questions for the editors

[7734]

hey guys,

i'm curious as to what type of hardware you guys use for you digital editing. my comp (PC) is running a 2.13 ghz Core 2 Duo with a 256 MB Gforce grfx card. My hard drives are all 7200 rpm and of course my NLE is the superb Vegas. Most of the little things i've done have worked really well, that is the quality is as great as it should be and nothing's ever crashed, and all the final products are seamless.

but of course I hear that rendering a full movie can take days and days, so i really don't know how my hardware will stack up in the end (when my bud and I actually get the movie up and running!)

are any of you guys rocking the quad cores? I'm almost interested in the Core 2 Extreme 3.0 ghz but at $1100 it's a little steep.

any feedback?

[MinionZombie]

Well, obviously the more powerful and more capable a rig is, the quicker it'll render out a flick. But I guess it also depends on what you're asking it to do - like Magic Bullet - that adds a lot more time.

I remember rendering out the final version of IAZM2 (which had a layer of white diffusion over all of it) took something like 11 hours to do on my rig, and that was for about 20 minutes worth of footage.

What you could do, if you're worried about things taking longer, is render out parts of the film to a miniDV tape or an AVI - whatever floats your boat - and then take all the parts and stick them together (by this stage they're all finished off as you want) and then render out from there, because if it's just straight forward rendering, that usually takes a very short amount of time when compared to having to do everything at once.

I often do this sort of thing on larger projects, it also helps if you're worried about losing data, or just don't want to run the risk (even if the risk is in reality rather small). Like when I write an essay, I print it off in stages so I have hard copies to go along with the saved copies).

My rig is:

2.2ghz processor
1gig RAM
256mb ATI 9600 graphics

I personally use Vegas for the more complex editing tasks (such as Magic Bullet, or other things) but for the main 'cut & shut' chopping I use the far simpler (and admittedly far more unstable) Pinnacle Studio. Indeed, Studio isn't flash at all, but I can do basic editing on it fast and easy - and ultimately most editing is a fairly simple task, cutting between stuff and usually not having to do anything properly fancy.

For the fancier stuff, then I go to Vegas...either doing that first or doing it second...printing to miniDV after whichever is first and then re-importing.

When I come to do IAZM3, the entire thing will require a lot of Magic Bullet work, so what I'm going to do - and this is because my rig does take a while to do complex rendering - do a rough cut of the film with all the shots I'm going to use. I'll render that out to miniDV, then re-import into Vegas. Slice all the individual shots out again and then apply the Magic Bullet, then print to miniDV and re-import again where I'll go back to Studio for the final edit.

Sounds complex to you lot perhaps, but it makes sense to me and it's what I'm comfortable with - it eases me at the very least in terms of not wanting to run the risk of losing any data (no matter how slim the chance) - because I know that if that ever happened, it'd be soul destroying and make me so f*cking angry...so I like to be safe rather than sorry.

Anyway, it makes sense for me, and does the rendering in stages, which for my rig is helpful.

Anyway, not sure if any of this is of any use whatsoever, but I got on a roll. :D

[Danny]

for my crappy youtueb vids i use movie maker, but for stuff for my degree were going to be using... final cut pro i believe, allthough theres another one that begins with film too, im not sure which it could be.

[PJoseph]

When I'm editing TV shows, we generally use Avids (MAC) for offline and Symphony (PC) for online. This is because ease of use between systems and editors - we all share the media from one source, so we are all connected - and sharing projects back and forth is litterally a drag and drop process.

At home, I'm runnig FCP 4 (old) on my laptop and often times, when I'm editing other little bits for tv shows, I bust out the FCP and crank out cuts, bump them off to DV and then put them in the main show. I love my FCP. In fact, it's time to upgade.

If anyone out there really plans on cutting professionally, you've got to be Mac savvy - while there is AVID Adrenanline for PC, it sucks. Sucks more and more as I use it. Now, the AVID online software, Symphony is a PC based machine, but that's not for the offline. Films these days are getting cut on FCP for MAC (No Country For Old Men proudly puts that in its credit).

Of course, if you are cranking out films at home and you've got a PC based editing system, I would never discourage you NOT to use it - use the tools you have - ultimately they are all tools and how you use them is the trick. But I believe some of you plan on cutting as a profession, and you need to learn these two pieces of software if you plan on making the leap.

pJ

[DjfunkmasterG]

hey guys,

i'm curious as to what type of hardware you guys use for you digital editing. my comp (PC) is running a 2.13 ghz Core 2 Duo with a 256 MB Gforce grfx card. My hard drives are all 7200 rpm and of course my NLE is the superb Vegas. Most of the little things i've done have worked really well, that is the quality is as great as it should be and nothing's ever crashed, and all the final products are seamless.

but of course I hear that rendering a full movie can take days and days, so i really don't know how my hardware will stack up in the end (when my bud and I actually get the movie up and running!)

are any of you guys rocking the quad cores? I'm almost interested in the Core 2 Extreme 3.0 ghz but at $1100 it's a little steep.

any feedback?

