2nd of my Norway trip videos. Gone for a very Cinematic Movie style edit. All filmed with a DJI Phantom 3 Standard and edited in Final Cut Pro X
Comments welcome
Comments welcome
Norway Cinematic Video
- Thread starter Green Phantom
- Start date
Very slick. Nicely done. I liked those cool transitions but I like even more that you didn’t over use them. Tasteful. Where did you get them? I presume they weren’t hand crafted. I’ve seen some like that on the FCPeffects site. I also noticed that you appear to have used a 2.35:1 widescreen mask. I’m also a big fan of that look.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 6
- Age
- 63
HI, thanks for the really nice comment, really appreciate it. Yeh i try not to go crazy with transitions, usually keep them clean and simple but when the music suits i always throw in either the Smooth Zoom Out transition which i downloaded from somewhere external and then the other transition i created myself. I have a TUTORIAL for this which is here:
Yeh i love a 2:35:1 widescreen letterbox. Again this is something ive covered in my many Editing Tutorials
Thanks Again
Andy
Thanks much! I’ll check them out.HI, thanks for the really nice comment, really appreciate it. Yeh i try not to go crazy with transitions, usually keep them clean and simple but when the music suits i always throw in either the Smooth Zoom Out transition which i downloaded from somewhere external and then the other transition i created myself. I have a TUTORIAL for this which is here:
Yeh i love a 2:35:1 widescreen letterbox. Again this is something ive covered in my many Editing Tutorials
Thanks Again
Andy
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2017
- Messages
- 779
- Reaction score
- 681
Beutifull scenery from a beautiful country captured by a talented drone pilot!
Andy: I stopped watching before the end. Why? I was having to see the same building structure (which was not exactly up to the standard of the Houses of Parliament or Edinburgh Castle, let alone the Taj Mahal) for the nth time. Earlier, I was able to get past the gimmick transitions - which are rarely, if ever, a substitute for interesting content - because your overall filming and speed of editing was good. I’m sure you’ve heard of “less is more” because you’re part way there, but I’d be much harder on what should really be left unseen or on the proverbial cutting room floor if I were you.
I’m commenting - constructively - in the hope that you realise the huge benefits of error-focused learning. Whereas it might be stretching the meaning of the word “error” here, you’d never see a BBC documentary making such basic mistakes. For every few seconds of a David Attenborough wildlife film, for example, most people would be shocked at how much excellent footage - usually obtained under the most difficult circumstances - remains unseen/unused. Their editors really understand “less is more”.
I hardly ever comment on videos posted on this excellent forum because the general standard is very poor when you consider the brilliant drone technology and editing software available. I’m not sure most people really want any honest feedback - even if the same people would probably moan and groan at having to sit through a viewing of yet another holiday video shot by a friend. 007 (as I call him) is an obvious exception. The fact I’m commenting here should be taken as an overall positive.
To anyone else reading this, I would make a general plea: Why can’t the standards of hobby films - aerial or otherwise - not be better? The camera quality is nowadays not a limiting factor. And everyone who watches TV has endless examples in front of them of how to film and edit something visually interesting and watchable. So is there really a valid excuse for not doing better - or much better?
I’m commenting - constructively - in the hope that you realise the huge benefits of error-focused learning. Whereas it might be stretching the meaning of the word “error” here, you’d never see a BBC documentary making such basic mistakes. For every few seconds of a David Attenborough wildlife film, for example, most people would be shocked at how much excellent footage - usually obtained under the most difficult circumstances - remains unseen/unused. Their editors really understand “less is more”.
I hardly ever comment on videos posted on this excellent forum because the general standard is very poor when you consider the brilliant drone technology and editing software available. I’m not sure most people really want any honest feedback - even if the same people would probably moan and groan at having to sit through a viewing of yet another holiday video shot by a friend. 007 (as I call him) is an obvious exception. The fact I’m commenting here should be taken as an overall positive.
To anyone else reading this, I would make a general plea: Why can’t the standards of hobby films - aerial or otherwise - not be better? The camera quality is nowadays not a limiting factor. And everyone who watches TV has endless examples in front of them of how to film and edit something visually interesting and watchable. So is there really a valid excuse for not doing better - or much better?
Hi and thanks for such a detailed reply. Something you rarely see on here and i appreciate it.
I agree with less is more. This video was 2.5mins long and this was cut down from about 15 mins of footage after cropping the camera moving around bits. I do try to cut down the footage and keep the best which is why it was cropped so much but i agree im sure i could cut further. For me i liked so many movements i could not cull them all, plus at the same time i dint want a 30 seconds video as its too short for me.
But i do however totally take what you have said on board, which is why my plan is to take the places i visited (the separate videos) and compile them into one compilation video which means it will be much more fast paced and will include more varied content. This will be 3 locations so not masses but if you consider i will probably make it a similair length of video 2-3mins it should be much more pleasing. Hope this makes sense.
Thanks again for taking the time for the feedback.
Andy
Andy: Thank you for taking my comments in the spirit they were intended.
Editing yourself does require being really hard on yourself, especially as “you were there” with all the associated feelings and memories. But it certainly can be achieved and practice makes it second nature.
Professional editors - whether for film, stills photography, print, or other - have the luxury and training of detached independence.
One of the tricks is to push hard for getting really good content. Even then, apply “less is more”.
I learnt mainly with stills photography. Even when all of my team were pleased with the results, I’d often disagree and aim to do better. Then I’d achieve the improved results.
In my opinion, the importance of editing should be placed at the top of the list - just under safety. Then composition, exposure, etc.
Editing yourself does require being really hard on yourself, especially as “you were there” with all the associated feelings and memories. But it certainly can be achieved and practice makes it second nature.
Professional editors - whether for film, stills photography, print, or other - have the luxury and training of detached independence.
One of the tricks is to push hard for getting really good content. Even then, apply “less is more”.
I learnt mainly with stills photography. Even when all of my team were pleased with the results, I’d often disagree and aim to do better. Then I’d achieve the improved results.
In my opinion, the importance of editing should be placed at the top of the list - just under safety. Then composition, exposure, etc.
Its ok im glad to of had such a great comment and feedback. It all helps me progress more and push myself for the future.
Just need a new drone now to get better smoother shots as the old Phantom 3 Standard, even though a great drone, is slowly letting me down in terms of quality and reliability.
Thanks
Just need a new drone now to get better smoother shots as the old Phantom 3 Standard, even though a great drone, is slowly letting me down in terms of quality and reliability.
Thanks
Andy: We waited for years until the camera quality reached a certain level or standard before getting a drone: the P4P+. We haven’t been disappointed at all. In the UK, we were easily able to get 10% off as standard, plus a good backpack thrown in for free - from one of the main reputable sellers.
Check out this post. The second video linked to has the real detail on the image quality comparison.
Phantom 4 Pro Camera vs Mavic Pro 2 Camera
Phantom 4 Pro Camera vs Mavic Pro 2 Camera
Green,
I think I saw in one of your tutorials that you shoot in d-log. Bear in mind that the P4P will force the ISO to be 500 in d-log. You can’t go lower. I like to shoot at ISO 100 for lower noise. So I only shoot in d-cinelike now.
I think I saw in one of your tutorials that you shoot in d-log. Bear in mind that the P4P will force the ISO to be 500 in d-log. You can’t go lower. I like to shoot at ISO 100 for lower noise. So I only shoot in d-cinelike now.
Andy: I’ve just emailed my logistics colleague in the UK for the answer. I’ll get back to you soon.where did you find it at a reduced price?
Thanks for the comment
Meanwhile, I would really encourage you to upgrade as your footage warrants it. What the P4P camera can do is impressive for the price in terms of quality and manual control.
Similar threads
