feeling old fashioned!

[Mr Blackstock]

I have been following the host board now for a few weeks and one thing has struck me, the discussion can easily concentrate on computer editing and its probs. With questions relating to old splice and tape/cement probs, there seems to be little discusion exept great advice from the moderator. Do most people use computers for editing as well? I beleived that one of the great aspects of super/regular 8 is that due to cost one had to make sure each shot was well organised and worth shooting. One thing that has enabled people with modern home video cameras to shoot really bad vhs with the idea of "no loss, just record over it". Will super 8 shooting evolve to the same idea, "oh well, i can touch it up on the computer". Will the imaginative filmmakers of the future be remarked on for their skill, or the version of software they use?

P.S I do not intend to insult, just really curious about what other users do!

------------------

[eddie]

I tend to do a bit of both.
I really like using film for the reasons you say, but sometimes it costs too much to get everything right. So if a shot comes out too overexposed (for example) I can touch it up on a PC.
Besides the finished thing will be on VHS, so it will end up in a PC anyway, might as well make th emost of that.

------------------

[rollemfilm]

i edited my first films way before computers were even being sold. and i do like that process but for one thing. with super8, the gauge is so small it's hard to work for very long like that. plus finding professional editing gear in super8 is very hard to do. not like 16mm. i also use super8 for video. i raelly don't have plans to shoot a film on super8 and project it. either in super8 or in blow up. if i was making a film for theatres, i would shoot 16mm and edit on a flatbed, although i've never had the chance yet to work this way. what limited experience i do have in this area, i do find it more appealling. i have thought about shooting super8, blowing up to 16mm, and then edit. but with the money i would save not doing that i could buy or rent a decent 16mm sync camera. so, the reason i use video/avid editing is because i shoot super8 and finish on video.

------------------

[Alex]

A very insightful question.

In the early 90's I had recently started my own editing bay, and I had a music video to edit.

The band had shot in HI-8 video and really didn't have enough coverage, so I found some stock time-lapse shots that I had shot in Super-8 and had already transferred to video and I put it into the video to liven it up...

...I also did some chroma key shots of the Super-8 stock footage that added a nice background treatment to some of the shots.

I bring the video over for him to review for the third time as it is now close to being done.

The Client/Drummer/Producer has an entourage over. They watch the video once, and I think it is rather lukewarmly received. (perhaps they had seen earlier versions and were sick of it, I'm not sure)

The "maestro" as I will call the music video "drummer"/producer decides to watch it again.

The second time around, the drummer/producer maestro decides to add "visual digital" effects via his VHS VCR Remote.

As the music video plays for the second time, he lifts his remote as if he were Noah summoning all the animals of the world to come aboard his boat with his cane....

...and he begins to add his own digital effects to the video.

First he makes 9 identical boxes of the music video appear on the screen, then 16, now a mosaic pattern effect, he follows this with a still frame effect.....next comes a strobe effect...

This time everyone in the room starts to ooh and ahh with every digital effect he adds to the video.

Nothing that the drummer boy did added anything to the video, except for the fact that he was doing it, and his friends were seeing him manipulate the image in front of their eyes, live.

This Phenomena is the tell tale sign of genetic DNA code in most humans that cries out ..."But what I really want to do is direct.", or "I know the Director".

The lesson I learned that night was don't put a huge effort into editing a music video,...for a dork....

......unless you are being well paid...which, sad to say, I made less than $ 7.00 an hour, because even though we had agreed on a flat price of around $750.00.....

He came up with a very clever way of stalling paying me. (he only paid me $250-$350, even though the music video was easily over 90% done)

Every time he saw the video, he had a really long list of additional edits he needed made.

Well, he can't possibly pay more than a pittance of what he owes because there still is so much more work to be done on the video.

So, the way he can string out paying me on a flat rate fee is by giving me a large number of fixes!

In other words, the more fixes he comes up with that the video needs, the less he needs to pay me whenever we review the video.

Is that twisted or what! Instead of just saying he can't pay me, he gives me more work to do so he can pay me less.

I had only had had my edit studio a short time, so I guess I had to go through this lesson, once.

I didn't figure out his modus operandi until he started critiquing edit sequences that he had never said word one about the first 3 times he reviewed the music video.

And the jealousy if another band member had more stage time or had better shots....

The straw that broke the camels back was when his revised list of shots that needed to be fixed included shots of himself drumming.

He said he didn't like the way he looked drumming...and there were no other shots of him drumming, and he knew it.

.....That was when I knew I needed to leave "Hotel California"...

Anyway, to use the above story in answer to your question...yes, it's all becoming about what software did you use to diffuse the shot and so on.

The DP is in fact being slowly let out to pasture by incorporating more effects in editing.

However, the cycle of DP annihilation is still more hype than reality.

It's a slow erosion over time practiced more by newer film and video makers than by those who precede them.

The software makers are helping to build a community of video editors / camerapeople who try to do as much as they can on their own.

Which really does fly in the face of film as a collaborative medium.

The other insidious aspect to what is going on reminds me of what happened to my brother once after he won a bicycle race as a teenager.

The second place rider came up to him and said "you have a fast bike!"

Yes, and soon we will all have really cool software to make up for the time we didn't spend lighting the scene properly, writing a good script, or just planning correctly.

We'll make it all up in "post"!

And then we can all go around and complement each other on how great the software is that we are using!

I can't wait.

When do we create the specially cloned aliens to watch all the stuff every person on the planet will be making!

footnote#...(editing on the computer is a terrific way to edit Super-8 film that has already been transferred to video...but how many "effects" are we going to add the film simply because the story, acting, lighting or sound is weak? "Fix it in post" may be become so commonplace that the "art of filmmaking" will be become the "Art of Computerediting"

Is that a bad thing? If we become "lazy" filmmakers because we think we can fix everything later, yes.)

------------------
Alex



[This message has been edited by Alex (edited October 07, 2001).]

[MadFor3D]

The film methods appeal more to me. Perhaps because I have a 9-5 computer graphics job. Sitting in front of a monitor for hours and hours isn't as fun as cutting and splicing to me, even being such a small format.

I do make movies for my own enjoyment and appreciation of the media, however, I'm sort of a ham to and I need an audience. Most people have vcr's. I'm also planning on showing my movies over the internet... High speed access, a smaller audience than vcr's... but more people have that than projectors still.

As well, I'm scared to project any of my footage that much for fear of scratching it up or tearing, etc.

A lot of the posts here have got me thinking it would be cool to be able to do some sort of optical print for "theatrical" release. Apparently there are film festivals that will project Super 8. But lets face it, that audience is much smaller.

Side question: Might shooting frame by frme from a quality flat screen computer monitor be a viable method for creating a print? Is there a way to avoid the flicker/monitor bars frame by frame?

My 2c. -Madrone

------------------

[MadFor3D]

Oh yeah, and then there is the whole question of sound... Sound stripping!? Sounds like a lot of work. I think I saw this link from this forum, might have been another one...
http://freespace.virgin.net/k.mayes/...m/KJMfilm4.htm

-M

------------------

[cameraguy]

tape or cement editing only for me. Projection can't be beat.

------------------

[Dominic3]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MadFor3D:
"Sitting in front of a monitor for hours and hours isn't as fun as cutting and splicing to me, even being such a small format".

MadFor3D -I couldn't agree more, however so much additional work can be done with software.

Can anyone recommend a great editing sofware for a Mac computer?



------------------

[mattias]

final cut pro

[8th Man]

For Macs the most obvious answer is Final Cut Pro, but the more simple i movie can do a surprising amount considering it's free on newer Macs. Its biggest drawback is in the audio area I think. But people would've paid hundreds for it a few years ago.

------------------
PRM