Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Callahan Highlight Video Thoughts
40 views
Skip to first unread message
Bulb
May 13, 2012, 6:20:06 PM5/13/12
to
Having watched a few, I just wanted to share some of my
thoughts in case other editors out there are in the midst of
making theirs. I have no idea how much impact these videos
actually have in the results, but if you are trying to win
over the random RSD browser, you might want to consider
these points.
1. The nominee should be very obvious in each play. Very
frequently the nominee is obvious, but for the times he is
not, you can do some editing to help the viewer. Lots of
ways to do this, e.g. dimming everything but the player,
drawing a circle on the player, etc. Only has to be for a
half second or so.
2. Any player can look good against chumps; the best players
perform when there's a lot on the line. Would be nice to
have, for each play, a graphic displaying the opponent,
circumstance (e.g. "Easterns pool play"), and maybe even the
score if available (getting a Callahan at 2-2 is impressive,
but getting one on DGP is usually moreso). Thorne's video
broke plays down by tournament, which was nice.
3. Long throws to wide open receivers are usually not
impressive, unless they are serious bombs or possibly
breaking the mark (as in, actually breaking a set mark, not
just catching a swing and getting off a break side huck).
Watching a 45 yard open side forehand to an open receiver is
usually more of a testament to the receiver than the
thrower. (On that note, video taken from out the back of an
end zone will usually not do much to "wow" the viewer in
terms of distance. It is, however, better for when the
nominee is the player making the end zone catch or D... so,
better get two cameras to the games next year!)
4. Likewise, catching wide open goals or getting D's with no
one around is usually not impressive in short clips (i.e.
just showing them catching a goal). If they did so with a
great juke, better read on the disc, or purely pulling away
with speed, then make that clear to the viewer with text or
highlighting their respective positioning when a throw goes
up. (EJ's video kinda did this for one of his D's, although
unfortunately the O player was out of frame for part of it
so the viewer couldn't *really* see how good a play it
was.)
5. Exceptions to #3 and #4 could be made if a player
completely dominated a single game, e.g. if he threw or
caught 10 out of a team's 15 goals in the finals of a big
tournament, then showing all of them in a row (and
indicating them as such) could be very impressive.
6. One type of "play" I have seen in highlight videos on
rare occasion is when a player just completely dominates an
offensive point, getting 10+ touches in a single possession
as his team works it up the field for a score. These could
be used effectively, perhaps by showing a visual tally of
his touches, and fast-playing most of the video, only
slowing down to normal speed if the nominee makes an
impressive play amidst said domination. (Again, as with any
play, this type would be most impressive against good teams,
and moreso in important games.)
7. Another type of play that would take more advanced
editing (or simply more time) is shut down defense. Showing
a nominee denying another team's top player on multiple cuts
on a single possession could be impressive if edited nicely.
Not saying this would be easy, but could do a lot to help
out the nominees who don't get as many D's because their man
is never open.
8. In general, a highlight video should show good diversity.
Callahan nominees should not be specialists. Four or five
good examples of one specific type of play (e.g. open side
flick huck, goal line back hand break, poach D, offensive
sky) should be enough to convince the viewer that they can
make that type of play when necessary. If your nominee
seems to only make plays in a few categories, odds are good
that either 1) he is a specialist, or 2) your team played
too many bad teams who couldn't recognize that they needed
to stop him from [insert play here]. Not saying that is
always the case, just saying odds are good.
Anyway, just my two cents. I found most of the videos so
far to be too long/repetitive, such that I stopped watching
before they were over. Three or four minutes is a good
target mark, I think.
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
thoughts in case other editors out there are in the midst of
making theirs. I have no idea how much impact these videos
actually have in the results, but if you are trying to win
over the random RSD browser, you might want to consider
these points.
1. The nominee should be very obvious in each play. Very
frequently the nominee is obvious, but for the times he is
not, you can do some editing to help the viewer. Lots of
ways to do this, e.g. dimming everything but the player,
drawing a circle on the player, etc. Only has to be for a
half second or so.
