On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:16:05 GMT, ":::Jerry::::"
allegedly wrote:

There is no need to be that accrete, you add 'x' number of frames /
seconds at the beginning and at the end of each clip capture and then
'top and tail' the clip in the editor. At worst you might need to
pause the tape.

Which still requires at least 2 passes through the tape.

If you can do that in _real time_ then you are cleverer than most.
Also, think of the wear and tear on the player/camera with the
shunting back and forth.

That is what a VHS BITC copy is for....

And every amatuer hobbyist has one of those.

I have used Scenalyzer and it makes a pretty good job of logging the
tape with a single, non-stop, pass.

With 'scene' cuts in all the wrong places no doubt, otherwise you
wouldn't have used the phrase "it makes a pretty good job of logging
the tape", you would have used the word 'perfect'.

Don't know about Alan's copy, but mine captures on the scene boundaries
perfectly for me. Each clip starts from when I pressed the record button
and ends when I stopped recording. Doesn't get much simpler than that.

How can anyone edit a tape without knowing what is on the thing and
were it is, if you're going to view the tape at least once before
editing that you might as well log and capture only what you need.

Personally I view the footage whilst capturing it, and I delete the clips
I don't need as it goes through. What I'm left with are the clips that I
do want, and I've only made one pass through the tape and taken 1 hour of
my time.

We did this last year Jerry and you beat it to death then. Scene
detection works well for the rest of us. You banging on about how the
pros do it won't change that.

"Alan S." wrote in message
.68...
":::Jerry::::" wrote in
:
"Alan S." wrote in message
.67...
snip

I have used Scenalyzer and it makes a pretty good job of logging the
tape with a single, non-stop, pass.

With 'scene' cuts in all the wrong places no doubt,

Actually, no. Have you tried it? You add _no doubt_ so you have tried
it? In my experience it got it right all the time. The only reason I no
longer use it is because my video is captured and then logged on the
computer. It takes the same time as making a BITC copy on VHS.

How does the software know were *I* want the scene / clip started and ended,
it can't so is next to useless. FACT, It can only guess at were the scene /
clip starts and ends.


otherwise you
wouldn't have used the phrase "it makes a pretty good job of logging
the tape", you would have used the word 'perfect'.

How can anyone edit a tape without knowing what is on the thing and
were it is, if you're going to view the tape at least once before
editing that you might as well log and capture only what you need.

Nobody can. But what you were saying was that you can log in real time
which I was questioning, and still do.


As I said, at worst you might need to pause the tape, not keep rewinding it
as you claim.



If you prefer to log manually, it saves wear and tear by capturing to
the computer and logging there - assuming the transfer includes
off-tape timecode.


That statement just shows how little you understand :~(

Really? Having been involved with broadcast video for 32 years.


Your point being ?..

"Dave R" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:16:05 GMT, ":::Jerry::::"
allegedly wrote:

There is no need to be that accrete, you add 'x' number of frames /
seconds at the beginning and at the end of each clip capture and then
'top and tail' the clip in the editor. At worst you might need to
pause the tape.

Which still requires at least 2 passes through the tape.

The camera tape(s) get played twice, once to dub a BITC VHS copy and the
second is when the tape is captured. All logging / viewing is done with the
VHS copy.


If you can do that in _real time_ then you are cleverer than most.
Also, think of the wear and tear on the player/camera with the
shunting back and forth.

That is what a VHS BITC copy is for....

And every amatuer hobbyist has one of those.

They might lack the TC but they still have the tape counter that can be
burnt into a dubbed copy, and most have a VHS VCR - and if they don't, they
more than likely have a DVD recorder.


I have used Scenalyzer and it makes a pretty good job of logging the
tape with a single, non-stop, pass.

With 'scene' cuts in all the wrong places no doubt, otherwise you
wouldn't have used the phrase "it makes a pretty good job of logging
the tape", you would have used the word 'perfect'.

Don't know about Alan's copy, but mine captures on the scene boundaries
perfectly for me. Each clip starts from when I pressed the record button
and ends when I stopped recording. Doesn't get much simpler than that.

But what if you need a 40 second clip half way through a very long scene,
you waste time and HDD space capturing what you don't want or need.


How can anyone edit a tape without knowing what is on the thing and
were it is, if you're going to view the tape at least once before
editing that you might as well log and capture only what you need.

Personally I view the footage whilst capturing it, and I delete the clips
I don't need as it goes through. What I'm left with are the clips that I
do want, and I've only made one pass through the tape and taken 1 hour of
my time.

Sound like all you need to do is cut out the finder over the lens type
errors, your film is in chronological order to begin with and you only ever
have one scene to chose from. If so you don't need to scene detect, you just
need to capture and cut and close on the time line.


We did this last year Jerry and you beat it to death then. Scene
detection works well for the rest of us. You banging on about how the
pros do it won't change that.

Until you realise it's limitations....

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:26:20 GMT, ":::Jerry::::"
allegedly wrote:

We did this last year Jerry and you beat it to death then. Scene
detection works well for the rest of us. You banging on about how
the pros do it won't change that.

Until you realise it's limitations....