When I edited Deadlands I used Sony Vegas 6.0, and was using a single core AMD 64 3700+ with a 7900GT Video card. The 72 minute version took 2 hours and 11 minutes to render completely.

Now I am using the Intel Core 2 Duo 6700 with 2.66ghz, 4gb of Ram and an 8500GT video card with 512 mb of ram on the card. The rendering of the 72 minute version took 54 minutes.

You will be fine 7734, no sweat, your PC's specs are fine.

[MinionZombie]

Wise words PJ.

While I do edit a fair bit, it's mainly on my own projects. When I get to make my first indie - hopefully sometime in the not too distant future anyway - I'd look to get someone to edit it.

While I can enjoy editing, it can often be a pain in my arse at times. I'll be editing some projects soon which I'm getting paid for, but they're small projects which will be fairly simple to construct and don't require anything fancy.

But I'm not looking to edit professionally, so I just stick with what is right for me right now and what does the job I want.

But indeed, if you're going properly professional, it ultimately still comes down to Avid or FCP.

[PJoseph]

Glad to help Minion...like I said, you should use the tools you have because you will still learn how to edit and that's more important.

I'll tell you a little of my story - my father taught me how to edit on Super 8mm when I was thirteen. Years later, I didn't have an AVID in film school - still cut on flatbeds. When I was hired to produce my first TV show in Miami, I had no clue how to use an AVID. I had messed around with one, but never really cut something for real.

I learned how to cut a multicam TV show on an AVID in one week by watching someone else edit. You know why? Because I was already an editor, I was just learning how to use a new tool. When I got FCP for my G3, again - it only took me a few days to effectively cut. I never once took a class on either pieces of software - I just picked up tricks from other people, and learned by doing. I actually never started out in the business as an editor, I just started editing my own shows - a skill that has become invaluable because I have a larger skillset.

So, keep trucking on what you have - ultimately, the language of editing is the same. When you get to the projects that require AVID or FCP, the transition will be easy.

pJ

[C5NOTLD]

.

But indeed, if you're going properly professional, it ultimately still comes down to Avid or FCP.

Depends on what you mean by professional. You can achieve professional editing results with other software if you are strictly looking at distribution to home video (dvd). The plus for Avid and FCP is that they are great for theatrical/shot on film projects.



Render time on a 90 minute movie is 90 minutes.
My system:

3.0 GHz Core2 Duo P4 CPU,1333MHz FSB/8MB Cache
2 GIG DDR2-667
Nvidia Dual Head PCI-e Graphics Card
2 GIG ram
1 TB video storage (32MB cache)
160 GB audio drive
160 GB system drive
Editing package: Video Toaster

Additional Software: Lightwave 3D 9.0 (animation and compositing)
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe Audition
Aura

[MinionZombie]

More wise words PJ, like you said, the actual act of editing never changes across the board. The theory of editing is something I've been learning for many years now, both by studying and by doing, and that has helped me become a better cameraman - which is more where I'm currently climbing the ladder at the moment.

On a documentary I've been working on for quite some time now, the editor has frequently praised my footage and the variety of shots, because it was good footage but also because it made his job a lot easier...not tooting my own horn, just putting that forward.

Indeed, like you said, when it comes to learning new software it's always easier when you're just shown. I used a very small amount of FCP this year when I was working as a footage loader/logger on a social study project. The stuff I needed to know was shown to me. It was simple and straight forward when I was shown exactly what to do and makes using new software so much better, I'm not one for sitting down in front of new software and learning all the bells and whistles...I prefer to learn something like that by being shown/doing under instruction.

Perhaps in the future I might get into FCP or Avid, under instruction, but it's not my intention...not that I'd be dead against it, but you know...

[PJoseph]

C5 - yes, you can achieve pro results with lots of software and there is no reason not to - especially if you are working on your own and you make great stuff with it.

When I say professinally, I mean this - if you wanted to get a job as an offline editor on a TV show or movie, you would be cutting on an AVID or FCP. When I hire an editor, that's what they need to know. And BTW, editors make a good salary - if you want to edit as a career, it's worth learning those systems.

pJ

[MinionZombie]

Define a good salary. :sneaky::)

Indeed, there's proper professional, and then there's lower levels/semi-professional I guess, and then there's a whole other level which is "whatever you do for your own stuff".

In terms of pro, it's good that it ultimately comes down to Avid or FCP, because it narrows/standardises the playing field basically.

[PJoseph]

An average rate for TV show editors is about $3000/week. If you cut commercials, it's a lot more. if you cut network scripted shows, it's very good and you can go union. If you cut features, can be great.

pJ

[GingeUK]

Pentium 2 Duo Core 2.67
2 GB RAM
NVidia GT8600
500 GB Hard drive

Software:
Adobe Premier CS3
Adobe After Effects CS3

[C5NOTLD]

C5 - yes, you can achieve pro results with lots of software and there is no reason not to - especially if you are working on your own and you make great stuff with it.

