Home > All Posts > Individual Post
Post #139

Re: new videoblog entry

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@...> | andreashaugstrup
June 26, 2004 | Post #139 | Topic #137

> what I want to know is: > was it easy? i know you only had a webcam and a= shitty editing program. > what do you think of the process? > explain it = if you would. Idea: I was thinking about videoblogs last night and then I = remembered the Book-A-Minute website and I thought to myself that it could= n't be hard to do a Book-A-Minute on video. And with a lot of stuffed anim= als around I figured I could use those as actors. It's all very funny in = my head. :o) I should've done Hamlet though. Me being Danish and all. Shoo= ting: This part was the easiest. I knew I only had seven or eight quick sh= ots. The trick with a webcam is that you really can't move the camera - if= you don't keep it still the image gets all weird. Or rather, that's how *= my* webcam behaves. There's also some kind of auto-correction of the light= going on. This is fine if you're sitting still, but not so cool when you'= re moving your hands in front of the camera. Getting the clips to my comp= uter was much easier than what you all have to deal with. It's automatic w= ith a webcam after all. I record in the webcam software and then import th= e clips I want into Premiere after that. I had fun clearing my table and = moving stuffed animals around. It's very good as a de-stressing tool. :o) = The downside is that now the world knows that I collect penguins... Melvin= The Monkey was bought last summer while I visited Michigan by the way (at= ... Toledo Zoo I think). Editing: I cheated this time. There's no way I co= uld've made this in Microsoft Movie Maker. I found a cd I had lying around= with an old version of Adobe Premiere. It took forever to figure out how = it worked, but eventually I found some tutorials online. So this time edit= ing took a long time, but the next time it will be very quick since I now = know the software. I'm only using two kinds of transitions (cross-dissolve= and a clean cut) after all. What really took time in the editing process = was the titles. They took forever to make since I had to make something th= at might fit, then render the video to check and then nudge the title - re= peat. I don't have a working microphone (it's on my list) so I couldn't mak= e a decent narration track. Not that my broken English would've done much= good anyway. :o) Jokes aside I would've by far preferred to have done a sp= eech track. I think it would've made for a better video. Compression: The= compression was a pain in the... I really hate having to battle codecs an= d such. I can understand there're big bucks to be made on codecs, but some= one should make something that works on all computers (and produce small d= ecent files). Premiere wasn't making it easy for me either. The "Save for W= eb" settings are fixed so it's very hard to tweak. I had quicktime files = in nice file sizes (1 and 2 megabytes), but the sizes were off (I recorded= at 320*240 pixels and I would like to keep it that size). In the end I ju= st clicked the Sorenson compression option and used the 4 megabyte file I = got. Compressing to WMV was a bit easier. First I exported an uncompressed= AVI from Premiere. I then imported this AVI into MovieMaker and exported= to WMV from there. It was 15 million times easier than making the Quickti= me file. In total I think I spent something like 5 hours making the movie.= It sounds like a lot, but the vast majority of the time was wasting time = trying to figure out how to compress Quicktime files and how to do transi= tions in Premiere. If I were to do another similar movie (short, but lots = of editing) I think I could do it in 1-1=BD hours. Which is only a little = more than I usually spend on writing a good length blog entry. It made fo= r a fun Saturday afternoon. :o) - Andreas -- http://www.solitude.dk/