2nd of my Norway trip videos. Gone for a very Cinematic Movie style edit. All filmed with a DJI Phantom 3 Standard and edited in Final Cut Pro X
HI, thanks for the really nice comment, really appreciate it. Yeh i try not to go crazy with transitions, usually keep them clean and simple but when the music suits i always throw in either the Smooth Zoom Out transition which i downloaded from somewhere external and then the other transition i created myself. I have a TUTORIAL for this which is here:Very slick. Nicely done. I liked those cool transitions but I like even more that you didn’t over use them. Tasteful. Where did you get them? I presume they weren’t hand crafted. I’ve seen some like that on the FCPeffects site. I also noticed that you appear to have used a 2.35:1 widescreen mask. I’m also a big fan of that look.
Thanks much! I’ll check them out.HI, thanks for the really nice comment, really appreciate it. Yeh i try not to go crazy with transitions, usually keep them clean and simple but when the music suits i always throw in either the Smooth Zoom Out transition which i downloaded from somewhere external and then the other transition i created myself. I have a TUTORIAL for this which is here:
Yeh i love a 2:35:1 widescreen letterbox. Again this is something ive covered in my many Editing Tutorials
Andy: I stopped watching before the end. Why? I was having to see the same building structure (which was not exactly up to the standard of the Houses of Parliament or Edinburgh Castle, let alone the Taj Mahal) for the nth time. Earlier, I was able to get past the gimmick transitions - which are rarely, if ever, a substitute for interesting content - because your overall filming and speed of editing was good. I’m sure you’ve heard of “less is more” because you’re part way there, but I’d be much harder on what should really be left unseen or on the proverbial cutting room floor if I were you.
I’m commenting - constructively - in the hope that you realise the huge benefits of error-focused learning. Whereas it might be stretching the meaning of the word “error” here, you’d never see a BBC documentary making such basic mistakes. For every few seconds of a David Attenborough wildlife film, for example, most people would be shocked at how much excellent footage - usually obtained under the most difficult circumstances - remains unseen/unused. Their editors really understand “less is more”.
I hardly ever comment on videos posted on this excellent forum because the general standard is very poor when you consider the brilliant drone technology and editing software available. I’m not sure most people really want any honest feedback - even if the same people would probably moan and groan at having to sit through a viewing of yet another holiday video shot by a friend. 007 (as I call him) is an obvious exception. The fact I’m commenting here should be taken as an overall positive.
To anyone else reading this, I would make a general plea: Why can’t the standards of hobby films - aerial or otherwise - not be better? The camera quality is nowadays not a limiting factor. And everyone who watches TV has endless examples in front of them of how to film and edit something visually interesting and watchable. So is there really a valid excuse for not doing better - or much better?
where did you find it at a reduced price?Andy: We waited for years until the camera quality reached a certain level or standard before getting a drone: the P4P+. We haven’t been disappointed at all. In the UK, we were easily able to get 10% off as standard, plus a good backpack thrown in for free - from one of the main reputable sellers.
Andy: I’ve just emailed my logistics colleague in the UK for the answer. I’ll get back to you soon.where did you find it at a reduced price?
Thanks for the comment