Scene Analyser

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

  1. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Which is my point !
    The complexity in this instance is in the software people are trying to use,
    as you imply, the simple approach is often better than the complex - what is
    simpler than a sheet of paper, a pencil and some time ?...
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Olympiad

    Olympiad Guest

    I don't actually disagree with the thrust of what you're saying, as I
    pointed out in my original approach I want the scene detector for the very
    times you described about simply chunking up a film into scenes and throwing
    in a few transitions. As it happens, I've got round to trying out Premiere
    and so far am finding the way that you can shuttle back and forth and slice
    clips, once I get used to it, might be the way to go. But for what I do I
    have no reason to do any offline scene logging. I can comfortably capture
    several tapes worth of DV and find it easier to cut the crap once it's on
    the computer rather than before it gets on there.
    Olympiad, Jan 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Olympiad

    Olympiad Guest

    Yes, and ideally what I want is software that will capture without scene
    logging, but then allow me to scene detect if I so wish. So far Studio 9
    and Ulead VideoStudio do this, with Vegas and Premiere (according to a later
    thread, as I hadn't realised) both doing scene detection on capture only (I
    may be wrong, but from first impressions ...).
    Olympiad, Jan 11, 2005
  4. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest


    [ re tape logging / scene detection ]
    You mean (suede) scene splitting, some don't split the capture into separate
    clips and non of them log the tape [1] - they just give each 'clip' a unique
    name, unless there is RT user supervision.

    [1] logging is giving each clip / 'film' rush a unique name, an in and out
    point (and hence a running time) together with a description of the clips
    content and any other comment such as the video track is crap but the audio
    track is good.
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 11, 2005
  5. Olympiad

    Olympiad Guest

    Yes, sorry I'm mixing up my terminologies, and I do mean not actually
    splitting the clip into smaller physical clips (which is a pain in the arse
    as soon as it goes a bit odd) but simply referencing each 'scene' in the
    master clip somehow.

    Anyway, after a couple of hours play on Premiere this evening using a 'non
    scene detected' clip I'm well impressed with the interface and means of
    editing and don't think that scene detection would add anything or save
    time. I've been using a trial of Premiere Pro but I'm assuming that the
    interface will be similar to Premiere Elements (which I'll download to try
    Olympiad, Jan 12, 2005
  6. Olympiad

    Dave R Guest

    Still going on about that eh Tony? Smiley or no smiley. Twice in the past
    you accused Jerry of changing his "nick", and twice I called you up on it.
    Both times you went quiet and never offered an apology for your false
    Dave R, Jan 12, 2005
  7. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    No they can't, you will find when I started to use the colons and if you
    search all the groups I was posting to at the time you will also notice that
    someone else was using the nick 'Jerry', in one of the groups - hence the
    decision to use the colons rather than cause confusion.
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 12, 2005
  8. Olympiad

    Dave R Guest

    Check yourself.

    13 Sep 2004, you accuse him of changing his nick to get out of your
    killfile. A couple of hours later, I posted a response to you showing
    that he had not. Message-ID: [email protected]

    15 Nov 2004, you accuse him again. The following day I ask why you
    perpetuate this myth. Your message: <o5mhp0l2e4h7st3fte62vgmtp9btbui7q8>. My response: <[email protected]>

    So it is a false accusation and you've been caught out again. Are you
    going to clam up and hide once more?
    Dave R, Jan 12, 2005
  9. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    But not as you claim, you are doing nothing but harm to your own credibility
    in this, as you say it's all on google......
    Oh here we go again those fake emails again....
    Ha hahhahahahahahahahaahahahahah

    You really are one sure twat Tony, many people use that spam trap, indeed
    it's a recommended spam trap by at least one news server. *If* I was going
    to try and impersonate someone else, or use a fake name, doing you think I
    would have the brains (unlike yourself) to use a different email address
    along with either the different server or it's faked headers ?!... As I
    said, you are nothing but a brainless ignorant little twat - sorry, that's
    an insult to twats, most have a brain !
    The only person making an 'arsehole' of themselves is you Mr Morgan - YET
    AGAIN :~(
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 12, 2005
  10. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Only in your wrapped damaged mind. :~(
    Yes you are, considering that you couldn't be more wrong. As you say, it's
    all recorded at the google groups archive....
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 12, 2005
  11. Olympiad

    Dave *R* Guest

    Indeed it is, for anyone with a clue.
    Of course it has. No doubt one of your imaginary friends sent it to
    It's not a spoof address. It's a legitimate email address, the owner of
    which has given his permission for it to be used by anyone for anti-spam

    Try doing a search for , and there will undoubtedly be
    thousands of names using it. Are we all the same person? Maybe we're
    the government in disguise.
    I guess your short term memory doesn't permit you remember me from
    before I used .

    And of course, the discussion between Jerry and I about scene detection
    was a red herring, just to throw you off the scent.
    I was going to point out that you're the one being stupid, but the
    foundation is ignorance.

    So you were proved wrong, and this was all you could come up with: To
    claim we are the same person. Maybe you are the idiot after all.
    Dave *R*, Jan 13, 2005
  12. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Tony has surpassed all realms of stupidity this time... :~(
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 13, 2005
  13. Using dv, it's difficult to see a reason not to dump to computer and
    let scene detection insert markers. You can use or ignore them as
    you prefer. Capture lists are obsolete. Like accurate punch
    in/outs on audio recording. Some oldsters can't come to terms with
    that either :)
    Laurence Payne, Jan 15, 2005
  14. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    That is all very true if all you are doing is cutting and closing. If you
    are re arranging, have more than one take to work with or have scenes out of
    linier order on the tape than you are making work for yourself.
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 15, 2005
  15. Olympiad

    Dave R Guest

    I must be missing something here. Why should a bunch of clips captured by
    scene detection software make more work for myself. I know when I shot a
    particular scene, and each clip is timestamped so I can find it easily. I
    can add notes if I want to. If I re-shoot something, it's right there for
    me, and I can simply discard the wasted shoot.
    Dave R, Jan 15, 2005
  16. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Assuming that a/. the scenes are separate clips and not just ' in/out
    markers', b/. the scenes in and out points are detected correctly c/. that
    you know were everything is and d/. that you don't place everything on the
    time line and then try and edit (which many people seem to do).
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 15, 2005
  17. Yeah, you can work that way if you want. It's a million miles away
    from emulating film reels and bins. But - so what?
    Laurence Payne, Jan 16, 2005
  18. And, also, pen and paper logging only came about because of the limited storage
    capacity of hard drives. In 1999 the recommended hard drive size for
    non-professional work was 25GB and 150GB for professionals which meant disc
    arrays (the world's largest HDD was only around 80GB) so you only captured what
    you thought you needed.

    One of the reasons for the poor factual editing you now see which consists
    mainly of a slide show of different views.

    Fortunately times have changed, just building a large RAID array and firewire
    network for latest project, probably should say hopefully as the 4x160GB drives
    arrive tomorrow.

    Stuart McKears, Jan 16, 2005
  19. Olympiad

    :::Jerry:::: Guest


    Err, so film rushes wasn't logged ?....

    Half the reasoning behind logging is to know what you have to work with and
    how you are going to put it all together.
    :::Jerry::::, Jan 16, 2005
  20. No, film rushes weren't logged, takes were logged during the shoot, that's one
    of the purposes of marking (clapper board). Ideally this should still be the way
    to do it but time=money!!!

    As it was cheaper in documentary work, all reels were rush printed and then each
    rush print reel was physically cut in relation to the camera log and hung in a
    bin. Unusable bits were often physically chucked on the floor (I did) and thrown
    out at the end of the day.

    Sound tapes were often papered as money could be saved by only transferring to
    mag track usable takes.

    I still have the log sheets from various doco films (1970s and 1980s), if
    anybody is interested in seeing what they used to look like, drop me an email.


    PS. Site promo:, select 1970s, bottom photo
    shows the difficult conditions that a film editor had to endure in those days!
    Stuart McKears, Jan 16, 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.