I'm trying to follow the advice of an ebook "Start Up A Photography or Videography Business On A Shoestring".
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004OA6EUM
The advice is that for covering weddings and other events, the camcorder should have in-camera edits. The in-camera editing features should help minimize post production editing.
The authors recommend the Sony DSR-250 which has a fade-to-black, various wipe transitions, and a digital dissolve. Since this camcorder is standard definition, is there another camcorder with the same or similar in-camera editing features, but in HD?
Thanks, Sam
That sounds like horrible advice. I've never worked with in-camera edits, but it sounds like something you can't undo when you're editing. Therefore, it dramatically reduces flexibility. I doubt it saves time in post either. Takes me about half a second to add a fade-to-black to a clip in Final Cut. Im sure the same goes for any other editing program.
Rob Grauert, Jr
www.robgrauert.com
www.facebook.com/robgrauertvideo
I agree with Rob's comments and would go further to add that attempting to perform "in-camera" edits (while/during) an event is in progress is probably going to generate some serious problems that might or might not be fixable in post, causing more time and effort than any post production editing minimization.
Because edit suites were seven figures at the time, I edited in camera a lot in the 80s. Never did I make it obvious by using the cheezy in camera effects though. It was just a matter of planning ahead and shooting in the right order much of the time. I'd never practice this on a paying gig though. Just no reason to. You'll be editing a wedding anyway (titles, music, time, ect). May as well do it all in post and save yourself some time and heartache.
http://grinnerhester.com
Sam, I'll have to agree with the previous posters. Idid this sort of thing 'back in the day'on a VHS camcorder shooting weddings. I planned ahead and stored titles in the camera and used the 'cheezy' fade-ins and outs. Everything was linear editing and the tape was completed at the end of shooting at the reception. There was quick delivery of product but there was not much room for error along the way. I moved on to DV and computer edting and never looked back. In my opinion there aren't any good reasons to edting in camera. Hope this helps.
Actually, it is more difficult to edit in camera. So, in the end it would increaseediting time and effort.
It leaves you with no handles, making ya fussy in post.
Now, same day edits, especially with weddings, are quite popular. Easy enough to do. You feed the editor tapes or cards as ya go and he keeps things simple, spitting out awesomeness by the end of the night. He can get some titles ready beforehand, build any photo montages that may have been purchased, had all songs ready, ect. You'd shoot as you normally would, not with the in-camera editing vibe you first mentioned.
http://grinnerhester.com
I dun-no, passing cards off to a guy in a white van on the street might get the wedding crashed by the DEA. It would make for a speedy product though.
white van?
He's the guy sittin in the back in the monkey suit. the one with the laptop.
Does make for a speedy product. I never understood the wedding dudes who sit on projects for six months at a time.
http://grinnerhester.com
"the upside is that by using digital dissolves and fade-to-black sparingly, you can reduce the post editing effort significantly."
I disagree. It takes about two seconds to add a cross dissolve or fade-to-black. Plus, faster doesn't always mean better. It is possible to edit too fast, which results in mediocre editing.
Rob Grauert, Jr
www.robgrauert.com
www.facebook.com/robgrauertvideo
For some reason, nine times out of ten I usually wind up changing the time/duration of a transition to better fit the clip or spend a little bit of time to cut it at just the right point. Think I rather go with the monkey in the guy suit in the back with the laptop to speed things up. :-)