Jump to content

IAN SMITH

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IAN SMITH

  1. I have just gone to this forum with a question. On the way to starting this thread, I noticed my name displayed on several other threads, to an extent that I almost find embarassing. The advice I gave was based upon quite a few years using Video Editors of one kind or another. I have an all-time favourite, but hey, this is a 'NCH'-sponsored web-site and it will remain a matter between myself and the software distributor, which has chosen to pull the plug on support, just when I require a renewal of my activation-number following a computer-crash, and my need to install much of my software to hard-drives other than the default 'C:\', so it won't happen again in the future. So, an investment of NZ$400 or thereabouts disappears down-the-gurgler. 'Life's a bitch', as they say. Yes, I've given 'VideoPad' a test-drive or two. Many of its features I like, since it is not weighed down with useless dead-wood' in the way of effects, transitions etc. In short, a quite professional-looking package seemingly designed with the semi-pro in mind, rather than those 'consumers' who only want to dazzle the rest of humanity with their superficial (eg shop-bought), brilliance. Which, must make the next question seem odd: How are clips added to the timeline in such a way as to 'render' the right-way around, because, my first-only trial production ran backwards, last shot first? Now, I have no problem whatever with loading clips and assembling them into a coherent sequence, only that, after rendering, it runs backwards. (The trimmed individual clips run correctly in themselves, it's just that the order of sequence is wrong, with the left-most clip being the most recent one added, when in most editors, the sequence is presented the the opposite way around). I was working on a ten-minute module to slot into a much larger documentary project (68 DVD's of avi footage shot to-date). Now, I could always assemble the stuff elsewhere and place the 'render' on the 'VideoPad' timeline in preparation for the sound editing, but that sort-of defeats the purpose of using 'VideoPad' in the first-place. Is someone please able to point out where I have gone wrong; as it's not nice feeling like the world's biggest idiot. Ian Smith Dunedin, N.Z.
  2. Sheri2, I use 'WavePad' for a variety of purposes, especially for its excellent noise-suppression based upon sampling, but I find its 'VST' setup a bit constricting. For some reason I have to set up both channels separately using the 'WavePad' VST setup, and I cannot write 'profiles' of my own and save them there. Now, you might wonder why I am rambling on at a bit of a tangent on this-one, but I use the same 'kit' of VST 'filter' plug-ins for just about every purpose under-the-sun. They are the 'Classic' series, from 'Kjaerhusaudio' in Denmark. The nine plug-ins in this set work extremely well in almost all 'audio' situations (and yours, after-all, is essentially an 'audio' situation). I have no doubt there are other excellent audio plug-ins out there as well, and the ones used in the D.A.W. programme 'Reaper' may not only be downloaded in a single download, but are also 'free' as well, (I have a non-commercial licence for 'Reaper', which I use for music purposes). One programme which allows you to do almost everything you might want to do with plug-ins ('filters' if you insist), originates from France and is known as 'Wavosaur'. 'Wavosaur' is a handy audio-editor, but it is also a 'VST-Host' which allows you to create your own customised profiles/settings for all of your plug-in/filter products. I write music for my own video-productions using a 'notation' programme and Digital Audio Workstation, (usually 'Reaper' or 'Ableton'). It is necessary to create separate 'wave' files for each instrument group (I have a symphony Orchestra on 16 tracks, usually), which goes into 'WavePad' to be cleaned-up in respect of unwanted audio artifacts. For subsequent mixing, it is usually processed in 'Reaper', then finalised in 'Wavosaur'. There is an excellent audio-level meter available in 'Wavosaur'. I never 'normalise', but instead, set up the loudest of my tracks to be just below 0dB on the 'level' meter, (when 'peaking') and lower other levels accordingly. In fact, I would rather use an audio-compresser' (eg Kjaerhus GUP-1) than 'normalise'. In your case, if you are able to separate the audio from the video easily, there would be all sorts of possibilities to be derived from using 'WavePad', 'Wavosaur' etc. For the greatest flexibility your audio could be separated from its video, processed in 'Wavosaur' and 'imported' back into your video-editor again once it is to your satisfaction. 'Most of this could be done, also in 'Wavepad', which I value highly, it's just that 'Wavosaur' gives a clearer oversight of what you are up-to, plus a tad more versatility. 'I've also suggested provision of a VST-rack in 'VideoPad' to NCH, which would mean that most such operations could be carried out without leaving the main programme. Sorry for such a long-winded explanation, but I hope some of it helps. The short-answer to your question is, of course, 'Yes, 'WavePad' can be used for the purpose you suggest'.
