Re: new videoblog entry

> 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/