
>
> Now, you are saying you have to do all your thought as pre-production
> before you dump anything on the timeline, as if once video is captured
> and placed on the timeline, it is no longer possible to think or plan.
>
> Using Mike's example, in what way is it superior to make a VHS dupe
> and watch it many times to decide what you want to do, than to capture
> his "hypothetical" hour tape, put all of it on the timeline and watch
> it several times as you make your decisions?
>
> In my view, it would be highly preferable to capture the tape once and
> do all you work from there. All of your planning before and during
> the shoot would be the same, but the work flow from then forward would
> be greatly different. For one thing, as you worked through your
> footage on the timeline, it would be possible to actually implement
> your ideas in a non-destuctive way. If you cut something our or moved
> a clip, it could always be moved back into place if you changed your
> mind.

If that's the way you choose to work, that's fine. As I said a while ago, I
have a certain style and it works for me. I've been doing it this way for
over 30 years and it's served me well. BTW, I've been using NLEs for the
last 5 and haven't changed my style one iota.


> At one time when hard drive space was slow and expensive, it made
> sense to only capture what you absolutely needed. Now, an hour's
> worth of DV is only 13GB (or 26GB to have room to play), and any
> editor who doesn't have 26GB free should upgrade immediately.
>
> I'm not saying it isn't important to pre-plan and to do a LOT of
> thinking before and during the edit, but today I feel it is foolish to
> think about NLE in the same terms used in Hollywood 30 years ago, or
> TV ten years ago.


Pre-planning is extremely important. It's probably 75% of the battle. If
you're working on a project with a definite focus, there is no excuse for
not having a complete script before you shoot one second of footage. It's
worked for Hollywood for decades and I don't see them changing yet.
I have students coming in with footage who do things exactly the way you
describe. They proceed to waste hours of valuable edit suite time because
they really didn't have a firm plan in place before they came in.


> To get back to the original question---
>
> It really doesn't make any difference whether or not you trim before
> you place a clip or not, but both Vegas and Premiere are set up to
> pander to "old-fashioned" editors who like to trim before placing on
> the timeline.


I beg to differ. Neither Vegas nor Premiere stop you from capturing the
entire tape and then trimming to your heart's content. If you only capture
exactly what you need, then you're being "old fashioned" - like me.


> I used to trim before, now I trim on the timeline using
> Premiere Pro, although you have to work harder because Premiere still
> has ripple editing as an afterthought, rather than the default.


All the more reason to dump Premiere and get Vegas :-)


> Hopefully, by the time the next generation of Premiere and Vegas
> arrive, the powers that be will come into the Twentieth Century, and
> who knows, by Premiere 9 they may be up to the Twenty-first Century!
>
> But, will today's editors ever leave the Nineteenth?
>
> Susan


As I said above, Hollywood has had lots of time to come into the 21st
century. However, they still do certain things the same "old fashioned" way
for a reason. It works for them and they have yet to see a compelling
reason to change. Over the years, Hollywood has gone through a lot of
technical changes. Video assist is a big one. Directors can now see what
the scene looked like immediately instead of waiting for rushes the next
day - or later. On multi-camera scenes such as battles, they now have the
capability of seeing if all the action got captured according to plan or
not.
Directors like Francis Ford Coppola were early pioneers in the use of video.
He would storyboard every shot in the film. Then the actors would do their
scenes in a plain studio and be videotaped. This videotape would be edited
so that he could see if the scene was working or not. Only when he was
happy with things would he start shooting on film. He got ostracized for
doing it this way but he stuck to his guns. He wasn't forcing anyone else
to do it his way. He was doing what worked for him. And that's what I've
been trying to say here. It works for me. It may not for you. Your
choice.

I'll close by repeating Leslie's line: "I rather like being old fashioned -
I tried being modern, but the clients didn't like it and the projects took
much longer."

Mike
!