When I say professinally, I mean this - if you wanted to get a job as an offline editor on a TV show or movie, you would be cutting on an AVID or FCP. When I hire an editor, that's what they need to know. And BTW, editors make a good salary - if you want to edit as a career, it's worth learning those systems.

pJ

You're absolutely right. As you already know a lot of independent filmmakers use other systems besides Avid and FCP.

[Danny]

i swear avid was one of the topics my new film teacher was talking about when he got into what we would be editing with and said soemthing along the lines of "its not being taught since its effectivley able to be used as a consumer product, you will be taught to use newer industry standards instead"

his words not mine, so dont bitch at me about my post for once;)

[PJoseph]

I'm not sure what other systems he was referring to. Like I said, there are a lot of systems that edit. I just only use AVID and FCP - and it's how I make part of my living and I've never used a different system, so from someone who is in the trenches, that's what we use.

pJ

[Danny]

'twas just the first lesson though during an intro so i didnt expect it to hold much sway, just a tidbit of info.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Personally I found AVID to be complicated. When I first started editing I used pinnacle software, but when I did Deadlands I did a demo of Sony Vegas... after being able to breeze through learning it in 15 minutes I was instantly sold. As soon as I had the cash I bought Vegas 6.0, I am now at version 7.0, and did pay for the upgrade to 8.0, but found it to be buggy.

For Avid, I was watching a friend who edits for the SPeedWeek TV show. We worked together on a short film and he was using AVID. When I watched the interface I was sitting there with a look of disbelief on my face because what takes one or two mouse click in Vegas took 5-6 in Avid. My thing is... If I can't figure it out by just looking at it, then I know I won't like it.

Now I have only played with FCP once or twice at most, but like Vegas I was able to figure it out in 15 minutes. So if I ever get another editing program, I am going to buy a new mac and go FCP.

[Mutineer]

I agree with DJ 100%

THe same can be said for FCP in regards to the Vegas intuitiveness.

Give it a spin with the free Demo and if you're a student, they have awesome discounts.

Vegas just makes sense.

[PJoseph]

What functions specifically are you talking about in AVID? It's a very easy piece of software to use. As is FCP.

pJ

[SymphonicX]

AVID is very unintuitive and manual, but that's what makes it great really -it makes you think about things and doesn't assume...I kinda like it but sometimes I wish it was a little clearer on how it functions.

The avid systems they have here will blow your mind...

HD Adrenaline/Symphony/DS Nitris hardware coupled with Dual Quad core processor PCs - (that's 8x processors!) and 1.5 gb Nvidia graphics card....stunning.

Some of them are painfully slow however, lol.


When I'm editing TV shows, we generally use Avids (MAC) for offline and Symphony (PC) for online. This is because ease of use between systems and editors - we all share the media from one source, so we are all connected - and sharing projects back and forth is litterally a drag and drop process.
pJ

You use Unity ISIS systems? Media Manager and all that? Or interplay? Getting interplay here soon and I can't wait, MM is a joke...!!

[PJoseph]

I've worked on several diffferent systems because I've worked for a bunch of different companies - I'm a freelance producer. Every place is set up for their needs. Some places still run Meridian because it makes no sense to tear it down.

pJ

[DjfunkmasterG]

What functions specifically are you talking about in AVID? It's a very easy piece of software to use. As is FCP.

pJ

Just adding video to the timeline was a pain in the ass. With Vegas you just drop it on and you can cut on the timeline, with AVID it wasn't so easy to import and drop video on the time line.

[C5NOTLD]

One of the important considerations when you are on a limited budget is support. Avid's support is going to cost A LOT more money than other systems - some of which are free.

[PJoseph]

Adding video to the timeline? There are several ways to do it, but in AVID you can just drag the clip from your bin and drag it to the record window and there it is in your timeline - and you can cut on the timeline in AVID - you can just slice it up, drag it around, slip it around...


pJ

[SymphonicX]

Adding video to the timeline? There are several ways to do it, but in AVID you can just drag the clip from your bin and drag it to the record window and there it is in your timeline - and you can cut on the timeline in AVID - you can just slice it up, drag it around, slip it around...


pJ

Erm...yeah its a piece of p*ss to add stuff to the timeline....double click the clip so it loads into the source monitor, mark your in, mark your out, and press the splice in button or "B" - all you've got to remember is to disable the audio tracks that you don't want on there (or video track if you're just taking audio) and that's it...

Now where I find it really gets annoying is effects editing, and general audio editing - for instance dipping audio for voice over, you have to make an edit in your audio on the timeline and do a transition between the two edits - but there is a way to literally drag and dip your audio on the timeline but I find it a bit annoying and over complicated - I much prefer highlighting a section of audio manually and adding a dip to my own spec...but doing that on a timeline is a pain, marking in to out, then disabling the tracks you don't want to edit and blah blah blah....a much simpler interface with lassoing would be much better.

