Zdogg, It wasn't GM that used the lord's name in vain, it was me. He only copied what I had written in order to reply to my statements one line at a time. I know this will end in an impossible debate, as it always does, but just so you know; as an atheist I'm as offended when people mention God in preachy ways. I come to this forum to learn bout video, not god or the lack there of. There are NO shortage of forums on the web devoted to this. Not to say I'm against religion, but people that are religious and post religious stuff offend me when they post about the Christian lifestyle on video editing forums. I'm offended by reading it but I'm sure you are unaware of that fact, just like I'm unaware that I've offended people when I say things like "gees-us." It's how I talk. If how I talk offends you, I'm sorry. But the way you talk, offends me.

I did not see an answer (apologize if I missed it) regarding how you got permission to use the song and what the cost was to use it. Music in my videos is a big concern for me.

Nice work!

Answered by GmElliott in many other posts - do a search.

but... where do you get the out-of-sync TV transitions?... and for that matter... is there a forum that exchanges transitions... or can more be bought somewhere?.... Thanks, Dave

My guess is those are "simply" a clever use of the TV Simulator FX built in to Vegas. It's not a transition as such... but the way used here... it appears to be a transition.

Yeah, Liam nailed it. It's simply the TV simulator FX keyframed.

Vegas has so many nice effects- I've barely scratched the surface of what it can do yet. Stan (Stonefield) is much more advanced in that area. He should consider producing training material.

>>Awesome work, GM, I liked it. I like how you cut on the beat at certain times, and didn't at others. I struggle with when to cut on the beat and when not to. What I like here was that by skipping certain beats, the viewer starts to anticipate the next cut and it leaves them wanting or waiting. I feel I cut on the beat too much and it becomes almost too mechanical, like watching a machine. That doesn’t always work.

>Thank you. Yes- I find this style of editing more challenging for me. I don't know if it's because I'm not accustomed to editing this style or just the fact that it requires even more rythm and timing. I do the same thing as you- by editing to the beat TOO much. While I "do" feel it's important for your video to "breathe" with the music- it's important not to become entirely too predictable. Likewise I feel the same way about editing style in general. If you continue to edit the same style all the time you'll never grow as an editor.

Gm, I'm cutting in here with a quick comment. I'm afraid I've been too busy with a new programming gig to do anything but scan the forum lately. But this pushed me into a quickie.

First and above all, great work. I liked the concept and enjoyed it...

1) Cutting on the beat and not too much:

I felt this piece was cut a little too *on* the beat. The previous piece you showed (link lost to laziness, but it was the last thread of yours) was better. This one I could anticipate the cuts. On the last one I got in the rhythm quickly then enjoyed a series of pleasant surprises as you cut on feel rather than mechanics. I.e., you seemed to start on beat then broke the rules nicely. Its not that I minded this one, but the other one showed real style. Here, you didn't break enough rules. So consider this a late compliment on the last one by panning this one ;-) I regret not posting a compliment before.

(Note: Nothing personal. I mixed a buddy's wedding where I mixed a wild 7 min song cutting one still per second without a single break or deviation. Phew :->


2) Low contrast made it hard to see the faces:

With the low contrast (or is it filming a high contrast scene?) I had to work too hard to see the details in the faces. Perhaps this style was intentional, but people naturally look at faces and you made it hard to "dial into" the characters. Basically, the footage looked like my photographs straight from the developer *before* I bump the contrast and make the scene "spring out". (Of course, we're talking color curves here, not simple contrast boosting.) Some of the clips had hard backlit conditions; others just had faces looking a little "flat". I'd just like to see you edit each clip trying to "extract" the facial details, and worry about balancing the backgrounds afterwards.

I did like the woman at 3:00 with the vertical shadow across her face.

Thinking a little more what I'm trying to say, I do a lot of flash photography in the daytime when shooting people. I flash all my wedding pics (done a few for friends, see, e.g., here; the link contains everyone else's pics as well, but mine are the good ones :-), even if I'm shooting outdoors. I want to get rid of those facial shadows (unless that is the intention, but I'm not that artiste) and the extra brightness of daytime flash (to me) makes the scene more exciting. Simply put, I want to get rid of the shadows in the raw footage so I can control how much to add back in post. Dull or dark faces can't be fixed in post.

Specifically / e.g., IMHO your opening was a good example of the problem. The sun behind the guy at 0:03 just made his face invisible. Then when he cut in front of the sun at 0:04 he needed to light up immediately. At 0:06, that's just an uninteresting face in the shadow. Our eyes see much better than a camera. Use front-lighting to make it so. The girl at 1:21 has too much shadow. The guy at 2:47 is dully lit.

I've no experience in lighting with video, so I can only speak in photographic terms. I think your footage would be really helped with an on-board light (since you're so clearly mobile), but side-lighting would be marvelous. I'm always mobile and solo, so I use a bounce flash I can aim at walls, ceilings or direct. Is there a light you can mount 1-2 ft to the side of the video camera? Or maybe a small onboard light is enough to light the facial foreground adequately.

P.S. Great job on the black guy. Its darn near impossible (or a special skill) to control the contrast with enough detail in black faces. For some reason, that clip turned out great. Good timing on the outdoor light and you put him in just the right position.

jkrepner

I am sure no one is trying to be offensive. Sometimes it would seem people are all too easily offended. I stand corrected on who started the use of the "offending" language.