  3. Unless you have some particular reason to be working in AVI, (which is generally uncompressed), why not work instead in mpg2 if that is available to you. I try to obtain the best image-quality possible and generally use a variable sampling-rate based upon a scan-rate of 9800, with 'two-stage' renders, the first to tee-up the optimum quality for the second which is the actual 'render' itself. I have usually been so satisfied with the outcomes that I have no wish to change to Hi-Def. If you change to mpg2, and your original material is 'avi', (I'm assuming DV-AVI input), your original footage remains unchanged and of 'camcorder' quality. The process, then, is non-destructive, and if you don't like the outcomes from the change, the original footage is not compromised. At all costs, don't over-write your original footage.
  4. I have only recently started using 'VideoPad' and wish to make more use of it in the future due to its excellent audio-facilities. But I, too, have been a bit 'at-sea' with the timeline(s). I cannot achieve the precise matches which I once enjoyed on another much-loved editor which a new owner (of the company), has seen fit to discontinue support on. So, I have thrown my 'two-pennorth' into the 'mix' by suggesting a more conventional timeline to NCH. I would have to say, that this software looks very promising. In my experience, many video-editors would benefit from a measure of 'stripping-down', that is to say, the removal of all those useless 'features' which are simply pointless 'tarting-up'. For that reason, I have usually not downloaded the packages of 'bonus' material and 'effects', many of them are either rubbish, or have such an 'American' focus, that they are useless to me, (I live in New Zealand, but no 'sheep' jokes.......please). So, I think I may have found the same things as you have, namely that the timeline images are not strictly 'keyed' to the audio-tracks, but appear somewhat arbitary. By the way, I have used up to seven audio-tracks in a production. If nothing else, multiple tracks allow for options' and 'trial-and-error' without undue upheaval on what is already OK for your production. A documentary series I have been working on for some years features much footage taken on rugged coastline where wind-noise is the norm, rather than the exception. Therefore, with much location-sound having to be replaced by 'library' sound, eg sound-loops constructed from footage recorded separately, multi audio tracks are vital. It helps, if I am able to record the video during the summer (I live at 46deg. South) and the audio during the winter when there are more calm days.
  5. I have always cut/trimmed on the 'Timeline', so I find a 'Storyboard' oriented layout to be useless to me. On a count-up, I have used seven different types of editors, mainly with a 'pro-sumer' and 'consumer' focus. My work is a documentary production of a trip down my Province's coastline (Otago, N.Z.) a two-year project which has blown-out to roughly five years as an estimate. In my experience, most Video-Editors are tarted-up and over-dressed versions of quite simple software, (given that no Video-Editing software is really all that 'simple'). My wish is for 'integration', with such software as 'Ableton', 'Reaper' and music composition software, as I am part-way through overcoming the ever-present 'copyright' problem, by writing/scoring/performing my own music. (And before you burst out laughing, it's by no means as bad as you might think). I have always found the 'Effects', plug-ins, 'Filters' to be generally inferior to what is available, shopping-around, and I use 'Classic' series VST's from 'Kjaerhusaudio' in Denmark a lot. Most Video-editor distributors seem to think that you want to use plug-ins, only for the novelty of 'duck-talk' etc. You actually 'need' plug-ins, in most cases, to allow subtle alterations to be made, not wholesale garbling of the audio-content. As an example, once I have 'played' my 'opus of the moment' (using 'Garritan samplings, for those who might be interested), I always make some 'space' around the 'brass' and 'woodwinds'. The horns (brass) and cor-anglaise (woodwind), really need it to bring out the true 'concert-ambience' sound. Kjaerhus 'Reverb' provides 180 cu/m of that 'space' perfectly. So, a VST slot would be of prime importance to me. I don't think, either, that six levels of 'Picture-in-picture' really do much for video-software. Half that number would be OK, and I cannot see the need for more. By the same token, VideoPad's great strength is putting the emphasis on the additional audio-tracks, in my opinion. Audio is always the 'bridesmaid' when it comes to video-editors, and marks the 'serious-contenders' out from the 'toys'. Ian Smith Dunedin, N.Z.
  6. Kristin, I had exactly the same problem as you have, which induced me, after having 'Windows' re-installed, to put many of my executables onto drives other than 'Drive C:\', where stuff is usually dumped by 'default' unless you specify an alternative 'path'. So, it's a far from silly question. I cannot recall, just off the top of my head, how I did it, but it was easy, and 'obvious'. My advice would be to uninstall 'VideoPad' from Drive C:\ and do another complete installation. Keep an eye open during the various 'screens' etc. which open as you go through the installation process, and look for a 'browse' prompt which will give you the opportunity to install to a different location. I'm sure there's one there somewhere. Having done that, use every 'preference' setting possible to specify alternative destinations for 'temp' files and anything else which is directed, usually, to 'C:\Documents and Settings...........' by default. I usually open a 'Project' file for an entire undertaking, and put in its sub-directory a 'file' for each purpose. If it's just a few clips at a time, you might save money by using a 'flash' device with a few gB's of capacity for that purpose, but probably a USB-connected hard-drive would be better. What 'VideoPad' puts onto Drive C:\ of its own volition is not very much, the problem is actually, what portions of your projects are written to 'C:\ Docs and Sets' while you are unaware of it. If you do not wish to have your problem recur in the future, find places for all temp-files etc. elsewhere, would be my advice. Ian Smith Dunedin, N.Z.
  7. 'Schooner' - Depending on how much footage you wish to convert, I have a solution which I have used. It's labour-intensive, though, and I wouldn't recommend it for gigabytes of footage at-a-time. I had to devise this solution when I made a video of an overseas holiday, was stopped by the weather from achieving all that I set out to do, and had to mix Sony DV footage from a previous trip with MOV footage from my current JVC camcorder. Additionally, my work was in 16:9. The problem was that some of my vacation footage was shot in 4X3 format, before I became aware of the fact, plus, I also wanted to incorporate 'P-i-P' stuff shot in 1991, which was of historical interest but in 4X3 format. In short, I used the graphics manipulation program GIMP for aspect-ratio conversion. This calls for short items of video to be processed at-a-time. The full 'GIMP' is needed, including the animation-module which splits sequences up into individual frames, then re-assembles them again after the changes have been effected. Sounds like a hell of a lot of work, and is, but it allows the 'impossible' to be achieved. Also with a bit of practice, you become better organised, and much faster at-it. Needless to say, you edit down the material first, so as to not have to convert footage which later won't be used. I took the trouble of writing a 'tutorial' on the subject, since I belong to an active video-club. I failed to interest many in it, although it explains with great care and clarity what is needed, blow-by-blow as you do the button-pressing. I have been involved, also, in an on-going documentary wildlife series. The first few excursions were filmed in 4X3 format, before I realised that 16:9 was plainly needed. GIMP was used, again, to crop the clips I wanted to use to 16:9, and then to reconstitute it all. The full procedures are far too long-winded to go into here, but if you are still interested and care to contact me, I would be delighted to send you the full text of the article. My email is <artsmith@clear.net.nz> Ian Smith, Dunedin, N.Z.
  8. Someone on this thread suggested more 'transitions'. I've been watching videos by people who spent fortunes on 'transitions' for years, and then insisted that every last one of them should be 'seen'. That made me allergic to them and consequently I use only a 'fade to/from dark', and 'cross-fade'. Excessive use of transitions is what marks work down as amateurish in my view. If transitions draw attention to themselves, (as they invariably do), and not as integral parts of the video, they don't belong there. Provide heaps of transitions for those who wish to use them, by all means, but they have a very low priority in my book. I like the idea of being able to copy potential DVD-fodder to a hard-drive though. Ian Smith
×
×
  • Create New...