[PJoseph]

"Erm...yeah its a piece of p*ss to add stuff to the timeline....double click the clip so it loads into the source monitor, mark your in, mark your out, and press the splice in button or "B" - all you've got to remember is to disable the audio tracks that you don't want on there (or video track if you're just taking audio) and that's it..." -

You can also just drag it and it puts it into the timeline. And you can just drag around in the timeline. Regarding the audio, I was pretty sure you can dip in the timeline, but I never do it - I will check on it when I get in today. Again, it's not a good function for AVID users as we are constantly working with more audio and need to have absolute control over the tracks.

However, my issue with the easier software is that I'm doing much more complicated work than what you are describing above - (working with 10 -12 layers of video and 12 - 20 layers of audio) - you need to have specific functionality in order to work with that much content. When I cut film packages for shows, I need to be able to take in specific tracks because the studios provide multilayered version of the films, so just dragging and dropping an entire clip to a timeline, while I can do exactly what you have said above, is a way that wouldn't benefit my editing.


And, in those other pieces of software - if I direct a 6 camera shoot, can I mulitcam and just grab shots in a source monitor?

pJ

[SymphonicX]

"Erm...yeah its a piece of p*ss to add stuff to the timeline....double click the clip so it loads into the source monitor, mark your in, mark your out, and press the splice in button or "B" - all you've got to remember is to disable the audio tracks that you don't want on there (or video track if you're just taking audio) and that's it..." -

You can also just drag it and it puts it into the timeline. And you can just drag around in the timeline. Regarding the audio, I was pretty sure you can dip in the timeline, but I never do it - I will check on it when I get in today. Again, it's not a good function for AVID users as we are constantly working with more audio and need to have absolute control over the tracks.

However, my issue with the easier software is that I'm doing much more complicated work than what you are describing above - (working with 10 -12 layers of video and 12 - 20 layers of audio) - you need to have specific functionality in order to work with that much content. When I cut film packages for shows, I need to be able to take in specific tracks because the studios provide multilayered version of the films, so just dragging and dropping an entire clip to a timeline, while I can do exactly what you have said above, is a way that wouldn't benefit my editing.


And, in those other pieces of software - if I direct a 6 camera shoot, can I mulitcam and just grab shots in a source monitor?

pJ


ISO cam-ing is great....avid adrenaline is very good with that, you basically make live studio cuts and its all in sync, no fiddly editing...

20 layers of video is VERY heavy, I haven't personally done something that complicated but I'm still in my infancy in terms of editing, generally everything done here requires no more than 5 layers of video, usually a couple of colour grades, name straps etc etc..but we did do a computer gaming championships programme recently, it was ALL ISO cams and literally did have about 15 layers of effects, graphics and whatnot....but get this, timecode breaks all over the tapes....unbelievable....timecode breaks are avid's worst nightmare....I swear it was ridiculous, they'd make the timecode ToD (time of day) and would then stop the machines running to save maybe 20 seconds of tape, then restart the record meaning and then stop it again, meaning whatever was inbetween those useless timecode breaks couldn't be captured 'cos it can't pre-roll....stupidity and a complete lack of professionalism - trouble with TV is that studio's don't care about editing.

Anyway I kinda prefer to collapse my layers down so it never looks like I've got that many layers of tracks down on the timeline....it just gets ugly...

[PJoseph]

Yes - timecode breaks will kill you, but how the f*** did a live shoot have timecode breaks? The timecode should have been generated and being pumped out to the cameras - even if the camera ops started and stopped, time of day should have been running - in which case even with a timecode break, when you were recording program, the ISO's should have matched up. Oh well - in that case, you have to eye match it - unless the cameras never stopped, in which case you can dub them to blacked tapes...

I liked having all the layers up and running - I put stuff all over the place so I can pick and chose shots. Many of my layers are graphics and text as well...like in last night's show, we had all sorts of transition elememnts and movie IDs.

BTW, you can make drag points on your AUDIO timeline in AVID and pump the gain up and down - took me five minutes to figure out how to do it and once I did it, it's just as east as FCP.


pJ

[SymphonicX]

Yes - timecode breaks will kill you, but how the f*** did a live shoot have timecode breaks? The timecode should have been generated and being pumped out to the cameras - even if the camera ops started and stopped, time of day should have been running - in which case even with a timecode break, when you were recording program, the ISO's should have matched up. Oh well - in that case, you have to eye match it - unless the cameras never stopped, in which case you can dub them to blacked tapes...

I liked having all the layers up and running - I put stuff all over the place so I can pick and chose shots. Many of my layers are graphics and text as well...like in last night's show, we had all sorts of transition elememnts and movie IDs.

BTW, you can make drag points on your AUDIO timeline in AVID and pump the gain up and down - took me five minutes to figure out how to do it and once I did it, it's just as east as FCP.


pJ

yeah I learnt the drag points but have forgotten - I know some professionals won't abide add edits and quick tranisitons but it really does do the same job at the end of the day!