I know the limitations, and if I ever have the need to do so, I will work
around them. No-one said it was the best solution for all situations.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in
:


"Alan S." wrote in message
.68...
":::Jerry::::" wrote in
:
"Alan S." wrote in message
.67...
snip

I have used Scenalyzer and it makes a pretty good job of logging
the tape with a single, non-stop, pass.

With 'scene' cuts in all the wrong places no doubt,

Actually, no. Have you tried it? You add _no doubt_ so you have tried
it? In my experience it got it right all the time. The only reason I
no longer use it is because my video is captured and then logged on
the computer. It takes the same time as making a BITC copy on VHS.

How does the software know were *I* want the scene / clip started and
ended, it can't so is next to useless. FACT, It can only guess at were
the scene / clip starts and ends.

It doesn't know where *YOU* want it to start/stop but you seem to want
to start/stop other than at the recording boundaries. That's fine if
that's what *YOU* want to do. It's not what *I* want to do.



otherwise you
wouldn't have used the phrase "it makes a pretty good job of
logging the tape", you would have used the word 'perfect'.

How can anyone edit a tape without knowing what is on the thing and
were it is, if you're going to view the tape at least once before
editing that you might as well log and capture only what you need.

Nobody can. But what you were saying was that you can log in real
time which I was questioning, and still do.


As I said, at worst you might need to pause the tape, not keep
rewinding it as you claim.



If you prefer to log manually, it saves wear and tear by capturing
to the computer and logging there - assuming the transfer includes
off-tape timecode.


That statement just shows how little you understand :~(

Really? Having been involved with broadcast video for 32 years.


Your point being ?..

"Dave R" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:26:20 GMT, ":::Jerry::::"
allegedly wrote:

We did this last year Jerry and you beat it to death then. Scene
detection works well for the rest of us. You banging on about how
the pros do it won't change that.

Until you realise it's limitations....

I know the limitations, and if I ever have the need to do so, I will work
around them. No-one said it was the best solution for all situations.

The fact is, scene detection is rarely the best solution, other than if only
'playing' at the art of film editing.....

If all you want to do is cut out the bad bits, add a few transitions and add
a voice over track then OK, but if you're making a something more complex
film I really don't see how it helps or saves time - IMO it's more likely to
cause problems than solve them.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:35:39 GMT, ":::Jerry::::"
allegedly wrote:


"Dave R" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:26:20 GMT, ":::Jerry::::"
allegedly wrote:

We did this last year Jerry and you beat it to death then. Scene
detection works well for the rest of us. You banging on about how
the pros do it won't change that.

Until you realise it's limitations....

I know the limitations, and if I ever have the need to do so, I will
work around them. No-one said it was the best solution for all
situations.

The fact is, scene detection is rarely the best solution, other than
if only 'playing' at the art of film editing.....

LOL.

If all you want to do is cut out the bad bits, add a few transitions
and add a voice over track then OK, but if you're making a something
more complex film I really don't see how it helps or saves time - IMO
it's more likely to cause problems than solve them.

Perhaps you're an old hat stuck in his merry ways? Or maybe you're just
too "Pro" for us. It's a small wonder you came back here from your pro
newsgroup. What happened there?

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Olympiad" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Olympiad" wrote in message
...
Hi,

A while ago on here (possibly over a year, maybe even two) someone
recommended a tool that would analyse and split a DV file into scenes
based
on either timecode and /or frame content.
snip

It's call tape logging and uses a pencil and paper.....

Scene detection software is for wimps ! :~)

[ grins and ducks ]


Too right - I mean, why spend 30 mins capturing scenes automatically when
you could spend hours having fun doing it manually. It's like all these
other new-fangled inventions that dare to try to save time like dish
washers
and the like, and computers that use Windows instead of good old
fashioned
dos command line. Who invented video anyway - lazy good for nothings -
nothing wrong with a canvas and set of paints.


Err, but who would use a washing machine that shrunk some cloths and
stretched others, resulting in someone having to spend hours putting it
all
right after -

...... hence the question about scene detection software and recommendations
for good ones! Anyway, it's fairly obvious from your later posts that you
don't rate such tools very highly.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Dave R" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:26:20 GMT, ":::Jerry::::"
allegedly wrote:

We did this last year Jerry and you beat it to death then. Scene
detection works well for the rest of us. You banging on about how
the pros do it won't change that.

Until you realise it's limitations....

I know the limitations, and if I ever have the need to do so, I will work
around them. No-one said it was the best solution for all situations.

The fact is, scene detection is rarely the best solution, other than if
only
'playing' at the art of film editing.....


The art of film editing (or rather film making) is above any tools you use.
No amount of tools or effects can make a bad film good, but I've seen plenty
of potential good films ruined.

If all you want to do is cut out the bad bits, add a few transitions and
add
a voice over track then OK, but if you're making a something more complex
film I really don't see how it helps or saves time - IMO it's more likely
to
cause problems than solve them.


Complex does not necessarily equal better.

In message , Dave R
writes
Perhaps you're an old hat stuck in his merry ways? Or maybe you're
just too "Pro" for us. It's a small wonder you came back here from
your pro newsgroup. What happened there?

Notice the colons in Jerry's nick? He gets himself into so many
kill-files that the only way he can get himself heard is by adding a
colon at one end or the other :-)

Next thing he'll be telling you is how he started this newsgroup :-)
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info