Cut out the good bits from .mov files without reencoding ?

[whytte]

I want to cut out the good bits from my .mov files

I have used quicktime pro which doesn't re-encode I suspect, but I cannot get precise cuts (always 4-5 seconds shorter end results than the previews) in quicktime


can you suggest any free or trial versions of software I could use just to cut without re encode/render please

I've tried "allok video splitter 3.1.1117 11/17/2009" which has no new version or a new product which enables the video files to be cut without encoding

how can we trust this software with the latest video formats such as hd and full hd .mov files?


What difference it makes to ( the end result in the current formats such as full hd or hd cuts without re encoding process) to tick the "add letterbox to keep aspect ratio" or not ?

Can you suggest better programs for this task please?

 

[knightly]

What software are you using to edit? If you have pre-X final cut, compressor will do this as will final cut itself. Saving to the same format as the original shouldn't require a re-encode and will get you frame accuracy in your selections. iMovie will work as will windows movie maker premeire or avid.

Even Blender should be able to perform this task.

 

[whytte]

What software are you using to edit? If you have pre-X final cut, compressor will do this as will final cut itself. Saving to the same format as the original shouldn't require a re-encode and will get you frame accuracy in your selections. iMovie will work as will windows movie maker premeire or avid.

Even Blender should be able to perform this task.

Hi knightly,

I need simple cut software suggestions to get the good parts out of the raw files as the first step
then I'll use either vegas or adobe cs4 to do the edits in my pc

I don't want any rendering at this stage because of possible degrading of the raw footage if I could get away with it

First I tried quicktime pro which ended up cuts, 4-5 seconds shorter output than the previews I marked in the first place

Then I tried "allok video splitter 3.1.1117 11/17/2009" which has no new version or a new product which claims that the video files to be cut without encoding

how can we trust this software with the latest video formats such as hd and full hd .mov files?

Then I tried MPEG_Streamclip_1.2 which I'm not 100% sure if my simple cut outputs with MPEG_Streamclip_1.2 is somehow degraded or not

can you suggest a better cutting program which doesn't degrades the quality of the original through rendering/re-encoding, ideally without rendering/re-encoding at all please ?

and/or can you make any other suggestions under these circumstances please,

all the best

 

[JoshL]

I'm not sure about the quality, but I use Avidemux for video trimming purposes: http://avidemux.berlios.de/ which cuts without re-encoding, so it's pretty fast.

Now, my purposes are different; again quality is not a concern. I'm looking to cut out scenes from a video to import into my DAW to write music, so it doesn't need to look nice, it just needs to be at the right framerate and sync to the work I'm doing. I trim the files because I need all the RAM and processor power I can get. Smaller chunks are better!

Not sure if this will do what you're looking for, but it works well for me, and hey, it's free so can't hurt to try!

 

[Jeff Troiano]

Hi knightly,

I need simple cut software suggestions to get the good parts out of the raw files as the first step
then I'll use either vegas or adobe cs4 to do the edits in my pc

I'm not sure I understand why you'd want to do this in the first place. Maybe my workflow is different, but why not just import the footage into your NLE, and set in and out points, then drop the footage onto your timeline?

Am I missing something?

 

[whytte]

I'm not sure I understand why you'd want to do this in the first place. Maybe my workflow is different, but why not just import the footage into your NLE, and set in and out points, then drop the footage onto your timeline?

Am I missing something?

I don't have any experience with vegas or adobe editing programs where I'll be getting outside help and I wanted to go to him with as necessary footage as possible in order not to burden him with all the bulk

I have some footage where
-I only need part of the sound
-some footage where I only need the vision
-some footage where I only need the sound and vision only after eliminating the unnecessary bulky parts

That way, with my pre cutting/eliminating, his workload & time may be reduced to let's say from 100 hours to 20 hours for a 30 minutes output

So how would you like to help me, under the circumstances, Jeff ?

 

[knightly]

Do you have the clips imported as single clips per scene/take - or as one big clip that you have to chop up into clips per scene/take?

If you already have it cut into individual takes, just give him the files with the takes you want. Having ~5 seconds of extra footage at the head and tail of each clip will make your editor very happy with you. If you used a slate on set, keeping those in the clips will make him very happy with you as it'll be easier to synch the audio for him...

If he's a really experienced guy, he'll want much more footage to be able to play with to cover up any continuity issues by mixing and matching takes from both the audio and video to get the desired flow to the edit... this goes down so far as individual consonant/vowel sounds in some of my edits for the audio.

 

[whytte]

Do you have the clips imported as single clips per scene/take - or as one big clip that you have to chop up into clips per scene/take?

I have about over 100 separate short clips I cut out or about to for a 30 minute final:

• -some clips of sound and vision
• some are just vision
• -and some will end up as sound only after I extract the sound files to be used only
• - not to mention that some sound files need to be filtered separately for noise and to be added in the production

So it's kind of too many for a beginner for me, as I was thinking of doing the major edit myself
but I haven't learn the software (vegas pro) enough and kind of decided to get help in that.

Someone has volunteered to do it for me few weeks ago and I am still struggling to have enough footage as well as remove some unwanted parts from them plus noise removal in order to make his work less


if he is still willing to do that, I am planning to hand him over the clips

should he changes his mind helping me after that ( I still need at least 2-3 weeks to complete my tasks), I am stuck with the full work, that means I need to learn the program myself somehow.

So far, I have downloaded some tutorial video clips on how to use vegas but not enough to learn it at this stage. I have to go through the 500+ pages manual too

so this is where I am of this mess at present

How would you help me in structuring this mess, or a better strategy if you could make, please, knightly ?

 

[knightly]

Much of the time, the editor will actually prefer to have more options to pull from, especially if you have inconsistent actors/camera work in your footage. The good bits of each take can then be spliced together into a much better performance on both the actor's and camera crews part (making you and them look better). I once saw an interview with Tome Cruise who said that he's a good actor because the editor makes him look like one.

For dialog, you can go so far as to resurrect dialog on a phonemic basis (basically a syllable at a time) if there are performance flaws or technical issues with a take. much the same in the video, if shot 1 has a brilliant reaction to one line, but the whole rest of the take completely sucks, you can still use the one reaction, then cut away to the person talking, then back to the first person in take 2 or 3 or where ever has the strongest take. As I haven't seen your footage, I don't know the state of it, but I'm making assumptions based on your previous posts in this particular thread. In my first feature, I have entire dialogs that are cut from 1 take per line performances that were shot with the other actors not in the room at all. I simply had each actor memorize 2 lines at a time and read them, the the last line from the previous take and the next line in the script. This gave me each line of dialog with a reaction after/before it to cut into and out of. It's a PITA way to cut a scene, but it worked as my actors didn't come to the set with the script memorized (or read, which going back to it, I don't blame them for -- it was a difficult read).

That said, there's only 4 or 5 things you ACTUALLY need to know in any editor to cut a film:
1) import a clip
2) set an in and out point for the clip
3) add it to the timeline after the previous clip
4) adjust where the sound on that clip starts and stops separately from the video
5) export a sequence

This is 95% of the technical skills you'll use to cut a video. There are other steps after this, but this is most of it to get you to a piece that you can then learn the other 5% for... and that will be task specific stuff that you'll figure out that you need as you go.

 

[whytte]

Thank you indeed knightly. I now know about the process than before. I appreciate that very much

Much of the time, the editor will actually prefer to have more options to pull from

I did not know this. Thank you for the caution. I should prepare the bits accordingly

The good bits of each take can then be spliced together into a much better performance on both the actor's and camera crews part (making you and them look better). I once saw an interview with Tome Cruise who said that he's a good actor because the editor makes him look like one.

I should apply this to mine too

As I haven't seen your footage, I don't know the state of it, but I'm making assumptions based on your previous posts in this particular thread.

Mine has about 8 short talks (with about 8 different people of the same occupation talking about their lives, what inspired if any in choosing such occupation, how they achieved, what are the interesting memories they have, why should the others choose such occupation) - well, without the questions appear in the film. Not all of them has all the points covered

I also have some background footage of the environment they work in

I am planning to have each of them talk and appear in the first minute then their talk continues with the background environment scenes played instead of their faces appear

Any suggestions to make this look better please?

there's only 4 or 5 things you ACTUALLY need to know in any editor to cut a film:
1) import a clip
2) set an in and out point for the clip
3) add it to the timeline after the previous clip
4) adjust where the sound on that clip starts and stops separately from the video
5) export a sequence

This is 95% of the technical skills you'll use to cut a video

The way you have presented actually encourages me do it myself. I thank you for that very much knightly.

On the other hand, I still want it to be done by an experienced editor if I could, in order to get the result to look better as my being at the beginners stage.

all the best

 

[Jeff Troiano]

Mine has about 8 short talks (with about 8 different people of the same occupation talking about their lives, what inspired if any in choosing such occupation, how they achieved, what are the interesting memories they have, why should the others choose such occupation) - well, without the questions appear in the film. Not all of them has all the points covered

I also have some background footage of the environment they work in

I am planning to have each of them talk and appear in the first minute then their talk continues with the background environment scenes played instead of their faces appear

Any suggestions to make this look better please?

If this were my project, I would take the footage and divide into folders, each folder containing 2 things, the interview footage, and the "background" footage. That way your editor can cut how he sees fit. He can do just as you described, and show the person talking about their occupation, and then cut to the footage of their work environment. But don't just limit him to showing the person talking for the first min, then the environment. He may want to cut back and forth between the 2. Give him the full interview of the person, and the background footage. Maybe some notes on the points you feel are the most important.

Maybe give him an outline, person 1 first, person 4 second, and so on, but let him know, if he thinks it flows better in another order, give him the freedom to cut it different. But some guidance of how you see it is a great starting point.

 

[whytte]

If this were my project, I would take the footage and divide into folders, each folder containing 2 things, the interview footage, and the "background" footage. That way your editor can cut how he sees fit. He can do just as you described, and show the person talking about their occupation, and then cut to the footage of their work environment. But don't just limit him to showing the person talking for the first min, then the environment. He may want to cut back and forth between the 2. Give him the full interview of the person, and the background footage. Maybe some notes on the points you feel are the most important.

Maybe give him an outline, person 1 first, person 4 second, and so on, but let him know, if he thinks it flows better in another order, give him the freedom to cut it different. But some guidance of how you see it is a great starting point.

Thank you Jeff,
These are excellent pointers for me

I have 3 folders at present:

1. background
2. sound files (from the interview folder) to be filtered for the noise, (then to be placed back to the interview folder)
3. interview

Therefore it ends up as 2 folders as you have suggested

Yes I also agree that the strict rule of one minute talk then the background is too rigid and not inspirational at all. I should leave them to him with some guidance from me

I now have made some progress in my mind from an unknown stage to a one where I could see some light

kind regards

 

[knightly]

When I'm cutting documentaries, I tend to treat them as a conversation and allow one talking point from an interviewee to lead into the next from another interviewee. For me, the result ends up looking like more of a conversation between the interviewees than a formal interview. I think it flows better that way and doesn't have the interstitial card format that I can't seem to figure out how to not make suck.

I did a piece on alcohol consumption on campus for the healthy living organization there this way and slowly went from woohoo stories of campus drinking/partying life to more examples of poor decision making and consequences related to it. Rhetorically, I allowed each talking point to lead into the next as a slow progression from one extreme to the next allowing the viewer to start from a place of relative comfort (target audience: partying college students) and slowly lead them to the more uncomfortable facts of the interviewees choices.

I used the same style while cutting my senior thesis "Identifying Indian" and I'm really happy with the way that piece flows. For me, it's an alternative to the talking points format with the cards between and has more of an opportunity to keep the audience engaged with the interviews.

Rule of thumb; trust that you've watched enough content in your life that if it feels like you should cut, you are right. Be REALLY brutal with your footage, if you're watching the next talking point and getting bored, go back a few clips and figure out why. Develop an extreme case of ADD, and a sociopathic approach to your footage for precisely this job... you audience will thank you.

 

[whytte]

When I'm cutting documentaries, I tend to treat them as a conversation and allow one talking point from an interviewee to lead into the next from another interviewee. For me, the result ends up looking like more of a conversation between the interviewees than a formal interview. I think it flows better that way and doesn't have the interstitial card format that I can't seem to figure out how to not make suck.

Thank you knightly, I like that very much. I wonder how I could get away with the missing parts since not all of the people interviewed answered all of the questions. Let's say I categorized 4 type of topics they talked about and some talked about 4 topics while some did 1 or 2 or 3.

is there any way this can be smoothened overall so the viewers do not expect or wait for the missing parts overall from all of the speakers, considering I don't have all the points covered by every speaker ?

I did a piece on alcohol consumption on campus for the healthy living organization there this way and slowly went from woohoo stories of campus drinking/partying life to more examples of poor decision making and consequences related to it. Rhetorically, I allowed each talking point to lead into the next as a slow progression from one extreme to the next allowing the viewer to start from a place of relative comfort (target audience: partying college students) and slowly lead them to the more uncomfortable facts of the interviewees choices.

That is a well planned structure you have made. That's a lesson I could learn and apply to my work from my next project onwards. I wish I knew all these beforehand. Then again, this is going to be my first film, so I now know I lack pre-production prep skills as well as many others I should improve

I used the same style ... has more of an opportunity to keep the audience engaged with the interviews.

That's crucial, thank you for reminding me to pay attention to this too.

Rule of thumb; trust that you've watched enough content in your life that if it feels like you should cut, you are right. Be REALLY brutal with your footage, if you're watching the next talking point and getting bored, go back a few clips and figure out why. Develop an extreme case of ADD, and a sociopathic approach to your footage for precisely this job... you audience will thank you.

I like these checklist type of tips very much. and being very brutal with the footage and developing an extreme case of ADD. That'll definitely make it to stand out.
I'll be brutal as well as ask the editor to do the same within my guidance

I appreciate your helping hand very much, knightly. I can never thank you enough

 

[knightly]

No problem
clarifications... the ADD doesn't refer to a cutting style, it's an impatience, once the information has been delivered, it's time to cut to the next bit. If cutting it in a dialog manner, make sure the transition from one interviewee to the next feels natural to your earballs.

You're not required to show every interviewee on every talking point... and the thing I like about editing docs this way is that often, the end product itself follows the interviewees rather than trying to force them into some regimented path. This allows the theme to develop itself as you edit. Always keep an eye on the rhetorical strategy you're using with your singular goal for the project (i.e. "Show the horrors of lithuanian dog herding") firmly post it noted to your screen.

http://www.nvcc.edu/home/lshulman/rhetoric.htm

For me, I find that often what we tend toward is "preaching to the choir." Providing information in a way that relates to people who already know the information or for whom it's something they already believe. The audience we really want to hit is generally coming from the precise opposite camp; people for whom the information is new or people who believe the opposite. For me, both have a similar structure. Starting from a point of commonality with either camp, we can slowly move from the side of lacking knowledge on a particular subject through empathy with the audience to educating them and "bringing them around to a different point of view" by making bold statements that align with the commonly accepted viewpoint of the audience, then providing subtle counter examples to bring them to the next talking point. This procedure almost always gives you the next talking point if you're looking at your post it note... because it provides a next talking point with a new alignment based on the assumption that your audience hasn't whole heartedly dismissed your previous arguments against the initial statement.

This is a delicate thing, too strong a statement, and you come off as a radical with an agenda... but if you can speak first with your audience, then plant some seeds of dissent in their thought processes, you'll keep them watching to the next point. If it's strictly educational on an unknown topic, the enemy is boredom, if it's shifting viewpoints, the enemy is coming off as if you're fighting for the other side of the argument.

I love rhetorical arguments, they really make me happy when done right.

 

[whytte]

Thank you Knightly,

I'm overwhelmed with the ideas you have I could never find in anywhere else. It's throughly educational and lists many must-have's I am always after. I thank you for them very much:

clarifications... the ADD doesn't refer to a cutting style, it's an impatience, once the information has been delivered, it's time to cut to the next bit.

If cutting it in a dialog manner, make sure the transition from one interviewee to the next feels natural to your earballs.

I see, OK, that transition from one interviewee to the next feels natural to your earballs, I may have difficulty applying it on, but knowing this beforehand on what the expectation is a better thinking cap and I'll keep as a sticky note too...

You're not required to show every interviewee on every talking point...

That's very comforting

the end product itself follows the interviewees rather than trying to force them into some regimented path. This allows the theme to develop itself as you edit. Always keep an eye on the rhetorical strategy you're using with your singular goal for the project (i.e. "Show the horrors of lithuanian dog herding") firmly post it noted to your screen.

http://www.nvcc.edu/home/lshulman/rhetoric.htm

..tend toward is "preaching to the choir." Providing information in a way that relates to people who already know the information or for whom it's something they already believe. The audience we really want to hit is generally coming from the precise opposite camp; people for whom the information is new or people who believe the opposite. For me, both have a similar structure. Starting from a point of commonality with either camp, we can slowly move from the side of lacking knowledge on a particular subject through empathy with the audience to educating them and "bringing them around to a different point of view" by making bold statements that align with the commonly accepted viewpoint of the audience, then providing subtle counter examples to bring them to the next talking point. This procedure almost always gives you the next talking point if you're looking at your post it note... because it provides a next talking point with a new alignment based on the assumption that your audience hasn't whole heartedly dismissed your previous arguments against the initial statement.

This is a delicate thing, .. if you can speak first with your audience, then plant some seeds of dissent in their thought processes, you'll keep them watching to the next point. If it's strictly educational on an unknown topic, the enemy is boredom, if it's shifting viewpoints, the enemy is coming off as if you're fighting for the other side of the argument.

I love rhetorical arguments, they really make me happy when done right .

I'm very impressed with the concept here.

I'm making myself a pdf print of these must-have check-list right now and adding to my learningpedia. It's definitely an MBA for filmmakers or wannabees

all the best