As for the timecode breaks, they were recorded in a studio so it was the VTR ops who put the breaks in there, knocking all of the machines off one after the other (you can tell cos each tape has slightly longer on the shot in question than the previous tape)

it wasn't live btw, it was a pre-record "as live" and edited in a suite to stick it all together - that show would never have worked live haha...it was so shambolic. So annoying when you leave it capturing, only to come back and find its captured the same clips 30 or 40 times because some numptie has stopped the tape for 30 seconds.

Also we use a capture/record device made by Avid called AIRSPEED...this is quite a cool little bit of kit but its terrible with timecode...if you dont' manually overpatch it, it'll spit out time of day - great for live sporting events (which is what we mainly record) but capturing a tape will require overpatching, but even then if the tape has a break like the one's aforementioned, it'll simply take the last known good timecode and spit that out sequentially over the rest, making ISO cam stuff absolutely impossible....

The way its set up here is pretty cool, we capture or record through airspeed and it goes onto a Unity ISIS server, this then dsitributes the media across huge raid disks and then becomes available to any edit suite on the floor up here, there are six of them so potentially you can have six people working on the same media, great for tight turnaround stuff...

[PJoseph]

"The way its set up here is pretty cool, we capture or record through airspeed and it goes onto a Unity ISIS server, this then dsitributes the media across huge raid disks and then becomes available to any edit suite on the floor up here, there are six of them so potentially you can have six people working on the same media, great for tight turnaround stuff..."

That's how it is at most of the networks here - like MTV - it's all shared between several machines because if you are on a series, you have to use elements on half a dozen machines.

pJ

[georgefox]

to edit hd id get a mac pro

the new ones can have dual 3.2ghz quad core processers

up to 32gb ram 4 1tb hdd and up to 4 seperate graphics cards

im going to get one

switch to mac

[Danny]

im currently editing something on a mac pro using adobe premier pro, and filming on a sony hd-dv camcorder, cant remember the brand but its about 2 grand so id say fariyl recently out.

[MinionZombie]

im currently editing something on a mac pro using adobe premier pro, and filming on a sony hd-dv camcorder, cant remember the brand but its about 2 grand so id say fariyl recently out.
One of these by any chance?

http://www.dvuser.co.uk/images/img/reviews/camcorders/sony-fx1/hdr-fx1e.jpg

Sony HDR-FX1

[Danny]

close, very close, but a bit bigger than that, with a pic port on the front adn the eyelens at the backs telescopic.

[MinionZombie]

close, very close, but a bit bigger than that, with a pic port on the front adn the eyelens at the backs telescopic.
Bah, I'm all curious now.

Get googling ya bastard and find me a pic of it to sate my spike in curiosity juice! :eek::)

...

Like this?
http://uk.gizmodo.com/Sony_HVR-V1U_camcorder-angle-1158674206776-440_330.jpg

[Danny]

thats even closer but the eyepiece is still off it can be rotated up and dwon by about 90 degrees.

[MinionZombie]

thats even closer but the eyepiece is still off it can be rotated up and dwon by about 90 degrees.
:confused:

Surely all video camera eyepieces can be moved up and then back down by 90 degrees. The heavenly DVX100B for example, from it's default horozontal position it tilts more than 90 degrees upwards.

Damn it, find me a picture you ... you ... somethingeruther!

Hurrumph! :eek::D

[Danny]

i tell you what you schaaalg i get you a piccy form moiy classroom tomorra squire (sorry, just back from sweeny todd;))

[MinionZombie]

i tell you what you schaaalg i get you a piccy form moiy classroom tomorra squire (sorry, just back from sweeny todd;))
Ah-so, I can put my obsession to rest, very good Sir...

Sweeny Todd eh? Place full of 'goffs' was it? :D

[Danny]

Ah-so, I can put my obsession to rest, very good Sir...

Sweeny Todd eh? Place full of 'goffs' was it? :D

nah actually, grey haired blokes with gaotees and berees i sheet u nawt.

[lifelikecarcass]

I prefer the Mac personally.

I'm running a PowerMac G5 quad(older PPC not core2 or quadcore, 4 actual CPU's) with 4GB RAM, 2x500GB SATA drives, Nvidia Geforce 7800GT with 512MB vram.
External 500GB Maxtor firewire800 HDD.
Running MacOSX 10.4 tiger.
Apple Cinema 23" display and an older Sony trinitron 21" CRT monitor for color corrections.
Wacom Intuos3 9x12 tablet.
A tiny DCR PC-55 miniDV cam and a Canon 350D dSLR.

I use it mainly for 3D modeling/rendering with Cinema4D, Zbrush, and Photoshop.
I do have Final Cut Express HD with Soundtrack Pro, Livetype and what not.
I do freelance work so it was a business investment not simply a home computer.
Cost me an arm and a leg, then 2 months later they announced the switch to Intel! Grrrrrr

It's a good workstation though.
Sounds like a spaceship taking off from under my desk when all the CPU's are working.

