No Editing WhatSoEver and Ever...well...sometimes. ; )

[SpectateSwamp]

Been arguing about "why edit video at all"
to a point, where the posts got closed and deleted
I have been banned in a few as well.

Anyway I am letting the CamCorder do my talking
from now on.

Since the beginning of December until yesterday
27Jan2007 I have tagged along behind 2 local Trappers
and their Dog Brownie. To Do Winter TrapLine Video.

No editing and the 340+ clips totaling 24 GigaBytes
(6 DVD set)

Video were uploaded the same evening and 11 Hunter
Trapper forums were notified. They Liked it. They Liked
it a lot.

In a few days I'll start 1 final showing of the TrapLine
videos at: dropshots.com/spectateswamp
10 a day for as long as it takes.

Don't watch it. No editing. Most most of the time I am not
even looking in the ViewFinder

[mcgeedigital]

If I wanted to watch something as long as that, I would have flown up there and experienced it myself.

You can still tell an involved story through condensing in the editorial process.

It has been done since the first film was shot.


Most most of the time I am not even looking in the ViewFinder

Wow. So you are either lazy or trying to come up with the next Dogma shooting style...

:cheesy:

[David Jimerson]

That's a hell of a stand-offish first post. What are you trying to say?

[greeches]

^ I agree. Either we are supposed to be impressed by your work or argue about the power of editing.

When you push the start/stop button on yoru "camcorder" isnt' that in itself "editing" what is happening? Do you just roll till you're out of tape?

[SpectateSwamp]

That's a hell of a stand-offish first post. What are you trying to say?

It is. Because not editing draws so much fire.

All the video forums are run by editing Freaks.

They over tech things, to a point they take the
fun out of it. Doing video is fun. Editing doesn't
have to be fun. You don't have to do any if you
don't want to.

That's all I'm saying to the newbies. You just get
more good video by being out shooting video.
You don't edit in "Goodness"

[David Jimerson]

I can't imagine why you've been deleted and banned from other forums.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it -- and I can tell you right now, you won't last the day here by insulting people and picking fights.

There could easily be a fruitful and enlightening discussion on this, but you're not presenting it as that. You're flaming.

[Drew Ott]

Would you recommend editing for a feature film?

Maybe for your particular kind of video, not editing would be mediocre-at-best, but I cannot think of any other kind of production where you would not want to edit.

The reason people on this board are "editing freaks" is because the kind of work we do needs editing. Shooting narrative needs editing, otherwise everything made would be raw footage of fake documentaries.

[Holy Harry]

This is the best thread I've read in a while. It's class!

I couldn't be bothered looking at twelve hours of unedited and unframed footage of two dudes and a dog walking through bushes, but I would definitely like to see unedited and unframed footage of you pitching your idea to a big Hollywood studio. Man, I would LOVE to see that!

[TC]

All the video forums are run by editing Freaks.I've noticed that lots of them also have these round-about concepts of using cameras and microphones as well.
That was a joke, please take it as such. :violent5:

It's all about perspective really, you think that editing is unnecessary. That's cool. The early soviet filmmakers felt that the ONLY meaning in a film is derrived FROM the cut. From what images are juxtaposed and placed next to one another.

Certainly you wouldn't begrudge others from having a differing opinion.

[Isaac_Brody]

Choosing not to cut is an editing choice. And there is such a thing as cutting in camera.

If you really don't want to edit you should just setup a camera in the woods and let it capture whatever wanders into frame.

[David Jimerson]

Well, as was said above, the decisions of when to start and stop recording are absolutely editing decisions.

[J.R. Hudson]

This thread is starting to develop some flow.

I think I've seen this guys work before:

Here (http://www.westland.net/beachcam/)

[Policar]

You're a regular Andre Bazin. And I don't mean that entirely facetiously.

(For the record I think Bazin is a super genius!)

[Mars United]

I used to think editing was cool. Now, I'm all confused.

[SpectateSwamp]

Well, as was said above, the decisions of when to start and stop recording are absolutely editing decisions.

It isn't an editing decision for me.

When action starts. I hit the record.

When things quiet down. I hit the stop.

Editing makes it all fake and questionable video.
One of my trapper friends was guiding some American
Hunters and a video crew. The video guy told John
he wouldn't recognize the hunt when he seen it on TV.
What good is that.

99.9% of video users will never be interested in doing
a video production. They should know there are alternatives.
to doing things the old way.

[David Jimerson]

Dude . . .

That's ALL editing is. Getting rid of the stuff you don't want, and keeping the stuff that you do, in the order you want it. Which is what you do every time you choose to start and stop recording. Every time you stop, that's a cut. Every time you decide to move the camera somewhere else, that's a cut.

The very fact that you make decisions as to what's worthy of being recorded (the action starting) and what's not (the action stopping), that's an editing decision, whether you want to see it that way or not. Because the trip wasn't all action, was it? You're not showing the down time, so is it "realistic"?

If you really want to prove your theory, start the camera and leave it rolling until the expedition ends, and then deliver all of the footage straight from the camera. Let's see how much it's loved then.

[spidey]

I used to think editing was cool. Now, I'm all confused.

lol dont worry, it is.

[SpectateSwamp]

I used to think editing was cool. Now, I'm all confused.

Shooting real content is cool. Where what you see, is what actually happened.
Not some studio fabrication. When people watch unedited video they know
they will see the conclusion. Not a commercial break and inserted comments
and drum rolls.

[Mars United]

I think most people here are interested in telling stories. When you tell stories, you leave the boring bits out:

"And after the UFO destroyed the White House Bill felt a slight itch on his left toe. Then Bill raises his Bazooka and takes out the flying saucer with his very last Anti-Saucer rocket."

Most people, for thousands and thousands of years, tend to leave out the fact that Bill felt an itch on his left toe, even if it were more than a slight itch. It's not, to most, very relevant. That is the essence of editing.

IMHO. Cheers. :beer:

[marlontorres]

For personal viewing I guess thats fine but good luck getting your uncut 10 hour video into TV (im sure the sponsors would love that) or the movie theaters.

[Mars United]

Shooting real content is cool. Where what you see, is what actually happened.
Not some studio fabrication. When people watch unedited video they know
they will see the conclusion. Not a commercial break and inserted comments
and drum rolls.
I think I see what you're saying, and if I do, I agree at heart with your sentiment. (Hopefully you're not just taking the piss!)

There is something good about seeing something real, and knowing that it is real, not "fabricated". Not in Godzilla movies, but in other instances.

However, that isn't anything to do with editing. It has to do with fiction (as opposed to reality).

Anyway, looks like you're on an adventure! Saw your U Tube bird. Looks like fun. Cheers.

[Drew Ott]

"And after the UFO destroyed the White House Bill felt a slight itch on his left toe. Then Bill raises his Bazooka and takes out the flying saucer with his very last Anti-Saucer rocket."

Most people, for thousands and thousands of years, tend to leave out the fact that Bill felt an itch on his left toe, even if it were more than a slight itch. It's not, to most, very relevant. That is the essence of editing.


Well put.

[Policar]

Shooting real content is cool. Where what you see, is what actually happened.
Not some studio fabrication. When people watch unedited video they know
they will see the conclusion. Not a commercial break and inserted comments
and drum rolls.


Haha wow. I was mostly kidding about the Bazin thing, but you're literally writing exactly what he wrote--just less eloquently, but no offense; the man was a genius and the father of "modern" (New Wave, 1970s Hollywood, etc.) cinema.

I know you're trolling, but you have a great point. Bazin was obsessed with these films where, instead of cutting, the director chose to linger on one shot and because of that the film felt real. Most of his examples came from hunting videos of semi-documentaries (Kon Tiki, Nanook of the North) which he contrasted against heavily edited documentary style films that he felt were terrible.

If anyone here claims to appreciate Citizen Kane or The Best Years of Our Lives (one of the most mind blowing movies ever, and made in the 1940s) or any early Wyler, Welles, or Renoir, you can't ignore what SpectateSwamp is saying. Film only acts as a "real" record of what has happened if you have an aesthetic of realism to back it up, and a lack of editing is instrumental to this.

If you want examples, I can list tons. Editing is great. I love it. But the long take can be just as wonderful and, if applied well, even more magical and convincing. "Editing" smacks of the artist's hand and if that's what you want, cool. But if what you want is something that feels real, that makes coherent sense when it most counts, the uninterupted continuity of time and space is instrumental.

It's not just Welles and Wyler; Spielberg, Tarantino, Von Trier, Copolla, Jackson (honestly, you name it they've done it) have taken advantage of the long take and the lack of editing to establish an aesthetic of realism. SpectateSwamp may be trying to start an argument, but let him--he's making a convincing claim and (to be quite honest) one that's worth making. A lot of the stuff people make here is over edited, and a lot o the edits don't say anything. I do this too so I'm not exempt from this criticism, but at least I'm not beating up on someone who has a really great, valid, and time-proven point to make.

[J.R. Hudson]

Nicely put Policar ( as always) but I doubt homeboy here is that enlightended (No offense SpecialSwamp).

I welcome the long take (Scorsese, Tarantino, De Palma use this well) but after veiwing a couple of the videos on this dudes site; I guarantee this aint what he's talking about.

[David Jimerson]

He's not talking about "long takes" or mis-en-scene. He's talking about "No Editing WhatSoEver and Ever." Starting and stopping the camera only and delivering the footage as is. That's not what Welles, Wyler, OR Spielberg did, and they all used editing to get points across.

[vidled]

If anyone's interested, we have a 236 hour documentary about a South Pacific island.

[J.R. Hudson]

I have time

[DVX-Ben]

If anyone's interested, we have a 236 hour documentary about a South Pacific island.

Break out the popcorn.

[vidled]

Break out the popcorn.

Hehe..

To save some $$$, I recommend you make your own with one of these:

http://home.versateladsl.be/lodedeconinck/partyverhuur/foto's/popcorn.jpg

:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

John: "I have time"

LOL :thumbsup:

[SpectateSwamp]

Haha wow. I was mostly kidding about the Bazin thing, but you're literally writing exactly what he wrote--just less eloquently, but no offense; the man was a genius and the father of "modern" (New Wave, 1970s Hollywood, etc.) cinema.

I'm liking that Bazin character.

If I could "Edit in" those parts of the action videos
I always miss when the camera starts up. That
would be the only change I would like to see in my
videos. A little quicker hitting the record button.

The Tsunami video was done by amateurs. They didn't
take that and "cut to that dead body floating by" then
back to the same wave comming in. At least I hope not.

With YouTube and DropShots.com, most video will be
done by the man and woman on the street and not
professionals. They don't need to do any editing if they
follow a few non editing pointers.

[Mars United]

uh .. uh .. unsubscribe ...

[TC]

They should know there are alternatives.
to doing things the old way.Well, in the strictest sense, what you are describing- the "No Editing WhatsoEver and Ever" is the "old way." Look at the early work of the Lumiere Brothers, (ex: Workers Leaving Lumiere Factory) where they simply setup the camera and let it roll. Then screening the resulting film, completely uncut to audiences in cafes. It wasn't until innovations from people like Melies, Porter and Griffith (I call them innovations because that's what I view them as) that film editing really began to take shape.

It's really all about what kind of film your trying to make, something like Firefly (for instance) isn't necessarily trying to recreate our world, but take us into their own. Would it be more effective without editing? Maybe, I suppose that's all a matter of perception.

Certainly, under any circumstance don't think that you are the innovator of this type of filmmaking. Andy Warhol (of which I'm not a fan) made films such as Sleep and Empire, uncut films of a man sleeping and a day in the life of a building, respectively. One of my favorite stories is that a critic, tired of Warhol's esoteric films tied him to a chair and attempted to make the filmmaker sit through an entire screening of Sleep. Warhol shed his bondage and escaped before the film ended.

I'm having a difficult time discerning what kind of filmmaking you are advocating. Is the purpose of not cutting in order to heighten realism? Are you speaking from a strictly documentarian standpoint? A film like Hitchcock's Rope has only 7 cuts, which are hidden so as not to draw attention to themselves (this was done only because of the limited length of film that could be shot without changing the mag.) Does this help heighten the realism of Rope, or does this 'action shooting' only work with unscripted, completely spontaneous works?

If that is your argument, then you should really check out the work of the Cinema Verite filmmakers, their ideals seem to coincide with your own. If that is the kind of filmmaking endeavor that you want to delve into, you won't see anyone stopping you- and if you're able to produce something that catches my eye, I'll gladly pat you on the back for it.

You and I may make films differently, but I respect your right as an artist to make art as you see fit. But don't come in here, flaming people and insinuating that you've innovated a new style of filmmaking that is superior to all others- because like it or not, it isn't. Your style of filmmaking is no more valid than the next persons.

[SpectateSwamp]

You and I may make films differently, but I respect your right as an artist to make art as you see fit. But don't come in here, flaming people and insinuating that you've innovated a new style of filmmaking that is superior to all others- because like it or not, it isn't. Your style of filmmaking is no more valid than the next persons.

I don't claim to have created anything. I'm sure what you and I do or have
done. Has been done before. First doesn't mean anything.

I not into filmmaking, I'm into shooting video.

The trapping and hunting forums members, have a different opinion on
what is and isn't good video.

[David Jimerson]

To be fair . . .

Why don't you post direct links to some video you've shot and explain what about it we can learn from?

[Blaine]

It isn't an editing decision for me.

When action starts. I hit the record.

When things quiet down. I hit the stop.
Editing is EXACTLY what you're doing. You're editing out the boring parts by choosing not to record it.

[Eastside Parkway]

This discussion is absurd.

[TC]

I not into filmmaking, I'm into shooting video.Then why discuss this on a filmmaking board?

[SpectateSwamp]

To be fair . . .

Why don't you post direct links to some video you've shot and explain what about it we can learn from?

Check out
http://www.dropshots.com/spectateswamp

See how I move through the bush with 3 feet of snow. And don't fall
on my face. That's because I don't look where I am shooting but where
I am walking. It's easier to spot other video opportunities when you aren't
looking through the view finder.

I have some at Youtube dailymotion and viddler.

To be fair. Post some of your stuff. We want to be fair.

[Zak Forsman]

I not into filmmaking, I'm into shooting video.
so are soccer moms.

[Blaine]

I checked out the footage you posted and I'm sorry but it was borderline unwatchable.

http://www.viddler.com/explore/SpectateSwamp/videos/2/

[Zak Forsman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Hz5zyBsgg

i like this one... how you zoom in, then out, then in, then out, then in again...

[SpectateSwamp]

so are soccer moms.

I bet some of their video is pretty good. Maybe even professional.

I covered a FastBall tournament. I could follow the pitch from the
mound to the catcher. By just pointing and moving the CamCorder.
The big cameras just can't move that fast. I got some shots that
made those old bulky cameras look obsolete.

[SpectateSwamp]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Hz5zyBsgg

i like this one... how you zoom in, then out, then in, then out, then in again...

I prefer Manual zoom over optical. I must have been a little chicken in that
clip otherwise I would have got closer.

[Robert86]

Originally Posted by SpectateSwamp
I not into filmmaking, I'm into shooting video.

so are soccer moms.


LMAO :2vrolijk_08:

[TC]

I bet some of their video is pretty good. Maybe even professional.That doesn't make any sense.

The big cameras just can't move that fast. I got some shots that made those old bulky cameras look obsolete.Neither does that.

I prefer Manual zoom over optical.Or that.

[Isaac_Brody]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Hz5zyBsgg

i like this one... how you zoom in, then out, then in, then out, then in again...
That is pretty bad. The zooms ruin the shot. If you'd taken a lesson from Lumiere and just setup the camera and let it roll that shot would've been much better. Again, by choosing to zoom you're cutting in camera.

And just to be extra pedantic, as soon as you push the record button, and you choose what to focus on you're editing.


:evil:

[img]

All i have to say is this thead is awesome.:happy:

[David Jimerson]

To be fair. Post some of your stuff. We want to be fair.
You miss the point completely. I don't have anything to prove here. It's to be fair to you. Most people around here, myself included, think you're probably just a troll, but it's possible that you weren't explaining yourself very well, and I told you what would help you do it if that was the case.

But looking at the footage -- man, it's just bad. It isn't unfair to say that you could have gotten the same result if you had just handed the camera over to a kid and let him go to town.

Now, we could let people go on ridiculing you and your video, but that's not really the spirit we want around here, so it's time for this silly thread to end.