Editing Software - What do you use?

[Peter Thomlinson]

One German film maker who has a large output on DVD swears by Ulead and he has used most systems on the market!

Prompted by Ned's mention of his sound editing programs I want to mention the shareware program Goldwave which I use more often than Adobe's Audition because I am more familiar with it.

BUT having given a course recently where almost half the audience was wearing some form of hearing-aid I am becoming much more conscious of sound clarity. I wonder if there is anyone we know who might prepare a set of relatively simple tutorials for the website on using a cheap sound editor like Goldwave. We could have examples to play.

Ideally such a course would suggest common ways to improve the sound recorded by a typical low-to-mid priced camcorder with modest mics. I know you should get it right in the first place, but few of us do. As one well-known film maker said to me the other day: "We have an evening at the club once a year about how vital it is to do all your camcorder settings manually and always use separate mics or else you are not a real film-maker ... and everyone nods agreement. Then for the next 364 days they leave their kit on auto and depend on the built-in mics!"

Dave

Well, well, Dave, you have opened a can of worms here!!

I would suggest a professional sound program, which in fact does not cost that much (about £350 or maybe less now). It's 24 bits and very good. (It's called ProTools, and is video compatible. There are probably other contenders at about that price as well).

But of course, for serious sound editing, you need some good speakers, and these would set you back another £350 (Active speakers, with their own amps built in). Anything much less than this will hamper good results.

Of course, good mics and a better recording system (say DAT) than camcoders can offer is also important. Most camcorders have lousy sound, which is useless for music and not wonderful for voice either. So you do need to spend at least £1,000 on the sound side, to get good results.

I think the so called professionals who make feature films have a lot to learn about sound, particularly on the clarity of voice production and recording, as you have mentioned, Dave. In their case they have the equipment, but they use it badly. Often the mics are too far from the subject.

[billyfromConsett]

I would suggest a professional sound program, which in fact does not cost that much (about £350 or maybe less now). It's 24 bits and very good. (It's called ProTools, and is video compatible. There are probably other contenders at about that price as well).

But of course, for serious sound editing, you need some good speakers, and these would set you back another £350 (Active speakers, with their own amps built in). Anything much less than this will hamper good results.

Of course, good mics and a better recording system (say DAT) than camcoders can offer is also important. Most camcorders have lousy sound, which is useless for music and not wonderful for voice either. So you do need to spend at least £1,000 on the sound side, to get good results.

Peter - maybe there are people on this board who know you better than I do- which is not at all.

But on the publicity thread you said the following:

I "might" however, get back into film making, but I'm not interested in having my own filming or editing equipment any more. The technology aspect now really turns me off.
Peter

Yet your recommend the acquisition of £350 sound apps, active speakers also at £350, which I would argue with anyhow, and a DAT recorder- all totalling £1000. All that is way, way more than 99% of our members would seriously consider.

The last quote probably tops off your overwhelming depressive view that you put over about 2 days ago:

I would love to go back to the club situation and the atmosphere of 15 years ago and longer, but in these sadly changing times this is just not possible.

Are you having a little joke Peter?

[Peter Thomlinson]

billyfromConsett

You really have got me confused now.

How does the fact that "technical discussions in club meetings turns me off" got to do with my suggestions for better sound?

"Yet your recommend the acquisition of £350 sound apps, active speakers also at £350, which I would argue with anyhow, and a DAT recorder- all totalling £1000. All that is way, way more than 99% of our members would seriously consider."

I can accept that 99% of club members would not want to spend that much. However, I'm making suggestions about seriously high quality sound on video, which on the whole is missing.

And if you don't agree about the active speakers that's fine, but without them it is not possible to monitor sound accurately. (Ask any professional sound engineer/producer). In fact, I make a CD of the sound and listen on a seperate system with even more expensive amps and speakers, not to mention the CD player, just to check out what I may have done. Well, I do that for sound orientated things, like making a music CD, but I would do this also for a music video. (I also check it on a crap system costing less than £500 just to see how bad it can sound, and if it works OK, as people often only have these systems. I can then change various parameters if necessary.

"The last quote probably tops off your overwhelming depressive view that you put over about 2 days ago:

Peter Thomlinson wrote:
I would love to go back to the club situation and the atmosphere of 15 years ago and longer, but in these sadly changing times this is just not possible."

I don't see what's so depressing about this statement? It's fact! But if people wan't to live in cloud cuckoo land, then that's fine by me.

And as everyone knows, I never make jokes!!

[Peter Thomlinson]

Peter Thomlinson wrote:
I would love to go back to the club situation and the atmosphere of 15 years ago and longer, but in these sadly changing times this is just not possible."

Just to add a bit more about this, in case I put it badly in my original post.

Going back to a previous situation in a particular club in which I was once a member is not really possible as so much has changed. This happens all the time in "real" life. I suppose it's always sad for the individual when things change, like when I recently had a look after a 10 year gap at an area where I grew up (OK, I hear you lot questioning whether I HAVE grown up ...) - and where a certain pub had been demolished and a large block of flats had appeared. And like when I once showed my wife my old school, only to find it was then a pile of rubble, and was soon to became another block of flats.

So yes, I could go back to my old club, and in fact I often wonder if I might, but if I did it would be a totally different situation to 10 or 15 years ago. They even meet in a different place now, and there are of course a few new people.

So even a little joking apart, which is something I NEVER do, as it's against my religion, real life can be depressing, but my situation is not depressing for you, only for me, and I laugh all the way to the cupboard where I keep all my smashed technical junk, next to the creative one where I polish everything every day.

But I do dust and polish the active speakers every day too, even though they are only cheap ones ...

[billyfromConsett]

How does the fact that "technical discussions in club meetings turns me off" got to do with my suggestions for better sound?

Nope, you didn't say that. You said this

I'm not interested in having my own filming or editing equipment any more. The technology aspect now really turns me off. (Although it did not in the past).

How can you recommend expensive sound editing apps if you either don't own or use those things?

And if you don't agree about the active speakers that's fine, but without them it is not possible to monitor sound accurately. (Ask any professional sound engineer/producer). In fact, I make a CD of the sound and listen on a seperate system with even more expensive amps and speakers, not to mention the CD player, just to check out what I may have done. Well, I do that for sound orientated things, like making a music CD, but I would do this also for a music video. (I also check it on a crap system costing less than £500 just to see how bad it can sound, and if it works OK, as people often only have these systems. I can then change various parameters if necessary.

I don't know any professional sound engineers or producers. I'm confused because your advice also doesn't add up with someone that's turned off by technology Peter. Maybe you're a professional sound engineer and you do this for a living, but lets stick to the real world of amateur video clubs. To call an amp and speakers costing less than £500 crap (which I took you meant 'typical') is the kind of thing a student would come out with.

But if people wan't to live in cloud cuckoo land, then that's fine by me.

And as everyone knows, I never make jokes!!

The cloud cookoo comment sounded plain insulting to me. And I don't know that you never make jokes, so you're wrong there.

I did use one of those once in New Zealand in 1986, at my wedding. Yes, I shot my own wedding!!

You never make jokes? I'm typing this from cloud cookoo land.

Why is it that you claim not to be interested in making videos or using editing apps, yet you've inputted loads of advice about trying to get good tracking shots with tight framing, and audio recording with hardware and computer programmes?

Will you say what club you belonged to, just out of interest?

[Peter Thomlinson]

How does the fact that "technical discussions in club meetings turns me off" got to do with my suggestions for better sound?

Nope, you didn't say that. You said this

I'm not interested in having my own filming or editing equipment any more. The technology aspect now really turns me off. (Although it did not in the past).

How can you recommend expensive sound editing apps if you either don't own or use those things?

And if you don't agree about the active speakers that's fine, but without them it is not possible to monitor sound accurately. (Ask any professional sound engineer/producer). In fact, I make a CD of the sound and listen on a seperate system with even more expensive amps and speakers, not to mention the CD player, just to check out what I may have done. Well, I do that for sound orientated things, like making a music CD, but I would do this also for a music video. (I also check it on a crap system costing less than £500 just to see how bad it can sound, and if it works OK, as people often only have these systems. I can then change various parameters if necessary.

