or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Editing - The Curse of Videography
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Editing - The Curse of Videography

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
I came across a recent post wherein someone made a comment about dropping videography and returning to still photography because of the long hours required for video editing. I'm not ragging on the poster but he got me wondering: How many other people have become disillusioned, or at least disappointed, for the same reason?

For my own part I could hardly have imagined when I started how many hours I would ultimately spend in the editing process to turn my raw footage into something I consider presentable. Maybe I just have high standards or lousy camera skills (or both). My wife doesn't understand why I can't just splice everything together and be done with it. But like most people she has been fed a constant diet of carefully edited material on TV and in movies and doesn't realize what went into creating it.

What's a typical ratio of editing time to raw footage time for everyone here?
post #2 of 22
I am crappy shooter, so this hits me back when I edit. Trying to find a cutaway to cover a bad shot, or smoothing audio throughout different clips are two biggest issues of mine.

My best effort is a 4-minute video, shot in about two hours and edited during two days. And this is with a storyboard of sorts. Pitiful. I will never be a wedding videographer ;-)
post #3 of 22
I work on video when I am in my manic phase.

On a good day, editing time to raw time about 5:1.

That does not count rendering times.
post #4 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

I am crappy shooter, so this hits me back when I edit. Trying to find a cutaway to cover a bad shot, or smoothing audio throughout different clips are two biggest issues of mine.

My best effort is a 4-minute video, shot in about two hours and edited during two days. And this is with a storyboard of sorts. Pitiful. I will never be a wedding videographer ;-)

I am a wedding videographer. It takes me about 30-40 hours to complete ( edditing and burning) a wedding video. They usually consist of 3 camera angles, 200+ photos, 2 extra dubbed audio tracks (from my zoom recorders), music tracks, and all the effects.

My creativity and project assembly is rather fast, when i set down and start concentrating. I have a good workflow. I already have an idea in mind when i film.

My main delay is dealing with all the little issues with HD video and all the current crop of NLE's. They all have some sort of bug, that causes me to have to redo various parts of the video. And dealing with the rendering of 3 HD tracks is SLOW.

When i think I am finished, I first produce my test video to BD-R and DVD-R rewrite disc, and usually end up making modifications and rendering all over again afterwards. Some things you can't see, until you burn and watch on a large TV .

It's completly different when dealing with a HUGE project like this, as to a family video. Loads of issues, that won't crop up until the project gets bloated.

Randy
post #5 of 22
I'm just a hobbyist (video 'adventures' and stuff) but I rather enjoy editing. It is a bit time consuming but I find it fulfilling my creative side when I turn out a couple [good] versions of the same footage.

Of course I wish CS5/After Effects was childs play because I cannot find the time to learn it..
post #6 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

I am crappy shooter, so this hits me back when I edit. Trying to find a cutaway to cover a bad shot, or smoothing audio throughout different clips are two biggest issues of mine.

My best effort is a 4-minute video, shot in about two hours and edited during two days. And this is with a storyboard of sorts. Pitiful. I will never be a wedding videographer ;-)

For the crappy shooting part, I suggest the book "How to Shoot Video That Doesn't Suck". It is cheap and well written. http://www.amazon.com/Shoot-Video-Th...6238378&sr=1-1

For the best effort part, would you please post a link?

Thanks.

Bill
post #7 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

For the crappy shooting part, I suggest the book "How to Shoot Video That Doesn't Suck". It is cheap and well written. http://www.amazon.com/Shoot-Video-Th...6238378&sr=1-1

I know the theory, thanks. It is usually lack of will or laziness or I just forget to push a button.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

For the best effort part, would you please post a link?

I meant the sheer speed (or lack of thereof) of my editing, not the quality of the video itself. Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pUDGFiEOtA

I think that the key is too shoot less, not more. I do not have a huge team of editors like those guys who shoot Anthony Bourdain travel show. They shoot-to-final ratio is about 60:1. I just cannot edit so much stuff. My ratio is usually 3:1 or lower. Usually I shoot less than needed because despite of my interest in video I hate editing, it almost makes me nauseous. So I try to shoot just as much as needed. I am trying writing storyboards for something that is staged, but for family vacations this can be harder. I haven't tried doing a true Straight8-style shoot, but I like the idea of in-camera editing.
post #8 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

..... Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pUDGFiEOtA

Thanks. I like the video. Appears to be good, clear clips well stitched together so that it tells the right story about the car.

A few years ago that car was on my short list to buy. I found an S2000 in good shape first.

Bill
post #9 of 22
I shoot Soccer Video. One Sony HDR-CX12 hand held w/monopod for action follow shots of the entire game, start and stop on each play and one Sony HDR-CX12 on the goal side with a wide angle Sony .70 lens for goal shots that runs continual each half.

see: http://youtube.com/evileye2011

The 3v3 games are 24 minutes total each game, 5-6 games per tournament and I end up with two videos, one with highlights of regular games usually 4 then the semi-final and championship as another. Usually end up from 6-12 minutes each. Takes me 2 hours to edit the two camera shots.

I have templates now for titles and scores, etc. That alone took me a week off and on to tinker with. My problem is I am never satisfied and would keep messing with it till I realize it is 2AM.

In Sony Vegas you can save titles you have created and this helps a lot so you do not have to recreate an effect or title. I can definitely improve by using more short cuts like that.

My favorite show for editing and film is Top Gear (BBC version) their filming and editing is unbelievable now that I know how much time it takes to film and edit. I try to watch and figure out how they do this effect or that, but it comes down to exceptional and creative shooting to start. After that the editing is alot easier.
post #10 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by GI Joe Sixpack View Post

I came across a recent post wherein someone made a comment about dropping videography and returning to still photography because of the long hours required for video editing.

Ironically, I probably spend as much or more time editing stills as I do editing video footage.

I think it depends on how much time you choose to put into the activity. Regardless of the activity.

-Suntan
post #11 of 22
Better to say that editing is the "soul," rather than the "curse," of video. Editing is what makes all the difference between what people will watch or not. Only certain highly sequential, staged, or scheduled events will attract viewers with little or no editing. That might include a performance, ceremony, or public event of some sort. However, even those events need some editing to fit into a <60 second "spot" consistent with a program or viewer attention span.

Any humble photo will draw a polite 10 second glance and compliments, provided the viewer knows the people in the picture or knows the place where it was shot. Viewers will positively love the photo if it serves as a cue to talk for an hour about what they themselves know of the people or place portrayed. Meanwhile, the photo can stay quietly on the shelf or wall.

Video, on the other hand, demands viewer attention over a longer stretch of time. Anything longer than 30 seconds becomes a challenge to the eye, or become an outright sedative, unless:

1) the subject is very compelling (one's own kids, etc),
2) the (usually borrowed) music is popular and entertaining,
3) or the editing job is excellent.

A few camera junkies may stare at a screen simply to savor the video quality or editing skills. However, the vastly dominant quotient of any audience won't know or care about the camera performance or technique, but only whether they like the subject, action, or story. If you have the energy or art to edit something people will watch, perhaps you'll get some compliments or lots of YT "hits." Otherwise, video editing is a formidable chore, where it takes geometrically greater amounts of time to attain a slighly longer attention tolerance, but still leaves the result of the standards people take for granted, without any concept of the work that requires.

"Dad, can't we see the rest of this, ugh, later? I mean, how about we turn off this stuff so now watch some real movie or show?" [At least one viewer is candid. The rest are dozing or have gone off to get another beer.]

It is an irony that people will sit alert, an hour or longer, through a scoreless ball game, celebrity gossip show, or vapid sit-com or soap. However, those are things they can later chatter about with peers, and "stay in the know" about stuff considered newsworthy among friends. That factor, alas, sets any amateur, or even the most clever Indie, at a disadvantage. Wedding videographers may be the only exception, since at least the bride and her mom will watch the entire 1-hour video (edited from 5 hours of raw video, requiring 30+ hours to edit).

That said, I'll still say that editing is the soul or core of video. If you can love it, perhaps the way fly fishers can love tying or sailors can love boat maintenance, then it's worthwhile. Pro's who eck out a living may also make the claim, the same way a restaurant owner knows that cleanup and service (the editing) matters as much, or more, than the cuisine (the camera work).

But here are some real curses of video:

1) Camera shake: hard to avoid if you can't set up a tripod and orchestrate actors on a set. Most amateur video must be hand held, which requires an awful lot of attention to keeping the shots as steady as one can, or the result will appear downright clutsy. Even if you can afford a Merlin, you're not likely to have it on hand or set up when you need it.

2) Bad light or backlighting. John Ford used lamps to illuminate actors when shooting outdoor westerns. You probably don't have that option. The occasion will be a dark room with floor or table lamps that cause blowouts, but leave faces in the dark. Your "actors" aren't about to congregate where the light is best, nor will they stay natural if you shine an LED against their shy eyes or reflective glasses.

3) Native sound. The ambient audio may include sounds or voice you want, but also feature distortions or racket the human ear ignores but mics do not. It is also hard to edit the video and retain continuity of the audio. Essentially, you must recreate the audio in the fashion of old-times Italian flicks. Even contemporary movies, with all the set control in the world, also rely on elaborate sound mixing and additives.

4) Camera phobia. Most human subjects will halt and pose for some still shots. It is a completely different story, when it comes to get people to face a camera or behave naturally for an extended period. Polished conversationalists or extemporizers have a way of turning into stutterers or mutes if they see a videocam pointed at them. This is why a small, inocuous P&S can sometimes capture better social or public video than a big pro device, unless people have a major publicity or financial reason to stand in front of that big camera and "perform."

These are problems that the still photographer can avoid or deftly work around, one way or another. For the videographer, on the other hand, they are simply facts of life, and simply add to the pleasure / anxiety of the venture.