And yeah, I'm in debt with it due to other things I took out a business loan for.
Kind of takes the fun out of it IMO.

Wow.
I've never seen so many editors in one place that wasn't industry related.

So many wise words being tossed around and industry terminology.

Makes ya feel all warm inside, ehh.

Personally, I hate editing video.

The video I edit from time to time is always boring **** like safety in the workplace videos, or history bios for local legends.
There's no creative fredom in it.
And I only do it for the money because contrary to popular belief, it's not very difficult to learn how to efficiently use software.

I used to toy with the notion of making a zombie flick, but then everyone started making them or wanting to and I totally lost interest.

It's to the point now where anytime I hear someone talking about making a zombie flick that I know it's just gonna be a total clone of something that's already been done.

There aren't many unique ideas about zombie flicks because everyone wants to make a gory shoot 'em up machete mayhem flick.
Too shallow for me.

Now I'm more about light.
How light illuminates and interacts with surfaces.
I like to create physically accurate and photorealistic stills on my G5.
Painting with light, telling a story with light.
A world where everything is totally unique, where ideas aren't bound by what can actually be put in front of a camera.
Where 1's and 0's describe images and ideas found only in the mind.
Yeah, there's the occasional undead themed project, but it's actually a lighting and surface study that tells a story of a person that could be your neighbor or teacher, or even a loved one.
It's mostly just pixel chrominance brought out by photons and luminance.
Chromatic aberration fills my mind, and monochromatic noise surrounds me.
I have a real indication, of a laugh coming on.

[Danny]

I used to toy with the notion of making a zombie flick, but then everyone started making them or wanting to and I totally lost interest.

It's to the point now where anytime I hear someone talking about making a zombie flick that I know it's just gonna be a total clone of something that's already been done.

There aren't many unique ideas about zombie flicks because everyone wants to make a gory shoot 'em up machete mayhem flick.
Too shallow for me.


man i hear that.

[lifelikecarcass]

Sounds complex to you lot perhaps, but it makes sense to me and it's what I'm comfortable with - it eases me at the very least in terms of not wanting to run the risk of losing any data (no matter how slim the chance) - because I know that if that ever happened, it'd be soul destroying and make me so f*cking angry...so I like to be safe rather than sorry.

Anyway, it makes sense for me, and does the rendering in stages, which for my rig is helpful. You could just keep double backups of your captured footage, and use the auto or incremental save function set to autosave at short intervals.
I mirror my capture scratch folders to an external HDD, and keep copies of autosave data and render data there too.
This is in final cut though, and in the event of a crash(which pretty much never happens on a Mac in final cut) that actually results in data loss, I can just replace the lost data from one of the backup locations.
I also keep all the original footage on the tapes I recorded with in the event of a catastrophe.
I keep all my assets in a library on the external HDD and also on DVD-RW.

I know that your method makes you feel safe, but if you were working under a deadline you'd be forced to modify your workflow.
And if you plan to do this for a living, you will be working under deadlines and will have to modify that workflow.
So you might as well develop the proper workflow now instead of later so you're used to it.

Not sure how Vegas handles asset management or capture/render data, but I'm sure there's a better way than printing to tape and re-capturing.
I can't imagine printing out to tape, only to re-capture that same data.

I frequently render 3D animations that are an order of magnitude more complex and resource intensive than rendering video.
So sometimes a rendering can take up to 14 days non-stop, and as you can imagine that leaves alot of room for disaster to strike such as power failures and what not.
There's a simple trick to it.
Render to image sequences rather than to a video file or tape.
So in the event of disaster, you can just pick up where it stopped. Maybe have to redo a frame or 2 but that's it.
Then you import your rendered image sequence into your editor or quicktime, and export those frames to a video file or to tape.
Since it's already rendered it only takes an hour or so to export.
Major productions also use image sequences rather than video because it's more versatile, and easier to work with in your compositing app like Shake or After Effects.
Traditionally, film cameras actually record individual frames not video so most professional apps and workflows still maintain those standards.
It's just an overall better workflow than encoding video or printing to tape.
I'm sure Vegas allows this.
Might want to start practicing proper methods like that in preparation for the future.

[MinionZombie]

I am not going to become an editor for a living, and if I did I'd get professional training to do it the way of the industry standard, as that is the way you do it.

But I just edit my own things, and I do them however I want, so what's wrong with that? It gets done, and it gets done how I want, so it's fine.

Also, I don't just wipe over all my stuff or delete things. I back-up all the data and keep the original tapes.

What I meant was that I personally like to work in stages, render that out, then import again and do the next stage. Again, I don't plan on editing professionally whatsoever, which also means I don't own a really fast, dedicated fancy editing rig...so that factors in as well. :cool:

[lifelikecarcass]

I am not going to become an editor for a living, and if I did I'd get professional training to do it the way of the industry standard, as that is the way you do it I guess. But you could always just buy some books, or get a subscription to professional tutorial sites and learn to do it on your own.

I'm not trying to tell you what to do here.
I'm just exchanging information here, as that's the best way to learn.
No offense intended.
I'm not trying to steal your thunder here or anything.

You make your own movies, so why wouldn't you want to know about better ways of doing things?
It can only make your final output better and more polished.
But if you have no desire to improve, then so be it.


But I just edit my own things, and I do them however I want, so what's wrong with that? It gets done, and it gets done how I want, so it's fine.:stunned: Are you joking? :stunned:
Or are you actually saying "I don't have to listen to anyone else, I can do things however I want"?:confused:
Hey, do things however you want if that's what's important to you.
I was just trying to help out and share some things I've learned over the years.
I certainly wasn't expecting this response.
I go to other boards where there are other digital artists, and we share information and learn from each other. Which makes us better at what we do.
And I've never encountered that "I can do what I want, you're not the boss of me" attitude ever.
We also honestly critique each others work.
I would imagine that doesn't happen here, no?

But hey, I still think you should look into rendering image sequences.:sneaky:
You'll see that it just feels like the right way to do things.:thumbsup:

[MinionZombie]

I think you're getting the wrong end of the wedge here.

Don't take my tone as directly at you, I'm in a gruff mood in general today, so I appologise if I come off a bit short, but I have to be honest, I felt you were being condescending, especially with sentences such as "But if you have no desire to improve, then so be it."

And nor am I saying I don't have to learn anything more, nor learn things from people - my short attitude to your post came because - to me at least - you came off as condescending, so I took offense, especially when I feel as if you're not fully reading my posts you're responding to, or understanding what I had been trying to say those few weeks ago in the original posts.

I'll definitely not be seeking to become a professional editor, I find the process oftentimes tedious and really only prefer to edit my own footage that I've shot. Editing is merely a side salad for me, I edit my own little films, or do the odd bit of basic cutting to stock footage or whatever when asked to by those I work with, but that's where I leave it.

Ultimately I aim to become a writer/director, and currently my main focus professionally speaking is acting as a self-directing cameraman/cinematographer.

Back to our miscommunication though...

First impressions come quickly, and I've felt some of your posts have come off condescending and 'I know better than you, therefore I'm better' ... I guess we share that in common as we both don't like that attitude, but it appears we've both misread one another and perhaps considered each other to be of that opinion, when in fact both of us aren't at all and are of similar minds.

However...

Like I said before, I'm in a grumpy mood this evening, so there we are and I reckon you probably haven't intended to come off as condescending. It just felt that way to me this evening as I'm not in the best of moods and have been seeing red with this computer (4 attempts to get it fully loaded left me gritting my teeth :lol:).

The internet is a tricky thing, and it's hard to judge context and intent through merely text, especially with new members such as you are at the moment (or at least I don't remember your name from the days of the Loom HPOTD forum.

So, to stop myself ranting on, I appologise for my short temper this evening, and I guess you didn't intend to come off arsey or pious or whatever, so might I offer to scrap our initial miscommunicated introduction to one-another and start afresh? :)

[lifelikecarcass]

I guess you didn't intend to come off arsey or pious or whatever, so might I offer to scrap our initial miscommunicated introduction to one-another and start afresh?
That's a good idea.
I think we have different methods of communication that collided.

You were talking about your workflow, and I was addressing the problems that I saw in it, from my perspective.
Which is the way most of my discussions go.

At the other board I go to people are always poking each other in fun about mistakes made, or being dense and not seeing a problem or process for what it is.
It's actually lighthearted and meant to diffuse the tendency for some people to get defensive about things.
It took me a little while to get used to it.
I didn't intend to do that, as I assume that's not how it goes everwhere.
I just probably unknowingly allowed that to happen.
For that I apologize.
I don't mean to be condescending or disrespectful.
And I definitely don't think I know better.
I just always try to figure out better ways to do everything, simplify a workflow or overcome workflow obstacles.
I think it's the only way to grow when doing anything artistic.
It automates the process in a way so you don't have to constantly evaluate and judge yourself.
When you see a persons work where everytime they do something new you're more and more impressed with them, they tend to use that philosophy.
I'm not trying to say that that's how things are with me.
I'm just saying that I try to apply that frame of mind to the things I do when possible, and it seems to make all the difference.

I also know how great it seems to me when I learn new ways to work in an app or workflow.
And the image sequence thing is one of those things that I wondered why I didn't think of sooner.
I guess it would behoove me to pay more attention to how I come across so the information I offer is accepted better.

BTW, what are "the Loom HPOTD forum" days?
I use to come here and read the fiction section and a few other subforums.
I never registered cause I hated the way the forum was setup.
It used an older or less evolved bulletin board format.

[MinionZombie]

S'all cool, Sir. Got off on the wrong footing.

