Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
James Messick wrote:
>
> Hail!
Geeez, at least get it right: "Heil!"
James Messick wrote:
>
> Hail!
Geeez, at least get it right: "Heil!"
-
We tested the Nvidia App performance problems — games can run up to 15 percent slower with the app
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:00:17 +0200, Crow
<crow@vacionido.NOSPAM.fslife.co.uk> wrote:
>I figure the editing though, is a completely integral part of my
>project, and I really don't see how anyone else could do that for me?
Editing is fun
It's where you rewrite the story again, very
creative. If Marvel's approach to editing is having a monkey press
some buttons to get out what he wants, I hope he will never find
someone who wants to do his project.
>For me the documentary will only take shape in the editing. If I
>don't do it, then it ceases to be my film. On other projects the
>mileage may vary of course.
Doco's might be very well worth to edit yourself. However, check once
in a while with other people if the edit brings the story across.
>Well the only reason I'm considering NOT buying a laptop, is
>coincidentally because of the editing. I've been hearing good things
>about the Matrox RT.X10/0 as being very useful in speeding up the
>editing process, due to real-time full quality previewing. They are
>PCI cards and I don't know if there's an equivalent type of device
>available for laptops?
With a desktop you're better off making a finished program. You can do
it on a laptop too, but since there are no real-time solutions for a
laptop, you'll always have to wait for the dreaded rendering to
complete.
>Your advice on sticking with one editing system makes a lot of sense.
Depends on whether you want to pursue a career as an editor. If not,
stick with one, so you'll know it front to back after a while. If yes,
learn as many as you can, because you'll never know what you end up
using.
cheers
-martin-
--
filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
Sydney, Australia
"Once people took LSD to make things weird.
Now everything's weird they take Prozac to make it normal."
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:00:17 +0200, Crow
<crow@vacionido.NOSPAM.fslife.co.uk> wrote:
>I figure the editing though, is a completely integral part of my
>project, and I really don't see how anyone else could do that for me?
Editing is fun
It's where you rewrite the story again, verycreative. If Marvel's approach to editing is having a monkey press
some buttons to get out what he wants, I hope he will never find
someone who wants to do his project.
>For me the documentary will only take shape in the editing. If I
>don't do it, then it ceases to be my film. On other projects the
>mileage may vary of course.
Doco's might be very well worth to edit yourself. However, check once
in a while with other people if the edit brings the story across.
>Well the only reason I'm considering NOT buying a laptop, is
>coincidentally because of the editing. I've been hearing good things
>about the Matrox RT.X10/0 as being very useful in speeding up the
>editing process, due to real-time full quality previewing. They are
>PCI cards and I don't know if there's an equivalent type of device
>available for laptops?
With a desktop you're better off making a finished program. You can do
it on a laptop too, but since there are no real-time solutions for a
laptop, you'll always have to wait for the dreaded rendering to
complete.
>Your advice on sticking with one editing system makes a lot of sense.
Depends on whether you want to pursue a career as an editor. If not,
stick with one, so you'll know it front to back after a while. If yes,
learn as many as you can, because you'll never know what you end up
using.
cheers
-martin-
--
filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
Sydney, Australia
"Once people took LSD to make things weird.
Now everything's weird they take Prozac to make it normal."
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:15:32 GMT, Prof Marvel
<garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>Crow wrote:
>I'll tell you another secret: get a stand-up desk. You better, because
>if you don't you'll be sitting down for hours and your health will take
>a hit.
If you follow simple OH&S guidelines, it is recommended to have a
15-minute break after two hours of screenwork, and do a little
exercise in that time.
cheers
-martin-
--
filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
Sydney, Australia
"Once people took LSD to make things weird.
Now everything's weird they take Prozac to make it normal."
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:15:32 GMT, Prof Marvel
<garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>Crow wrote:
>I'll tell you another secret: get a stand-up desk. You better, because
>if you don't you'll be sitting down for hours and your health will take
>a hit.
If you follow simple OH&S guidelines, it is recommended to have a
15-minute break after two hours of screenwork, and do a little
exercise in that time.
cheers
-martin-
--
filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
Sydney, Australia
"Once people took LSD to make things weird.
Now everything's weird they take Prozac to make it normal."
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
Mike Kujbida wrote:
> Prof Marvel wrote:
>
>>huge snip <
>>
>>You're dealing in censorship, pal, and that might be ok in Canada, but
>>here in Usenet, it's not. You've been attacking me for the past week
>>for a host of perceived crimes you say I've committed. I know it's you
>>because when you don't sign your nick your broken English gives you
>>away.
>>
>>In any event you've more than made your case for why no one should
>>ever read or respond to my posts again, so why don't you let people
>>process this information and decide for themselves if they want to
>>honor your approved list of people they should read or not.
>>
>>Do this, and you have my word I'll not respond to anything you post
>>nor try to bully people into not reading your posts.
>>
>>Fair enough?
>>
>>marvel
>
>
>
> I have no idea whether it's me your attacking or someone else as you sent
> the same message 3 different times.
> In any event, I'm not trying to censor you in any way, shape or form.
> All I'm doing is making people aware of your past posting history, just like
> I have with others. It's their choice whether they pay attention to me or
> you.
>
> If you agree to lose the attitude, I for one will be quite happy.
> Some of your comments on this thread have been quite good - but then you
> slip into your old habits again and you lose all credibility.
>
> BTW, where did "I know it's you because when you don't sign your nick your
> broken English gives you away." come from?
> I always sign with "Mike" and I venture to say that my English is far from
> broken.
>
>
> Mike
>
I came here and asked a question about teleprompters. You saw my name in
the header and launched a holy war against me. You destroyed the thread
when you did this, then destroyed every thread I started afterward. My
thread was on-topic a benefit to many and was generating a lot of
valuable information, but such is your selfishness and immaturity you
ignored this and brought everything to a screeching halt so that you
could have your fun.
People know who I am, and if they don't one post or thread from you
would have been enough, so this also makes your net-cop defense a lie.
Your bullying, harassing, censoring tactics are what's wrong with Usenet
not anything you accuse me of doing in the distant past. Moreover, for
all your jumping up and down about my past nothing you've yet cited is
as destructive to this newsgroup as the kind of relentless trolling
you're doing now ... today.
This includes the bully boys you've recruited to help censor me.
Doctor, heal thyself.
prof marvel
Mike Kujbida wrote:
> Prof Marvel wrote:
>
>>huge snip <
>>
>>You're dealing in censorship, pal, and that might be ok in Canada, but
>>here in Usenet, it's not. You've been attacking me for the past week
>>for a host of perceived crimes you say I've committed. I know it's you
>>because when you don't sign your nick your broken English gives you
>>away.
>>
>>In any event you've more than made your case for why no one should
>>ever read or respond to my posts again, so why don't you let people
>>process this information and decide for themselves if they want to
>>honor your approved list of people they should read or not.
>>
>>Do this, and you have my word I'll not respond to anything you post
>>nor try to bully people into not reading your posts.
>>
>>Fair enough?
>>
>>marvel
>
>
>
> I have no idea whether it's me your attacking or someone else as you sent
> the same message 3 different times.
> In any event, I'm not trying to censor you in any way, shape or form.
> All I'm doing is making people aware of your past posting history, just like
> I have with others. It's their choice whether they pay attention to me or
> you.
>
> If you agree to lose the attitude, I for one will be quite happy.
> Some of your comments on this thread have been quite good - but then you
> slip into your old habits again and you lose all credibility.
>
> BTW, where did "I know it's you because when you don't sign your nick your
> broken English gives you away." come from?
> I always sign with "Mike" and I venture to say that my English is far from
> broken.
>
>
> Mike
>
I came here and asked a question about teleprompters. You saw my name in
the header and launched a holy war against me. You destroyed the thread
when you did this, then destroyed every thread I started afterward. My
thread was on-topic a benefit to many and was generating a lot of
valuable information, but such is your selfishness and immaturity you
ignored this and brought everything to a screeching halt so that you
could have your fun.
People know who I am, and if they don't one post or thread from you
would have been enough, so this also makes your net-cop defense a lie.
Your bullying, harassing, censoring tactics are what's wrong with Usenet
not anything you accuse me of doing in the distant past. Moreover, for
all your jumping up and down about my past nothing you've yet cited is
as destructive to this newsgroup as the kind of relentless trolling
you're doing now ... today.
This includes the bully boys you've recruited to help censor me.
Doctor, heal thyself.
prof marvel
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
Prof Marvel wrote:
> Mike Kujbida wrote:
>> Prof Marvel wrote:
>>
>>> huge snip <
>>>
>>> You're dealing in censorship, pal, and that might be ok in Canada,
>>> but here in Usenet, it's not. You've been attacking me for the past
>>> week for a host of perceived crimes you say I've committed. I know
>>> it's you because when you don't sign your nick your broken English
>>> gives you away.
>>>
>>> In any event you've more than made your case for why no one should
>>> ever read or respond to my posts again, so why don't you let people
>>> process this information and decide for themselves if they want to
>>> honor your approved list of people they should read or not.
>>>
>>> Do this, and you have my word I'll not respond to anything you post
>>> nor try to bully people into not reading your posts.
>>>
>>> Fair enough?
>>>
>>> marvel
>>
>>
>>
>> I have no idea whether it's me your attacking or someone else as you
>> sent the same message 3 different times.
>> In any event, I'm not trying to censor you in any way, shape or form.
>> All I'm doing is making people aware of your past posting history,
>> just like I have with others. It's their choice whether they pay
>> attention to me or you.
>>
>> If you agree to lose the attitude, I for one will be quite happy.
>> Some of your comments on this thread have been quite good - but then
>> you slip into your old habits again and you lose all credibility.
>>
>> BTW, where did "I know it's you because when you don't sign your
>> nick your broken English gives you away." come from?
>> I always sign with "Mike" and I venture to say that my English is
>> far from broken.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
>
>
> I came here and asked a question about teleprompters. You saw my name
> in the header and launched a holy war against me. You destroyed the
> thread when you did this, then destroyed every thread I started
> afterward. My thread was on-topic a benefit to many and was
> generating a lot of valuable information, but such is your
> selfishness and immaturity you ignored this and brought everything to
> a screeching halt so that you could have your fun.
>
> People know who I am, and if they don't one post or thread from you
> would have been enough, so this also makes your net-cop defense a lie.
>
> Your bullying, harassing, censoring tactics are what's wrong with
> Usenet not anything you accuse me of doing in the distant past.
> Moreover, for all your jumping up and down about my past nothing
> you've yet cited is as destructive to this newsgroup as the kind of
> relentless trolling you're doing now ... today.
>
> This includes the bully boys you've recruited to help censor me.
>
> Doctor, heal thyself.
>
> prof marvel
" I came here and asked a question about teleprompters."
Instead of doing a simple google groups search and finding the information
yourself?
"You saw my name in the header and launched a holy war against me."
Hardly. I was the 5th one on the teleprompter thread - after you had
already insulted the first guy who responded to you.
"You destroyed the thread when you did this, then destroyed every thread I
started afterward."
No, you did that all by yourself with your whining and complaining.
As far as this particular thread is concerned, you did that in your first
post by saying "One thing about video editing: it's boring as hell ---" and
"My plan for make a great indie is this: I'll shoot it and let some slob who
doesn't have a social life edit it." It went downhill rapidly after that.
"This includes the bully boys you've recruited to help censor me."
In case you haven't noticed, I didn't need to recruit anybody. The regulars
here are very quick to pick out posters who they don't want. BTW, that's
you, just in case you haven't figured it out yet.
Finally, if you are replying to people, try to be a bit more
creative/intelligent than using the exact same post 3 times in a row.
Mike
Prof Marvel wrote:
> Mike Kujbida wrote:
>> Prof Marvel wrote:
>>
>>> huge snip <
>>>
>>> You're dealing in censorship, pal, and that might be ok in Canada,
>>> but here in Usenet, it's not. You've been attacking me for the past
>>> week for a host of perceived crimes you say I've committed. I know
>>> it's you because when you don't sign your nick your broken English
>>> gives you away.
>>>
>>> In any event you've more than made your case for why no one should
>>> ever read or respond to my posts again, so why don't you let people
>>> process this information and decide for themselves if they want to
>>> honor your approved list of people they should read or not.
>>>
>>> Do this, and you have my word I'll not respond to anything you post
>>> nor try to bully people into not reading your posts.
>>>
>>> Fair enough?
>>>
>>> marvel
>>
>>
>>
>> I have no idea whether it's me your attacking or someone else as you
>> sent the same message 3 different times.
>> In any event, I'm not trying to censor you in any way, shape or form.
>> All I'm doing is making people aware of your past posting history,
>> just like I have with others. It's their choice whether they pay
>> attention to me or you.
>>
>> If you agree to lose the attitude, I for one will be quite happy.
>> Some of your comments on this thread have been quite good - but then
>> you slip into your old habits again and you lose all credibility.
>>
>> BTW, where did "I know it's you because when you don't sign your
>> nick your broken English gives you away." come from?
>> I always sign with "Mike" and I venture to say that my English is
>> far from broken.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
>
>
> I came here and asked a question about teleprompters. You saw my name
> in the header and launched a holy war against me. You destroyed the
> thread when you did this, then destroyed every thread I started
> afterward. My thread was on-topic a benefit to many and was
> generating a lot of valuable information, but such is your
> selfishness and immaturity you ignored this and brought everything to
> a screeching halt so that you could have your fun.
>
> People know who I am, and if they don't one post or thread from you
> would have been enough, so this also makes your net-cop defense a lie.
>
> Your bullying, harassing, censoring tactics are what's wrong with
> Usenet not anything you accuse me of doing in the distant past.
> Moreover, for all your jumping up and down about my past nothing
> you've yet cited is as destructive to this newsgroup as the kind of
> relentless trolling you're doing now ... today.
>
> This includes the bully boys you've recruited to help censor me.
>
> Doctor, heal thyself.
>
> prof marvel
" I came here and asked a question about teleprompters."
Instead of doing a simple google groups search and finding the information
yourself?
"You saw my name in the header and launched a holy war against me."
Hardly. I was the 5th one on the teleprompter thread - after you had
already insulted the first guy who responded to you.
"You destroyed the thread when you did this, then destroyed every thread I
started afterward."
No, you did that all by yourself with your whining and complaining.
As far as this particular thread is concerned, you did that in your first
post by saying "One thing about video editing: it's boring as hell ---" and
"My plan for make a great indie is this: I'll shoot it and let some slob who
doesn't have a social life edit it." It went downhill rapidly after that.
"This includes the bully boys you've recruited to help censor me."
In case you haven't noticed, I didn't need to recruit anybody. The regulars
here are very quick to pick out posters who they don't want. BTW, that's
you, just in case you haven't figured it out yet.
Finally, if you are replying to people, try to be a bit more
creative/intelligent than using the exact same post 3 times in a row.
Mike
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
Jack Slopehead wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:05:14 GMT, Prof Marvel
> <garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>and your response helped in what way? Nothing like a passive
>>>agressive troll.
>>>
>>
>>You're dealing in censorship, pal, and that might be ok in Canada, but
>>here in Usenet, it's not. You've been attacking me for the past week for
>>a host of perceived crimes you say I've committed. I know it's you
>>because when you don't sign your nick your broken English gives you away.
>
>
>>marvel
>
>
>
> you aren't too bright, Marvel boy. I'm not from Canada. Make sure
> you know who you're replying to instead of sending out trolling
> responses without thinking first. It makes you look like more of an
> idiot than you already are.
>
> Fair enough? Gimp.
>
I came here and asked a question about teleprompters. You saw my name in
the header and launched a holy war against me. You destroyed the thread
when you did this, then destroyed every thread I started afterward. My
thread was on-topic a benefit to many and was generating a lot of
valuable information, but such is your selfishness and immaturity you
ignored this and brought everything to a screeching halt so that you
could have your fun.
People know who I am, and if they don't one post or thread from you
would have been enough, so this also makes your net-cop defense a lie.
Your bullying, harassing, censoring tactics are what's wrong with Usenet
not anything you accuse me of doing in the distant past. Moreover, for
all your jumping up and down about my past nothing you've yet cited is
as destructive to this newsgroup as the kind of relentless trolling
you're doing now ... today.
This includes the bully boys you've recruited to help censor me.
Doctor, heal thyself.
prof marvel
Jack Slopehead wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:05:14 GMT, Prof Marvel
> <garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>and your response helped in what way? Nothing like a passive
>>>agressive troll.
>>>
>>
>>You're dealing in censorship, pal, and that might be ok in Canada, but
>>here in Usenet, it's not. You've been attacking me for the past week for
>>a host of perceived crimes you say I've committed. I know it's you
>>because when you don't sign your nick your broken English gives you away.
>
>
>>marvel
>
>
>
> you aren't too bright, Marvel boy. I'm not from Canada. Make sure
> you know who you're replying to instead of sending out trolling
> responses without thinking first. It makes you look like more of an
> idiot than you already are.
>
> Fair enough? Gimp.
>
I came here and asked a question about teleprompters. You saw my name in
the header and launched a holy war against me. You destroyed the thread
when you did this, then destroyed every thread I started afterward. My
thread was on-topic a benefit to many and was generating a lot of
valuable information, but such is your selfishness and immaturity you
ignored this and brought everything to a screeching halt so that you
could have your fun.
People know who I am, and if they don't one post or thread from you
would have been enough, so this also makes your net-cop defense a lie.
Your bullying, harassing, censoring tactics are what's wrong with Usenet
not anything you accuse me of doing in the distant past. Moreover, for
all your jumping up and down about my past nothing you've yet cited is
as destructive to this newsgroup as the kind of relentless trolling
you're doing now ... today.
This includes the bully boys you've recruited to help censor me.
Doctor, heal thyself.
prof marvel
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
Jack Slopehead wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:06:56 GMT, Prof Marvel
> <garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Fright wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hey Marvel How'd you ever become such a dumb a*s?
>>>
>>>Just because you don't enjoy editing doesn't make it "boring as hell".
>>>I've been doing it for over 20 years and still love to edit. The major
>>>difference between now and when I started is that I produce now as well.
>>>All the better.
>>>
>>>I guess you are as good a screen writer as you were an editor as I see
>>>your name on so many movie credits. Thanks for the sending a credibility
>>>flare for us all to see and appreciate!
>>>
>>>bill
>>
>>
>>We're weren't talking about wedding photography.
>>
>>prof marvel
>>
>
>
> your lack of anything useful to say leads us to believe otherwise.
I came here and asked a question about teleprompters. You saw my name in
the header and launched a holy war against me. You destroyed the thread
when you did this, then destroyed every thread I started afterward. My
thread was on-topic a benefit to many and was generating a lot of
valuable information, but such is your selfishness and immaturity you
ignored this and brought everything to a screeching halt so that you
could have your fun.
People know who I am, and if they don't one post or thread from you
would have been enough, so this also makes your net-cop defense a lie.
Your bullying, harassing, censoring tactics are what's wrong with Usenet
not anything you accuse me of doing in the distant past. Moreover, for
all your jumping up and down about my past nothing you've yet cited is
as destructive to this newsgroup as the kind of relentless trolling
you're doing now ... today.
This includes the bully boys you've recruited to help censor me.
Doctor, heal thyself.
prof marvel
Jack Slopehead wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:06:56 GMT, Prof Marvel
> <garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Fright wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hey Marvel How'd you ever become such a dumb a*s?
>>>
>>>Just because you don't enjoy editing doesn't make it "boring as hell".
>>>I've been doing it for over 20 years and still love to edit. The major
>>>difference between now and when I started is that I produce now as well.
>>>All the better.
>>>
>>>I guess you are as good a screen writer as you were an editor as I see
>>>your name on so many movie credits. Thanks for the sending a credibility
>>>flare for us all to see and appreciate!
>>>
>>>bill
>>
>>
>>We're weren't talking about wedding photography.
>>
>>prof marvel
>>
>
>
> your lack of anything useful to say leads us to believe otherwise.
I came here and asked a question about teleprompters. You saw my name in
the header and launched a holy war against me. You destroyed the thread
when you did this, then destroyed every thread I started afterward. My
thread was on-topic a benefit to many and was generating a lot of
valuable information, but such is your selfishness and immaturity you
ignored this and brought everything to a screeching halt so that you
could have your fun.
People know who I am, and if they don't one post or thread from you
would have been enough, so this also makes your net-cop defense a lie.
Your bullying, harassing, censoring tactics are what's wrong with Usenet
not anything you accuse me of doing in the distant past. Moreover, for
all your jumping up and down about my past nothing you've yet cited is
as destructive to this newsgroup as the kind of relentless trolling
you're doing now ... today.
This includes the bully boys you've recruited to help censor me.
Doctor, heal thyself.
prof marvel
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
"Prof Marvel" <garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:10_xc.72744$DG4.62997@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
> And you should know you, Kujibuda and Bill Fright have no more chance of
> stopping me from posting here as those terrorists who put bombs on
> school buses have of stopping freedom of religion.
>
> prof marvel
And, now I join most of the other regulars who have already plonked your
'contributions', which is why you are not hearing from them any more.
Steve King
"Prof Marvel" <garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:10_xc.72744$DG4.62997@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
> And you should know you, Kujibuda and Bill Fright have no more chance of
> stopping me from posting here as those terrorists who put bombs on
> school buses have of stopping freedom of religion.
>
> prof marvel
And, now I join most of the other regulars who have already plonked your
'contributions', which is why you are not hearing from them any more.
Steve King
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:31:03 +1000, mheffels@newessguy.com wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:00:17 +0200, Crow
><crow@vacionido.NOSPAM.fslife.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I figure the editing though, is a completely integral part of my
>>project, and I really don't see how anyone else could do that for me?
>Editing is fun It's where you rewrite the story again, very
>creative. I
It's certainly a matter of taste and talent. Some people do it all in
the studio. In music, you have recordings that essentially don't exist
outside of the studio, other than in small snippets recorded
separately. In film, that's what George Lucas is doing these days. On
the other hand, there are still albums recorded essentially as "live
in the studio"; for some kinds of music, that's still the standard
(Jazz combos, for example). It's not a crime to say this isn't the
most important element of your film.
In fact, watch the credits for any major release. There are 100's of
people involved, each doing a different job. My credits roll wouldn't
have half of those jobs, and you'd find me doing many of those that
still exist, but I don't have to do everything to make an independent
film -- what's your scale.
>If Marvel's approach to editing is having a monkey press
>some buttons to get out what he wants, I hope he will never find
>someone who wants to do his project.
Of course, if you don't do the editing yourself, you've lost that
level of control. I believe every professional director is deeply
involved in the "cutting room" process these days, and has been, well,
since the days when there really was a cutting room. That doesn't mean
a trusted partner can't do the job, but I agree -- if you assume a
monkey can do it, and let the monkey do it, you'll have a film that
looks like it was editing by a monkey. And directed by a baboon...
>>For me the documentary will only take shape in the editing. If I
>>don't do it, then it ceases to be my film. On other projects the
>>mileage may vary of course.
>Doco's might be very well worth to edit yourself. However, check once
>in a while with other people if the edit brings the story across.
The edit brings the story across, at least in my experience. For
example, on my film "The Deathbed Vigil and other tales of digital
angst", I shot over six hours of 8mm video; some fairly random stuff
(about the end of Commodore, Inc.). Without the editing, and
particularly, graphics added in the editing, there simply was no story
to tell. Much of the video, in this case, was an end result; I
couldn't actually tell the whole story in video, it had been happening
for about three years (the process of C= going from a billion dollar
company to $350 million in the red, the management shakeups
responsible, the bad decisions, etc).
I'm starting work on another film (using modern gear from the start)
which is likely to take two years and could literally cover dozens of
hours of DVCAM video. No edit, no story.
And think this is largely the rule for any non-trivial documentary.
Sure, in a sense, any one-day event shoot is also a documentary of
sorts, and you may well be able to get a higher primate to edit your
wedding video and tell the story (in fact, based on many of the 2+
hour edits I've seen sold professionally, this may in fact be a
standard in the wedding industry). That doesn't mean you should.
The reason you're called a director is that it's your film. If you
don't do the edit, how can it still be your film?
Also, in listening to many of the directors' commentaries within my
DVD collection, this hardly limited to documentaries. Professional,
big budget director types shoot the story as storyboarded, but that
doesn't always work as intended, when they view the film assembled.
That's why every DVD has these deleted scenes, and hopefully, the
director telling why they didn't work.
Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
dhaynie@jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
"Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:31:03 +1000, mheffels@newessguy.com wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:00:17 +0200, Crow
><crow@vacionido.NOSPAM.fslife.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I figure the editing though, is a completely integral part of my
>>project, and I really don't see how anyone else could do that for me?
>Editing is fun
It's where you rewrite the story again, very>creative. I
It's certainly a matter of taste and talent. Some people do it all in
the studio. In music, you have recordings that essentially don't exist
outside of the studio, other than in small snippets recorded
separately. In film, that's what George Lucas is doing these days. On
the other hand, there are still albums recorded essentially as "live
in the studio"; for some kinds of music, that's still the standard
(Jazz combos, for example). It's not a crime to say this isn't the
most important element of your film.
In fact, watch the credits for any major release. There are 100's of
people involved, each doing a different job. My credits roll wouldn't
have half of those jobs, and you'd find me doing many of those that
still exist, but I don't have to do everything to make an independent
film -- what's your scale.
>If Marvel's approach to editing is having a monkey press
>some buttons to get out what he wants, I hope he will never find
>someone who wants to do his project.
Of course, if you don't do the editing yourself, you've lost that
level of control. I believe every professional director is deeply
involved in the "cutting room" process these days, and has been, well,
since the days when there really was a cutting room. That doesn't mean
a trusted partner can't do the job, but I agree -- if you assume a
monkey can do it, and let the monkey do it, you'll have a film that
looks like it was editing by a monkey. And directed by a baboon...
>>For me the documentary will only take shape in the editing. If I
>>don't do it, then it ceases to be my film. On other projects the
>>mileage may vary of course.
>Doco's might be very well worth to edit yourself. However, check once
>in a while with other people if the edit brings the story across.
The edit brings the story across, at least in my experience. For
example, on my film "The Deathbed Vigil and other tales of digital
angst", I shot over six hours of 8mm video; some fairly random stuff
(about the end of Commodore, Inc.). Without the editing, and
particularly, graphics added in the editing, there simply was no story
to tell. Much of the video, in this case, was an end result; I
couldn't actually tell the whole story in video, it had been happening
for about three years (the process of C= going from a billion dollar
company to $350 million in the red, the management shakeups
responsible, the bad decisions, etc).
I'm starting work on another film (using modern gear from the start)
which is likely to take two years and could literally cover dozens of
hours of DVCAM video. No edit, no story.
And think this is largely the rule for any non-trivial documentary.
Sure, in a sense, any one-day event shoot is also a documentary of
sorts, and you may well be able to get a higher primate to edit your
wedding video and tell the story (in fact, based on many of the 2+
hour edits I've seen sold professionally, this may in fact be a
standard in the wedding industry). That doesn't mean you should.
The reason you're called a director is that it's your film. If you
don't do the edit, how can it still be your film?
Also, in listening to many of the directors' commentaries within my
DVD collection, this hardly limited to documentaries. Professional,
big budget director types shoot the story as storyboarded, but that
doesn't always work as intended, when they view the film assembled.
That's why every DVD has these deleted scenes, and hopefully, the
director telling why they didn't work.
Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
dhaynie@jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
"Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
Mike Kujbida wrote:
>
> Prof Marvel wrote:
>
>>Mike Kujbida wrote:
>>
>>>Prof Marvel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>huge snip <
>>>>
>>>>You're dealing in censorship, pal, and that might be ok in Canada,
>>>>but here in Usenet, it's not. You've been attacking me for the past
>>>>week for a host of perceived crimes you say I've committed. I know
>>>>it's you because when you don't sign your nick your broken English
>>>>gives you away.
>>>>
>>>>In any event you've more than made your case for why no one should
>>>>ever read or respond to my posts again, so why don't you let people
>>>>process this information and decide for themselves if they want to
>>>>honor your approved list of people they should read or not.
>>>>
>>>>Do this, and you have my word I'll not respond to anything you post
>>>>nor try to bully people into not reading your posts.
>>>>
>>>>Fair enough?
>>>>
>>>>marvel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I have no idea whether it's me your attacking or someone else as you
>>>sent the same message 3 different times.
>>>In any event, I'm not trying to censor you in any way, shape or form.
>>>All I'm doing is making people aware of your past posting history,
>>>just like I have with others. It's their choice whether they pay
>>>attention to me or you.
>>>
>>>If you agree to lose the attitude, I for one will be quite happy.
>>>Some of your comments on this thread have been quite good - but then
>>>you slip into your old habits again and you lose all credibility.
>>>
>>>BTW, where did "I know it's you because when you don't sign your
>>>nick your broken English gives you away." come from?
>>>I always sign with "Mike" and I venture to say that my English is
>>>far from broken.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I came here and asked a question about teleprompters. You saw my name
>>in the header and launched a holy war against me. You destroyed the
>>thread when you did this, then destroyed every thread I started
>>afterward. My thread was on-topic a benefit to many and was
>>generating a lot of valuable information, but such is your
>>selfishness and immaturity you ignored this and brought everything to
>>a screeching halt so that you could have your fun.
>>
>>People know who I am, and if they don't one post or thread from you
>>would have been enough, so this also makes your net-cop defense a lie.
>>
>>Your bullying, harassing, censoring tactics are what's wrong with
>>Usenet not anything you accuse me of doing in the distant past.
>>Moreover, for all your jumping up and down about my past nothing
>>you've yet cited is as destructive to this newsgroup as the kind of
>>relentless trolling you're doing now ... today.
>>
>>This includes the bully boys you've recruited to help censor me.
>>
>>Doctor, heal thyself.
>>
>>prof marvel
>
>
>
>
> " I came here and asked a question about teleprompters."
>
> Instead of doing a simple google groups search and finding the information
> yourself?
There may be rules about this where you come from, but these rules don't
apply here in Usenet. Besides, I did a search on Google, before starting
the thread -- the fact that you assumed I didn't is yet another reason
why what you're doing is all wrong.
This isn't your living room, Kujbida, nor is it some third-world banana
republic. You need to keep these rules you make up about approved Usenet
behavior to yourself.
>
> "You saw my name in the header and launched a holy war against me."
>
> Hardly. I was the 5th one on the teleprompter thread - after you had
> already insulted the first guy who responded to you.
The point is the holy war, not when you decided to launch it. And it's
worth noting that you don't dispute that's what you started against me.
>
> "You destroyed the thread when you did this, then destroyed every thread I
> started afterward."
>
> No, you did that all by yourself with your whining and complaining.
> As far as this particular thread is concerned, you did that in your first
> post by saying "One thing about video editing: it's boring as hell ---" and
> "My plan for make a great indie is this: I'll shoot it and let some slob who
> doesn't have a social life edit it." It went downhill rapidly after that.
You seem to be confused between the difference of expressing an opinion
and an ad hominem attack. I'm allowed to say "video editing is boring as
hell" you're not allowed to destroy a thread because I said it.
I said this in a different newsgroup from the one where I asked the
teleprompter question, but this didn't matter to you. You followed me to
this newsgroup and began harassing me again, calling me names, warning
people what a bum I am, trolling up dirt from achieve. No one was
interested in that. No one else complained when I said editing is boring
-- and I even ignored you at first, but you wouldn't stop. You kept
hounding me, calling me names, telling people not to respond to me.
You took an innocent and peaceful thread and turned it into a
battleground -- Why? Because you think you're on mission from Allah to
protect everybody from me.
Real intelligent way you have of protecting threads from my evil ways,
Kujibuda -- you blow them up.
>
> "This includes the bully boys you've recruited to help censor me."
>
> In case you haven't noticed, I didn't need to recruit anybody. The regulars
> here are very quick to pick out posters who they don't want. BTW, that's
> you, just in case you haven't figured it out yet.
I could be wrong here, Kujibuda, but I think the regulars number more
than you, Jack Slopehead, and Bill Fright. I also think the regulars
don't need you to protect them, think for them, or tell them what to
read. But then again, I could be wrong about this, as I say.
>
> Finally, if you are replying to people, try to be a bit more
> creative/intelligent than using the exact same post 3 times in a row.
>
> Mike
>
As I said, if you want a flame war, start a new thread and I'll give you
all the action you can handle. However, destroying threads in order to
"save" them, Kujibuda, is selfish, immature, and most especially, stupid.
prof marvel
Mike Kujbida wrote:
>
> Prof Marvel wrote:
>
>>Mike Kujbida wrote:
>>
>>>Prof Marvel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>huge snip <
>>>>
>>>>You're dealing in censorship, pal, and that might be ok in Canada,
>>>>but here in Usenet, it's not. You've been attacking me for the past
>>>>week for a host of perceived crimes you say I've committed. I know
>>>>it's you because when you don't sign your nick your broken English
>>>>gives you away.
>>>>
>>>>In any event you've more than made your case for why no one should
>>>>ever read or respond to my posts again, so why don't you let people
>>>>process this information and decide for themselves if they want to
>>>>honor your approved list of people they should read or not.
>>>>
>>>>Do this, and you have my word I'll not respond to anything you post
>>>>nor try to bully people into not reading your posts.
>>>>
>>>>Fair enough?
>>>>
>>>>marvel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I have no idea whether it's me your attacking or someone else as you
>>>sent the same message 3 different times.
>>>In any event, I'm not trying to censor you in any way, shape or form.
>>>All I'm doing is making people aware of your past posting history,
>>>just like I have with others. It's their choice whether they pay
>>>attention to me or you.
>>>
>>>If you agree to lose the attitude, I for one will be quite happy.
>>>Some of your comments on this thread have been quite good - but then
>>>you slip into your old habits again and you lose all credibility.
>>>
>>>BTW, where did "I know it's you because when you don't sign your
>>>nick your broken English gives you away." come from?
>>>I always sign with "Mike" and I venture to say that my English is
>>>far from broken.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I came here and asked a question about teleprompters. You saw my name
>>in the header and launched a holy war against me. You destroyed the
>>thread when you did this, then destroyed every thread I started
>>afterward. My thread was on-topic a benefit to many and was
>>generating a lot of valuable information, but such is your
>>selfishness and immaturity you ignored this and brought everything to
>>a screeching halt so that you could have your fun.
>>
>>People know who I am, and if they don't one post or thread from you
>>would have been enough, so this also makes your net-cop defense a lie.
>>
>>Your bullying, harassing, censoring tactics are what's wrong with
>>Usenet not anything you accuse me of doing in the distant past.
>>Moreover, for all your jumping up and down about my past nothing
>>you've yet cited is as destructive to this newsgroup as the kind of
>>relentless trolling you're doing now ... today.
>>
>>This includes the bully boys you've recruited to help censor me.
>>
>>Doctor, heal thyself.
>>
>>prof marvel
>
>
>
>
> " I came here and asked a question about teleprompters."
>
> Instead of doing a simple google groups search and finding the information
> yourself?
There may be rules about this where you come from, but these rules don't
apply here in Usenet. Besides, I did a search on Google, before starting
the thread -- the fact that you assumed I didn't is yet another reason
why what you're doing is all wrong.
This isn't your living room, Kujbida, nor is it some third-world banana
republic. You need to keep these rules you make up about approved Usenet
behavior to yourself.
>
> "You saw my name in the header and launched a holy war against me."
>
> Hardly. I was the 5th one on the teleprompter thread - after you had
> already insulted the first guy who responded to you.
The point is the holy war, not when you decided to launch it. And it's
worth noting that you don't dispute that's what you started against me.
>
> "You destroyed the thread when you did this, then destroyed every thread I
> started afterward."
>
> No, you did that all by yourself with your whining and complaining.
> As far as this particular thread is concerned, you did that in your first
> post by saying "One thing about video editing: it's boring as hell ---" and
> "My plan for make a great indie is this: I'll shoot it and let some slob who
> doesn't have a social life edit it." It went downhill rapidly after that.
You seem to be confused between the difference of expressing an opinion
and an ad hominem attack. I'm allowed to say "video editing is boring as
hell" you're not allowed to destroy a thread because I said it.
I said this in a different newsgroup from the one where I asked the
teleprompter question, but this didn't matter to you. You followed me to
this newsgroup and began harassing me again, calling me names, warning
people what a bum I am, trolling up dirt from achieve. No one was
interested in that. No one else complained when I said editing is boring
-- and I even ignored you at first, but you wouldn't stop. You kept
hounding me, calling me names, telling people not to respond to me.
You took an innocent and peaceful thread and turned it into a
battleground -- Why? Because you think you're on mission from Allah to
protect everybody from me.
Real intelligent way you have of protecting threads from my evil ways,
Kujibuda -- you blow them up.
>
> "This includes the bully boys you've recruited to help censor me."
>
> In case you haven't noticed, I didn't need to recruit anybody. The regulars
> here are very quick to pick out posters who they don't want. BTW, that's
> you, just in case you haven't figured it out yet.
I could be wrong here, Kujibuda, but I think the regulars number more
than you, Jack Slopehead, and Bill Fright. I also think the regulars
don't need you to protect them, think for them, or tell them what to
read. But then again, I could be wrong about this, as I say.
>
> Finally, if you are replying to people, try to be a bit more
> creative/intelligent than using the exact same post 3 times in a row.
>
> Mike
>
As I said, if you want a flame war, start a new thread and I'll give you
all the action you can handle. However, destroying threads in order to
"save" them, Kujibuda, is selfish, immature, and most especially, stupid.
prof marvel
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
James Messick wrote:
> "Prof Marvel" <garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:AeGxc.7732$ih7.4119@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
>>James Messick wrote:
>>
>>>"Prof Marvel" <garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Mklxc.6054$ih7.152@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't know who you are or what you'r issues are, but if you have a
>>>>beef with me, start a new thread and we'll discuss it.
>>>>
>>>>Very inconsiderate of you to throw your temper tantrum here in a thread
>>>>everyone seems to be enjoying.
>>>>
>>>>marvel
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah. You go trolling for a response and then act all pissy when you get
>>>one.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Well, that's a flat-out lie and I'm calling on it. Cite the post where
>>I'm "trolling for a reponse."
>>
>>A few bullies wanted to incite a lynch-mob mentality and they were quite
>>successful with you, we see.
>>
>>You know, you shouldn't let other people shape your thinking like that.
>>Get the facts before accusing a person of something.
>>
>>Now, cite the post or retract your lie.
>>
>>marvel
>
>
> Nope. I haven't been following this thread and was not familiar with anyone
> named "Professor Marvel" before today. I just read your original post, saw
> you insulting people who edit video (obviously there will be a lot of those
> here) and said to myself "this guy's asking for it." Only after I posted my
> response did I see how much flaming was going on.
>
> I've heard that once a thread begins to deginerate like this that it's only
> a matter of time until someone starts calling his opponent a nazi. Let's
> just say that we've reached that point, as nothing really useful is coming
> from this.
>
> Hail!
>
>
You accuse me of a crime then when asked to show your evidence you try
and duck the issue.
Well, it's not that easy. You accused me of "trolling" now reproduce the
text where I do that or retract the accusation.
prof marvel
James Messick wrote:
> "Prof Marvel" <garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:AeGxc.7732$ih7.4119@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
>>James Messick wrote:
>>
>>>"Prof Marvel" <garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Mklxc.6054$ih7.152@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't know who you are or what you'r issues are, but if you have a
>>>>beef with me, start a new thread and we'll discuss it.
>>>>
>>>>Very inconsiderate of you to throw your temper tantrum here in a thread
>>>>everyone seems to be enjoying.
>>>>
>>>>marvel
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah. You go trolling for a response and then act all pissy when you get
>>>one.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Well, that's a flat-out lie and I'm calling on it. Cite the post where
>>I'm "trolling for a reponse."
>>
>>A few bullies wanted to incite a lynch-mob mentality and they were quite
>>successful with you, we see.
>>
>>You know, you shouldn't let other people shape your thinking like that.
>>Get the facts before accusing a person of something.
>>
>>Now, cite the post or retract your lie.
>>
>>marvel
>
>
> Nope. I haven't been following this thread and was not familiar with anyone
> named "Professor Marvel" before today. I just read your original post, saw
> you insulting people who edit video (obviously there will be a lot of those
> here) and said to myself "this guy's asking for it." Only after I posted my
> response did I see how much flaming was going on.
>
> I've heard that once a thread begins to deginerate like this that it's only
> a matter of time until someone starts calling his opponent a nazi. Let's
> just say that we've reached that point, as nothing really useful is coming
> from this.
>
> Hail!
>
>
You accuse me of a crime then when asked to show your evidence you try
and duck the issue.
Well, it's not that easy. You accused me of "trolling" now reproduce the
text where I do that or retract the accusation.
prof marvel
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
God your a fool. Like I said before, you have absolutely no idea who you
are talking to. If your company is looking to find a "cheap"
teleprompter that says a lot of how low your acceptable level of
equipment is. You keep playing with your Tonka trucks and we'll honk as
we pass you in out Macks.
Later fool.
bill
Prof Marvel wrote:
> Bill Fright wrote:
>
>> This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You are a silly
>> little fool to think you aren't dealing with a few experts in
>> professional broadcast.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> There may be some professionals here, Bill, but you're not one of them.
>
> prof marvel
>
>
>>
>> Prof Marvel wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Fright wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Marvel How'd you ever become such a dumb a*s?
>>>>
>>>> Just because you don't enjoy editing doesn't make it "boring as
>>>> hell". I've been doing it for over 20 years and still love to edit.
>>>> The major difference between now and when I started is that I
>>>> produce now as well. All the better.
>>>>
>>>> I guess you are as good a screen writer as you were an editor as I
>>>> see your name on so many movie credits. Thanks for the sending a
>>>> credibility flare for us all to see and appreciate!
>>>>
>>>> bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We're weren't talking about wedding photography.
>>>
>>> prof marvel
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prof Marvel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Crow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the heads up on the difference between 4 and 6 pin
>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>> cables Joe as I'm new to Firewire. I'm going to pass on Macs as I
>>>>>> have enough to learn with video editing, without learning a new OS.
>>>>>> OS-X is tempting though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cari, what advantage does Windows XP Media Center edition offer for
>>>>>> video editing? They are a bit thin on the ground and probably
>>>>>> expensive if the desktop versions are indicative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Love
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Crow
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing about video editing: it's boring as hell -- and
>>>>> monstrously time-consuming. Screenwriting is a lot more
>>>>> interesting. If you have a creative mind, you'll be wishing you
>>>>> were doing something else. And stick with a windows machine,
>>>>> there's no longer any significant trade-off between it and a mac.
>>>>> Also, a laptop is a better investment -- you're mobile with a
>>>>> laptop. One thing about a laptop, though -- you'll rarely use it on
>>>>> battery.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bought a laptop two years ago, run my business from it, and now
>>>>> wonder why anyone would buy a desk model. There has been nothing --
>>>>> absolutely nothing -- that I haven't been able to do with it. And
>>>>> yes, you'll need an external drive -- so what? They're dirt cheap
>>>>> these days and plug right in.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, don't go bouncing around from editing system to editing
>>>>> system, the way I did. Pick one and stay with it. Basically,
>>>>> they're all the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> My plan for make a great indie is this: I'll shoot it and let some
>>>>> slob who doesn't have a social life edit it.
>>>>>
>>>>> marvel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
God your a fool. Like I said before, you have absolutely no idea who you
are talking to. If your company is looking to find a "cheap"
teleprompter that says a lot of how low your acceptable level of
equipment is. You keep playing with your Tonka trucks and we'll honk as
we pass you in out Macks.
Later fool.
bill
Prof Marvel wrote:
> Bill Fright wrote:
>
>> This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You are a silly
>> little fool to think you aren't dealing with a few experts in
>> professional broadcast.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> There may be some professionals here, Bill, but you're not one of them.
>
> prof marvel
>
>
>>
>> Prof Marvel wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Fright wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Marvel How'd you ever become such a dumb a*s?
>>>>
>>>> Just because you don't enjoy editing doesn't make it "boring as
>>>> hell". I've been doing it for over 20 years and still love to edit.
>>>> The major difference between now and when I started is that I
>>>> produce now as well. All the better.
>>>>
>>>> I guess you are as good a screen writer as you were an editor as I
>>>> see your name on so many movie credits. Thanks for the sending a
>>>> credibility flare for us all to see and appreciate!
>>>>
>>>> bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We're weren't talking about wedding photography.
>>>
>>> prof marvel
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prof Marvel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Crow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the heads up on the difference between 4 and 6 pin
>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>> cables Joe as I'm new to Firewire. I'm going to pass on Macs as I
>>>>>> have enough to learn with video editing, without learning a new OS.
>>>>>> OS-X is tempting though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cari, what advantage does Windows XP Media Center edition offer for
>>>>>> video editing? They are a bit thin on the ground and probably
>>>>>> expensive if the desktop versions are indicative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Love
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Crow
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing about video editing: it's boring as hell -- and
>>>>> monstrously time-consuming. Screenwriting is a lot more
>>>>> interesting. If you have a creative mind, you'll be wishing you
>>>>> were doing something else. And stick with a windows machine,
>>>>> there's no longer any significant trade-off between it and a mac.
>>>>> Also, a laptop is a better investment -- you're mobile with a
>>>>> laptop. One thing about a laptop, though -- you'll rarely use it on
>>>>> battery.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bought a laptop two years ago, run my business from it, and now
>>>>> wonder why anyone would buy a desk model. There has been nothing --
>>>>> absolutely nothing -- that I haven't been able to do with it. And
>>>>> yes, you'll need an external drive -- so what? They're dirt cheap
>>>>> these days and plug right in.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, don't go bouncing around from editing system to editing
>>>>> system, the way I did. Pick one and stay with it. Basically,
>>>>> they're all the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> My plan for make a great indie is this: I'll shoot it and let some
>>>>> slob who doesn't have a social life edit it.
>>>>>
>>>>> marvel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
Steve King wrote:
> "Prof Marvel" <garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:10_xc.72744$DG4.62997@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
>>And you should know you, Kujibuda and Bill Fright have no more chance of
>>stopping me from posting here as those terrorists who put bombs on
>>school buses have of stopping freedom of religion.
>>
>>prof marvel
>
>
> And, now I join most of the other regulars who have already plonked your
> 'contributions', which is why you are not hearing from them any more.
>
> Steve King
>
>
Well, you're still here, so why don't you leave this thread and join the
party in the thread I set up just so I could make you look stupid.
.... which is redundant, but what the hey.
prof marvel
Steve King wrote:
> "Prof Marvel" <garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:10_xc.72744$DG4.62997@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
>>And you should know you, Kujibuda and Bill Fright have no more chance of
>>stopping me from posting here as those terrorists who put bombs on
>>school buses have of stopping freedom of religion.
>>
>>prof marvel
>
>
> And, now I join most of the other regulars who have already plonked your
> 'contributions', which is why you are not hearing from them any more.
>
> Steve King
>
>
Well, you're still here, so why don't you leave this thread and join the
party in the thread I set up just so I could make you look stupid.
.... which is redundant, but what the hey.
prof marvel
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
Bill Fright wrote:
> God your a fool. Like I said before, you have absolutely no idea who you
> are talking to. If your company is looking to find a "cheap"
> teleprompter that says a lot of how low your acceptable level of
> equipment is. You keep playing with your Tonka trucks and we'll honk as
> we pass you in out Macks.
>
> Later fool.
>
> bill
>
I'm talking to you, Bill. And you need to forgot about all that
brown-nosing you like to do and concentrate on me.
I'm here to kick your ass.
prof marvel
> Prof Marvel wrote:
>
>> Bill Fright wrote:
>>
>>> This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You are a silly
>>> little fool to think you aren't dealing with a few experts in
>>> professional broadcast.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There may be some professionals here, Bill, but you're not one of them.
>>
>> prof marvel
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Prof Marvel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Fright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey Marvel How'd you ever become such a dumb a*s?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because you don't enjoy editing doesn't make it "boring as
>>>>> hell". I've been doing it for over 20 years and still love to edit.
>>>>> The major difference between now and when I started is that I
>>>>> produce now as well. All the better.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you are as good a screen writer as you were an editor as I
>>>>> see your name on so many movie credits. Thanks for the sending a
>>>>> credibility flare for us all to see and appreciate!
>>>>>
>>>>> bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We're weren't talking about wedding photography.
>>>>
>>>> prof marvel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Prof Marvel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Crow wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the heads up on the difference between 4 and 6 pin
>>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>>> cables Joe as I'm new to Firewire. I'm going to pass on Macs as I
>>>>>>> have enough to learn with video editing, without learning a new OS.
>>>>>>> OS-X is tempting though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cari, what advantage does Windows XP Media Center edition offer for
>>>>>>> video editing? They are a bit thin on the ground and probably
>>>>>>> expensive if the desktop versions are indicative.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Love
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Crow
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One thing about video editing: it's boring as hell -- and
>>>>>> monstrously time-consuming. Screenwriting is a lot more
>>>>>> interesting. If you have a creative mind, you'll be wishing you
>>>>>> were doing something else. And stick with a windows machine,
>>>>>> there's no longer any significant trade-off between it and a mac.
>>>>>> Also, a laptop is a better investment -- you're mobile with a
>>>>>> laptop. One thing about a laptop, though -- you'll rarely use it
>>>>>> on battery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I bought a laptop two years ago, run my business from it, and now
>>>>>> wonder why anyone would buy a desk model. There has been nothing
>>>>>> -- absolutely nothing -- that I haven't been able to do with it.
>>>>>> And yes, you'll need an external drive -- so what? They're dirt
>>>>>> cheap these days and plug right in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, don't go bouncing around from editing system to editing
>>>>>> system, the way I did. Pick one and stay with it. Basically,
>>>>>> they're all the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My plan for make a great indie is this: I'll shoot it and let some
>>>>>> slob who doesn't have a social life edit it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> marvel
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Bill Fright wrote:
> God your a fool. Like I said before, you have absolutely no idea who you
> are talking to. If your company is looking to find a "cheap"
> teleprompter that says a lot of how low your acceptable level of
> equipment is. You keep playing with your Tonka trucks and we'll honk as
> we pass you in out Macks.
>
> Later fool.
>
> bill
>
I'm talking to you, Bill. And you need to forgot about all that
brown-nosing you like to do and concentrate on me.
I'm here to kick your ass.
prof marvel
> Prof Marvel wrote:
>
>> Bill Fright wrote:
>>
>>> This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You are a silly
>>> little fool to think you aren't dealing with a few experts in
>>> professional broadcast.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There may be some professionals here, Bill, but you're not one of them.
>>
>> prof marvel
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Prof Marvel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Fright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey Marvel How'd you ever become such a dumb a*s?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because you don't enjoy editing doesn't make it "boring as
>>>>> hell". I've been doing it for over 20 years and still love to edit.
>>>>> The major difference between now and when I started is that I
>>>>> produce now as well. All the better.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you are as good a screen writer as you were an editor as I
>>>>> see your name on so many movie credits. Thanks for the sending a
>>>>> credibility flare for us all to see and appreciate!
>>>>>
>>>>> bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We're weren't talking about wedding photography.
>>>>
>>>> prof marvel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Prof Marvel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Crow wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the heads up on the difference between 4 and 6 pin
>>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>>> cables Joe as I'm new to Firewire. I'm going to pass on Macs as I
>>>>>>> have enough to learn with video editing, without learning a new OS.
>>>>>>> OS-X is tempting though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cari, what advantage does Windows XP Media Center edition offer for
>>>>>>> video editing? They are a bit thin on the ground and probably
>>>>>>> expensive if the desktop versions are indicative.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Love
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Crow
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One thing about video editing: it's boring as hell -- and
>>>>>> monstrously time-consuming. Screenwriting is a lot more
>>>>>> interesting. If you have a creative mind, you'll be wishing you
>>>>>> were doing something else. And stick with a windows machine,
>>>>>> there's no longer any significant trade-off between it and a mac.
>>>>>> Also, a laptop is a better investment -- you're mobile with a
>>>>>> laptop. One thing about a laptop, though -- you'll rarely use it
>>>>>> on battery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I bought a laptop two years ago, run my business from it, and now
>>>>>> wonder why anyone would buy a desk model. There has been nothing
>>>>>> -- absolutely nothing -- that I haven't been able to do with it.
>>>>>> And yes, you'll need an external drive -- so what? They're dirt
>>>>>> cheap these days and plug right in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, don't go bouncing around from editing system to editing
>>>>>> system, the way I did. Pick one and stay with it. Basically,
>>>>>> they're all the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My plan for make a great indie is this: I'll shoot it and let some
>>>>>> slob who doesn't have a social life edit it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> marvel
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:31:03 +1000, mheffels@newessguy.com wrote:
>Doco's might be very well worth to edit yourself. However, check once
>in a while with other people if the edit brings the story across.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.
>With a desktop you're better off making a finished program. You can do
>it on a laptop too, but since there are no real-time solutions for a
>laptop, you'll always have to wait for the dreaded rendering to
>complete.
That's what I'm scared of. I don't want to spend too much of the
summer indoors, in front of a screen 🙁
>>Your advice on sticking with one editing system makes a lot of sense.
>Depends on whether you want to pursue a career as an editor. If not,
>stick with one, so you'll know it front to back after a while. If yes,
>learn as many as you can, because you'll never know what you end up
>using.
No plans in that direction currently, but after all, I am looking for
a new career!
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:33:35 GMT, "James Messick"
<jmessick@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>I think you fall into the trap that lots of beginners do, thinking that you
>need to match the quality of 'the professionals'. The content is much more
>important than anything (and a good sound track).
I agree totally. I just want good quality output in case the
documentary turns out to be very interesting. Then I'd want to find
an audience for it, hence the quality issue. I may be being naively
optimistic in thinking this way about a first time venture, but if
something is worth doing, then I think it's worth doing to the best of
ones abilities. And I don't want to place preconceived limits on what
is possible. Until I try, I just won't know.
>As to the original post my thoughts (late as always) are that the speed of
>the computer isn't really that important. Editing is editing and the only
>real difference will be when it comes to the time it takes to render the
>finished product.No matter how fast the computer it will still be a slow
>process. If you want a laptop, then go for it. Just make sure you have the
>necessary ports to connect the camera (Firewire) and an external drive if
>you need one (Firewire or USB 2.0). You can probably get by with a 40 Mb
>drive if you don't load it up with other stuff and 512 Mb or RAM. What are
>you planning to document in your documentary?
>
The query I had was on whether editing cards with real-time preview
functionality, such as the Matrox RT.X10(0), were useful enough to
sway me firmly towards a desktop. Outside of this issue, I'm still
undecided on whether I'd prefer a laptop or desktop.
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 10:09:12 GMT, Prof Marvel
<garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>At your point, I wouldn't even buy a camera. There surely are resources
>in Amsterdam or wherever you are that could get an affordable rental or
>free loan in your hands. You're thinking is like a million other
>newbies. And there's a million expensive vidcams sitting in closets --
>or pawn shops -- collecting dust.
>
>prof marvel
Borrowing or renting a camera sounds good to me.
Until I've interviewed a number of people, I won't know whether I even
like doing that? Then check out the film output afterwards and see if
it's interesting. Then work with a demo of Premiere or similar, and
get a feel for if I enjoy editing. If that goes well then I'd feel
less scared about handing over so much for a camcorder. It does freak
me out a bit, as I've never used one. That's why I'm looking for some
private tuition before I commit to a purchase.
I have someone interested in being the camera operator for the
interviews, but I still want to use the camera myself for other shots
for the documentary. Tuition should be useful.
Love
Crow
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:31:03 +1000, mheffels@newessguy.com wrote:
>Doco's might be very well worth to edit yourself. However, check once
>in a while with other people if the edit brings the story across.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.
>With a desktop you're better off making a finished program. You can do
>it on a laptop too, but since there are no real-time solutions for a
>laptop, you'll always have to wait for the dreaded rendering to
>complete.
That's what I'm scared of. I don't want to spend too much of the
summer indoors, in front of a screen 🙁
>>Your advice on sticking with one editing system makes a lot of sense.
>Depends on whether you want to pursue a career as an editor. If not,
>stick with one, so you'll know it front to back after a while. If yes,
>learn as many as you can, because you'll never know what you end up
>using.
No plans in that direction currently, but after all, I am looking for
a new career!
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:33:35 GMT, "James Messick"
<jmessick@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>I think you fall into the trap that lots of beginners do, thinking that you
>need to match the quality of 'the professionals'. The content is much more
>important than anything (and a good sound track).
I agree totally. I just want good quality output in case the
documentary turns out to be very interesting. Then I'd want to find
an audience for it, hence the quality issue. I may be being naively
optimistic in thinking this way about a first time venture, but if
something is worth doing, then I think it's worth doing to the best of
ones abilities. And I don't want to place preconceived limits on what
is possible. Until I try, I just won't know.
>As to the original post my thoughts (late as always) are that the speed of
>the computer isn't really that important. Editing is editing and the only
>real difference will be when it comes to the time it takes to render the
>finished product.No matter how fast the computer it will still be a slow
>process. If you want a laptop, then go for it. Just make sure you have the
>necessary ports to connect the camera (Firewire) and an external drive if
>you need one (Firewire or USB 2.0). You can probably get by with a 40 Mb
>drive if you don't load it up with other stuff and 512 Mb or RAM. What are
>you planning to document in your documentary?
>
The query I had was on whether editing cards with real-time preview
functionality, such as the Matrox RT.X10(0), were useful enough to
sway me firmly towards a desktop. Outside of this issue, I'm still
undecided on whether I'd prefer a laptop or desktop.
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 10:09:12 GMT, Prof Marvel
<garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>At your point, I wouldn't even buy a camera. There surely are resources
>in Amsterdam or wherever you are that could get an affordable rental or
>free loan in your hands. You're thinking is like a million other
>newbies. And there's a million expensive vidcams sitting in closets --
>or pawn shops -- collecting dust.
>
>prof marvel
Borrowing or renting a camera sounds good to me.
Until I've interviewed a number of people, I won't know whether I even
like doing that? Then check out the film output afterwards and see if
it's interesting. Then work with a demo of Premiere or similar, and
get a feel for if I enjoy editing. If that goes well then I'd feel
less scared about handing over so much for a camcorder. It does freak
me out a bit, as I've never used one. That's why I'm looking for some
private tuition before I commit to a purchase.
I have someone interested in being the camera operator for the
interviews, but I still want to use the camera myself for other shots
for the documentary. Tuition should be useful.
Love
Crow
Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:41:44 GMT, Prof Marvel
<garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
..
>
>
>Lighten up?
>
>If you believe that guy knows what he's doing, nobody has to make you a
>pansy.
>
>prof marvel
Now you're just throwing sentences out there with no thought behind
them. Do I believe I know what I'm doing with regards to what?
Eating? Drinking? Typing?
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:41:44 GMT, Prof Marvel
<garee_remove_@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
..
>
>
>Lighten up?
>
>If you believe that guy knows what he's doing, nobody has to make you a
>pansy.
>
>prof marvel
Now you're just throwing sentences out there with no thought behind
them. Do I believe I know what I'm doing with regards to what?
Eating? Drinking? Typing?
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
News Intel terminates x86S initiative — unilateral quest to de-bloat x86 instruction set comes to an end- Started by Admin
- Replies: 28
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Latest posts
-
-
Question Issues with Windows 11 loading when I try to upgrade the RAM to 64GB ?- Latest: Unolocogringo
-
-
Question PC shuts off after 5 seconds, but stays on if RAM sticks are removed ?- Latest: SkyNetRising
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram