Working with bad footage...

[PerroneFord]

Ok, second question tonight.

Unlike most people here (I'm guessing), the DVX100 was my first real foray into the world of capturing moving images. Three years ago, I shot footage of something I was involved in. Event was about a week long, and I shot about 3.5 hours of tape. I had intended to edit it and make a short documentary. That was three years ago. Since then, I've learned Premiere, and learning Vegas, and have learned a LOT more about putting images to tape. But I can't reshoot. So I have to deal with all the ugly warts of the old footage. I ran through the footage last night just to see if there was ANYTHING worth putting my name on. From a dramatic perspetive, the answer is no. But for those involved, it'll be worth somethnig I guess.

At work about 2 years ago, I was asked to film the retirement of a long time employee. Story is unfortunately the same. Lots of bad footage. I am fortunate in that the "client" is not someone who expects much. But after experimenting and learnnig, it's VERY difficult to put together something you would not be proud of, if that makes sense.

So my questions come down to these:

1. For the retirement video, any thoughts on tarting up weak footage? I ran about an hour of tape, Expect to finish after editing with 10-12 minutes of something usable. Delivery will be on DVD. I am thinking of using some nice credit stuff at the end, using a nice exterior shot of the building for a DVD underlay with the menu, etc. I need an opening scene. Something simple and clean. I was thinking a basic composite with some shadowed text, but don't want to be TOO plain. I'd love some ideas. What do the wedding guys do for openings?

2. For the mini-documentary, I suppose there is enough there to work with. I'm really wondering if I should use the best footage shot as the bulk of the program. And just fill in with the short clips I have that are decent. Unfortunately, a lot of the "story" rests in the crappy footage. I am going to try to rescue some of it, by doing a new interview with a couple of the participatants who I can get to. And try to frame the story around their narrative. I think this may be the ONLY way I can get it to work. I'd welcome ideas here too.


If only I'd known then what I know now. At least the footage wouldn't be embarrasing.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[valdez]

Hey there,
I'm not sure what your experience is with documentary, but as long as I've been with it that bad footage is probably going to always be one of your main problems. Shooting is really difficult, whatever your resources, so you'll have to get creative and focus on the story no matter what you need to say. The material is probably there, and doing further interviews is a great way to beef it up.
All this depends on what you mean by "bad" footage. Shaky? missed moments? Bad audio? Bad light? what?
Your worst enemy is bad Audio, so if your audio is ok, you can usually save most other junk. Don't underestimate your cutaways, either. If the camera holds still here and there for more than 2 seconds it's game for a cutaway of some kind that you can use as a metaphor for something or a mood setting to further the tone of your story while the audio from crappy footage plays over, or perhaps your new interviews about the event. Theres so much cool stuff you can do to save things if you really must, but you have to step away from traditional methods and think about new ways to tell your story.
You can use simple title cards to introduce short "chapters" in between themed segments even if they're really short. You can put arty numbers or dates on screen now and again to push information down while giving it a more calculated look. Get some more establishing shots now while you know what your doing. Use short freeze frames now and again. Think hard about how to push a theme forward using your editing, there are so many ways to do it without great footage.
Someones talks about time: i.e. being late, being early; you can show an empty room or a busy room with a time on screen and it elicits a chuckle from the audience, the footage quality doesn't matter, but the humor is there.
Someone is stressed out or talking about stress or business, than your shaky footage of this person or thier associate is fine and may look good especially with short cuts so it looks calculated.
Someone is talking about the ideals of retirement or maybe thier wishes, than shoot or find footage of anything relaxing, an open field, palm trees, any beach, shoot it well, for the voice over than cut to the "reality" of the bad footage thats all over the place and the "reality" of trying to retire. I don't know.
Just remember the essence of basic editing theorys apply tenfold when editing docs especially with bad footage. It's not the images themselves that tell the story its the juxtaposition of different images that move a story. Properly, often creatively placed cuts will move an audience to laughter or tears. Use basic dramatic cliches to move your cuts, and find the pieces to use for it scatered around in your bad footage. Thats my two cents. Good luck.
I'm in the midst of a similar editing conundrum, and it's tough. Remember the most painful and even accidental weird cuts are where the miracles happen, so really experiment with the odd bits. It feels like your making it cheesy but it doesn't have to be. Just don't start cross fading everything, thats when it's time to give up.

 

[pranic]

"Bad Footage" is something you're always going to have to deal with. I recently worked on a short 4 minute promo that had 7+ hours of footage shipped to me in PAL format (to be finished in NTSC), plus 30 minutes I shot with an SDX900.

Here are a couple things I had to deal with in the footage that was provided:

- color bleed
- poor focus
- horrendous framing
- they recorded the date/time on all their interviews (I had to be creative with my lower 3rds to cover it all up)
- zoom in... zoom out... repeat... repeat

I find it's easier editing other people's footage, because you don't hold yourself to the same level of quality as if you shot and edited yourself... but it's always tough.

The best approach is to wrap the footage in a more interesting shell (music, titles, etc), and make it compelling to tell a story. IF you have bad footage, and aren't worrying about telling a compelling story -- that's when you'll likely fail to impress.

Just my $.02

 

[eignacio]

Gather up as many still photos of that guy in the retirement video (growing up, past jobs, career highlights, past company parties, award ceremonies, working, etc.). With the audio and video you collected, I think you can make something pretty cool with that as your b-roll.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[PerroneFord]

Thanks for the replies.

On point 1, bad footage generally means poor framing and such. Audio is good. I was smart enough to do some establishing shots, some stills, some scenics to glue parts together, etc. It's jus the action sequences that are not what I'd like. I think I'll be doing this more "interview" heavy and cutting to the small pieces of video that I have that are decent. Not perfect, but not bad. Thank goodness it's hard to get bad color on the DVX! I didn't know how to white balance when I shot, so I have to do it all in post.


On point 2, the lady retired some years ago. I just found out today that they expected it it be delivered THIS WEEK! They asked Tuesday, and expected it by this afternoon! Clueless. I've been told now that the due date is next Wednesday. So they'll get what they get. I don't have time to gather up old pictures and the like. I finished the rough cut last night. Looks like I'll get 20 minutes out of it. I'm going to shoot some building interiors and exteriors tomorrow for intros and outros... It'll have to do.

Thanks again everyone.