re: video montage

sonicboom wrote on 1/21/2002, 4:30 PM
there must be a better way to make a video montage than what i am doing
i take 50 pictures
i video tape each one for 15 seconds
then i put them on the time line and trim them to 7 seconds and then add transitions
then i add some video footage
then i add the music
i am thinking of buying a digital camera to take a photograph or get a really good scanner
it seems a lot easier to just move a jpeg file to the time line and stretch it out
any ideas would be greatly appreciated
thanks

Comments

FadeToBlack wrote on 1/21/2002, 4:53 PM
sonicboom wrote on 1/21/2002, 10:00 PM
GG, thanks for responding
you are the pete sampras of video!!
i've been reading your tips and learning from you for weeks
thanks for responding to me
if scanning is the way to go, i will go out and get one.
by the way, what is vidcap? video capture?
thanks
sonicboom
FadeToBlack wrote on 1/21/2002, 11:54 PM
StormMarc wrote on 1/22/2002, 1:24 AM
When I scan for Premiere I have always had to bring them in at 720x540 to make up for the aspect ratio problem. Is this not the case with Vegas?

Thanks,

Marc
Cheesehole wrote on 1/22/2002, 4:38 AM
if you are talking about bringing 35mm prints (4x6) into your system, you should consider three things.

1 - as was mentioned, a flat-bed scanner will help you out. they're cheap and flexible. i find this method to be a pain, and the quality is limited by the type of paper the photos are printed on, the amount of dust/hair that ends up on them, etc... scanning is just as painful as your camera method, but it does yield much better quality. look into the scanners that are specifically for photos. they probably have some automated method of scanning a whole bunch of photos. you just insert one after the other. that would save you tons of time.

2 - if you have lots of pics on film, i'd suggest a negative scanner, which are not very expensive, but will give you much higher quality. i don't have much experience with them, and if your destination is video, the quality may not make much difference, unless you'll be doing zooms/pans on your pics.

3- the best solution is to use a digital camera in the first place. it's infinitely easier and the quality is better since there's no 'scanning' step.

have fun! i love doing photo montages.

- ben
jerryd wrote on 1/22/2002, 6:18 AM
Might be worth reminding folks to resize Video Preview window in vidcap or they will end up with low resolution captures.
sonicboom wrote on 1/22/2002, 3:09 PM
thanks everyone for your help on this matter
quality does count for me
i am taking from this that the best quality to produce a photo montage in vv3 that i am going to play on a vhs tape is by taking a digital photo of the pictures and then placing them on the time line
then adding transitions
then adding music
then printing to tape
one problem though - i have a cheap digital camera :(
ben, which digital camera do you use?
thanks
sonicboom
tserface wrote on 1/22/2002, 3:17 PM
Sonic,

You can probably get by with a pretty cheap camera. Even the cheapest can do 640x480 which is just slightly under what you need for DV (655x480). You can stretch the pictures a little, crop them, and still get better pictures than scanning will give you. Going from 640 => 655 will only change the height to 491 and that's not much to crop (11 pixels). Just about any good program will resize the image for you. For the most part you could simply include them and let Vegas resize them as well. I do this all the time and I can't even notice the resolution difference.

Tom
FadeToBlack wrote on 1/22/2002, 4:20 PM
Chienworks wrote on 1/22/2002, 9:19 PM
I believe the comment about a digital camera being better is referring to
the original taking of the pictures. If you use a digital camera to take
your original pictures it will be nice and easy.

However, if you already have your pictures as prints from negatives, then
scanning is definately the way to go. Trying to rephotograph a print with
a digital camera is a touchy process even with pro equipment. It requires
proper lighting, proper lenses, and a whole lot of patience. Scanning is a
fast and near brainless process in comparison.
Cheesehole wrote on 1/23/2002, 5:59 AM
thanks chienworks and GG, i thought it was fairly obvious sorry!

the digital camera was suggested to take new pictures. i'm assuming that the original poster is into photography, and is transitioning into the digital world. i would not suggest trying to photograph the prints with the digi-cam.

i'm not a pro, but i'm into photography, and i'm happy with the Epson PhotoPC 850Z (now the 3100Z). it has all the manual features i'm used to and the price is very reasonable for what you get. i've had to have it serviced twice for 'locked pixels' but that problem is common in digital cameras and dv cams, and the warranty covers it. i'd get an extended warranty and an extra set of batteries for sure. tiffen has a package for it that includes a case, lens adapters, and lots of other stuff. i suggest it because if you are into photography, you'll want the basics right away, like a wide angle adapter, and uv filter.

the slide shows get a lot easier to put together when you have a set of images. you can drop all your images on the timeline at the same time, and Vegas will automatically position them with transitions. the options are under Preferences | Editing.

- ben