Preview Multiple Video Clips

Apollo25 wrote on 9/25/2003, 5:03 PM

I recently did my first three camera wedding shoot. Now I have to edit the footage. In VV4.0 is it possible to view multiple video clips simultaneously. This would be the equivalent to camera monitors in a multi-camera live videotapping using a video switcher. I want to see each video stream, synchronized, so I can determine the timing when switching from clip to clip. Can we do this with VV4.0???

Thank in advance for your help gentlemen...!

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 9/25/2003, 5:41 PM

One thing you can do is to use track motion to reduce each clip to 1/2 size, then place each clip in a different corner of the screen. This can be used for up to 4 clips at once. After you've got your edit points located resize them all back to full frame.

johnmeyer wrote on 9/25/2003, 6:05 PM

I just did a three camera shoot. I put each camera on a different track. I lined them up using the sound track. It's about the only way I know to do it, because it is very difficult to line up motion when the video is taken from completely different locations.

frogmugsy wrote on 9/25/2003, 6:08 PM

http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=214190

There were some ideas at this thread.

For crying out loud, why can't I hyperlink!!

johnmeyer wrote on 9/25/2003, 6:40 PM

To hyperlink, copy and paste the following into your message:

<a href=""></a>

Then, put your URL link (it has to be a complete URL, including the "http") between the quotes. Put the text you want to appear between the two angle brackets, just before the "/a"

Thus, for your link, it would look like this:

<a href="http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=214190">Great Preview Ideas</a>

This will show up when you post your message like this:

Great Preview Ideas

frogmugsy wrote on 9/25/2003, 9:48 PM

"To hyperlink, copy and paste the following into your message:"

Thank You.

Grazie wrote on 9/26/2003, 1:13 AM

JM -That's what I've been wanting too. BUT, but, but . .John . . . how in all that's Tim Berners-Lee, did you "show" the example and it TOO not being a hyperlink?!?! - THAT is clever . . . .

Thanks for the simple coding . .. obvious to others here . .. .

Grazie

Apollo25 wrote on 9/26/2003, 1:13 AM

John, Great Idea thanks for your input and the others as well. You guys always come thru with great solutions, Thanks! Let's hope that the boys and girls at MediaSuite will read this thread and provide us with a solution that will give us multiple monitor type functionality......

Apollo25 wrote on 9/26/2003, 1:14 AM

Good idea, Thanks Chien......

Apollo25 wrote on 9/26/2003, 1:15 AM

Hey John, What are you charging for your Three Cam Shoots?

Apollo25 wrote on 9/26/2003, 1:15 AM

Hey John, What are you charging for your Three Cam Shoots?

Chienworks wrote on 9/26/2003, 6:59 AM

Grazie, if you want to type the < character and have it show up, you have to use the HTML Metacharacter for it. It is ascii code 60, which is preceeded by the and sign and number signs, and followed by a semicolon. So, type in < to get <

*whew* Now try to imagine what i typed in to get that code to show up on the screen!

johnmeyer wrote on 9/26/2003, 10:57 AM

So, type in & # 6 0 to get <

Chienworks,

I'd ask you what you typed to get the & # 60 to show up (without the spaces), but then, to type that into your reply, you'd have to do something even more clever, and then I'd have to ask ...

Chienworks wrote on 9/26/2003, 11:56 AM

johnmeyer: don't forget the semicolon ; at the end. It's true that MSIE is lazy and lets you get away without it, but there are other browsers out there that do follow the w3c standard and will require it. Without the semicolon, other browser users will see the & # 60 characters and not what you want them to see.

Of course, this laziness of MSIE (which they tout as a feature) is really another part of Microsoft's attempt to make MSIE ubiquitous. They have several deviations from the standard (not requiring the </table> tag at the end of a table is the most glaring). They encourage people to use these deviations which then result in web pages that aren't properly viewable in competing browsers. This then encourages people to say "best viewed in MSIE" and unfairly leads to the downfall of other browsers.

Anyway, so much for that rant.

BillyBoy wrote on 9/26/2003, 12:19 PM

Ditto for many versions of Netscape's browser. It wasn't just a Microsoft thing. WHY we had browser wars***. Each camp was promoting its "non standard" version of browser in part because the W3C moves so slow in making "recommendations" and why both companies ignored them, not wanting to sit around for months (years?) waiting for the slugs at W3C to get moving.

As far as a downfall in "other" browsers, don't be so quick to poo poo Microsoft. Some think the best browser won the war. While you can make an argument that Microsoft has/had and unfair advantage in including their browser with Windows and it gets installed automatically. And that 92% of the world uses Windows as their operating system, it doesn't stop anybody from using ANOTHER browser if they wish too. For example Opera is a nice little very fast browser. Trouble is they sell it. I'm not going to pay for something when someone else gives you one as good or better for free. Even if it is a Microsoft product.

*** browser wars for those that may not have been around or paying attention is a term often thrown around to describe the contest between Microsoft and Netscape starting in the early 90's to see who's browser would win the hearts of the public. For the casual user it didn't much matter. You picked a browser and that's it.

The "war" part was fought on the web page developer front. If you were a web page developer then, and I was, you had to a lot of extra work to make your pages work in both Netscape and Microsoft's browsers. Even with all that, pages would not look exactly the same and some features would only work in Netscape and not In Microsoft and the other way around as well.

The trouble with following W3C recommendations strickly was you were more limited in what you could do. Many developers decided to say the heck the the W3C "standards" and just developed for one browser or the other or if they wanted to support both added a lot of scripting tricks. As you may expect that too caused problems because neither browser supported the same variant of the scripting language. On top of all that there were differences on how fonts looked, scaling, how objects could be embedded and on and on...