|
Grex > Video > #3: Analog v.s. digital editing techniques | |
|
| Author |
Message |
raven
|
|
Analog v.s. digital editing techniques
| 
Oct 20 04:54 UTC 1996 |
Discuss analog v.s. digital editing techniques for video here. I don't
know a lot about non-linear digital editing but I would like to learn more,
such as memory requirements, hard drive speed needed, digitizing cards,
good editing applications, etc.
|
| 3 responses total. |
de
|
|
response 1 of 3:
|
Jan 2 21:43 UTC 1997 |
For an amateur budget, non-linear digital editing is still *way* expensive
but worth it. I used to have a system that ran great but could have run
better for approximately $9,000. That was just the editing system, not
the cameras and decks. I had a Pentium 100mHz processor, 32 Mb RAM, a
Digital Processing Systems Personal Video Recorder video digitizing card
which came with its own limited software, but is compatible with a wide
range of third party editing software applications, and a 4.3 Gb A/V hard
drive. Now, as I said, at the time it cost @ $9,000 for this setup but
computer prices have dropped, so it may not be as much. I know the PVR
has dropped $600 in price (from $3,000, to $2,400). The best Third party
application I've found was Adobe Premiere 4.2. It's all very daunting
when you first get it, but easy to learn and fast. I have a friend who
has a similar setup, but with @ AV hard drives and dual 150 mHz processors
and it is quicker than hell. The PVR does broadcast and digital quality,
NTSC *and* PAL, and of course has SMPTE time coding. I *highly* recommend
it.
|
agent86
|
|
response 2 of 3:
|
Nov 21 20:22 UTC 1997 |
Ok... I have done some editing on the Amiga using an older Video Toaster setup
(non-flyer, meaning it was strictly analog), and what I can tell you is this:
If you want any special effects in whatever you are doing you should
definitely attempt to get a digital setup. Even if you just need like multiple
layers of text, this is true, because you lose an amazing amount of quality
in each subsequent edit-through. Digital editing is also far simpler and
involves way less funky math-stuuf to compute pre-roll times for your clips
or whatever. If you can at all afford it, go for a digital setup rather than
A/b roll.
One thing I don't like about the DV solutions so far is that unless you have
like 100's of thousands of dollars to spend, yuo will need to prerender your
work before you can view the final, full screen/framrate/color version because
even simple effects like a color shift or straight fade need to be
mathematically rendered. Something that is nice about that video-toaster is
that their is rarely, if ever, and render shit involved with basic editing
chores (with animations, of course, but not with a fade, for instance). This
can be a bitch, but if your computer is reasonably fast you can at least get
a 1/4 screen preview of the effect on your clip. BTW, you will need a hell
of a lot of *fast* scsi disk space (like 5 - 10 gigs, min) to do digital work
on PC/Mac platforms.
lkt (larry tucker) is probably the person to ask about the flyer/VT combo on
the amiga, so maybe you should email him.
|
drewmike
|
|
response 3 of 3:
|
Dec 23 16:37 UTC 1999 |
By the way, a lot has changed in the two years since the above response.
With our current system from Promax (http://www.promax.com) we started
with Premiere 5.1, then upgraded to Final Cut Pro. The software itself
retails for $999 ($499 educational) but it's the best intersection of
price/quality I've seen. It absolutely sings with Firewire input, and
I've been surprised by how Avid-like the interface feels. Granted,
someone who uses a Media Composer every day would soon feel constrained
by Final Cut, but I've never come to the point where I've said, "You
know, I used to do XYZ on an Avid, and I can't do that anymore with Final
Cut."
Expect to do some rendering if you're doing anything other than cuts.
Does it take time? Yes. But so does pre-rolling tape on traditional
editing, so it's a trade off. Dissolves are pretty fast; tricky alpha
effects less so.
That's the other thing, though. Final Cut even has some of the
functionality of Adobe After Effects. I'm nowhere near ready to evict
After Effects from my drives, but it's nice to be able to do some of the
stuff it can do from within the same editing app.
|