2. Any player can look good against chumps; the best players
perform when there's a lot on the line. Would be nice to
have, for each play, a graphic displaying the opponent,
circumstance (e.g. "Easterns pool play"), and maybe even the
score if available (getting a Callahan at 2-2 is impressive,
but getting one on DGP is usually moreso). Thorne's video
broke plays down by tournament, which was nice.
3. Long throws to wide open receivers are usually not
impressive, unless they are serious bombs or possibly
breaking the mark (as in, actually breaking a set mark, not
just catching a swing and getting off a break side huck).
Watching a 45 yard open side forehand to an open receiver is
usually more of a testament to the receiver than the
thrower. (On that note, video taken from out the back of an
end zone will usually not do much to "wow" the viewer in
terms of distance. It is, however, better for when the
nominee is the player making the end zone catch or D... so,
better get two cameras to the games next year!)
4. Likewise, catching wide open goals or getting D's with no
one around is usually not impressive in short clips (i.e.
just showing them catching a goal). If they did so with a
great juke, better read on the disc, or purely pulling away
with speed, then make that clear to the viewer with text or
highlighting their respective positioning when a throw goes
up. (EJ's video kinda did this for one of his D's, although
unfortunately the O player was out of frame for part of it
so the viewer couldn't *really* see how good a play it
was.)
5. Exceptions to #3 and #4 could be made if a player
completely dominated a single game, e.g. if he threw or
caught 10 out of a team's 15 goals in the finals of a big
tournament, then showing all of them in a row (and
indicating them as such) could be very impressive.
6. One type of "play" I have seen in highlight videos on
rare occasion is when a player just completely dominates an
offensive point, getting 10+ touches in a single possession
as his team works it up the field for a score. These could
be used effectively, perhaps by showing a visual tally of
his touches, and fast-playing most of the video, only
slowing down to normal speed if the nominee makes an
impressive play amidst said domination. (Again, as with any
play, this type would be most impressive against good teams,
and moreso in important games.)
7. Another type of play that would take more advanced
editing (or simply more time) is shut down defense. Showing
a nominee denying another team's top player on multiple cuts
on a single possession could be impressive if edited nicely.
Not saying this would be easy, but could do a lot to help
out the nominees who don't get as many D's because their man
is never open.
8. In general, a highlight video should show good diversity.
Callahan nominees should not be specialists. Four or five
good examples of one specific type of play (e.g. open side
flick huck, goal line back hand break, poach D, offensive
sky) should be enough to convince the viewer that they can
make that type of play when necessary. If your nominee
seems to only make plays in a few categories, odds are good
that either 1) he is a specialist, or 2) your team played
too many bad teams who couldn't recognize that they needed
to stop him from [insert play here]. Not saying that is
always the case, just saying odds are good.
Anyway, just my two cents. I found most of the videos so
far to be too long/repetitive, such that I stopped watching
before they were over. Three or four minutes is a good
target mark, I think.
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
J Mac
May 13, 2012, 6:45:03 PM5/13/12
to
I hope the videographers read this and adapt accordingly.
Hava Tequila
May 13, 2012, 9:29:12 PM5/13/12
to
Good points, all. You know what still bugs me, though?
> 5. Exceptions to #3 and #4 could be made if a player
> completely dominated a single game, e.g. if he threw or
> caught 10 out of a team's 15 goals in the finals of a big
> tournament, then showing all of them in a row (and
> indicating them as such) could be very impressive.
Carolyn Finney absolutely dominated women's college finals last year,
and she didn't get that hardware. She should have been awarded it...
she balled...
Lame.
Don't drop the ball this year, voters.
> 5. Exceptions to #3 and #4 could be made if a player
> completely dominated a single game, e.g. if he threw or
> caught 10 out of a team's 15 goals in the finals of a big
> tournament, then showing all of them in a row (and
> indicating them as such) could be very impressive.
and she didn't get that hardware. She should have been awarded it...
she balled...
Lame.
Don't drop the ball this year, voters.
Bulb
May 16, 2012, 9:39:20 AM5/16/12
to
Well if the voting took place after the championship games,
things might have gone differently...
things might have gone differently...