"Yeah, Dad. Real nice. But, like I said, isn't it time to shut that stuff off, so we can watch a real movie? There's a playoff game coming up soon, too. Don't want to miss that. The team has been losing, but we gotta see it the coach puts the injured and suspended so-and-so back on the field."
post #12 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoukiepper View Post

These are problems that the still photographer can avoid or deftly work around, one way or another. For the videographer, on the other hand, they are simply facts of life, and simply add to the pleasure / anxiety of the venture.

Ironically, with the exception of the audio bit, most still photographers on photography forums would say similarly disparaging things about videography.

Stills or video, both take a concerted effort to make compelling material. The differences between them are much smaller than the similarities.

-Suntan
post #13 of 22
Thread Starter 
@Zoukiepper
How in heck do you expect to gain a 6,000+ post count like Suntan writing such long and reasoned replies? You gotta keep them shorter.

On a more serious note, your "curses" 1 to 4 are all valid and I've experienced at least the first three personally. BTW, my calling editing the "curse" of videography was tongue in cheek. I meant it to reflect the likely view of people who enter the "hobby" unaware of the commitment in time and effort required (which I thought would have been obvious in context). Of course you are right - editing goes with the territory and it can make all the difference between boring and compelling video. But as you also point out the subject matter can make a big difference too, depending on the interests of the particular audience.

My main point was that some people who are new to videography do not realize when they start that taking raw footage is only a small part of making a video that someone will want to watch. To some of these people the editing process becomes a curse and they subsequently stop doing it, returning, as the fellow I mentioned did, to still photography.
post #14 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by GI Joe Sixpack View Post

writing such long and reasoned replies?

Except that it wasn't very reasoned. Most all those issues are just as relevent to still photography as they are to video.

If anything, the real difference is just that most people can stand the shorter amount of time it takes to look at their poor snapshots than they can to look at their poor video takes.

To do either well takes a fair amount of time.

-Suntan
post #15 of 22
I actually really enjoy editing video. So much so that I'm considering making it my concentration at school.

I just have to be in the right creative mood for it. I can't start editing when i'm tired, because my brain won't be able to choose which shots to use, where to cut, etc. However, if i start editing when i'm wide awake and in the right mindset, i can go for hours. If I have a good start, i will keep going even I'm exhausted. It is a weird.

Editing is an art. You have to have the right perspective coming in to it. You need to place yourself in the seats of the audience and look at it from that angle, and figure out the best way to tell a story.
post #16 of 22
Gee, am I getting better? Only two hours spent on this 1-minute video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSVt8kNvr9g ;-))
post #17 of 22
It is nice editing. The video would be even better if it were half as long.
post #18 of 22
I try to simplify the process as much as possible by taking as little video as possible of an event, --also starting and stopping the video at the appropriate times to reduce the amount of editing that will be necessary. Though it varies, I take about 10-20 minutes of video for each hour of an event and end up with about 2-4 minutes for each hour of the event after editing. On average, I spend about as much time editing as the event lasted. For example, a 1.5 hour little league game takes me about 1.5 hours to edit and I come up with about 5 minutes of video with a few clips in slow motion and a couple of sound effects.

-I first watch the clips on my camera and delete useless clips.
-After transferring to my PC, I trim, combine, and add effects.
-No one wants to watch long clips, so I often speed up parts of clips 3-5X.
-Last, I render all of the clips from the event to a single file in the original format that it came out of the camera (AVCHD-MPG).

My editor (VideoStudio), definitely has its limitations but it does "smart rendering" which saves a lot of time. This means it just copies any clips that haven't been changed any to the new file instead of actually rendering each frame. It takes my older PC about 10 minutes to render pieces of 25 or so clips, (smart rendering most of them) into a single 4minute file.
post #19 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

The video would be even better if it were half as long.

I trimmed it a little, then added a short intro and then removed some more. Does it look better to you? (Everyone else is welcome to comment as well).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCwsKCYFdYY

Btw, shot in 24p. Not because I wanted to achieve film look, but because progressive is easier to edit and does not require deinterlacing. Also, lower frame rate allows more efficient compressing. Still, does not look too jerky to me despite long DOF from a measly 1/6-inch sensor.
post #20 of 22
Nice, Ungermann. I watched both videos and the shorter one does indeed work better. Tighter edits + music made it more interesting.

As far as the topic at hand, I'm more like Dan H. in that I prefer the editing part. It fills my need for tiny things to obsess over! I have a good eye for the photography aspect, but I don't enjoy the shooting as much as the editing.
post #21 of 22
Nice. 24fps is remarkably smooth here. One "last" thing: needs a better ending (but I do not know what to suggest). I have problems with this in my videos. Maybe putting the thing back in the garage/box or whatever.
post #22 of 22
Thread Starter 
How about driving off into the sunset? Hey, it has worked for Hollywood for about a century.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Camcorders
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Editing - The Curse of Videography