I don't know any professional sound engineers or producers. I'm confused because your advice also doesn't add up with someone that's turned off by technology Peter. Maybe you're a professional sound engineer and you do this for a living, but lets stick to the real world of amateur video clubs. To call an amp and speakers costing less than £500 crap (which I took you meant 'typical') is the kind of thing a student would come out with.

But if people wan't to live in cloud cuckoo land, then that's fine by me.

And as everyone knows, I never make jokes!!

The cloud cookoo comment sounded plain insulting to me. And I don't know that you never make jokes, so you're wrong there.

I did use one of those once in New Zealand in 1986, at my wedding. Yes, I shot my own wedding!!

You never make jokes? I'm typing this from cloud cookoo land.

Why is it that you claim not to be interested in making videos or using editing apps, yet you've inputted loads of advice about trying to get good tracking shots with tight framing, and audio recording with hardware and computer programmes?

Will you say what club you belonged to, just out of interest?

To start at the end Billy, I would rather not say which club it was - as you never know, I might go back one day, and I still have friends there, believe it or not.

Perhaps I should explain a bit more. I used to have lots of gear (in fact some of it is still under my desk) - but I don't use it anymore. Likewise, the video editing gear (program) is probably on a hard drive somewhere, or on a DVD, but I don't edit video anymore. (Not for over two years now).

Sorry if all this is confusing you. And I can see that I have, because I do edit sound only. Sometimes. In fact I'm two thirds through making a CD recorded in a professional studio. But I haven't done anything new on the edit for 10 months, but that's a long story, and complicated, and is also down to someone else. (And for musical rather than technical reasons the CD might not see the light of day, unless some of it is re-recorded).

Actually, the £500 (crap) system is mine which I bought about 15 years ago for £180 - so I was allowing for inflation, but I forgot that equipment has stayed about the same in price - so maybe a £500 sytem (CD player, amp and speakers) would be just about acceptable - although not particularly wonderful.

The cloud cuckoo bit is one of my favourite sayings, and was a joke. (Don't forget I NEVER joke). The shooting my own wedding was partly true, once the formal bit (it was in a garden) was over, I grabbed the camera and shot almost everything else. That was in the days when I was fascinated by video and film cameras, long since gone, as I can't be too bothered with them these days.

Don't forget that I have been a keen film maker - long past - and so I am quite adept at mouthing off about it at length, secure in the knowledge that I never do it now, so I won't be tested or found out.

What's your exuse?

[FILM THURSO]

It seems to me, and I'm not a man of outspoken opinion, that we have the perfectionist scenario going on here. In my local area the there is this bloke (not me, no really not me) and he is a self professed perfectionist. It always has to be right, no techy glitches or faults of any kind before during and after recording. He talks big on his knowledge of his interest (also quite an expert on copyright and trade names aparenlty- and he failed Uni not to put to fine a point on it). From my collegues who have worked with him, the word is that he is the most clueless rectom ever stood before a Pro Tools editing suite. Kind of person best kept to sweeping up under supervision.
Now it would be very wrong of me to speculate anyones' knowledge here as I don't know who I am talking about (lets keep it that way). We all have skills and we are all skilled in different ways. For the moment communication seems to be failing here and perhaps I'm throwing a pigeon among the cats and not helping this discussion any but anyway my view is if it works use it.
To this end there is a Kalee 12 (1940) 35mm projector on the stair for transfers and film viewing (yes- it works). An RCA Photophone amplifier (early 1940s) which we use just for the sheer joy of it mostly. A multitude of super 8mm cameras are available in our studio (24 at last count and 4 single 8 ).
I could go on at length (and you really want me to... don't you?) but up here in frugal (tight) Caithness price is not the issue but moneys' worth sure as heck is. If it don't deliver it can stay home! To this end we use what gets a film made whatever that may. This is a business where such approach reaps best (or desasterous) results.
Reality check please waiter. It doesn't matter what it cost- if it's in the wrong hands you know how it will end!

