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?