I brought up the name Mohammed because it takes the argument out of the usual framing and hopefully lets people be a little more detached and thus more objective to the effects of certain words on listeners' ears. To say the name Mohammed in an offhanded or disrespectful way the presence of, say, a devout Muslim is sort of a no brainer. People just don't. -- though one might respond that the word doesn't roll off the tongue, or not a sort of 'grab it off the shelf' swear word might explain it to some degree. But all things being equal, one just would not. Why is this sensitivity not extended to Christians? What if I did that with your mother's name, every time I wanted to emphasize surprise, or disgust or anger? That is my main question.

As far as your being offended I will just guess you might be offended because I said what you may or may not be doing on a more or less regular basis would be "tacky." Well, it is, and just know it and try not to be "offended."


These are not just run of the mill expressions to everyone. It is not so much offensive in the sense I personally go to lick wounds, but when I hear this it just makes you feel sick that peoples' awareness of others is so shallow. People have lost a lot in the area of civility and gentility. For some, it just doesn't exist. I guess that is rather this greater sense of loss, actually more that plain "offense."

You may be going to hell as an atheist, as the Bible suggests, or not. I am not judge. But if the admonition offends, it offends based on -- what?. Christians do not thus impugn your character by saying there are certain requirements for salvation. Christians want good for you, as they see it, not bad -- heaven, not hell. . You can believe the God stuff or not. We are called to advise others to 'get right" with God. Whether they do or not, or whether it is ultimately even true, we have no control over. You have a right to your own conscience and to make up you own mind. Is this the area in which you find yourself being offended? If yes, please explain, because I don't quite get it. if a Hari Krishna approaches me in an airport promising a better way, I don't believe it, but I am surely not offended. Why, how?

BTW to those who have little tolerance for these kinds of discussions, I empathize with you. But the question was posed to all here at this forum how they perceived the "something different," and to not answer directly would have been purposeless.

Z

RichMacDonald,
Thank you for such a comprehensive critique. Much appreciated.

Great job Glen !

Loved the use of effects and camerawork.

Have you thought about shooting for models ? If you look at any of the Victoria's Secret Lingerie TV ads, ( oh , I've looked at a couple ....) You'll see the slower paced ones have a very similar photographic style there to yours.

I think you'd be really good at that. Keep it up man, don't change a thing.

Stonefield

Stan shooting models sounds like fun. ;) I actually do free-lance work for a fashion photographer now but it's retouching stills.

I'd love to hear a biography on you Stan. lol Like how you got into shooting models in the first place. How do you break into that sort of thing?

Well I did a search on gmelliott and found 275 posts. I scanned all subjects for anything to do with copyright music and could not find out how you obtained rights to this music. Liam_Vegas maybe you could provide a link to it?? Or GM??

Just trying to learn how I can go about using commercial music and the costs associated.

Thanks

The answer is IN the posts - not the subject line.

MadMikey,

I was going to send you some links but you have e-mails turned off. for a hint, do a search on "copyright" at:: http://www.videouniversity.com/forums/gforum.cgi?forum=16;

Thanks JetDV, you gave me some useful information. Searching it now.

http://www.videouniversity.com/forums/gforum.cgi?forum=16

To bring this full circle and back "on topic," have a look at the video in the thread titled "Just Lose it - an easter egg video" for something else a little different. It's really pretty good, especially for what I would assume was mostly impromptu footage.

Note to zdogg: Don't look. You would't like it.

Rob

GM, this definitely keeps up with your tradition of great work. Song lyrics/music match really good with people in the wedding party ( I can almost see a bit of satire as far as the lyrics and the occasion being filmed). Is the longhaired, biker-looking guy a minister? I swear, every timer I see your work, I feel like breaking my promise of never filming wedding again. Great job !!!
Zdogg, please continue at http://forums.crossmap.com/thread509.html

To bring this full circle and back "on topic," have a look at the video in the thread titled "Just Lose it - an easter egg video" for something else a little different. It's really pretty good, especially for what I would assume was mostly impromptu footage.

Note to zdogg: Don't look. You would't like it.

Rob



No kidding Rob- Dave's work isn't for the faint of heart.

GM, this definitely keeps up with your tradition of great work. Song lyrics/music match really good with people in the wedding party ( I can almost see a bit of satire as far as the lyrics and the occasion being filmed). Is the longhaired, biker-looking guy a minister? I swear, every timer I see your work, I feel like breaking my promise of never filming wedding again. Great job !!!

Hey thanks. Yeah the bearded man was the minister. A very nice guy- very very soft spoken and quiet. I'm suprised he agreed to play along.

As soon as ah gotta close to dat dere bridge I thought I smelt a troll. An sho nuff, and a real live one too, dag gummit.
z

Am I the only one who didn't like the viedography at all? Overuse of the dutch tilt, over-repetitive shots of the same people over and over and over, no logic to the camera movements (that was also done over and over and over). Frankly, I was bored after the first 15-seconds. I did like the intermittent "bad TV" effects and the last 15-seconds were the best.

Steve

A very nice piece of work, Glen. I have to say, for those who would criticize this piece unconstructively, pony up your own work. It takes a good amount of courage to show your work before a forum of video editors. I commend Glen for stepping forward to share his work.

ZDogg: I doubt anyone means or wants to offend you. This is a forum for video editors, and the video was put forward in that vein. If Glen had posted this in a Christian forum, then I might take issue with his intent. But it's a video clip, in a video forum, and I think it's wholly appropriate. If you're offended, then it is up to you to decide whether to continue frequenting this forum.

I'm sure if Glen had anticipated this video would be sensitive, he would've added a disclaimer to that effect.

For those of you taking shots at ZDogg: you're casting a poor light on folks like me who aren't Christian but who try to be respectful of those who are. ZDogg offered his opinion, respectfully and thoughtfully, and I don't believe he deserves to be dismissed or treated sarcastically.

scott