[Peter Thomlinson]

It seems to me, and I'm not a man of outspoken opinion, that we have the perfectionist scenario going on here. In my local area the there is this bloke (not me, no really not me) and he is a self professed perfectionist. It always has to be right, no techy glitches or faults of any kind before during and after recording. He talks big on his knowledge of his interest (also quite an expert on copyright and trade names aparenlty- and he failed Uni not to put to fine a point on it). From my collegues who have worked with him, the word is that he is the most clueless rectom ever stood before a Pro Tools editing suite. Kind of person best kept to sweeping up under supervision.
Now it would be very wrong of me to speculate anyones' knowledge here as I don't know who I am talking about (lets keep it that way). We all have skills and we are all skilled in different ways. For the moment communication seems to be failing here and perhaps I'm throwing a pigeon among the cats and not helping this discussion any but anyway my view is if it works use it.
To this end there is a Kalee 12 (1940) 35mm projector on the stair for transfers and film viewing (yes- it works). An RCA Photophone amplifier (early 1940s) which we use just for the sheer joy of it mostly. A multitude of super 8mm cameras are available in our studio (24 at last count and 4 single 8 ).
I could go on at length (and you really want me to... don't you?) but up here in frugal (tight) Caithness price is not the issue but moneys' worth sure as heck is. If it don't deliver it can stay home! To this end we use what gets a film made whatever that may. This is a business where such approach reaps best (or desasterous) results.
Reality check please waiter. It doesn't matter what it cost- if it's in the wrong hands you know how it will end!

Not quite with you on this one? You need to speak plain - call a spade a spade!!

If you are saying that equipment is expensive (particularly for film making) then I am in total agreement. Before I got into film making a long time ago, I was horrified how much it all cost. Of course, electronics have come down in price relatively, but it is still expensive. A passable camera (non HD) and editing suite plus a few extras like tripods, lights etc., are going to set someone back £2,000 - £3,000 and posiibly a lot more. I would not dare add up what I have spent over 12-15 years - it must have been £12-15K - and don't for ***** sake tell my wife!!
(Unless you want to see me disfigured) (Actually, I think she has a fair idea and she did encourage me a lot).

If however, you are casting doubt on whether Billy or myself are talking a lot of hot air, then I think you are wrong. I don't know Billy at all, but from what I gather from his posts (and we disagree a bit I know) he seems to have some experience and knowledge. In fact I would say quite a lot. And the healthy discussion going on between him and me has livened this MB up no end, which it really needs.

As to making films that are faultless, well, I hardly know anyone who can do that, and I certainly can't. I have known and do know two or three film makers who I would put into the "super" category, where perfection is about as close to 100% as you can get, but only in my (and a few others) opinion. I certainly don't fall into this category, and I can hardly bear to watch (and in fact don't) any of my old films, as they make me squirm.

"If it works, use it!" To quote you. Excellent. I would recommend that. I used to use my brain, but as it don't work any more, I have to use someone elses ...

[Dave Watterson]

One of the delights of these forums is that everyone using them does have a sense of humour (even if they deny it !) and that we all exaggerate from time to time ... either to make a point or to stimulate discussion.

From the recent postings in this thread, one point struck me as specially useful - the notion of checking your sound on two systems: one the best you can get hold of, the other the cheapest. I believe many radio stations do this ... they have expensive monitor speakers and also somewhere an engineer has something like the cheapest transistor radio to ensure that the broadcast output is acceptable on both.

In reality our movies will sometimes be shown on basic equipment and sometimes on superb equipment. Testing to make sure they are up to the challenge of each is sensible. In the same way it is useful to check the visuals not just on your editing system monitor but on a projector and and basic tv if possible.

Dave

[Peter Thomlinson]

One of the delights of these forums is that everyone using them does have a sense of humour (even if they deny it !) and that we all exaggerate from time to time ... either to make a point or to stimulate discussion.

From the recent postings in this thread, one point struck me as specially useful - the notion of checking your sound on two systems: one the best you can get hold of, the other the cheapest. I believe many radio stations do this ... they have expensive monitor speakers and also somewhere an engineer has something like the cheapest transistor radio to ensure that the broadcast output is acceptable on both.

In reality our movies will sometimes be shown on basic equipment and sometimes on superb equipment. Testing to make sure they are up to the challenge of each is sensible. In the same way it is useful to check the visuals not just on your editing system monitor but on a projector and and basic tv if possible.

Dave

This makes good sense and is correct.

I was at a free private screening for Amnesty International recently, where Ken Loache's "The Wind that Blows the Barley" was shown. (A great film incidently, about Ireland in the 1920's).

The film was shown using a projector and the source was DVD.

Afterwards, I asked him if it was shot using mainly available light, and he said it was. He was maybe just slightly embarrassed as he explained that in the DVD copy we had viewed, the colours seemed a bit washed out, which they did. It was in fact shown in a big room with a long throw, and obviously the projector could not cope. Unfortunately the DVD crashed near the end at a very dramatic moment, and it took them a while to get it back on track. A 35mm copy would have obviously been better, but not so practical under the conditions.

And Dave, I keep telling you, this is just an ugly rumour that is going around. I don't have a sense of humour, and I never joke ...

[stingman]

Ian - I use anything that works! I know that some programs do more, and are easier to use, but most editing is straight cuts, and personally I can do without all the fancy transitions which are mostly gimmicks!

Reliability and speed, with ease of use would be my main criteria, and most programmes fullfil these needs to a reasonable degree, especially these days.

Peter

(Sorry if this sounds a bit smug, it is not meant that way!!)

I do agree with you Peter but for me, I am a bit different. My films are not your standard affair. I like to experiment and bend the rules a bit. I don`t put myself into a standard mould. This has got me into soo much trouble at my club. My membership is hanging by a thread. I will put myself on the line if I see something that is not fair or wrong with rules in a film competition or the club. I will make a film pointing this out. That way everybody in the club will see my point of view....
I`m moving off the point sorry!
I find Serif and the free one with XP are either to rubbish or really hard to get on with. I tried Studio and just could not get the point of it. I found it really hard to work things out with it. No with Premiere, I just get on with it. It`s like an extension to my body. I am at home with it and it is so powerfull if you want it to be.
Ian Gardner

[FILM THURSO]

This morning I was amazed by the number of legs in my bed, so I lept up, grabbed a box and removed the spider.
I wouldn't say equipment is expensive atol. You can get expensive equipment but judging by the amount of stuff surrounding me at the moment well. Film Thurso is a poor group but have gathered a surprising array of means to make movies.
You can approach the movie industry with the "this is going to be expensive" or you can hunt around for good deals or generally be in the right place at the right time. The best offer I ever had was, "If you don't take it, it will go in the skip"
We once got a good sound cine camera for £14.99. When it had film in it, it was worth £32.98 and with a scope lens £124.98p.
Did somebody mention rules? What rules (aside from legal requirements). We make movies!

[Peter Thomlinson]

I do agree with you Peter but for me, I am a bit different. My films are not your standard affair. I like to experiment and bend the rules a bit. I don`t put myself into a standard mould. This has got me into soo much trouble at my club. My membership is hanging by a thread. I will put myself on the line if I see something that is not fair or wrong with rules in a film competition or the club. I will make a film pointing this out. That way everybody in the club will see my point of view....
I`m moving off the point sorry!
I find Serif and the free one with XP are either to rubbish or really hard to get on with. I tried Studio and just could not get the point of it. I found it really hard to work things out with it. No with Premiere, I just get on with it. It`s like an extension to my body. I am at home with it and it is so powerfull if you want it to be.
Ian Gardner

Now you are talking. I bend the rules too, and most people I work with think I'm totally bent too!! And you have to break the mold to realise that sometimes it should not be broken, and then hastily mend it!

I think you said you use Premiere Pro, which is the program I was last using. Not bad, and it works. Can't remember what I did not like about it, but mostly it seemed very good.

[stingman]

Now you are talking. I bend the rules too, and most people I work with think I'm totally bent too!! And you have to break the mold to realise that sometimes it should not be broken, and then hastily mend it!

I think I need you in my club for support! There all a bit set in there ways. When we were disscussing the modern look in films, one lady in the club said she would leave the club if the films started to have bits with slanty angles and weird stuff!

I think you said you use Premiere Pro, which is the program I was last using. Not bad, and it works. Can't remember what I did not like about it, but mostly it seemed very good.

It`s a great programme. It does what you want and more. You can keep it simple if you want to, or go overboard.

Ian Gardner
Moderator