Hi--

> I suspect that you come from a "live switching"
> background...;-) As I pointed out, NLE trades
> speed for control accuracy - I would be lost in
> a live-switching environment, but with the process
> described above, I can, at my leisure, consider all
> the camera views for best selection and transition
> point (without needing a six-way split screen view
> to work with - this would diminish my ability to
> check details in the image about to be chosen),
> and I can easily check my results for "rhythm" by
> playing back parts of the edit (and then making
> corrections, as desired). I can also synch. things
> *exactly* to music starts, bell strikes, or
> whatever - and can easily add inset images, which
> I found useful in this project for showing the ring
> exchanges in close-ups within a better overall image
> (things that would be much more difficult with
> live mixing...). I can also correct camera image
> tone/color/sharpness issues more easily with a good
> NLE than live (4 different cameras, needing matching,
> were used), and the set-up is ***FAR*** easier with
> my method than with on location switching - I often
> am guaranteed only one hour before the event for
> setting-up gear, and being a "one man show", that
> would be impossible in the areas I often work in
> if I went live (which I would not do, even if I had
> the time to lay out the gear required for doing it
> on location, or could do it while editing...).
> We have different working method preferences, and
> we should not be debating here the merits of live
> switching vs. computer NLE and "deliberate
> choices" - they have obviously different functions
> and advantages/disadvantages, and these two very
> different approaches do not serve the same purposes
> other than to produce finished videos... I prefer
> NLE for my work, since I work alone - but I still
> want to be able to produce videos more like what
> the big outfits can make with a staff and good
> budget, and I presented a method in an article on
> my web site that is efficient for me for doing this
> (at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/multi-camera.htm).
> I thought others might benefit from my experience
> who want to do the same - but nothing is forcing
> anyone to go this route. If you prefer live
> switching, either on location or during editing,
> stay with it...
> I trust you had fun in Rome!

No, not live switching - that would be ridiculous, if we're talking
about video editing (there wouldn't need to be any editing). No, I
come from an amateur film background. Then I got some video editing
equipment that could control two S-VHS VCRs (Future Video controller).
With this system, you cut much like film, linear editing, cut by cut
as you go.

Yuh, "live-switching"...;-) Almost...;-)

Then you do a sound mix after the main picture editing is
all over with. We shot weddings with two cameras, one front and one
rear. Sometimes we added a third, unmanned camera on the other side of
the couple up front, but that sort of complicated the edit. Anyway,
there is no need to live switch, because two video cameras will stay
in perfect sync with each other throughout the ceremony. All you have
to do for the mix is sync them up at the beginning, then switch as you
go.

Same for NLE, if you are not moving clips around in time...

I tried a brief NLE wedding mix a while back, but it was very
confusing as to how to know how long to stay on a given camera and
when to switch over. I mean like, you have to play the video to see
how it is going, then play the other camera view and see how that
compares, but how do you do that one at a time? Do you hide one video
track while viewing the other? Or do you scrub through the tracks?
I'll re-read your article again, but it must be enormously more
complex with a six camera decision to make.
Gary Eickmeier

See my post, below - it is very easy. Basically, the most-used cameras
are bottom in the stack, least used on top. Previews are done by rolling
back tracks and leaving behind good bits (all tracks can be rolled for
checking). Good bits are integrated, with shaped dissolves or cuts used
(or other transitions, by moving a clip down to 1B) before moving on
in the timeline. Using the film-strip view, you can see on the timeline
all tracks' images, and can see them full-screen during the roll-back.
After a period of time has been edited, that part is previewed as a
whole
to check timings, transition effectiveness, etc. (overall color adjusts,
etc. are added only at the finish, to speed previews; audio is mixed
first
and export/imported as a single track, before picture edits destroy
audio
tracks). Simple, and fast...

>> I covered both the reasons for the high number of cameras,
>> and how the decisions were made in the article - did you
>> read it? ;-) To retell after a selected clip is cut on
>> the right end, the cut end is rolled to the right while
>> watching it in the preview window; when a part of interest
>> is seen, the roll-back is stopped until the rest of the
>> edit catches up with this point, at which time the decision
>> is made to keep or delete this part of this camera's
>> track. This process (and the fact that synch. among the
>> tracks is maintained unless there is a good reason for
>> breaking it) makes it very easy to "keep track" of all
>> the material of interest. The "base" 1 or 2 tracks are
>> the ones of greatest interest and used-time, and these
>> are placed at the bottom of the "stack"); the others are
>> "cutaway" tracks, which get mostly rolled away in the
>> process of editing, revealing the lower tracks. Keeping
>> all but one track above tracks 1A and 1B permits softer
>> "S" dissolves for all tracks, and leaves space for clips
>> to be dropped down to track 1 for other transitions to be
>> used. The whole edit can be done surprisingly quickly,
>> once everything is set up "ready to roll"...;-) BTW, the
>> sound edit is done before anything else and then is
>> consolidated into a single audio track, since some sound
>> used will be missing after the picture editing is
>> finished (the odd sound clips remaining are retained only
>> for resynching purposes, but are removed near the end of
>> the process). Notice that I do not use the dual-window
>> Premiere interface, but use a more timeline-oriented
>> approach (with a single, full-sized, hardware overlayed
>> preview image [with Raptor] that is considerably more
>> useful than the soft, tiny preview images normally used
>> [a good 20" TV supplements this view...]), with all edit
>> decisions being made on the timeline... (See
>> "Premiere Basics for Intuitive Operation Using Timeline
>> Editing", at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/premiere.htm,
>> and "Multi-Camera Editing in Premiere", at
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/multi-camera.htm.)

Rome was fantastic. And the VX2000 was amazing. I am humbled by how
good that camera is. Such sharp, beautiful images, perfect color,
manual control when you need it, and low light capability second to
none.

And people accuse me of being "brand-loyal" when recommending
it.....! ;-) It is a great piece of gear for the price of
lesser gear...

The Colosseum at night - whew. A night time cafe in the street,
complete with strolling guitar singer. All captured as my eyes saw it.
The camera is small enough to take in a carry-on bag on the airplane,
yet gives broadcast quality video and sound.

Some of the lessons I learned were, the autofocus works great most of
the time, but if you have a foreground object that you need to be
focused on, you should go manual because it tends to favor the
background.

If the background is contrasty or the "subject" is small in
the screen...

Also if there are points of light, such as a night scene
with street lamps, you could confuse the autofocus.

It goes from areas with lotsa focus info to areas with none...

This can be hard
to see in the small viewfinder, or even on the LCD screen. Exposure
was great, never washed out the highlights, but there were occasions
when I had to go manual, due to the main subject being smaller than a
darker, larger frame for that subject - such as a keyhole shot.

Yes - good as the auto systems are on the 2000, they cannot perform
"magic"... (it only seems that they do, sometimes...;-).

Overall, I was drooling over the beautiful images I got, images that
will make me look very good when I get this thing all edited. Now I
just need to learn all the tricks I can do with my Matrox and
Premiere. I'm doing some window dubs (copies of all the footage, with
time code supered on it) on VHS right now for my wife, so she can
write the script. Narration should be a snap - just use the camera for
the sound recorder! With a separate mike, of course. I like to shoot
the narrator's lips as he reads, so the editing of the sentences is
easier. I edit the sentence in the preview window, then drop it into
the timeline where it belongs, then get rid of the video.

Back to work - thanks for the note -

Hey, if Paul Tauger had a useable email address posted, you should
send him the above - he is swinging among the 2000, 950, and
900 for travel...

David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http//www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
Hey, take a gander at www.visitithaca.com, too...!