Video forums go ballistic over "Why edit video at all"

[SpectateSwamp]

Not much I can disagree with you there Tom
other than:
-I shoot interesting stuff, more than half the time.
the rest is just practicing. and practicing with my Camcorder.

-Unedit video for the most part, is quite a nice change from
the chopped up vid we have on TV.

-artistically; video isn't done because video editing is
time consuming and expensive.
I could take a stroll thru a museum or gallery and
have it on a DVD shortly there after. Take along a guide
and it would be riveting

-Some of my techniques are quick and dirty. But they work.
They are dirt simple and only require the Camcorder, no-editing.

 

[Eagleboy]

Speaking about chopped-up editing we all see on TV - yes, it's irritating. But, nicely edited video is a breeze to watch, and is a pleseant experience. Unedited video is a welcome change on ocassion, though.

On video as an art form - I'm speaking about the actual video as an art. Not a documentation of art (I agree that not much editing needs to be done in terms of documenting art), but an actual art in and of itself. Like, Sundance Film art festivals - the film and videos are the actual art, and a lot of time-intensive editing is required.


As for your practicing with your techniques and the like, if you were to sit down and show your unedited DV-tape to others, you'd be showing your bad "practice" material, and they would lose interest. Granted, you could fast-foward through those parts, but that's not very professional if you were showing a portion of your footage to a group of people, and on their own they would not know what parts to fast foward through.

I have nothing to say about your techniques - as long as you can admit them to being quick and dirty but getting the job done, then there's nothing else to say about them. If you denied this, then I'd have to argue more, but as long as you are consciously doing something, then it's worthwhile. My problem is that I'm a quality-nazi, and sometimes I refuse to watch a streaming video because of bad quality. So, because of people like me, your video footage might be skipped over and go unseen. As long as you know of this consequence of messy craftsmanship, then you're good.

 

[SpectateSwamp]

Should be a little more open, to the future of video, than that.

Shoot a lot of video, you get good with the camera.
Shoot a lot of video, when you are good with the camera, then look out.
The editing can come later, much much later.

It's ok Tom I won't watch your video either.

 

[Eagleboy]

Should be a little more open, to the future of video, than that.

Shoot a lot of video, you get good with the camera.
Shoot a lot of video, when you are good with the camera, then look out.
The editing can come later, much much later.

It's ok Tom I won't watch your video either.

Haha, I actually don't own any video cameras. My best friend is a film-major though, so this whole debate sparked something in me. I'm a photo major, and I edit all the time. The art-form is in the manipulation of the image in the darkroom, or vice-versa in Photoshop. Even the best images must be tweaked and edited in subtle ways.

I do agree with your theory on getting better with the camera and requiring less editing because of it. I think people should shoot ***-loads of video first, then once they realize all the subtleties of video, and how their videos are impacted by what they do and how they do it, then they should start editing to get a finer-eye for things.

 

[SpectateSwamp]

Tom I'll give you this.
It's ok to edit a little.
Maybe after you have logged 50 hours or more, doing video my way.
Shooting down the barrel with the sun at my back, at a fastball tournie.
Chasing a young porcupine, thru the bush and up a tree.
I poke the camera down, a den of any animal I come across.
I see how the camera behaves and how I can improve as a cameraman.
You should learn the camera first, very first.

 

[grego]

Haha, this thread made me laugh a few times. SpectateSwamp, I can see where you're coming from, but I'd warn you against being too narrow-minded. You bring up a few good points, but there is one thing that I find to be glaringly wrong with your theory. Can you imagine what films at movie theatres would be like with no editing? They sure wouldnt be anything like what they are now. Think about how much time passes during the story line of a movie. Now, instead of going to see a movie that takes place over days, weeks, months, or even years, imagine that the story lines of the only movies we could ever watch must last only as long as we can bear to sit in one viewing. LOL, I dare say that would be horrible! Of course, if we saw that kind of movie without knowing that "edited movies" ever existed, it might not be that bad. The movies would be a completely different experience. Novels would probably punish them as far as intriguing story lines go.

Do you enjoy a good movie at the theatre?

 

[SpectateSwamp]

You probably won't find, a person that watches, less movies than I.

Just how much editing was done, in the very first years of
film, way back when? I bet they didn't edit much.

This whole discussion has made me, reexamine my own shooting skills.

Too bad, I'm banned and locked out of the forums,
where I made some of my stronger points.
I should have captured, that text while I had the chance.

I've learned, more about not editing and editing through it all.
I will put them all together, soon at my home site.

Video doesn't need to be edited, if it is done really well, in the first place.

 

[Eagleboy]

Umm, actually even older movies were edited and spliced a whole bunch. They cut the film where you need to splice in a new section or take a section out, and tape the film together with acetate tape (the tape is the same material that the photographic emulsion is adhered to - a very clear layer of acetate).

No computers were used, obviously, but editing was very much in practice.

Simply put, non-edited video has its place. Like, documenting events, and learning how to use the camera properly and getting a feel for it. However, a professional, concise, well-thought out finished product usually needs to be edited.

Oh, I thought of another art-film that did not require editing (other than huge spans of time over the course of days removed while chemical reactions took place) - David Weiss and Peter Fischli's film "The Way Things Go". They were Swiss artists in the mid - late 80's. Fantastic film, if you ever get the chance to rent it from your local library. Very sculptural.

 

[SpectateSwamp]

Be the Director.
While shooting, just go: cut, thats a take; cut, thats a take ...

Can't imagine, the number of good video events captured,
if the editors got off their computers and started doing some shooting.

There must be something, right now and close that would be of interest.
Or don't editors go out?

In the very first days of movie / video making,
I'm sure they spent more time shooting than editing.

Capture capture and capture. You can always sort it out later.
Don't let the task of editing, restrict your shooting.

 

[EricB]

SpectateSwamp, Do you need a hug?