how to get profesional-video look with premiere?

[Tim Kolb]

[Derek Antonio Serra] “I see the original poster has not bothered to respond. Maybe he’s just a FCP fan who’s stirring here in the PP forum. If anybody needs assurances that software does not maketh the man (or woman) just think back to the days when there was no editing software and we edited on linear systems, or on flatbeds. Give a real editor a box of well-shot tapes and two Betacam video machines and you’ll get a “professional looking” edited programme at the end, albeit with no effects and titles! Give the same editor a box of absolute crappy footage and any modern NLE software available for $ 50 up, and you’ll get an effects-laden MTV-style work of art. A bad editor would achieve neither result”

Yeah…what Derek said.

TimK,

Kolb Syverson Communications,
Creative Cow Host,
2004-2005 NAB Post Production Conference
Premiere Pro Technical Chair,
Author, “The Easy Guide to Premiere Pro” http://www.focalpress.com
“Premiere Pro Fast Track DVD Series” http://www.classondemand.net

[Bayu Prihantoro f]

firstly, let me say thank’s for the attention and everyone’s critiques and questions on my poster. (also i’m beg your pardon, because i’ve never responded all of the replies. that’s all because i have no computer that can connect to internet all of time. i’m in indonesia.)

secondly, my goal is get some tips that can be used in editing-process. so the final result is likely a profesional-look edited video. i mean, the picture quality. so, it will look-like the videos that screened on tv or cinema.

in my assumptions, i’ll get some tips or ways, like a post in the cinematography-sections, titled “how to get a film look” (with digital footage), of course.
so, “profesional-look”, in my own definition, is good picture-quality. so, when it (the video) sees by audience, it won’t look like a ordinary edited-video. or maybe, it’s just some footages those were cut, here and there, then recorded into unity.
and my prediction, the quality of the final result were determined by the “way” we take the picture and how the editing-software compresion (in final video) quality is.

now, i know that even creepy footages can be an amazing final-video. not only determined by the editing-software, but also the quality of the editor it self.

ok, thank’s again, for all of the suggestions. i hope that i’ve never “knocked on the wrong door” for learning, by joined in this forum.

regards
bayu prihantoro
a student who wants to learn to be an EDITOR
and i’m not “just a FCP fan who’s stirring here in the PP forum”, like Derek Antonio Serra said.

[Bayu Prihantoro f]

[TimK} The software has absolutely nothing to do with how the “editing” looks. If there is some issue with image quality, that may have something to do with your equipment or software, or if the images look bad you may have a videographer that doesn’t understand how to create quality images, but FCP won’t help your editing technique any more than Premiere will…

…it’s like me buying a restaurant-quality stove and wondering why I still can’t cook…

i think that’s a good and “renaissance-ing” paragraph.

thank’s, tim.
i’ll print and stick it on my monitor. so i can remember it everytime.

[Tim Kolb]

[bayu prihantoro f] “[TimK} The software has absolutely nothing to do with how the “editing” looks. If there is some issue with image quality, that may have something to do with your equipment or software, or if the images look bad you may have a videographer that doesn’t understand how to create quality images, but FCP won’t help your editing technique any more than Premiere will…

…it’s like me buying a restaurant-quality stove and wondering why I still can’t cook…

i think that’s a good and “renaissance-ing” paragraph.

thank’s, tim.
i’ll print and stick it on my monitor. so i can remember it everytime.”

Don’t get me wrong… I’m not saying to give it up. I’m just saying that you can’t buy the skills of an editor in a box of software. You need some training, some experience, and a lot of observation of projects that you appreciate. Simply examining material that is well edited while noting even subtle details about each cut can reveal a lot…but to understand the thought behind it, you still need some type of training…classes, books, seminars, everything helps.

…then use whatever software you want…

TimK,

Kolb Syverson Communications,
Creative Cow Host,
2004-2005 NAB Post Production Conference
Premiere Pro Technical Chair,
Author, “The Easy Guide to Premiere Pro” http://www.focalpress.com
“Premiere Pro Fast Track DVD Series” http://www.classondemand.net

[David Braswell]

“… so the final result is likely a profesional-look edited video. i mean, the picture quality.”

Bayu, the “picture quality” is largely determined by the DP/camera person’s choices in lighting, exposure, framing, etc. during production. You seemed to have already surmised this. Your challenge as a fledgling editor is to learn the art/science of color correction, legal levels, pacing, and shot selection to carry out your editorial intent. I happen to work at a company where I get to “do it all” from script revisions and shooting, to graphics, editing and authoring. The best thing to do for your own sanity is to separate the jobs as much as possible and take control of only what you have in your power to change. If the raw footage you’re working with looks “unprofessional” (whatever that is) and is unsalvageable in post, make sure you know how to explain the problem to your employer and/or camera crew. Crap In = Crap Out, or something like that 🙂

peace

[William Mcqueen]

The mechanics of NLE editing aside, another component of a professional video is “story structure.” The mechanics, in my view, serve the elaboration of the story structure. Weak story structure, weak video. The editor is in the envious (sometimes not so envious position) of either being provided a spunky story line, or a producer/director who still isn’t sure what the story is, and has dependent expectations of the editor pulling the chestnut out of the fire.

OTOH, even with poor footage – say in “reality cinema, e.g. verite” a strong story can still be told in a powerful way. McClear would sometimes use terrible footage, but had a very strong story. Agree or not with the techniques of Michael Moore, he often uses badly shot footage to put his story structure in place. (in F9/11, I’ve wondered if he sought out to make “bad” footage to begin with, or was stuck with whatever he could find).

So, the old questions: What is the story; What images are needed to tell the story; How coherent is the words-audio-video script; How much is polish and how much is substance. Is there cross-scripting, yata, yata, yata.

I was speaking with an old producer friend of mine, who I asked. “How much glitz do you want in this piece?” He said, “No glitz, thank you very much.”

Cheers,

Bill in Toronto