It's the problem with forum communication, not being able to see or hear people leads to a lot of potential problems that way, especially when entering a new community.

HPOTD is quite chilled out 99% of the time, laid back and such.

"Loom" was the name of the software that the forum ran on before HPOTD changed over to VBB two years ago, it was designed by the site owner Neil, but aye a couple of years back we moved over to this 'ere VBB thingymajig.

[lifelikecarcass]

It's the problem with forum communication, not being able to see or hear people leads to a lot of potential problems that way, especially when entering a new community.
If it happens again where you think I'm being an a55hole, just tell me flat out.
"I sound like an a55hole." I won't get offended.


"Loom" was the name of the software that the forum ran on before HPOTD changed over to VBB two years ago, it was designed by the site owner Neil, but aye a couple of years back we moved over to this 'ere VBB thingymajig.
Oh, sorry Neil.
There was just something about the way the responses to threads appeared below the thread title like they did.
I just didn't have the need to reply much as all I really did was read the fiction section.
So I just didn't register.
I was pleased to see that the forum was upgraded though.

[MinionZombie]

Interesting you should say that, there have been a couple of other folk used to VBB who didn't dig the Loom style. HPOTD coming over to VBB was pretty much my first proper introduction to VBB, so it took some getting used to, but now it's second nature and helps whenever I visit another forum to sneak around looking at posts like a right lurker. :) I'm such a whore for HPOTD, but I loves it...the precioussssss...*ahem*

[Danny]

*mixes dark potions and elixers, and the green goo from reanimator, and recites form an edlrich tome to perform the dark rite of thread necromancy*


RIIIIISSSSSSSEEEEE!:lol:

-ahem.


So just an update on my part, form next week i will be editing using:

I-mac
24" monitor
superdrive 8x (dl/dvd-r/cd-rw)
4gb 667mhz ddr2 sdram
1tb serial ATA drive (yeah, terrabyte)
2.8ghz intel core 2 extreme

wacom bamboo one tablet 5 X 6 inches (allways go with wacom)

mini dv and dv, and possibly some hd-dv type stuff.

adobe premier pro
garageband
adobe after effects

and filming on a Sony HDR-FX1E HDV camcorder

...yeah mz, the first pic was right but at that angle i couldnt tell because no one uses that stupid thing above the mic holder, on ours its just aduplicate set of the buttons allready on the damn things.:rolleyes:

[MinionZombie]

Bah. Panasonic DVX100B all the way.

That Sony is the one you use in class, right?

Damn I love getting a whole bunch of new tech, there's a thrill in dropping that amount of cash on grown up's toys and then getting it in the boxes, unpacking it all so carefully, placing it all out, getting it started the first time, exploring all the various bits and deeleys ... treasure that moment, Sir. :)

[Danny]

indeed i will sir.:lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

I used to toy with the notion of making a zombie flick, but then everyone started making them or wanting to and I totally lost interest.

It's to the point now where anytime I hear someone talking about making a zombie flick that I know it's just gonna be a total clone of something that's already been done.

There aren't many unique ideas about zombie flicks because everyone wants to make a gory shoot 'em up machete mayhem flick.
Too shallow for me.

That is my biggest problem with Low budget zombie films. Everyone goes gore crazy and when they do it it looks friggin' phony and laughable.

I had people say Deadlands didn't have enough gore, while some said it was just right and cut in such a way it didn't look hokey. Well, Gore fans will probably not like Trapped. I don't do the gore nearly as much as I did in deadlands and it is very brief when it does appear.

I will be happy once Trapped is complete. I think it will be my last zombie film for a long time.

[Danny]

i havent watched deadlands in a while, but form what i remember it wasnt gore heavy at all, but that made the brief gore stints that much more graphics than if it was all the way through, something that was a fault with land compared to dawn day and night.

[MinionZombie]

Hmmm...duno about that...

While Land had a lot of gore in it, when there was gore, it was either average (e.g. gun shots and the like - standard placement gore if you will, rather than set-piece gore). But when there were major gore scenes, more often that not, the cutting was quick and there wasn't much lingering.

Now, Day on the other hand, perhaps has a lower frequency than Land, but there is a lot of lingering on gore moments - or at least it feels that way.

Maybe how I personally remember these films in a 'first response' way. Day to me jumps to gore, Land jumps to a cold colour palette, Dawn is the mall (you could call it "mall porn" :p), Night is grittiness.

Deadlands on the other hand, cut around the gore swiftly or quickly, and didn't rely on it, it was an element of the whole piece, which to me anyway, focussed more on the stories throughout. Gore happened because it happened, it wasn't a case of having a scene just so you could have gore because you hadn't had any in a while, nor was it just having a scene to justify a gore scene.

That can work generally speaking, but it's hard to pull off right, and mostly comes off as cheap.

Anyway...losing train of thought...just watched "Into the Wild", so I'm in a kinda spacey mindset ... yeah ...