Logan
May 16, 2012, 1:18:38 PM5/16/12
to
When it comes to Callahan videos, you get what you pay for... Which is
nothing. You're lucky to have anything. Teams aren't hiring
videographers to record them at every tourney, game or practice. It's
the n00b on the team, that may or may not have video camera experience
recording from a poor angle and recording for game analysis, not for
highlights. IF anyone is even behind the camera.
Then the editing. You're notes make sense, but it will never ever
happen. Again, you get what you paid for. Chances are who ever is
editing these videos has little to no experience editing and are
probably editing it on the shittiest computer with the shittiest
software.
I'm a professional that got his start making highlight videos of my
college team. I had the right equipment and the right software. I look
back at it now (almost 7 years now) and I want to vomit (editing wise,
the memories are great).
The only way you're going to get the Callahan videos that you want to
see is if college teams shell out that kind of cash necessary to hire
someone to professionally shoot and edit for them. I don't shoot and
edit ultimate as much as I would like to because even at my rock
bottom prices, they are way out of the ballpark of what even the best
fonded college teams can afford.
The best Callahan video that I've ever scene is the Paula Seville
video. Plays are great to watch, but are always subjective. "Who was
guarding her?" "What team were they playing?" etc. Her video, and what
every video should have, are interviews or testimonials. Specifically,
interviewing people not on their team. The hotter the rivalry (teams
or individuals), the more the producer of the Callahan video should
want to interview them. There a few rough edges in the video that if I
shot or even edited it I would change, but even with that, the video
is better than anyone else's (male or female).
nothing. You're lucky to have anything. Teams aren't hiring
videographers to record them at every tourney, game or practice. It's
the n00b on the team, that may or may not have video camera experience
recording from a poor angle and recording for game analysis, not for
highlights. IF anyone is even behind the camera.
Then the editing. You're notes make sense, but it will never ever
happen. Again, you get what you paid for. Chances are who ever is
editing these videos has little to no experience editing and are
probably editing it on the shittiest computer with the shittiest
software.
I'm a professional that got his start making highlight videos of my
college team. I had the right equipment and the right software. I look
back at it now (almost 7 years now) and I want to vomit (editing wise,
the memories are great).
The only way you're going to get the Callahan videos that you want to
see is if college teams shell out that kind of cash necessary to hire
someone to professionally shoot and edit for them. I don't shoot and
edit ultimate as much as I would like to because even at my rock
bottom prices, they are way out of the ballpark of what even the best
fonded college teams can afford.
The best Callahan video that I've ever scene is the Paula Seville
video. Plays are great to watch, but are always subjective. "Who was
guarding her?" "What team were they playing?" etc. Her video, and what
every video should have, are interviews or testimonials. Specifically,
interviewing people not on their team. The hotter the rivalry (teams
or individuals), the more the producer of the Callahan video should
want to interview them. There a few rough edges in the video that if I
shot or even edited it I would change, but even with that, the video
is better than anyone else's (male or female).
J Mac
May 16, 2012, 1:28:50 PM5/16/12
to
The Paula Seville video is lacking mostly in one
category...highlights. Open field catches, skies where no
one leaves the ground, and throws up the line that require
the cutter to come back to the disc aren't exactly highlight
worthy.
P.S. you're vs. your, scene vs. seen
category...highlights. Open field catches, skies where no
one leaves the ground, and throws up the line that require
the cutter to come back to the disc aren't exactly highlight
worthy.
P.S. you're vs. your, scene vs. seen
Bulb
May 16, 2012, 1:55:05 PM5/16/12
to
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 13:18
teams hire videographers to record them at *some*
tournaments and *some* practices. But this is besides the
point, anyway, as the bulk of my notes were about the
editing, not the filming.
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 13:18
But watching these videos, it is obvious that some editors
(regardless of experience) made conscious choices to include
what I consider to be bad or poorly edited footage. Keep in
mind that one of my points was that a long boring video
could be worse than a short and sweet one.
