Scene Analyser

Discussion in 'Video Cameras' started by Olympiad, Jan 9, 2005.

  1. Olympiad

    Olympiad Guest


    A while ago on here (possibly over a year, maybe even two) someone
    recommended a tool that would analyse and split a DV file into scenes based
    on either timecode and /or frame content.

    Anyone any recollection of what this was or even some suggestions for
    alternative tools (ideally cheap or shareware)?

    As background, I'm currently having a play around with quite a few trial
    versions of different video editing software, some of which have this
    feature (e.g Ulead Video Studio), others which seem to have it partially
    (Vegas seems to scene detect on capture only, but not from an existing
    file(?)), and so on to Premiere which does no scene detect at all. I've
    been fairly impressed with VideoStudio but it is so slow, especially when
    adding transitions etc and previews. I do a mixed bag of stuff, all very
    amateur, and use the benefits of scene detection maybe 60-70% of the time
    when knocking out holidays, birthdays etc when it comes in very handy. For
    a couple of years I've been getting by quite happilly with Pinnacle Studio
    for the simple stuff, and switching to Premiere for specific scenes, and
    having now got a new PC, am in a bit of a re-evaluation phase. In a
    nutshell I need something that can churn out run of the mill stuff easily
    and QUICKLY, while still having the feature set for more advanced stuff.
    Hence, why I'm considering the scene capture tool as a bolt on to possible
    Vegas or Premiere.

    Any suggestions greatly received. TA.
    Olympiad, Jan 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. - highly recommended
    David Pearson, Jan 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

    Hywel Jenkins, Jan 9, 2005
  4. Olympiad

    Olympiad Guest

    Olympiad, Jan 9, 2005
  5. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    It's call tape logging and uses a pencil and paper.....

    Scene detection software is for wimps ! :~)

    [ grins and ducks ]
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 9, 2005
  6. Olympiad

    Olympiad Guest

    Too right - I mean, why spend 30 mins capturing scenes automatically when
    you could spend hours having fun doing it manually. It's like all these
    other new-fangled inventions that dare to try to save time like dish washers
    and the like, and computers that use Windows instead of good old fashioned
    dos command line. Who invented video anyway - lazy good for nothings -
    nothing wrong with a canvas and set of paints.

    Seriously, I just fnd it convenient a lot of the time. I know it's not the
    'professional way' but I tend to capture full tapes at a time, rather than
    batch capture etc, and normally when I pause the camera I want a break in
    the scene anyway. I'm not sure it actually saves me much time, as I go in
    and edit each clip separately anyway, it just somehow seems to make the
    editing more manageable.
    Olympiad, Jan 10, 2005
  7. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Err, but who would use a washing machine that shrunk some cloths and
    stretched others, resulting in someone having to spend hours putting it all
    right after - you can log a tape in the time it takes to watch and you're
    not going to attempt to edit without first finding out what you have on tape
    and were it is - with tape logging you also only capture what you need and
    not loads of what you only want to delete after capture.
    Sounds like it !...
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 10, 2005
  8. Olympiad

    Alan S. Guest

    big snip
    end of snip

    No you can't - unless you can read timecode frame accurately _on the
    fly_. You are going to stop at each cut, spin back a little because you
    actually overshot the cut, run up to it again, stop, pause, joggle to
    find the actual cut frame, write down the timecode and shot details and
    then re-start the player.

    If you can do that in _real time_ then you are cleverer than most. Also,
    think of the wear and tear on the player/camera with the shunting back
    and forth.

    I have used Scenalyzer and it makes a pretty good job of logging the
    tape with a single, non-stop, pass.

    If you prefer to log manually, it saves wear and tear by capturing to
    the computer and logging there - assuming the transfer includes off-tape

    Alan S.
    Alan S., Jan 11, 2005
  9. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Yes you can.

    - unless you can read timecode frame accurately _on the
    There is no need to be that accrete, you add 'x' number of frames / seconds
    at the beginning and at the end of each clip capture and then 'top and tail'
    the clip in the editor. At worst you might need to pause the tape.
    That is what a VHS BITC copy is for....
    With 'scene' cuts in all the wrong places no doubt, otherwise you wouldn't
    have used the phrase "it makes a pretty good job of logging the tape", you
    would have used the word 'perfect'.

    How can anyone edit a tape without knowing what is on the thing and were it
    is, if you're going to view the tape at least once before editing that you
    might as well log and capture only what you need.
    That statement just shows how little you understand :~(
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 11, 2005
  10. Olympiad

    Alan S. Guest

    Burned in Timecode still doesn't make it any quicker.
    Actually, no. Have you tried it? You add _no doubt_ so you have tried
    it? In my experience it got it right all the time. The only reason I no
    longer use it is because my video is captured and then logged on the
    computer. It takes the same time as making a BITC copy on VHS.

    otherwise you
    Nobody can. But what you were saying was that you can log in real time
    which I was questioning, and still do.
    Really? Having been involved with broadcast video for 32 years.
    Alan S., Jan 11, 2005
  11. Olympiad

    Dave R Guest

    Which still requires at least 2 passes through the tape.
    And every amatuer hobbyist has one of those.
    Don't know about Alan's copy, but mine captures on the scene boundaries
    perfectly for me. Each clip starts from when I pressed the record button
    and ends when I stopped recording. Doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Personally I view the footage whilst capturing it, and I delete the clips
    I don't need as it goes through. What I'm left with are the clips that I
    do want, and I've only made one pass through the tape and taken 1 hour of
    my time.

    We did this last year Jerry and you beat it to death then. Scene
    detection works well for the rest of us. You banging on about how the
    pros do it won't change that.
    Dave R, Jan 11, 2005
  12. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    How does the software know were *I* want the scene / clip started and ended,
    it can't so is next to useless. FACT, It can only guess at were the scene /
    clip starts and ends.
    As I said, at worst you might need to pause the tape, not keep rewinding it
    as you claim.
    Your point being ?..
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 11, 2005
  13. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    The camera tape(s) get played twice, once to dub a BITC VHS copy and the
    second is when the tape is captured. All logging / viewing is done with the
    VHS copy.
    They might lack the TC but they still have the tape counter that can be
    burnt into a dubbed copy, and most have a VHS VCR - and if they don't, they
    more than likely have a DVD recorder.
    But what if you need a 40 second clip half way through a very long scene,
    you waste time and HDD space capturing what you don't want or need.
    Sound like all you need to do is cut out the finder over the lens type
    errors, your film is in chronological order to begin with and you only ever
    have one scene to chose from. If so you don't need to scene detect, you just
    need to capture and cut and close on the time line.
    Until you realise it's limitations....
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 11, 2005
  14. Olympiad

    Dave R Guest

    I know the limitations, and if I ever have the need to do so, I will work
    around them. No-one said it was the best solution for all situations.
    Dave R, Jan 11, 2005
  15. Olympiad

    Alan S. Guest

    Alan S., Jan 11, 2005
  16. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    The fact is, scene detection is rarely the best solution, other than if only
    'playing' at the art of film editing.....

    If all you want to do is cut out the bad bits, add a few transitions and add
    a voice over track then OK, but if you're making a something more complex
    film I really don't see how it helps or saves time - IMO it's more likely to
    cause problems than solve them.
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 11, 2005
  17. Olympiad

    Dave R Guest

    Perhaps you're an old hat stuck in his merry ways? Or maybe you're just
    too "Pro" for us. It's a small wonder you came back here from your pro
    newsgroup. What happened there?
    Dave R, Jan 11, 2005
  18. Olympiad

    Olympiad Guest

    ...... hence the question about scene detection software and recommendations
    for good ones! Anyway, it's fairly obvious from your later posts that you
    don't rate such tools very highly.
    Olympiad, Jan 11, 2005
  19. Olympiad

    Olympiad Guest

    The art of film editing (or rather film making) is above any tools you use.
    No amount of tools or effects can make a bad film good, but I've seen plenty
    of potential good films ruined.
    Complex does not necessarily equal better.
    Olympiad, Jan 11, 2005
  20. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    <snip babble>

    I noted the smiley's and thus the snip, but enough to say that you are wrong
    on count one and half wrong on count two.
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.