EEVblog #943 - How EEVblog Does Video Editing

[EEVblog]

Dave takes you step-by-step through his video editing, rendering, and transcoding process for an EEVblog video using Sony Vegas / MovieStudio & Handbrake x264.
Note this is NOT a tutorial, it's a mostly live walkthrough of editing an actual EEVblog video, so lots of waffle.
The gear:
Aless 520USB Studio Monitor Speakers:
http://amzn.to/2eZ8vdv
Samson C01U USB Microphone:
http://amzn.to/2gbFg8W
Samson SR850 Studio Headphones:
http://amzn.to/2fR9QAG

[ez24]

Been waiting for this for years

thanks for the links, this one did not work for me


Aless 520USB Studio Monitor Speakers:
http://amzn.to/2eZ8vdv

The other two did work

Just curious why the .to extension ?   Is this like TinyURL ?


thanks

[alho]

You should stop relying solely on 3" screen. It doesn't add anything but mistakes. Look and think for few minutes before you start recording and you'd probably avoid most errors in your videos.
Why get a bigger screen when you can use your eyes and 3" is enough if you know what you are filming.

[Brumby]

You should stop relying solely on 3" screen. It doesn't add anything but mistakes.

Why get a bigger screen when you can use your eyes and 3" is enough if you know what you are filming.

 

[Brumby]

Look and think for few minutes before you start recording and you'd probably avoid most errors in your videos.

You can worry about not making errors - or you can just deal with them later.

The ones that Dave does worry about are the critical ones - lighting, framing, focus, sound, etc. - and he gets them to a pretty decent standard.  To put more effort into those leads you into the realm of diminishing returns.  It's just not worth it.

As for his 'dud' bits - like the first intro - there's no real point to being too 'careful'.  It would just cramp Dave's style waaayyy too much.  I would caution anybody getting too cerebral about what is, in essence, a performance.  Overthinking is a great way to waste time and lose spontaneity.

The other factor is work flow.  Dave has his structure that works for him.  He knows what to expect, because of how he shoots his clips.  His gaffes are easily identified and culled because each video is founded in the same shooting formula.  Familiarity with this - or any - type of structure will save hours of pain and frustration.

I've not shot much video and my editing experience is limited, but there are techniques that Dave describes that I can readily appreciate.  Something as simple as having the audio tracks enlarged on the timeline ...  that is something I had done myself, but I hadn't realised it until Dave made a point of it.


I don't doubt others will have their own approach to shooting and editing - but you can't argue the fact that Dave's technical approach is productive.  His safety boots, however ........

[EEVblog]

Just curious why the .to extension ?   Is this like TinyURL ?

It is what Amazon uses to shorten links.

[EEVblog]

As for his 'dud' bits - like the first intro - there's no real point to being too 'careful'.  It would just cramp Dave's style waaayyy too much.  I would caution anybody getting too cerebral about what is, in essence, a performance.  Overthinking is a great way to waste time and lose spontaneity.

That nails it.

The other factor is work flow.  Dave has his structure that works for him.  He knows what to expect, because of how he shoots his clips.  His gaffes are easily identified and culled because each video is founded in the same shooting formula.  Familiarity with this - or any - type of structure will save hours of pain and frustration.

Yes, doesn't matter too much what your workflow is, as long as you stick to it. When I want to edit oddball stuff is takes me ages to do.

[Barny]

After watching this Video, I finally knew the reason of the <- Hello World at the S-Rams

Its interesting to see the different ways the youtuber are using to create their content.

[TiN]

Thanks, Dave.

[Scottjd]

Thanks for sharing that Dave.

I normally won't argue, and this is not an argument. It more of an FYI for you and maybe others that might be interested in this.
I would like to point out that the new i7 Intel processors (I think 6th gen and newer) has build in code for hardware acceleration with h.264 and h.265 encoding. Not all video editing software supports it, and handbreak I think still has it as a beta feature to enable in the latest version. It didn't work with handbreak when I tired it, but they update so often it might work now. It did make a noticeable encoding speed difference with my video editing software. I don't know if your Sony software has an update that might support this now? Might be worth looking into since your back on your i7 machine. But I don't know what generation i7 you have, you processor may not support this?  I'm not arguing the GPU from an additional video card, this is built in support on the processor. I thought I should mention this for those that have software and the i7 or i5 that support it.

It sounds like what your doing with handbreak (great tool, I've used it for a long time) is removing the frames that are basically the same. So if you have no motion for 2 seconds, and record at 50 frames per second then that's 100 frames for that 2 seconds of the same image. It sounds like you using handbreak to make an HDR single image of the best frames and uses that one frame for those 2 seconds. So basically removing 99 of those frames for that 2 seconds.
I think newer smart cell phones use a similar technology with this method when recording videos that they  call VFR, or variable frame rate.

I do wish YouTube would let you replace a video and keep the same URL and descriptions if you need to update the video content.

It was interesting to see how other do it. I just started doing more professional editing with a new software. I tried 5 softwares before I found one that worked with me. I was also handbreaking it first to speed up the final encoding with mine, but then the editing software I used put out an update that fixed the one part and now I don't need the handbreak step. With so many editing software on the market and open source tools as well I'm sure everyone gets into their own grove and way that works for them. I'm still learning my software I choose and still getting into my preferred method and way of editing the video, but it's getting better and faster the more I learn the features. I still sometimes go back to my old method if I just want to publish something fast and simple.

Thanks for sharing your editing methods and style,
Scott

[dexters_lab]

interesting video Dave, thanks for posting it.

Some good tips in there about workflow, but i am not as good as you for getting my spoken bits right which means more editing for me  I probably need to be better disciplined, stop and really think about what i want to say before each clip. I also say a lot of 'so' and 'erm' when filming which i also try and edit out, but does take time.

I'd 2nd all your comments about recording audio, setting your colour balance, framing right when your shooting rather than doing it in editing.

I do some post video & audio processing though, not much just some little global tweaks, video gets slightly more contrast and audio gets a fast limiter in case i knocked a screwdriver against a metal part and created a horrible peaky clack so all the audio should be no more than -6db. I also have some specific tight notch filters as well to kill some annoying hums from my PC which is right next to where i film.

Your setup is nearly identical to mine though, same core PC and software, though my tests consistently show better performance with GPU rendering, i know this is a thorny subject for you but i probably know why it didn't work for you when you tried it... if you ever want to know 

I tried the smart re-sampling on and off, the only time it does benefit is when there is a change in frame rate from source to final render. I notice you record in 50 and render at 30 so disabling for you is the best option. My source and render are the same at 50fps so there is no benefit in disabling it unless i use time-shift and speed up a clip. Oh if you want a quick tip, you can multi select all your clips by selecting the first and end clip on the timeline with the shift key down, you can then disable the re-sample with one click for the whole project. What smart re-sampling does it if the output has more frames than the source it will take two frames and create a blended one to insert. Same goes for frame rate reduction, if it has to drop frames it will drop one frame and blend the adjacent frames together. I don't like what it does either and i do disable it when i speed up video because i dont like what the output looks like.

I don't keep my source footage though, takes up too much space and i probably generate more of it given i am less disciplined when shooting video. I do keep my 'master' final render and the upload file. The master is 1080P 50fps 25mbit video using the Sony AVC codec & 256kbit AAC audio, from that i make a second version using handbrake but drop the frame rate to 25fps and set the quality to usually 23 for the final upload.

The codecs in Movie Studio are utter pants for speed, if only it could match handbrake for settings, speed and quality of the output. Hopefully now magix have bought the line they will make some improvements because it's the biggest disappointment in the app. Setting the rendering threads number to the same as your physical cores helped me a little with rendering time BTW. So if you have 4 core with hyper-threading, set it to 4 not 8.

[EEVblog]

Your setup is nearly identical to mine though, same core PC and software, though my tests consistently show better performance with GPU rendering, i know this is a thorny subject for you but i probably know why it didn't work for you when you tried it... if you ever want to know 

I have tried the fastest GPU that Sony supports (the R9 280 IIRC) and it does not help.

Setting the rendering threads number to the same as your physical cores helped me a little with rendering time BTW. So if you have 4 core with hyper-threading, set it to 4 not 8.

Tried that, makes no difference for me.

[ez24]

Aless 520USB Studio Monitor Speakers:
http://amzn.to/2eZ8vdv

Dave I wish you could fix this link,  I cannot believe you use $500 speakers.

It seems to me that 17k views in two days is good.  I suggest you add the items you talk about (and link to) to your Amazon affiliate store.  It seems like you use reasonable equipment (except maybe for the speakers)

I wanted to check YT to look at the links there and looked at the bottom of your message expecting to find a link there like other members put there.  But NO links in your messages - what a surprise.  I suggest you take advantage of the ability to add links to the bottom of messages (I do not know the correct terms).   It would make it easier for people to get around, or I should say another way that is used by other members (I know there are other links)

[Dave Turner]

Hail Dave,

I enjoyed your waffle; it explained why I enjoy the spontaneity of your presentations. Your goofs, such as they are, remind me that I'm not at a lecture. I have nowhere near your expertise so spotting them helps me to engage more. Please continue as you are.

My only whinge is during mailbag when you present something close to the camera at your arm's length. By the time that the camera focuses you are usually withdrawing the object; therefore I rarely manage to see what you're showing clearly. Perhaps this because you view the camera screen rather than a separate higher definition monitor!

Within your current workflow, is there a way that you improve this without screwing with your presentation?

Ciao

Dave

[EEVblog]

It seems to me that 17k views in two days is good.  I suggest you add the items you talk about (and link to) to your Amazon affiliate store.  It seems like you use reasonable equipment (except maybe for the speakers)

And what's wrong with Alesis 520USB studio monitor speakers?
They are very good studio monitors.
If you are going to get all audiophile on me, don't bother.

[rs20]

And what's wrong with Alesis 520USB studio monitor speakers?
They are very good studio monitors.
If you are going to get all audiophile on me, don't bother.

+1, I literally cannot figure out whether $500 is supposedly too low or too high. It seems bang-on for good speakers. Those 520USB monitors look really good, I've always been bothered by the popular idea that you should couple very flat (freq response) speakers with very flat amplifiers, when it would be a lot easier and cheaper to create somewhat imperfect speakers and compensate using cheap DSP in the amplifier. AFAICT, 520USB drivers seem to adopt that model (or at least they could, given that the amp is A) digital and B) integrated with the speaker.)

[Someone]

It seems to me that 17k views in two days is good.  I suggest you add the items you talk about (and link to) to your Amazon affiliate store.  It seems like you use reasonable equipment (except maybe for the speakers)

And what's wrong with Alesis 520USB studio monitor speakers?
They are very good studio monitors.
If you are going to get all audiophile on me, don't bother.

Between the auto gain/eq control on the camera and your occasional tweak the audio is fine for purpose, absolutely no need to spend any more time or money on it.

[Brumby]

Why would you want to go OTT on speakers?

The key objective is to get a high quality original - which, once established through being critical about your equipment, placement and presentation style, will ideally have no need for critical 'fine tuning'.  As Dave has said, he does very little post-production stuffing around - maybe just a simple fade or level tweak on the audio.

Equipment capable of mastering an orchestral concert is just not warranted.  For what Dave does, you could probably get away with speakers from a $100 bookshelf stereo system - and still get a quite acceptable result for Youtube.  The quality signal remains in the electronic domain ... having cheap speakers is not going to affect the published audio.

Mind you, spending a decent amount on speakers will get you something that is easier to listen to.

[EEVblog]

+1, I literally cannot figure out whether $500 is supposedly too low or too high.

I actually paid about $250, so I guess they sound half as good? 

It seems bang-on for good speakers. Those 520USB monitors look really good, I've always been bothered by the popular idea that you should couple very flat (freq response) speakers with very flat amplifiers, when it would be a lot easier and cheaper to create somewhat imperfect speakers and compensate using cheap DSP in the amplifier. AFAICT, 520USB drivers seem to adopt that model (or at least they could, given that the amp is A) digital and B) integrated with the speaker.)

Alesis is not a crap brand. And the M1 active range of monitor speakers are actually reasonably well regarded.
The main reason I picked the Alesis is that they had a front panel headphone jack and volume control. I could not live without that.
Plus reasonably priced and small enough not to be a bother.
Like others have said, these are used to compare levels and trim speech, not to mix a 100 track opera.

[ez24]

And what's wrong with Alesis 520USB studio monitor speakers?

Nothing.

Everyone is missing my point. I suggested Dave add the equipment he talked about to his Amazon link so he could make some money because it was reasonable priced equipment (except the speakers because they are not reasonably priced for computer speakers) and good quality that is used by a professional, that is all I was saying.

I believe there is a market for good equipment that a professional uses and is reasonably priced.  I think a lot of people would like to get a $70 microphone that a professional uses (it is on my wish list).   I have no problem with $500 speakers nor them being listed.  I just made the mistake of meaning I did not think they would sell to someone making YT videos.

I am surprised that all his equipment is not priced at $500 each. 

I am not an audiophile (if I could afford to be I would be one), my high end system is a Bose SoundLink Mini connected to a $8 MP3 player (uses AA batteries).   My low end is $4 earbuds connected to my $8 MP3 player.

I still would like to know what wireless he uses.  Anyone?

So all this fuss is over the most insignificant piece of gear to make videos 

[EEVblog]

I am surprised that all his equipment is not priced at $500 each. 

If it makes you feel any better:
http://amzn.to/2f2JNps

[dexters_lab]

Your setup is nearly identical to mine though, same core PC and software, though my tests consistently show better performance with GPU rendering, i know this is a thorny subject for you but i probably know why it didn't work for you when you tried it... if you ever want to know 

I have tried the fastest GPU that Sony supports (the R9 280 IIRC) and it does not help.

Setting the rendering threads number to the same as your physical cores helped me a little with rendering time BTW. So if you have 4 core with hyper-threading, set it to 4 not 8.

Tried that, makes no difference for me.

Must admit i didn't play with any ATI video cards and the threads change only made a small difference anyway... standard internet disclaimers apply, YMMV etc 

[ez24]

If it makes you feel any better:
http://amzn.to/2f2JNps

thanks 

[BobC]

Thanks Dave!

I've been procrastinating about starting my channel because of the immense off-camera time involved in my test videos.  I want to generate decent content, but I have no time to waste. I can only commit to the channel if my time is used extremely well.

"Getting it right in the camera" is the best advice EVER:
- Get the camera setup right (audio, white balance, framing, record in AVCHD)
- SHOOT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
- Use pauses (audio silence) to indicate minor goofs
- Use stop/start (new clip) to indicate major changes/restarts
- Avoid retakes: Get to the point where the first take is good 90% of the time.

The editing advice ("don't fiddle with the video") is also vital:
- Don't worry much about video fades: Jump cuts are almost always OK
- Don't bother with automated audio normalization (or other automatic "corrections")
- When needed, manually adjust levels between clips (mainly when changing cameras or setups)
- Use audio cross-fade between clips (and across edits?)
- Use a simple process for graphic and text overlays

Finally, rendering and upload advice:
- Use the output format that renders fastest with good quality
- Transcode only when upload time or storage space matters
- Get to the point where watching the final product is NOT NECESSARY
- Know when/how using the YouTube tools can save you time and/or improve your video

I'm going to shoot more test footage to improve these aspects of my process, then see how much total time per video I can eliminate.

I just hope I can really put Dave's advice directly into practice, and not need to make a hundred videos to get it right.  Well, "good enough" will certainly do: Long ago I learned when to stop polishing the apple.

I also need to reduce my pre-camera time: I'm going to borrow another page from Dave's book and rely on knowing my domain, doing spontaneous coverage of minimal outlines rather than writing and trying to follow detailed scripts.

So, Dave, how much (and what kinds of) pre-shoot preparation do you do for "Fundamentals Friday" videos?

[strangersound]

The key is not the monitors you use, the key is knowing them and how they translate to other systems. The best set of monitors are ones you've used for years. You can mix on any set of speakers if you know them well enough.    

fyi: Magix bought the Sony Software line. I've been using those products since they were Sonic Foundry. I was always pleased Sony left them as they were and didn't try to reinvent the wheel. Sonic Foundry was a leader in audio software before Sony bought them. It's nice software to use, since each program operates within the same paradigm. The first time I used Vegas was a treat because I was already well versed at editing in their DAW (Acid). ACID started out as a looping type program, but quickly evolved into a totally capable DAW in it's own right. But the workflow and UI are the same in ACID and Vegas (or Movie Studio)...if you can use one, you can use the other. I tried other DAWs but I always came back to ACID...and have actually used Vegas as my DAW, since it will do the job as good as anything else. I've always been a fan of the legacy Sonic Foundry products. They do the job with a clean UI and a common sense workflow. 

The low res version you do is probably invaluable to the viewers that still use it...it's a smaller file, which equals a lot less bandwidth, which is an issue for a large portion of the cell market in the U.S. I'm wondering if it's mobile users or people that have bandwidth caps. Is it a portable file? That may be part of the lasting use of it...downloading and watching it later may be preferable for some people.