Martin Mayer
Forum Replies Created
-
I always re-export the audio from the NTSC timeline. Strictly it should be unnecessary (in that if the timeline duration is preserved, you could use the audio exported from the original PAL timeline). However, I’ve always found exporting the audio again avoids any sync problems. Are you doing this?
-
Make sure you convert it to an AIFF file at 48kHz.
-
Apple’s own Superdrives are the Pioneer A103, A104, A105, etc.. series, now up to A110. They all write to DVD-R. The A110 will also write to DVD+R and DVD-RAM, which can be useful. (Note the A110D does NOT write to DVD-RAM). They can be fitted internally, or externally in a FireWire case.
-
[Dean Sensui] “You might want to reconsider the way you’re shooting.
Since you’re doing a two-camera shoot, insist that both cameras are always getting good video. That means avoiding any sudden, unwanted movements or adjustments. This would allow you to make acceptable cuts at any time.
If you still want the freedom to make such drastic movements, then have a central director monitor both to make sure that there’s always one good shot online while the other camera jumps to specific action.
Or, use three cameras. One is fixed on a wide shot while the other two pursue close ups and other isolated action. This way there’s always something to cut to in order to cover up unwanted camera movement.”
Thanks, Dean – some sensible alternatives.
The first we do use occasionally – both cameras shoot as if on a one-camera-shoot.
The second and third have considerable merit, but still need the hoped-for (and obviously not available) zip/crash filter.
Thanks again, Dean, and everyone.
-
[Walter Biscardi] “My point is that if you’re editing the footage, you need to look through it all anyway, so flag the pans/zooms as you go. That’s what an editor does as part of their job. You look through the footage and cull together the best stuff and cut out the bad. Is it time consuming and tedious?”
Absolutely, Walter, but it’s SOOO time consuming and tedious, that I was (wrongly) hoping to speed things up using a, well, computer! 🙂
-
[Bret Williams] “I think it would actually be more work setting up and applying the filter, then tweaking the results, then checking to make sure it caught everything.
So, a good idea if it were flawless. Any problems and obviously it would be quicker to just scrub through your footage or ff through it and do it by hand”
I agree, Bret – I’m coming round to think that too. It is probably more effort to tweak the settings on this mythical filter, than doing the cuts manually.
(BTW: I see your reply about capitalisation and periods wasn’t replying to me! Sorry!)
-
Bret, are you replying to me??
-
You’re right, of course, Andy. Oh well, I just thought I’d ask. Thanks again everybody.
-
OK, a valid point, and I understand your reaction. But how is this different from, say, an audio limiter that reduces the gain gently on an audio track wherever is too high? Or applying a colour-corrector (sorry, I’m British!) color-corrector that squashes or streches your blacks – you wouldn’t conceive of doing this manually at the pixel level.
You are only using the computer to do some of the work it CAN: the “less intelligent” work, leaving the professional editors to do the higher level (artistic) work. Is that wrong? Does that betray a lack of professionalism, wanting the computer to do as much of the “automatic” work as it can? Otherwise we’d all still be Luddites, cutting lengths of film?
-
Well, there are filters that attempt to mark clips at scene changes (like DV Stop/Start detect does by reference to discontinuities in the real time/date metadata), only those filters work on footage without such metadata – and, it must be said, are fairly hit and miss.
These work on the statistical measurements of the number and degree of changes between successive frames’ pixels, and it occurs to me the same approach could have been taken with zip pans and crash zooms.