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
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram