is there a 'show your video' thread?
Discussion
I'd love a thread on here where I could get ideas, information and more on video making, from planning, through filming, then onto editing, publishing and finally promoting.
YouTube is OK but I could do with more help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFSMYJ9OaH4
15,000 hits and counting.
YouTube is OK but I could do with more help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFSMYJ9OaH4
15,000 hits and counting.
Derek Smith said:
I'd love a thread on here where I could get ideas, information and more on video making, from planning, through filming, then onto editing, publishing and finally promoting.
See if there's a film-making club near you. I go to my local one sometimes (more for the social aspect) and they often have technical talks, competitions, visiting speakers and so on.As for 'promoting' - is this a hobby or do you want to make money out of it?
I'm playing around with timelapse rather than straight video.
Bought all the gear, mostly it doesnt get used, I've found it hard to balance Tl and stills and carry all the gear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5a_UGDidFg
Bought all the gear, mostly it doesnt get used, I've found it hard to balance Tl and stills and carry all the gear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5a_UGDidFg
leggly said:
I would post but most of mine are just plain boring at the moment 
I'm very confident I could out boring you with mine I'm very much at the poorer end of the scale and have started to look at Aliexpress for cheap sliders and steadycams. For the amount I get to play its justifiable for me to go cheap and then update when needed.
I video my lad's matches for his club. I do the occasional 'special' for the club but the director of rugby doesn't want the videos published as the opposition could plan their tactics accordingly.
A previous club he played for were less restrictive, probably as teams used to send observers to matches.
Here's a video from 2010. I've improved a bit on editing since. At 3.20 there's one of the best individual tries I've seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlPpUvIwwkw
A previous club he played for were less restrictive, probably as teams used to send observers to matches.
Here's a video from 2010. I've improved a bit on editing since. At 3.20 there's one of the best individual tries I've seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlPpUvIwwkw
I'm doing 12 short aerial films (one a month - each with a different bit of music) to edit together into a single 20 minute 'Year in Torridon' film.
Due to the nature of the footage it's not exactly edited like 'Hot Fuzz'!
Still. It is what it is.
Here's last months: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwYremF0Q9s
Due to the nature of the footage it's not exactly edited like 'Hot Fuzz'!
Still. It is what it is.
Here's last months: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwYremF0Q9s
Edited by GetCarter on Monday 4th April 14:13
Half the issue with video is the same as with photography. What is the reason for doing it?
If you can convey the same moods and messages with a still as you can with video there isn't much reason to do video given the huge extra cost in doing so at each step of shooting > editing > final outputs.
A danger is just using moving images because it makes dull subjects and dull things look more interesting because it's a bit of a novelty, where a really nice photo could actually be better if done really well.
Really video is great at telling a story. If I can't see a journey or something unfolding during this temporal image experience then it's just a waste *imo*
Just like a still image can tell a story, a video needs to REALLY tell a story... not just look good.
If you can convey the same moods and messages with a still as you can with video there isn't much reason to do video given the huge extra cost in doing so at each step of shooting > editing > final outputs.
A danger is just using moving images because it makes dull subjects and dull things look more interesting because it's a bit of a novelty, where a really nice photo could actually be better if done really well.
Really video is great at telling a story. If I can't see a journey or something unfolding during this temporal image experience then it's just a waste *imo*
Just like a still image can tell a story, a video needs to REALLY tell a story... not just look good.
Mr Whippy said:
Half the issue with video is the same as with photography. What is the reason for doing it?
If you can convey the same moods and messages with a still as you can with video there isn't much reason to do video given the huge extra cost in doing so at each step of shooting > editing > final outputs.
A danger is just using moving images because it makes dull subjects and dull things look more interesting because it's a bit of a novelty, where a really nice photo could actually be better if done really well.
Really video is great at telling a story. If I can't see a journey or something unfolding during this temporal image experience then it's just a waste *imo*
Just like a still image can tell a story, a video needs to REALLY tell a story... not just look good.
You could use the same argument to ditch poetry as prose is so much easier. Then there's painting. If you can convey the same moods and messages with a still as you can with video there isn't much reason to do video given the huge extra cost in doing so at each step of shooting > editing > final outputs.
A danger is just using moving images because it makes dull subjects and dull things look more interesting because it's a bit of a novelty, where a really nice photo could actually be better if done really well.
Really video is great at telling a story. If I can't see a journey or something unfolding during this temporal image experience then it's just a waste *imo*
Just like a still image can tell a story, a video needs to REALLY tell a story... not just look good.
If photography is an art form then so is video, and if it is art there's overwhelming reason to do it.
I agree.
But you need to do it well both as a technical competency and a creative competency.
Creativity with video expects a stronger story telling or message delivery thought process though imo.
Anyone can take a technically competent image, but would you have it as a desktop background for a year?
Anyone can do technically competent video, but would you watch it every day for the rest of the year?
If you're watching these videos but not wanting to download them or bookmark them to watch again, then are they good videos?
But you need to do it well both as a technical competency and a creative competency.
Creativity with video expects a stronger story telling or message delivery thought process though imo.
Anyone can take a technically competent image, but would you have it as a desktop background for a year?
Anyone can do technically competent video, but would you watch it every day for the rest of the year?
If you're watching these videos but not wanting to download them or bookmark them to watch again, then are they good videos?
Mr Whippy said:
I agree.
But you need to do it well both as a technical competency and a creative competency.
Creativity with video expects a stronger story telling or message delivery thought process though imo.
Anyone can take a technically competent image, but would you have it as a desktop background for a year?
Anyone can do technically competent video, but would you watch it every day for the rest of the year?
If you're watching these videos but not wanting to download them or bookmark them to watch again, then are they good videos?
Not quite sure what you are saying Mr W.But you need to do it well both as a technical competency and a creative competency.
Creativity with video expects a stronger story telling or message delivery thought process though imo.
Anyone can take a technically competent image, but would you have it as a desktop background for a year?
Anyone can do technically competent video, but would you watch it every day for the rest of the year?
If you're watching these videos but not wanting to download them or bookmark them to watch again, then are they good videos?
Some photos are good, some videos are good. Neither stay on our computers for long. A good photo might stay as a desktop for a year, but nobody is going to watch a video every day for a year. I write music for a living, and don't expect people to listen to something I have written every day for a year, yet many have my photos as desktops. Is my music less valid than one of my photos?
It's just a different medium isn't it?
How do we judge the videos we see?
I'm seeing videos on here and just seeing what anyone could do one weekend with a video camera or a quadcopter and a bit of software.
I'm not *feeling* these videos in the same way I *feel* some of the fantastic photos I see on here.
I've just edited a photo I quite like which I took when it snowed a few months ago. I could have flown my drone through this scene, made a video of it, put some serene music into it etc etc etc... but really everything I need to remember about this moment is there in the photo.
Making a video of it would seem to be just a technical exercise, unless I can throw something into the video to make it worthwhile. But what?
What do I want to say that makes it need to be a video?
Maybe I'm asking what others are wanting to convey, and what makes them want to use a video to say it? And is that working in the videos they're posting?
I'm seeing videos on here and just seeing what anyone could do one weekend with a video camera or a quadcopter and a bit of software.
I'm not *feeling* these videos in the same way I *feel* some of the fantastic photos I see on here.
I've just edited a photo I quite like which I took when it snowed a few months ago. I could have flown my drone through this scene, made a video of it, put some serene music into it etc etc etc... but really everything I need to remember about this moment is there in the photo.
Making a video of it would seem to be just a technical exercise, unless I can throw something into the video to make it worthwhile. But what?
What do I want to say that makes it need to be a video?
Maybe I'm asking what others are wanting to convey, and what makes them want to use a video to say it? And is that working in the videos they're posting?
I suppose it is down to what you want to convey in a video.
I produce 'inspiring' videos, intended to generate enthusiasm in the players in my rugby team. They are not merely explanatory, a record of what went on, any more than a photograph is a picture of an instant, as you prove by the fact that some move you.
I'm in the process of producing a 30-minute video, ostensibly a season overview but actually something to get people applauding, players feeling good about themselves and their efforts, and to generate a cheer or two. As is my norm, it is a mixture of stills and video.
It is easy enough to convey, for instance, bravery with a still of a tackle, or fortitude by an image of a bloodstained face. But to get over the essence of a try, or a solid defence, I can find no way to do it but with video. For one of our tries there were 21 phases. Get that over in a picture. I hope, and expect, there to be cheers when the try is scored, probably a phase or two in front. It is emotion that I'm after.
It is possible to generate some of the feelings of a scrum by an image of one instant in the process, but video does it so much better as a scrum is not just one frame.
But I know my videos are weak. That's why I'd like to see people with similar interests to me, producing videos for me to learn from.
I produce 'inspiring' videos, intended to generate enthusiasm in the players in my rugby team. They are not merely explanatory, a record of what went on, any more than a photograph is a picture of an instant, as you prove by the fact that some move you.
I'm in the process of producing a 30-minute video, ostensibly a season overview but actually something to get people applauding, players feeling good about themselves and their efforts, and to generate a cheer or two. As is my norm, it is a mixture of stills and video.
It is easy enough to convey, for instance, bravery with a still of a tackle, or fortitude by an image of a bloodstained face. But to get over the essence of a try, or a solid defence, I can find no way to do it but with video. For one of our tries there were 21 phases. Get that over in a picture. I hope, and expect, there to be cheers when the try is scored, probably a phase or two in front. It is emotion that I'm after.
It is possible to generate some of the feelings of a scrum by an image of one instant in the process, but video does it so much better as a scrum is not just one frame.
But I know my videos are weak. That's why I'd like to see people with similar interests to me, producing videos for me to learn from.
Derek Smith said:
It is possible to generate some of the feelings of a scrum by an image of one instant in the process, but video does it so much better as a scrum is not just one frame.
But I know my videos are weak. That's why I'd like to see people with similar interests to me, producing videos for me to learn from.
Video does the basic job better because it's explicit rather than implicit.But I know my videos are weak. That's why I'd like to see people with similar interests to me, producing videos for me to learn from.
So by definition what you work hard to achieve creatively with a still you don't have to work hard to achieve with video.
That's no bad thing but then the video gives you even more opportunity to do interesting things. Like where you cut, and to what. The music, the sounds. There is as much again you can do with pacing, shots, etc, to convey even more information, as there is you can choose in variation on a still photo.
And just as with some photographs which may be used to convey documentary type information, rather than a mood, so can video, so I see no issue with video being used for that purpose. Not all video should be for arty purposes.
I'm not saying anyones videos are weak, or what the merits or otherwise are I don't think.
I'm just trying to strike up a bit more interest into what the goals of a video are and how we decide (for ourselves more than off others) if we've achieved the goals we set out to or not.
Hmmmmm
I've done a tiny bit of videography and have made 2 decent* videos which I have put on youtube. I made the videos for my own enjoyment in the process of filming them, to learn more about videography and hopefully for the enjoyment of others as there must be some other nutters out there like me who enjoy watching road trip videos on youtube!
I forget the exact numbers but as a rough guide these 2 videos represented about 20+ hours of footage each and many many days of editing (probably 10's of hours on each video) as I am new to editing so am VERY slow at it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MlhgN8RJAc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl1-2McVPqY
Both are best viewed in 1080p and fullscreen.
I would love some constructive criticism on either/both.
I forget the exact numbers but as a rough guide these 2 videos represented about 20+ hours of footage each and many many days of editing (probably 10's of hours on each video) as I am new to editing so am VERY slow at it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MlhgN8RJAc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl1-2McVPqY
Both are best viewed in 1080p and fullscreen.
- *decent by my novice standards!
I would love some constructive criticism on either/both.
Edited by Hi on Monday 4th April 21:50
This is the thing with video, getting the footage you want is one thing, and is hard.
Editing it together is another thing, and can also be hard if you're missing the perfect bits of footage you feel you need to fill the gaps! No chance of going back to film more
Ultimately this is where a rough storyboard, or even just the though process of interesting footage to capture comes in, so when you go out filming you get a lot of variation and interesting bits and pieces.
You've got a fair bit in there, and I bet at thte time it felt like there was lots of variation, but I've never got back to my computer with video and thought "wow, loads to go at here", I've always thought "s
t, is that all I've got, I felt like I'd shot loads!"
Given the realities of capturing footage on runs out in cars (tough going as others are out for a drive, not a filming session), the footage looks good with lots of variety. A shame there isn't more off-car video or just pans around the amazing terrain you were clearly going through!
I'd just try trim it down to under 3 mins and get only the real best bits in there.
Maybe make the opening sequence a bit more interesting (motion graphics build up), and then start with guys hanging around near their cars looking happy, then open up into the driving. Then end with the going dark on the motorway.
That to me then feels like happy people with cars, lets go for a drive, go drive, end. It just seems 'right' to me but maybe that's just the way I'd do it
Keep up the hard and good work
Editing it together is another thing, and can also be hard if you're missing the perfect bits of footage you feel you need to fill the gaps! No chance of going back to film more
Ultimately this is where a rough storyboard, or even just the though process of interesting footage to capture comes in, so when you go out filming you get a lot of variation and interesting bits and pieces.
You've got a fair bit in there, and I bet at thte time it felt like there was lots of variation, but I've never got back to my computer with video and thought "wow, loads to go at here", I've always thought "s
t, is that all I've got, I felt like I'd shot loads!"Given the realities of capturing footage on runs out in cars (tough going as others are out for a drive, not a filming session), the footage looks good with lots of variety. A shame there isn't more off-car video or just pans around the amazing terrain you were clearly going through!
I'd just try trim it down to under 3 mins and get only the real best bits in there.
Maybe make the opening sequence a bit more interesting (motion graphics build up), and then start with guys hanging around near their cars looking happy, then open up into the driving. Then end with the going dark on the motorway.
That to me then feels like happy people with cars, lets go for a drive, go drive, end. It just seems 'right' to me but maybe that's just the way I'd do it
Keep up the hard and good work
Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 5th April 12:30
I posted this quite enough on the Ski threads, but here's our holiday vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vM3K9-Wh_g
Of course, this is more a personal thing than an art work, but as a means to get across the atmosphere and activity in a week's holiday, it's absolutely better than subjecting people to a stream of photos, however good they may be. I'm quite pleased with the editing (first serious attempt), but having to resort to stills is probably a sign I didn't have enough of the right source footage. Part of the learning curve is definitely about getting the footage you need to make the right video.
Mr Whippy's points are all fair, but I think you have to look on video as being a way to convey information rather than as an art form - and what information you convey depends on your audience. It doesn't need more analysis than that really - who is your audience and what do you want to tell them? As an exciting Ski video, ours fails miserably, but as a way to share with family and friends it works fine.
As such, unless you have 'new things' to add, any video over about four minutes is pushing it - so tunnel runs and the like just stop being interesting once you've seen the same series of cars proceed from left to right, then right to left. If you're going to just use music over the video, you've got to avoid the standard pieces that everyone else uses.
I think if you're doing drone/timelapse landscape stuff, you've got to find something dynamic in the landscape, otherwise it can look rather like a slow pan over a still image. Rob and Steve's stuff worked best when they had either dramatic changes in lighting, or the motion through the landscape really changed the perspective.
For myself, I'd like to get more commentary in/over videos, as it's probably a good indicator of whether I've got something interesting to show and tell. There's also still a lot to learn about editing, colour grading and technical effects like film speed changes.
YouTube really shows the difference between people who're just taking footage of "something that happened" and people who're putting it together into a narrative of some sort. As a third party watching some videos, you're aware that it's just stuff other people were doing (that probably means a lot to them), that just doesn't get you involved. I'm not saying this from any high ground - that ski video is not going to excite people - but I can see that there is the difference and for me the 'art' in video is pulling the viewer into an experience rather than just showing something pretty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vM3K9-Wh_g
Of course, this is more a personal thing than an art work, but as a means to get across the atmosphere and activity in a week's holiday, it's absolutely better than subjecting people to a stream of photos, however good they may be. I'm quite pleased with the editing (first serious attempt), but having to resort to stills is probably a sign I didn't have enough of the right source footage. Part of the learning curve is definitely about getting the footage you need to make the right video.
Mr Whippy's points are all fair, but I think you have to look on video as being a way to convey information rather than as an art form - and what information you convey depends on your audience. It doesn't need more analysis than that really - who is your audience and what do you want to tell them? As an exciting Ski video, ours fails miserably, but as a way to share with family and friends it works fine.
As such, unless you have 'new things' to add, any video over about four minutes is pushing it - so tunnel runs and the like just stop being interesting once you've seen the same series of cars proceed from left to right, then right to left. If you're going to just use music over the video, you've got to avoid the standard pieces that everyone else uses.
I think if you're doing drone/timelapse landscape stuff, you've got to find something dynamic in the landscape, otherwise it can look rather like a slow pan over a still image. Rob and Steve's stuff worked best when they had either dramatic changes in lighting, or the motion through the landscape really changed the perspective.
For myself, I'd like to get more commentary in/over videos, as it's probably a good indicator of whether I've got something interesting to show and tell. There's also still a lot to learn about editing, colour grading and technical effects like film speed changes.
YouTube really shows the difference between people who're just taking footage of "something that happened" and people who're putting it together into a narrative of some sort. As a third party watching some videos, you're aware that it's just stuff other people were doing (that probably means a lot to them), that just doesn't get you involved. I'm not saying this from any high ground - that ski video is not going to excite people - but I can see that there is the difference and for me the 'art' in video is pulling the viewer into an experience rather than just showing something pretty.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff