Carlton Rahmani

This just-released video by Sia is already being called by some the Best Video of 2014. And to be sure, it is really good. The choreography, the lighting. . .and the song isn't bad either. I'm looking to get others' opinions on how it's shot and edited, though. There seems to be something a little 'off' with these. In my opinion, Beyonce's "Single Ladies" is probably the best exercise in mixing camera movement along with choreography and creative lighting, as well as creative/appropriate editing. I was stunned when I first saw it, and am challenged/inspired as a photographer (and steadicam and jib operator) by it to this day. Some might not think comparing the two videos is 'fair', because of various factors like shooting on set v shooting on location, the genres of music, or what the directors were trying to accomplish. But being that dance and choreography are the main elements in both videos, I think it's fair, if just for example's sake. This video seems to be a little Videography 102: Get your wides, tights, and mids by cutting; and edit only for continuity of motion. Asking myself What would I do differently, I don't believe the video has to be a 'one take', but I would make a lot more use out of zoom, and move around a lot more, also trying to keep the dancer in-frame more, particularly on the closer shots. With editing, maybe there's a few 'rules' that should be broken. That's all I can say without getting gratuitous. I want to emphasize that I think this is good video (wouldn't be surprised if it won some awards), but would like some input from some of you in the know.

I've been playing around with my DSR PD150 and been having a lot of fun with it. The problem I'm having is with aliasing/interlacing artifacts--because, who seriously works with interlaced video anymore (or should plan to). The PD150 can record progressive, but at a diminished frame rate, it looks like. So my question is: Is there a camera comparable to the pd150, at least in terms of quality and price, that can record progressive? Any hints.

This is what some guy on youtube says he uses. . .65X Wide Angle Converter from century. Here's the vid: I haven't tried it myself--would if I had the extra money to spare--but I'm impressed, unless this is some kind of marketing sham.

I am an editor who uses Adobe Premiere CS5 at work and Sony Vegas for my own projects. I like Sony Vegas; don't have a problem with it at all, or that I can really complain about. But I'm not dogmatic about it either. . .I just haven't gotten any real opportunity to do much more than observe Avid and Final Cut in action. My question is a very REAL one: What makes Avid and Final Cut so 'superior' to Vegas, or even Premiere? I'm looking for an answer other than "Whatever you can make work for you is what you should use. . ." I need to know WHY editors and production houses have such high regard for Avid and Final Cut. What makes these NLEs preferred by so many, or what makes them so powerful, etc? For instance, I can tell you what I like about Vegas: --It's rugged and more 'computer agnostic'. I don't have to buy a lot of expensive peripheries--or a needlessly expensive computer--to make it work. I started editing using a 2meg-ram laptop, and like the idea of keeping things light. --Ease of use --Continuous playing even while adjustments are being made, so you can check your work in real-time. Premiere, for instance, will simply STOP playing if you so much as adjust the volume levels. --Great audio functions. . .I don't have to leave the program to do even (semi-)sophisticated sound work. --I can decide where and how I want to lay out my audio and video tracks. What I DON'T like: --Doesn't really make good use of the GPU. --Codec issues, particularly with Panasonic media. --Limited number of plug-ins available for it, and doesn't really integrate into a larger 'creative suite' the way Adobe lets you take stuff in and out of its various programs. So with that in mind, those of you who have the experience, please offer me some of your insight. . .concrete stuff. Personally, I'm beginning to suspect more and more that Sony (and even Premiere) is getting a bad rap, and that the reason why Avid and Final Cut have their positions is largely do to early consensus on the matter: AVID was the first NLE, the Walter Murch did "Cold Mountain" on Final Cut. I would like more substantive reasons. I don't have anything 'against' FCP or Avid--in fact, I'm pretty sure I HAVE to learn them--but some real answers are necessary. Thank.

I'm looking to spend about $2,000 (or thereabouts) to upgrade my shooting gear and am looking for some insight. The cameras I'm currently considering are the Canon XL2, Panasonic DVX100B, and the new Sony NEX-VG10. I've seen both the XL2 and DVX in use on various projects, and heard great things about both of them. But I'm also trying to stay away from mini-DV, too, if possible. The Sony NEX seems to have some promise, though it hasn't been road tested enough, and I would like to have the option for variable framerates. My 'forte' has been editing for the last couple of years, and I'm happy with what I have in that department. But I need to capture better images. . .make the next step up, even if it is just to the 'prosumer' level for the time being. Suggestions?

You know, I have a 50-plus year old Bell & Howell 16mm filmo that still works, a 35-year old 35mm camera I use frequently, and a 30-plus years typewriter that can still type. Meanwhile, I have a 7 year old (analog) video camera that's good for squat, another digital camera that's not quite as useless, and, between my girlfriend and myself, four laptops, two of which are pretty unusable (not to mention, like a few old cell phones, MP3 players, etc.). As a matter of waste, it isn't just that They Don't Build Them Like They Used To, anymore; it's that new systems and technology aren't being designed with compatibility for older, or even other, technologies. I'm an amateur and have only been doing this a couple of years, but I've already had to deal with more codec, media storage and transfer, and upgrade issues than establishing reasonable standards should allow. For instance: One day, long ago, all the film and camera companies got together and decided that they were going to fit their products for such and such dimensions. Film that could fit in one camera could just as easily fit in another. . .and people are still using these. Blah. . .just not a big fan of 'build in obsolescence.'

Just to let you know: First, I LOVE XP. I don't have any real gripes with windows 7, except I like the feel of XP much more. . .and the fact that the Windows 7 picture viewer doesn't show animated GIFs. Secondly, the reason why I recommended the 32-bit version of Vegas for XP is because you have to choose either the 32-bit or 62-bit version of the program when you download the trial version. The 'box' version has both the 32- and 64-bit versions on it, and I've read from other professional Vegas users that they like to have both on their computer (assuming it's 64-bit), since a lot of the plug-ins made for Vegas haven't yet come into the 64-bit world. Or something like that. . . (I'm running only the 64-bit version on my computer, and have no complaints so far (though some people do), even after trying out the 32-bit version on my XP machine.) As for your deal about having to use one computer to acquire the media from your camera to edit on another machine, I don't only relate--I live it! I have a Panasonic consumer video camera that stores videos in a way that Vegas won't recognize. (There's some kind of rivalry between Sony and Panasonic that, unfortunately, happens to affect the compatibility between the two companies, which IS one of Vegas' downfalls.) So what I have to do to get usable media is use Magix--my old consumer NLE,which is on my old XP laptop--to acquire the video off my camera, which I then render as an AVI or MPEG-2 that Vegas can recognize. Even though it's a little cumbersome, and I have to consider these things for the future, it's not too bothersome at this point for what I'm doing. (And I can appreciate the 1394 issue, since there WAS an AWESOME computer I had my eye on until I saw that it didn't have any 1394 capability, or even an card slot that would allow for that.) I'm NOT a product whore, but I think Vegas isn't given as much credit as it deserves. My intention is to learn other NLEs--Avid IS the industry standard; while I also have a friend who is going to loan me a 'spare' mac with Final Cut so I can learn that as well (even though I'm not looking forward to it)--but I've developed a certain affinity for Vegas, and until someone can demonstrate to me otherwise, I'm going to keep it my number 1. As long as it can edit 4k--the resolution of 35mm film--I'm not skipping out. PLUS, Vegas originally started off as a music editing program, and of all NLEs is regarded as the most powerful and versatile when it comes to working with audio. Don't be daunted by all the various facets you're going to see when it comes to going to an NLE. For now, just look at it as fun. However, if you're looking to get more serious about this, two books I would recommend are the Filmmaker's Handbook, but Steven Ascher and Edward Pincus; and "Compression for Great Video and Audio," by Ben Waggoner. Trust me: I'm still vexed by a lot of mumbo jumbo when it comes to codecs, 'wraps', plug-ins, and what not. But getting a something of a grasp of these things will help you, at least, when it comes with determining things such as project and render settings. Good luck!

Although I'm still learning, I started off like you a couple of years ago, on Windows Movie Maker. I now use Sony Vegas, and am up to the latest edition, and I'm really happy with it. I would recommend to you that before dishing out the $500-plus for the latest version of Vegas Pro (which I do have), you check out a consumer version of editing software. There's Vegas Platinum. . .but I used a program called "Magix", which will run you about $100 and $50 respectively. (You can even look at one of my old posts where I was looking to upgrade from Magix myself.) I definitely wouldn't recommend Pinnacle, since I've read nothing but bad stuff about it. The reason why you're having so much trouble making since of these other NLEs--consumer or pro--is because, unlike movie maker, you have on screen several tracks where you can lay your media--be it video, audio, or even stuff like pictures and animated gifs. I know this because I felt it the first time I checked out Magix. As soon as you learn how these work--and it won't take long, I promise--you'll wonder how you got along without it. But don't get me wrong: the difference between a consumer and professional NLE warrants the price. If you want, you can even download a trial version of Vegas that's good for 30-days so you can get your feet wet. I assume you're running on Windows XP (because I don't think later versions of windows has movie maker), so make sure you get the 32-bit version. I think Douglas Spotted Eagle is a great instructor, too, but you don't have to worry about purchasing any learning materials. There's lots of great tutorials for ANY NLE on youtube and the like. Stuff that'll show you around, answer questions, and so on. From there, my best advice is to just keep experimenting and see what comes up. good luck

I was a member of that group for a while, and realized not too long ago that I hadn't received any new updates from them. Tell you what, I'll go ahead an 'friend' you here and we can keep in touch. In the meantime, do you have an examples of stuff you shot on your filmo? Peace.

I've been on the set on several occasions--extra work--and it IS shot on 35mm. They're not sparing nothing for this show.

No, there aren't cardbus slots either. There's no eSata, and the usb is just 2.0. Not all together a computer with great connectivity options.

Thanks for your replies. I had checked out both the products previously, and, one is no longer being manufactured, and the other's firewire and usbs are completely seperate (I guess the only got them bundled together for 'convenience' and semi-deceptive marketing). I was thinking about someway, perhaps, I could get the data into a different device for harddrive storage or something like that, which I could then retrieve via usb. But mostly it just seems too cumbersome an idea after doing some research (and I could always use my old laptop, which DOES have firewire, if that's the route I wanna go). The lack-of-1393 (AND eSata, AND pci, AND usb 3.0) is one of the issues a lot of reviewers have brought up in regards to the G73jh models. . . I even wrote to Asus myself to gripe about the problem (call me a loon). It's my feeling that in a few months they're going to have a version that's firewire capable in a few months. . .we'll see. The G51 models aren't bad at all when it comes to what's inside, so I'll be more than content with that if need be. Aside from all this though, I'd recommend that you check out Asus' computers. If it was just the price that would be one thing. But the specs, and I've done some HARD research, are hard to beat.

So it's time for me to upgrade my laptop--my sole editing computer, for the time being--and there's this REALLY SWWWEEEEEEEEETTTT Asus model (g73jh-series) I got my eye on, especially for my budget. I mean, it's got EVERYTHING: 1-gig dedicated graphics, Intel quadcore i7 processor, ram expandable up to 8G, 17.3 inch screen, TWO fans (which'll help, really). Problem is, it doesn't have any firewire or pci slots to adapt firewire into. Just some USBs (2.0), hdmi, ethernet. And it doesn't look like a firewire port can be installed on the computer. My question is, Is there a way for me to adapt or bypass the need for firewire stuff? For instance, by finding another way transfer/cache data? Some kind of firewire to usb interface/intermediary--even if it means things will take longer to process, just as long as it doesn't cause any data loss. I really don't feel like I need to edit straight off the camera/deck--I've been doing it between harddrives this long--but I also don't want to cause any problems in the future, especially as I go over to HD, since I plan to use this computer for the next couple of years. Please, I'm not looking for suggestions such as "get yourself a mac". I'm pretty sold on Asus (and Sony Vegas), and the only other model I'm really considering right now is the G51j-series, which DOES have a 1394. For everything I've seen, ASUS has the most bang for the buck. I'm just more into g73jh-models. Thanks.

I took to editing as a comprehensive approach to learning about production--, and am hoping that this might get me something entry-level at a post house. It would be nice to hear some good things, but please don't let that hold back the criticism. Scrutinize. link: thanks

Is that YOUR camera work there? I like it a lot. Some of the direction doesn't do too much for me--but the feel and the lighting and the movement and the subtle shifts in focus. . .a HUGE F*^K YEAH!

I know exactly what you're talking about. I first spotted in on a demo tv at best buy. . .that there was something 'wrong' with the picture--it actually reminded me of local-studio broadcasts from the 80s--and was wondering if I was going crazy, or if the screen just sucked, or what(?). But to let you know, I realized that I wasn't crazy AFTER the sales guy SWITCHED OFF 240-hertz function, or whatever it's called. So, to answer your question, I'm pretty sure you CAN turn that stuff off. Just check the manual. Actually, I'm glad to see that this deal is being addressed on SOME thread, since I was thinking about putting up a post as to Why this looks the way it does. I'm pretty sure that it has to do with the weird ratio between a movie that is filmed at 24-pps, and whatever they do these days with tvs. Anyone wanna try and fill that in?

I recently acquired Sony Vegas 7 as an upgrade from my previous consumer-grade editor. One problem I quickly discovered was that Vegas doesn't do well with importing AVIs--I found out it's a problem for a lot of people who have Vegas--that I get from one of my cameras, and have stored on my hard drive.. (It's a pretty crappy digicam, with 640 x 480 resolution, I think; but I like it for it's uber-portability and ease-of-use, and for some of the cheesy 'effect' its low-tech nature provide.) To compensate--and even though it can be a little cumbersome--I have taken some of these AVIs and imported them into my old editor (Magix Edit Pro 14, just fyi), then exported these into mpeg-2s, which Vegas can recognize. But here's a couple of problems: As an experiment, I went through this process, and what happened was an avi of 1.23 megabytes (it's an extremely short clip) was exported as an mpeg-2 of 2.14 MB. And trying other codecs only result in even greater increase of file-size--but that's besides the point. What am I missing out on, here--particularly considering the fact that mpegs are a form of compression which I presume are supposed to also result in a reduction of file size? Another concern for me is preserving as much as I can of the original avi's fidelity. . .so I'm curious to know if, through transferring to mpegs this way, am I also losing some of this fidelity, given that I am COMPRESSING the video, even though the result is a file of a larger size? The cumbersomeness and worry with all this is becoming a daunting factor that I'm trying to get over. . .insight, referrals, whatever would be appreciated. Thanks. :blink:

Check this out: I've been doing some experimenting with this, improvising my own lens-fitting filters, and I can tell you that the results seem to look a lot like the infrared B&W daylight pics I've seen--sky almost black, all the plantlife showing white, etc. You get better color results if you don't use the fourth filter. But, overall (and I'm still goofing around with this), it might have what you're looking for. Also, I thought I'd let you know that I HAVE NOT tried this with film--only digital video.

Thanks for the information, and I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you. As for what I've decided, and as luck would have it, I thought I should tell you that I managed to get a pretty good deal on a copy of Sony Vegas 7, which is probably exactly what I needed. I guess I still dream of an Avid system. . .but when one of my primary concerns was also portability (using my laptop which I just boosted to 2gigs RAM), and being able to upgrade without having to dole out $thousands, and after checking out reviews, and with some assistance from your perspective, Vegas 7 seemed to be optimum, for the time-being. I thought I should add, here, that my original post/question was more-or-less trying to ascertain what the difference between consumer versus professional-grade editors. The videoguys.com have a pretty accurate explanation of things--the two biggest being key-framing and 'workflow'--or the ability to apply several effects to the same clip of video--both of which I was previously trying to work around through exporting, then reimporting, segments of videos, etc. There are plenty of other minute differences, I'm sure, between the two formats--but that's pending more exploration and experimentation of Vegas, itself. I thought I would also include that I decided to keep my old editing program to use, as well. Vegas doesn't recognize a lot of the AVIs I use, so I filter and export them Magix, first. Also, I've been doing a lot of work with 'time-lapse' material, and Magix comes in handy, as you can speed up things up to 5-times the original duration, whereas the version of Vegas I have only goes up to 3x. No biggy, but I though I'd list this just for anyone who might be interested, which is why I included most of the rest of this information. Mostly, I just wanted to say thanks for the input, since it did point me in the right direction.

Warning. . .these are technical and aesthetic editing experiments. I am NOT a cinematographer, though the camera work in these videos is all my own. I know that the image quality is nowhere near professional levels. What I am looking for is input about the general rhythm and flow of the videos--transitions, takes/cuts, etc.--and an overall assessment of composing/creating something cohesive through editing. I want to warn you, again, that these might seem a little out of whack, or even insane. But for me that's part of the fun. Thanks.

Basically I'm wondering, as I'm gradually upgrading my (photography) gear, if Magix can handle higher-resolution material, such as high definition video or telecined 16mm with any adequacy. Also, I was wondering if anyone could compare the output capacity/resolution between the two editors, as I'm thinking about putting together a dvd (to sell), and was wondering if I need to remix my stuff on a higher end program before creating the product. I guess my original question was pretty open ended; and I'm beginning to wonder there are any Avid editors who ever even used Magix. Thanks for your reply, though. Do you have a demo reel you can link me to? Or other examples of what can be done on Avid (and its effects)? It might help to flesh the matter out for me a little more. some of my stuff--and I want to 'warn' that it is mostly experimental/kind of dada/avant garde--can be seen on my youtube account at: http://www.youtube.com/user/BOBMAN1980 Just about everything posted in the last year was done on Magix, and maybe you can get a better idea of where I'm coming from. Thanks, again.

In the last year, I decided I wanted to try dallying with every and any aspect of film/video production, and have been experimenting and trying out whatever stuff my limited budget would allow. (So this question will seem almost remedial to most of you. . .) I have been working with Magix on my laptop, and, with a couple of cheap digicams and sometimes some help from Gimp, have been having a lot of fun making little shorts to experiment with technique, timing, transitions, and other 'aesthetic' elements. A LOT of fun. I have become confident enough of my development (and dedication) that I am now considering upgrading to a professional setup to handle CS4 and Avid with the intent of making feature length productions. For those of you who might be able to answer, though, what ARE the drawbacks and disadvantages of Magix in comparison to Avid? Please don't give me any indignant or generic responses such as, "Night and Day," or, "Why even waste our time!?" I know that Magix is for home amateurs, and that Avid is for pros. . .and that the difference between the prices of the two of those exists for a reason. But understanding what the differences are would help me understand more about post-production in general. . . Does it have to do with available functions? I noticed that there are things I want to do, but haven't been able to (so far) with magix. Such as still-frames. . . What are the differences between fidelity or resolution? Are there any if all you're doing are cuts and fades, etc? I HAVE noticed that using certain effects results in an image that seems more 'pixelly', for instance. And am I right to assume, for instance, that Magix can't handle any HD or film (via telecine) material? I'm asking these questions because I want to make sure that it is worth my money to upgrade, as the process is going to cost me several thousand dollars. But, like I already said, I'm having a lot of fun messing around with what I have, and am not displeased with what I've managed so far. As a matter of fact, I have learned to work with some of these quirks and somewhat learned to appreciate the effect that the 'digital grit' element brings. So much so that I'm actually thinking of producing an entire feature using the equipment and software I already have, as the visuals would match the theme of the story, itself. . .Plus, I can carry EVERYTHING I need to make it on my back. However, I don't want to limit myself or my understanding. Any feedback--or even links--would be appreciated. Thanks.

I gotta say I really APPRECIATED looking at your work. I'm new in this field and this forum, but typically I find it daunting and discouraging to look at reels or samples since there always seems to be that 'something missing' (or something used too much). Your piece didn't have any of that. So thanks for the inspiration.