No announcement yet.

editing techniques

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • editing techniques

    new video I made of a BFCL match, thought the video geeks like me would like to have a look and figure out the techniques i used in the making. feel free to ask questions on any effects or software etc. i will try to answer asap and probably with a screeny of what i did also;7878114;;/

  • #2
    Re: editing techniques


    The transitions during the first song are pretty standard fare

    00:50 Cross-Fade
    01:07 Quick Cross-Fade
    01:14 Cross-Fade
    01:29 Cross-Fade
    01:48 Quick Cross-Fade
    01:52 Cross-Fade
    01:58 Quick Cross-Fade
    02:04 Cross-Fade
    02:08 Cross-Fade
    02:22 Fade to Black

    This is where the music changes and things start to get a bit more non-standard with the transitions, which fits with the music.

    02:39 Jump Cut
    02:59 Cross-Fade
    03:08 Cross-Fade
    03:17 Blur Out to Jump In
    03:24 Cross-Fade
    03:31 Quick Cross-Fade
    03:40 Right Diagonal Window Blinds
    03:51 Fog Out to Jump In
    04:06 Jump Cut
    04:13 Cross-Fade
    04:27 Pixelate Out and In (non-linear)
    04:34 Fade to Black then Fade In
    04:41 Fade to Black then Fade In
    04:44 Cross-Fade
    04:48 Cross-Fade
    04:52 Cross-Fade
    04:59 Cross-Fade
    05:23 Action Pause to Cross-Fade
    05:32 Grey Out to Invertion to Fade to Black

    I like how you left just enough of the first part of the "pre-battle" movement as an establishing shot. You don't get strapped to an action rocket from the first second, yet you were able to cut down on most of the non-action parts while leaving enough to hint at the setup.

    I also liked how you still used the good ole Cross-Fade as your main transition staple even when you decided to vary it up some. It's always tempting to show off the spiffy tricks and go whole hog with all kinds of crazy transitions for every cut, and it's a good thing to avoid cluttering your video with all kinds of crazy transitions that can distract from the material.

    The one thing I did not like about the video, is that while you presented virtually all the material in widescreen format, you did not render in widescreen aspect ratio. For people with a widescreen display the video plays at about 60-80% size in the middle of the screen with both horizontal and vertical black bars. If you had produced the final output in 16:9 (since nearly all of your "meat" was in WS you could have easily adapted the credits and pregame scoreboard to that format) when viewed in 4:3 it would look exacly the same since it would auto format to the sides of the screen in full screen mode. So, it would be no loss to those in 4:3 but fill the entire screen for those with 16:9 displays.


    • #3
      Re: editing techniques

      yeah, i have a much higher resolution available that is widescreen, however it's nearly 400 megs. i was too lazy to figure out a new resolution that would fit it so i simply went to a standard 4:3 640x480. the credits are in widescreen format and if you would like i can upload the full version =) in super duper high def. in most videos i like to use cross fade as a staple. it gets the job done smoothly with music and most is focused on the video as you say. but tossing in this or that every once in a while does add a bit of a touch.

      so if you would like it. i will upload the full version for you. but generally going up to higher resolutions on High definition videos will slow down older cards. i tried running this video on my 6800XT at 1280x720 and it choked. the 8800 is another story ;)


      • #4
        Re: editing techniques

        I think that I've found a really good resolution to render to in 16:9.


        And here's why.

        By pix per frame count it is very similar to 640x480 making the file sizes fairly similar and allowing you to render in the same CBR you would render a 640x480 movie in with a slight loss

        768x432 331,776ppf
        640x480 307,200ppf

        Many codecs have restrictions on block size, so that your output has to be rendered in muliple powers of 2. Some codecs require that the dimentions be divisible up to 16. Let's look at the factors of 768x432:

        768 = 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*3
        432 = 2*2*2*2*3*3*3

        The prime factors for both these dimensions are only 2's and 3's and one is 2^4 and one is 2^8. Any binary division is going to be very easy to make to convert to these resolutions.

        For me there is an addiitonal benefit. I run my display in 1920x1080 and record in half height (because full height is 2GB/min, not because of lag.) Making that 960x540, and 768x432 is exactly 4/5 the size of my recording. This means that if I use pan/zoom, I can zoom in 25% before my video has any loss due to zooming which is handy.

        So, for anyone producing videos and are looking to make your "hi-res" internet downloads, I recommend 768x432.

        I think I may have brought this up somewhere else, but can't remember off hand.


        • #5
          Re: editing techniques

          My display is 1920x1200 how much of difference will i have from your results when using half resolution recording?




          TeamSpeak 3 Server




          Twitter Feed