Scene Analyser

So the rushes were logged, just that it was done at the time of shooting,
just as it's often done today (in fact on some shoots the continuity person
does both jobs)......

days!

Hum, a different girl in every reel, to miss quote sailors....

 

A log in video is so that you can locate a scene or take quickly by using the
timecode

You cannot find a scene or take on the rush print (or on the separate mag track)
by looking at the camera log or the sound log. You can find details of the scene
or take by finding the board on the rush print and looking the board up on the
camera/sound log.

This is an very important difference, I've seen many trainees trying
unsuccessfully to locate a scene or take by trying to work out mathematically
where it should be on a reel (40 frames a foot, 24/25 fps, etc).

You could, I suppose, argue that the rushes are "logged" when they are synced,
hung and chinagraphed but only usable material will get this far.

However, most of this is history and purely academic as little is shot on 16mm
these days and, when it is, primary editing is most likely to be done
electronically.

Stuart

www.mckears.com

 

Yes, so what are you trying to argue about ?....

 

They are, yes.

Also correct. The scene starts at the point that I presses record, and
stops when I stopped recording. It's that simple.

Well you have to review your source material anyway. This was one of your
points against using scene detection.

Really? I don't see that many people doing their editing, but that's
obviously a very linear way of editing. Don't know who would do that.

 

What happens if the in / out points aren't correct, do you have to confirm
them pre capture or would you have to re-capture ?

Assuming that the only part you require is small section of that scene...

If people haven't done c/. then d/. tends to follow - if you're going to do
c/. then why not log and pre-plan the edit and what you need ?

 

Sorry, that doesn't make sense, it should have read;
Assuming that the only part you require _isn't just a_ small section of that
scene...

 

I'm not sure what you mean by correct in this context.

A file is created for each clip. Each clip contains the complete contents
of my recording from when I started to when I stopped.

There are no in/out points set within the clip at that stage, so your next
point sort of holds true...

I see where you're going, but it doesn't really matter in these days with
huge discs going cheap.

I can shuffle over a 20 minute clip in seconds to get to my desired in and
out points, and then mark them accordingly. If that's only 1 minute long,
then yes, I've wasted 19 minutes of disc, and capture time. However, the
reality (for me at least) is that nearly all my clips are less than 5
mins, and most are probably less than 2 mins.

Perhaps... depends on the NLE I suppose.

I find it quicker on the PC. I can scrub through hours of footage in a
very short amount of time, which I can't if it's on tape.

I can see your point of view Jerry, but it just doesn't work for me and by
the sounds of it, nor others. Maybe it's an amatuer toy, but if it helps
us do the job more efficiently then it can't be wrong. I think it could
work for pros as well, but I only know a couple and I've never had this
conversation, yet.

 

The point I'm trying to make is, what if there is an intended or unimportant
camera stop in the 'scene' - from what you imply there will be two scenes
and not just the one that a manual / batch capture would produce. I know
it's a rare situation but what I'm talking about is having complete control
of the process.

I can see the temptation, due to cheap large HDD's, in being able to dump
hours of footage to the hard drive and then starting the edit, but I really
can't see how you can get the feel for the footage (especially if there is
more than one take or angle to choose from) if you don't pre-view the
tape(s), and without pre-viewing you can't plan how the 'programme' will be
put together - once you start doing the above it's only a short step to
logging and generating a capture list, either on paper or more likely within
the editor IYSWIM.

 

I was being facetious - a log is usually a record of a sequence of events. A
record cut up with parts discarded, parts used and parts hung up in a different
order is a hardly a log.

Cut and binned work prints are not, at that stage, even a rough cut edit list.
That comes later when you start to fit the bits together (good technical
terminology that, eh!!)

This really leads on to your later post about why people capture complete tapes
onto large hard discs or arrays.

This is just a return to the traditional way of film editing, capture is your
rush print and mag track and your computer is your Steenbeck.

What do I do, start capture and go and have a cup of coffee. Come back, view
captured video and press marker key, sometimes on the fly, sometimes by
stopping, to immediately create a useable material list.

AFAICS, there is absolutely nothing to gain from pen and paper logging. What do
you do sit there with the remote control, run the tape, stop the tape and write
down the in point, run, stop the tape so you can write down the out point and so
forth and then have to enter the capture timecode list into the computer. One
point that occurs to me is, what do you do about non-contiguous timecode?

Also, if you have all your material available, you will produce a better edit. I
know of no editor who can view every shot in a film and declare with absolute
certainty that it will or wont cut/mix/whatever with another shot. One of the
most commonly used phrases in film editing used to be, probably still is,
"Let's try that" - sometimes it won't, sometimes it does and sometimes it's a
bugger me, why didn't we see that before!

Stuart

www.mckears.com

 

Given that I don't tend to edit on the camera[1], each captured clip is
the scene that I recorded, including header and trailer. There is never
an intended (or unintended) stop in the middle. If there was, it would be
a wasted shot, because I'd have a gap! I suppose the only exception to
this would be if I did a time lapse sequence, but my amatuer camera
doesn't really do that very well.

[1] By that I mean that I won't shoot one part of a scene, and then go
straight into another hoping that the cut on the camera is the right one.

 

Very good point. I do that a lot. Some scenes that look good still don't
make the final cut. Others that I didn't think would be used, do make it.

We see the good stuff all the time on the "deleted scenes" section of a
DVD.

 

As you said in a previous message, in film the print that is then cut into
rushes, those that are not needed or just rubbish probably ending up on the
floor, the NLE capture is that point, the rubbish stays on the magnetic tape
and only the good is placed in the ' capture bin' on the HDD.

Other than planning how to put the 'programme' together in the edit,
something that might not be needed if the film has been story boarded but
how many people will have done that at home before going on holiday or
filming little Jimmies birthday party...

What do

Either make a dub and create a new time code or do a manual capture.

Were have I said that possible scenes will not be captured ?

 

No,

a/. I meant intended camera stop, something happens that you have no wish to
film, but that is part of a continuing scene were the camera stop can be
masked later by a 'cut away' shot.

OR

b/. an unimportant camera stop, such as filming from a train or car as it
enters a tunnel and then exits again.

IMO there is no need or point in splitting those scenes into two separate
scenes as it's a simple task to 'cut and replace' [1] the camera stop with
another scene IYSWIM.

Nothing what so ever to do with trying to 'edit on the camera', what ever
you mean by that ?!

[1] even if you need to expand the gap.

 

I do see what you mean. With my method they would be 2 separate clips,
but because of the timestamp on the file name, they would be sequentially
ordered. I'll just drag 2 clips to the timeline instead. Works for me.