Do you see...?
Sorry Alex, I still don't see the relevance of the point you're making in this thread. I suggested After Effects as a solution to m0ds problem because we've created a similar effect a few times in the past, and it only takes about 10 minutes to complete.
Perhaps you're suggesting that I went away and built the entire Comet sequence as an experiment in order to find a way to introduce camera shake? The clip was actually created for a Corporate last year who wanted to market a new software product which integrated ecommerce directly with a back-office accounts package. The project was delivered on schedule and within budget.
Why did it take me a week to send a response to m0ds original question? Because I only saw the thread yesterday, NOT because it took me a week to figure it out and then manufacture the shot.
Do you see...?
I wasn't implying you figured out the answer just for this topic question. The point is what is easy for you to do once you've done it can actually be insurmountable for those who haven't done it yet.
I think it's great that you helped. I was trying to show how complex and misleading computer editing can be. One person on one system can know how to do one thing quickly, another can be lost at it. And then the roles can be reversed, on another project.
It sounds like you are a professional NLE editor who has generously given of your time to solve a puzzle, and that is a good thing. We're arriving at a point with NLE where technically anything is possible, but not always easily or efficiently acheiveable, and I think that creates difficulties when working on projects that are time-sensitive for demanding clients.
Hey there.
"Sorry Alex, I still don't see the relevance of the point you're making in this thread."
Same here...
But what are you willing to bet that it has something to do with film being better than video.
Despin out.
What's not to understand? There are solutions to almost any problem, but the solutions are not always efficient or cost effective, but the result can look good nonetheless.
That's a trap a producer MUST avoid to stay a working producer.
Alex, I do understand the point you are making, but I disagree with it.
You come across as being a little bitter about the subject for some reason- don't you see that some of us guys have no choice but to edit digitally?
Plus, was anyone here claiming to be a professional editor working to a deadline? A producer would not be paying an editor to work if he were still learning the basics; which I believe makes your point invalid.
I think Despin may have hit the nail on the head- is this yet another film vs. video argument from you Alex???
Film origination, Digital Destination is one of my sayings, so this is clearly not a film versus digital issue.
I was watching an NLE video editing wiz demo FCP-4 and after the demo is over he says to me..."Well, I don't really do long format edit masters, most of my work is 5 minutes and under". [img]eek.gif[/img]
This person spent an hour showing lots of layering, titling, mixing, layer after layer of amazing things that can be done to a simple wedding video sequence with the FCP-4, and I'm thinking, but who's going to pay for that level of thoroughness?
The answer, NO ONE. But some yahoo will make the ultimate incredible wedding video edit demo reel and send it out looking for work, work that they won't be able to do on every job for the money they'll actually make. But then the demos will end up in the hands of people who will show it to other their regular editor, who if they want to keep that client, yada, yada...
Thank God I don't do weddings, but the point is still there. More and more I'm seeing editors who have to fricking touch every frame of video as if they are peeing on it to mark it as their territory. The Editors are invading the cinemtographers turf more and more and it's fking everything up.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 24, 2003 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now let me ask a question of Mods, who has the words "Director for Hire" superimposed over his avatar.Originally posted by m0ds:
Hi there,
It's not a "problem" as such but I'm trying to achieve a big effect [img]wink.gif[/img]
I've got a video clip, which is static. I want to pretend something huge is coming closer, but is not seen in the footage.
Normally, when filming, you'd probably just shake the footage - but I didn't/could't, so I want to "shake" it in Premiere.
Any ideas how to achieve this? I've tried splitting bits into several frames, and then with each frame I've added +5 noise from the video filters and rotated the video a little but it looks **** .
Any other suggestions, pleeease?
[img]smile.gif[/img]
m0ds
Why would I hire you to direct if you didn't have the foresight to shoot the shot you wanted when you were shooting your piece, or to at least shoot better coverage so that the effect you wanted could then be easier to manipulate in post.
By completely relying on Post Production editing to create that which you didn't create when shooting, you place greater and greater importance on post, and less and less importance on the very thing you want to do, be a director.
Once the Producer of the project realizes that they can solve all the mistakes and forgotten shots in post, they will place less importance on the job of directing and shooting the footage, and more importance on editing, until the position of directing becomes a footnote in the process.
I'm going to add a big disclaimer. If Non-linear post editing can help you avoid doing a dangerous shot, then I'm for that because most low budget work usually can't afford to pay professionals to do it the proper way, and I wouldn't ever advocate trying to be a "director" by endangering others.
Alex, I didn't shoot the 20th Century Fox logo, ergo, I didn't ask the animators to shake it.
Whoops, there goes your argument.
[img]smile.gif[/img]
m0ds
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks