Shooting for editing

[RichardJ]

This is really a trawl for ideas.

Most "average" camcorder users (and all beginners!) will try to shoot on the camcorder what they expect to watch - i.e. compose the finished result on the camcorder.

We "enlightened souls" know that the finished result only comes from editing raw footage. There is thus no need for the camcorder shots to compose anything directly watchable.

So if you know you are going to edit, you can shoot differently. I'm interested in how people approach their use of the camera when they know they are going to edit the result, not show it to anyone directly. E.g. you can afford to overrun your intended shot, both start and end, because you will trim it.

What other "shoot for editing" techniques are in use out there?

------------------
Richard Jones

[Dave Wilson]

One thing I have used is this: One thing I intend to edit is brass band playing in a street. I recorded the whole tune from start to finish to get the audio on tape. While recording I just moved from one person to another with different angles, closeups etc. Then I shot some crowd reactions in the next song with the intention to play the song and cut in crowd reactions when I'm moving the camera to a new shot. But I'm probably saying something you knew already right? http://www.safety-online-internet.com/host/computervideo/ubb/smile.gif

------------------

Dave Wilson
=================================================
IAM Carlisle group webmaster
http://www.iam.org.uk/groups/carlisle
-------------------------------------------------
email me at home: dave@mybit.demon.co.uk
visit my website: http://www.mybit.demon.co.uk
email me at work: dave_wilson@albriw.com
=================================================

[Christian Lett]

Richard,

I always compose a shooting script based on (very) rough storyboards so that I have an idea what to shoot. Depending on the scene, I might shoot footage for 3 or 4 times the actual scene length, knowing that it will be edited.

For example, if shooting a conversation between two people, there are 3 basic camera positions: 2-shot, Subject A over subject B's shoulder and Subject B over subject A's shoulder. Already 3 times the length of the scene.
We've got access to 3 DV cameras so this can be achieved in one take (providing the actors don't screw up) although in my last film, we only had one camera.
Add to this some other shots (Extreme long shot showing surroundings, inserts, reactions, etc) and you've got a host of shots for the editor to use.

Then it's up to the editor. 99% of the time, more than half of the shots will be used because a scene with no cuts can become boring to watch (and is more like watching a play at the theatre than a movie). However, in THE USUAL SUSPECTS, one scene was left as a single wide-shot (the conversation between Keaton and Kint in Keaton's apartment) and it works great. Compare that with one conversation scene in ENEMY OF THE STATE where there are at least six shots cut together. I suppose it depends on the film but I doubt Bryan Singer shot only the wide-shot for that scene.

I like to shoot enough so that the editor will be able to use their own creative ideas but not too much so that it at least looks like I know what I'm doing http://www.safety-online-internet.com/host/computervideo/ubb/wink.gif Seriously, shooting too much can be a sign of inexperience and there will be times when I do this because of my inexpereince (I'm just a beginner learning the trade in my spare time) but I'm becoming more decisive with the more experience I have.

Fact is, dispite the fact that they're the most expensive consumer recording medium, DV tapes are still cheap when you consider the quality so overrunning a shot isn't really such a problem, especially comparing the price to film stock! The argument for keeping things tight is that it makes you more disciplined for when (and if) you make the transition to 35mm.

This is a good question and I look forward to hearing what other people have to say.



------------------
Christian J. Lett
clett@nationalexpress.co.uk

[Roger Maytum]

I tend to shoot fairly tight! This makes the editing that much easier to control. I find that I need a fairly tight script, otherwise I lack discipline. I'm currently shooting a song by our local choir and like Dave, I like to capture all of the audio and then cut in as required. I would get in a terrible mess if I shot too much footage. That said - my shooting ratio is probably 6 to 1 or higher!

[Unicorn]

Depends a lot on what you're shooting. For drama work I have a script, work out a storyboard beforehand and make sure I have at least two shots covering every line of the script because inevitably when I get to editing I find a problem with a shot which we didn't notice while shooting and have to use another shot to cover for it.

For documentary work I have at least a rough script and a pretty good idea of what I want; but there are always unexpected events which need quick shooting decisions. That's one reason I prefer to run my own camera, as it's mostly a question of getting as much interesting footage as possible with cutaways and angle changes to ensure I can cut easily where I decide to; you should be editing the scene in your head as you're filming and working out what you need to fit it together.

Another trick I've found useful for documentaries is to record PA announcements and the like, as you can lay them over a montage of shots and give exposition to the audience without having to drop back to a boring old voiceover. Often audio is more important than video.

As for long shots, they're not a problem if there's something interesting happening in front of the camera. One reason Hollywood cuts conversations so fast is because they tend to throw in lots of slow, boring, unneccesary expositional dialog to ensure that absolutely anyone watching the movie will understand it, and they have to pretend something exciting is going on.

Otherwise, make sure you get good audio, beware of crossing the line, and try to get close shots of whatever 'action' is going on, rather than just wide shots from a distance. Too many amateur videos I see have noisy audio which changes from shot to shot, stay a long way from whatever they're filming, and continuously zoom in and out while they're shooting.

[miker]

One of the best things is that when you're directing a drama you can shout directions at your actors, knowing that the soundtrack, too, will be edited.

[Chad]

A lot of the editing I have been doing recently has relied on a lot of footage that has been filmed by contributers. This meant that for some of the footage I didn't have all the shots I would have liked, so I cheat! I will go out with my cam enlist what help I need find a location to shot and recreate the shots I need. I wasn't sure that it would work (lighting problems and such) but a bit of tweaking in MSP and it was fine.

Not the most professional of techniques but it works!

Chad!

[Robert Young]

If you are producing a music video, do your audience a favour and don't capture the sound on video, except as a guide for editing purposes. Record the performance on a seperate hi-quality recording medium whilst you shoot the video, or alternatively record the music, then play it back whilst your musicians mime along with it, then dub it on later in your editing package.

Reason: all but the very best camcorders have a compressor/limiter in the audio hardware which enormously boosts the signal when there is silence and compresses the signal when sound exceeds a relatively low threshold. The result is an extremely un-natural (and in my view totally naff) pumped up sound which does not produce acceptable quality. This kind of sound system is designed for strictly amateur use.

The camcorder makers are nearly all guilty of this ludicrous approach to sound, which is just about ok for ambient street sounds and the occasional interview but no good at all for music - if you want quality.

Robert Young

[RayL]

Richard
For live music recording I record multi-camera. Until this year I was doing a live video mix in the concert hall (and a live stereo sound mix at the same time) and recording the result on to a VCR. With the lower costs of hard disk space I now record each camera on a separate VCR (but all VCR's have the same sound track). At the edit all the camera tracks are laid on the Prem 4.2 Timeline and sync'd using the sound tracks. The video then cut using Razor At Edit Line and Enable.

Not having to do a live vision mix on the night gives me more freedom to set up shots and get in close for facial expressions, instrumental technique, etc.

Ray Liffen

[RichardJ]

Some good ideas here!

I definitely agree with the last two points. I find it disappointing how little attention is paid to sound on the majority of camcorders (I also think built-in stereo mics are a waste of space - I always use a directional mono which one is far better, but that's another topic).

I actually did a multi-camera + sound stage-performance video a couple of years ago, almost exactly the way Ray describes. It's a technique that works really well with digital editing. It was the basis for a couple or articles in CV magazine (March/April 88 I think), which will go up on my Web site when I get 5 minutes http://www.safety-online-internet.com/host/computervideo/ubb/smile.gif

I like Chad's cheat shots! I've done similar things by making fillers from otherwise junk shots of the same session, but not gone out and re-shot the cheats - nice one.

Dave's technique with the band is nice too. In fact it strikes me as a good approach to a lot of documentary-style shooting, so that you can get continuity of sound over which you can cut various video shots, many of which don't need sound sync.

I don't do drama and scripted stuff, but I'll try and remember those ideas if I ever get into it.

It's interesting that many of the comments highlight the importance of sound in the video. IMO sound is a lot more important than many people realise, and ironically one of the biggest strengths of digital video editing is the power it gives you to manipulate the audio.

Good stuff - keep it coming!

------------------
Richard Jones

[Tarun]

We only seem to notice the attention to audio
in fiction work, Documentries try to get away with atrocious audio. With almost unlimited audio tracks which non-linear-digital editing provides, one can recreate atmosphere even in documentaries with judicious use of sound effects, foley or location sound. Think of a scene without pictures and work out the soundscape of the scene. Don't just depend on the unintentional location sound which your camera gives you, Record some footage with specific intention of later audio use. Use you tape recorder to collect sound.
And yes, most of us cut to music but what about cutting to spoken/non musical sounds.
Try always not to cut pictue and audio at the same cut point. Split, audio or video over previous shot, your cut shall be smoother and more dramatic.

this is the forum to visit after all the hard drives have failed....

[Swan Rose]

My first time on this BB but impressed by amount of good stuff coming out of it. Filming to Edit is crucial. The old saying "if you aint shot it you can't edit it" is absolutely true. My approach when shooting on holiday (where conceptsm of storyboards and scripts are generally left at home deliberately)is to have a general plan of wyhat the video is to be about - in other words what will be the key locations and subjects. Then milk every one for what it's worth. Grab a choice of wide establishing shots; medium shots to show what's going on; and close-ups tom provide cut-aways and cut-ins. And, of course keep in mind ACTION/REACTION! If something's going on, then sure as hell someone else is watching it and reacting to it. As to shot sizes and angles, I recommend a great book by Roy Thompson called "Grammar of the Edit" which is one of the Media Manual series form the Focal Press. Roy Thompson suggests that for best visual flow you must consider a change of size or angle of shot at each edit point. He does another book called "Grammar of the Shot". Both really good basic books for beginners. Hope that helps!

------------------
David at Swan Rose

[wildlink]

I agree with what others have said and especially the audio side - when filming with a single camera, get the audio separately so the track is continuous and there are no interruptions when filming cutaways.

We film a lot of 'unique events' - situations where you can't stop and start again - such as veterinary surgery, animal relocations and darting etc.
Our general techniques include:
Filming establishing shots to introduce a location or activity;
Plenty of cutaways - some of these can be staged afterwards if you lack enough cameras;
Use radio mics to record conversations during activity - great during surgery where the vet can explain the details whilst moving around and extra sound-men would get in the way;
Get participants to explain their actions/work in progress rather than interviewing afterwards (not always possible of course);
ALWAYS record wildtrack audio.

Additionally, much of our filming has to be remote - especially of animal behaviour. We use remote cameras where possible (like the birth of lion cubs) but other scenes are simply filmed by setting up cameras and walking away. Using three or four cameras we can get close ups and wide field shots and cut together later. Obviously much of the footage is discarded during editing....but there is often no other way to get the shots you need.
Another variation on that theme is placement of a camera in a position to capture a single action. An example was burying a consumer camcorder in front of a travel cage to film the moment a lion was released. Being able to cut-in that short sequence to the main camera work added great impact - and because the content was interesting, the lack of quality could be overlooked.

David.

[Christian Lett]

About the sound: We always use an external mic (AKG C-1000S - good quality vocal mic, semi-directional http://www.safety-online-internet.com/host/computervideo/ubb/smile.gif , about £140) plugged into the camera. That way, the sound quality is greatly improved, we can use a rycote windjammer (very effective) and it can be boom operated (good for dialogue).
Even when shooting a music video, we used the mic to pick up sound from the monitor speakers - the music had been prerecorded and the wild sound was only used as a sync guide during editing. Minidisc was used as a playback device there.

For multi-camera setups, we'll probably shoot wild sound using the cameras' in-built mics (again as a sync track) and record the actual sound onto a minidisc or dat machine. It will take a little bit of patience to synchronise the dialogue but will be much better than having cable runs to each camera.

Any other suggestions on this topic???



------------------
Christian J. Lett
clett@nationalexpress.co.uk

[Colin Barrett]

A good technique for learning how to construct a sequence in the edit is to take a pile of storyboard cards and shuffle them up. Then lay them onto a table and - like a game of patience - try and sort them into a meaningful sequence. Forget about the audio implications at this stage - treat it as a mute movie. What's interesting is that two people will come up with differing sequences using even the same visuals.

It's a technique that I've used for several years when I've been running training workshops, and it never ceases to impress. The users then have a better basis to tell a story in (a) shots and (b) sequences when shooting a video movie. It's a way of learning about editing, too - before sitting at the edit system. It proves that there's more to editing than the hardware.

Colin Barrett
Freelance video producer and contributor to Computer Video magazine