Why edit video at all

[SpectateSwamp]

Where I come from.
Those are fighting words.

[jtoolman2000]

Took a look.

What crap!

[SpectateSwamp]

Let's have a look at what the dissenters have done lately.

dropshots.com should be easy enough for you to use.

[gadgetguy]

https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=290066

[SpectateSwamp]

I tried to view the video above.

Got an error downloading the codec (2 times)
Maybe it's my computer. It's been a little problematic lately.

[gadgetguy]

I'm pretty sure the problem is at your end. If it weren't, I think a lot of people would have complained about not being able to view the contest entries.

Edit: Oh, and thanks for the opportunity to plug the contest again. Go vote everyone. Only a couple days left.
Contest here

[SpectateSwamp]

Yup

A problem with my laptop.

I'll view it using a friends computer.

[ozymango]

I seldom shoot anything I don't want.

That's great. And more power to you.

Question is, do you shoot anything that other people also want? If not, don't be surprised if people don't want to watch. That's it in a nutshell.

I watched some of your footage. It bored me. So I most likely won't watch any more.

This does not hurt you. This does not affect your camera work because you have decided that you want to shoot the stuff that you want.

I do not understand what interests you in sharing either your comments or your footage with us.

[ozymango]

Let's have a look at what the dissenters have done lately.

I would look at this as not so much being about editing, as in being composing -- composing in terms of shooting footage (a "movie") that you think somebody else might want to watch.

So a person could shoot video as you suggested -- no cutting except in camera, no editing except as you note -- and that could work just fine, if the person is talented enough. Alfred Hitchcock was known for shooting very little extra footage, he pretty much thought things out so thorougly that he was able to get things right "in camera" the first time. Or close enough.

That being said, it's not the tools, it's the talent. And I mean no disrespect in saying that I don't see any evidence of great talent in the footage you've chosen to share. That is, whether or not you personally choose to edit is beside the point -- there has to be something of interest to the viewer.

So simply put, I find your work very boring. Of course this is only based on your selected submissions, you may be a brilliant camera person and film maker who has chosen to share only his most boring stuff with us.

[SpectateSwamp]

Boring outdoors.
Not to my trapper friends.

There goes my chance, for an Academy Award.

I'll be switching the video out, when I get something
more current.

[ozymango]

Boring outdoors.
Not to my trapper friends.

Then that's cool (and I'm not being sarcastic here) -- it all depends on your intended audience. I'm not into trapping so "unedited in any way" footage of trapping doesn't really interest me. It might interest me if it were edited and narrated and otherwise "modified," but you could also edit this to amazing standards and I still might be bored, simply because of my own inability to appreciate the subject matter. So it's true we can never make everybody happy with whatever it is we shoot. And that's what shooting video is all about, what do you want to accomplish?

That's why I think any "debate" about whether editing or whatever is "necessary" is really beside the point. The point is, what do you want to accomplish, if anything, by shooting video? This isn't a question aimed specifically at you, just the generic "you" who shoots footage with a video camera.

I do agree that there are definitely times when an totally undedited in any way at all length of footage is more useful than an edited form. Say in cases like the Zapruder film of JFK being shot -- the goal is to get as much information out of every frame as possible, so every single frame is worthwhile as-is. Of course that's a bit of an extreme case but I just use it to illustrate the point that there are all sorts of "reasons" why people shoot video, why they share with others, all that stuff.

And so this is why some people enjoy and appreciate editing -- because what they are looking to show is not necessarily an event as it happens in real life, but to use film (and video) as a way to express something else, not necessarily truth in the way that "the camera doesn't lie." Film and video can be truth and art, in all sorts of interesting combinations.

But I do agree if your point is that one should not edit a video to conform to one's own perspective on the "truth" if the footage that is cut would accurately portray another viewpoint. That is, if you cut out the parts that you don't want to see in order to push an agenda, I'm not much of a fan of that at all.

[lordsmurf]

An inability to edit is a sure sign of an inability to communicate a message.

This is one of the core values of journalism, as well as most other communicative arts (video, photography, writing, music, etc).

Failure to edit is a failure to have a point. In other word, raw footage is pointless. It is what it is: raw materials, awaiting use.

Even Abraham Zapruder's film is shown in an edited form (shooting style is indeed a form of editing). Good old Abe waited until the motorcade approached him before he began shooting, he was not shooting video of pedestrian butts while waiting for the limo to get to him.

[Dasun]

Firstly,

I thought about not replying as this is so inane! But would the originator of this particularly obtuse means of handling video footage tell me what else I am supposed to do with the footage of the fridge, 5 minutes and on its side no less!, that I aquired in a perfectly good wedding video due to me passing the camera to someone else and they put it down still running. And what, pray tell, am I to do with the minutes of floor footage the my wife tends to shoot now and again.

I strongly suspect a good edit is needed!

[Steve Stepoway]

"Drama is life with the dull bits cut out." -- Alfred Hitchcock

[SpectateSwamp]

It's all about content.

If you don't have anything in the original footage.
No amount of drum roll or editing is going to change that.

There is just so much more, you can do with video other than
storytelling and fabrications.

I can video in a book (or other paperwork), very quickly.
Then skip to a selected page and continue the video from there,
in slow motion. I guess that would be called interactive editing?

Same with photographs. Back in 2000 we scanned in all the
family albums 5000+ pics. If I had it to do again.
I would video the pictures along with comments on who, what,
where, when and why.

For legacy applications.
Dump the customer account data, a screen at a time,
with a short short pause between, videoing that in.
Most of the time during conversions, transaction / work order
data, is purged.

People who devote so much to their time, editing and learning about
editing are not going to like the suggestion of no editing.

I videoed the Grad 2005 grand march. There wasn't a second
of it, that anyone wanted removed or edited.

If you are a professional, editing is a must (time limitations and
propaganda reasons).

For the rest of us it is overkill.

[Dasun]

And cutting out the mistakes is a no no? I mean 5 minutes of a fridge, countless minutes of a floor? Tedious minutes of presentations where nothing happens? There is more than story telling or propaganda reasons for an edit, just trying to keep the viewer awake by cutting out the chronically boring bits is just one. As for videoing documents, family photos, I scanned some 8000+, that is just as loopy - what about the resolution and quality loss?

Please, please engage brain, there is video spaghetti on the shelf which no one goes through bucause it is dry and tedious and then there is ravioli that many find delicious - all you need to do is process the spahetti. I am trying to say a short concise video is more likely to be watched than a video that grinds on for ever and assalts the viewer with floor scenes, mighty quakes from shakes, sides of fridges and other incidental rubbish that the amateur camcorder owner is most likely to aquire.


This is just so obvious, why does it need to be spelt out?

[SpectateSwamp]

Quite a few years back I videoed in some projected slides.
With some lively comments and roving around the scene
it was far more interesting than the original.

As with scanning in pictures.
Why scan them at the Highest resolution.
I can flash through 700+ B&W oldie pictures in 35 seconds.
I can go to the original (I got them numbered) and scan that
one in at a much higher res. (looking in the window across the street)

Maybe I'll show you all my oldie pictures next?

8000 pictures, that's impressive.

Scanning at the highest resolution is way way slower.
It will only be the highest resolution, till a new scanner comes out.

I will have to get back to this forum later this evening or tomorrow.
There is a political forum this evening, that is becomming a little
heated and outsiders want to know what is going on.

If there are any fistfights I'll upload that for sure.

[lordsmurf]

This is just so obvious, why does it need to be spelt out?

I forget if it was a relative or a teacher, but I was once told "the world needs stupid people, so that we know who is smart". Or something along those lines.

[Dasun]

LS, I fear you are right and I feel it really is hard to talk sense to a jackass. After near 30 years of shooting amateur video I know it needs editing, My early videos would definitely have benefited if I had taken some sage advice from someone that knew video instead of me being youthfully arrogant and ignoring said advice! Which is my excuse for joining this thread!

Sorry to bump this thread but SpectateSwamp needs to seek a refund from the schools he has attended!

[ozymango]

I mean 5 minutes of a fridge, countless minutes of a floor? Tedious minutes of presentations where nothing happens?

Not meaning to be a smartass here, but this reminds me of a Yoko Ono "film" I once saw that is pretty much just a stationary camera aimed at some woman, with a fly crawling on her. Maybe I missed the artistic point (this was more than a few years ago and maybe I'm remembering this wrong) but she passed that off as art!

So maybe you could take your five minutes of a fridge and tell people it's a commentary on our society? :P

[ozymango]

As with scanning in pictures.
Why scan them at the Highest resolution.
I can flash through 700+ B&W oldie pictures in 35 seconds.
I can go to the original (I got them numbered) and scan that
one in at a much higher res. (looking in the window across the street)

... looking in the window across the street ... ...

I don't mean to be incredibly rude and/or condescending, but I'm fascinated by your word choices and syntax in these notes ... it's actually the biggest reason why I'm drawn to reading and responding; I really am not sure I understand where you're coming from.

But I'm curious to read more! Because ... well, dunno, really, it's just rather refreshing, like the conversational equivalent of an out-of-body experience of something. I stole that from Calvin and Hobbes.

I notice you live in Canada, parlez-vous francais?

[ozymango]

Even Abraham Zapruder's film is shown in an edited form (shooting style is indeed a form of editing)[my emphasis, not his]. Good old Abe waited until the motorcade approached him before he began shooting, he was not shooting video of pedestrian butts while waiting for the limo to get to him.

Lordsmurf makes a very good point here -- aiming a camera and pressing the "record" button is a form of editing; after all, you are choosing, consciously or not, what the camera will capture. So there's no way around it, you use a camera, you are editing. It's just whether or not you're a good editor.

[SpectateSwamp]

So everything is editing.

to me editing is when you physically change a file.
by cutting or pasting them together.

I don't edit videos I just screen parts of them..

re the window comment....
I should have explained a bit more as you are all a
little hostile.
There is one of the oldie pictures with the local hotel
across the street. It has what looks like a hardware store
and that was the window I'd like to peer through.
My scanner wasn't capable of it at the time.

The forum tonight had one of the new councilors attacking
the mayor, the civic management and the rest of the
elected officials.

they will all want the unedited version.

[Supreme2k]

Same with photographs. Back in 2000 we scanned in all the
family albums 5000+ pics. If I had it to do again.
I would video the pictures along with comments on who, what,
where, when and why.

First, I think that most of your posts are ramblings. You are not addressing anything being posted in this thread.

Second, I believe that you have simply joined this forum to spam your site/work. I give you credit for doing it much smoother than most, but I think it's time you participated in this site, beyond "me! me! me!"

Third (and the reason for the quote), there are tons of apps that lett you do just that, my favorite being MemoriesOnTV. You can take scanned or other types of images and make transitions (slo-mo), set them to music, and/or narrate them (for your "who, what, where, when and why.")

[SpectateSwamp]

My posts rambling?

For the vast majority of us non professionals there is no need to edit.

Some of you that make a living out of it may not like it. But that is
the way it is.

Suck it up.

[Supreme2k]

But it's already been said and illustrated, you are alays editing your footage. The specific time and length of your footage is an edit.

You are not posting coherent thought as much as you are rambling and repeating.

[Steve Stepoway]

SpectateSwamp, it has nothing to do with whether someone makes a living at it or not. Lots of non-professionals edit their footage to try and make it more interesting for others to look at. It might be Billy's baseball game, or Susie's birthday. Shoot lots of footage, and then cut out what's boring or not technically good or you're just not interested in.

No one would argue that there aren't cases when unedited footage is what you want. If you are documenting something for legal reasons, you need unedited footage (exactly how you tell it's unedited I don't know anymore, but that's another question). But those cases are, I suspect, fairly rare. Most of the time there's no reason not to edit, if you want to. You don't. Fine. Goodie for you. It's still a (semi) free country; nobody is going to force you to edit. The Edit Police aren't going to come knocking at your door (oh, yes, Canada -- guess it would be the Edit Mounties).

I don't understand why you seem to be unable or unwilling to see that lots of people do want to edit. Some find it fun. It's a game; "how can I cut this together?" Why are you so hard on those of us who do edit?

There are some people who get their rocks off by walking into a group of nice people, and saying something stupid and outlandish, just to get a reaction. Just to stir things up. Frankly, I think they're pretty pathetic. Mostly I feel sorry for them. That they are so unhappy in their lives that they feel the need to do things like that. But there are such people. I don't know whether you are one or not. But you do seem to be acting that way.

[mattso]

Some people get turned on by unedited, stream-of-consciousness cinemagraphic gush - Warhol's 8-hour Empire State Bldg film case-in-point.

I think it's self-indulgent garbage, personally.

As a movie buff, I love the whole ART OF CINEMA - script, dialog, editing, style etc etc. It takes talent to craft a film.

But if you want to be "unhindered by talent", by all means, be my guest. I'm sure there's a poloneck chardonnay-sipping audience out there for you.

[SpectateSwamp]

A few good reasons not to edit is $ money, the time
require to learn the software and the re-rendering itself.
(you do loose resolution when re-rendering) -- I'm told
The disc clutter. You will have more files, unless you get
rid of the originals, after editing them.
Seems, editing turns people into pushy know-it-alls.

Most don't care, about the transition from one scene to another.
They watch for the content, if it is there.

I don't want to get too far off topic.
So I'll include a few tips about not editing.

-Keep the video clips short. 2 - 5 minutes or shorter.
It is easier to play one clip after the other, than to split them.
Also faster to skip to any point in a short file.
(Some video hosting sites limit the video to 2 minutes long)

-move the camera. whenever possible. It gives a nice 3D effect.

-shoot shoot and shoot. That's how you get good content. Not Editing.

A newby planning on getting a camcorder might not,
after listening to any of this bunch.

[guns1inger]

(you do loose resolution when re-rendering) -- I'm told

As opposed to the pixelated, low quality footage you are putting on the web ? Done correctly the edited footage should be at least equal in quality to the original, and may in fact be better through the use of colour correction etc.

-move the camera. whenever possible. It gives a nice 3D effect.

This is possibly the funniest thing I have read in any post here, ever.

-shoot shoot and shoot. That's how you get good content. Not Editing.

No, that is how you get lots of footage. Editing is how you cull the crap and get down to the good stuff.