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 13:18
require a professional. I didn't mention using crazy zooms
or cutaways or clip splicing. I could take most of these
videos and make them follow most of the tips I suggested by
spending 6-10 hours in Window Movie Maker (which I'm told is
a pretty crappy tool, so anyone using a Mac could probably
do it faster).
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 13:18
could easily include this information as a layover graphic
(which, again, does not require a professional to do). This
would take away much of the subjectivity for any given
play.
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 13:18
should be included in a Callahan nomination video, but not
as long video clips - you can show a person for three
seconds with a graphic including their name/team, and then
have the rest of their testimonial as a voiceover during
highlight clips.
I can't help but feel like your post is some kind of jab at
your alma mater for not hiring you to make their video. To
anyone else reading this: you can EASILY follow the tips I
described in my original post without hiring a professional.
(And if you are going to bother shelling out any money,
spend it on the filming, not the editing!)
> When it comes to Callahan videos, you get what you pay
> for... Which is nothing. You're lucky to have anything.
> Teams aren't hiring videographers to record them at every
> tourney, game or practice.
Bit of an over-generalization, don't you think? *Some*
> for... Which is nothing. You're lucky to have anything.
> Teams aren't hiring videographers to record them at every
> tourney, game or practice.
teams hire videographers to record them at *some*
tournaments and *some* practices. But this is besides the
point, anyway, as the bulk of my notes were about the
editing, not the filming.
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 13:18
> Then the editing. You're notes make sense, but it will
> never ever happen. Again, you get what you paid for.
> Chances are who ever is editing these videos has little to
> no experience editing and are probably editing it on the
> shittiest computer with the shittiest software.
Yes, it is likely that the editor has little experience.
> never ever happen. Again, you get what you paid for.
> Chances are who ever is editing these videos has little to
> no experience editing and are probably editing it on the
> shittiest computer with the shittiest software.
But watching these videos, it is obvious that some editors
(regardless of experience) made conscious choices to include
what I consider to be bad or poorly edited footage. Keep in
mind that one of my points was that a long boring video
could be worse than a short and sweet one.
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 13:18
> The only way you're going to get the Callahan videos
> that you want to see is if college teams shell out that
> kind of cash necessary to hire someone to professionally
> shoot and edit for them.
Please, the type of editing I was describing does not
> that you want to see is if college teams shell out that
> kind of cash necessary to hire someone to professionally
> shoot and edit for them.
require a professional. I didn't mention using crazy zooms
or cutaways or clip splicing. I could take most of these
videos and make them follow most of the tips I suggested by
spending 6-10 hours in Window Movie Maker (which I'm told is
a pretty crappy tool, so anyone using a Mac could probably
do it faster).
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 13:18
> The best Callahan video that I've ever scene is the
> Paula Seville video. Plays are great to watch, but are
> always subjective. "Who was guarding her?" "What team were
> they playing?" etc.
Um, what? This is exactly what I talked about. The editor
> Paula Seville video. Plays are great to watch, but are
> always subjective. "Who was guarding her?" "What team were
> they playing?" etc.
could easily include this information as a layover graphic
(which, again, does not require a professional to do). This
would take away much of the subjectivity for any given
play.
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 13:18
> Her video, and what every video should have, are
> interviews or testimonials. Specifically, interviewing
> people not on their team. The hotter the rivalry (teams or
> individuals), the more the producer of the Callahan video
> should want to interview them.
I do agree that having testimonials, especially from rivals,
> interviews or testimonials. Specifically, interviewing
> people not on their team. The hotter the rivalry (teams or
> individuals), the more the producer of the Callahan video
> should want to interview them.
should be included in a Callahan nomination video, but not
as long video clips - you can show a person for three
seconds with a graphic including their name/team, and then
have the rest of their testimonial as a voiceover during
highlight clips.
I can't help but feel like your post is some kind of jab at
your alma mater for not hiring you to make their video. To
anyone else reading this: you can EASILY follow the tips I
described in my original post without hiring a professional.
(And if you are going to bother shelling out any money,
spend it on the filming, not the editing!)
Ariel Jackson
May 16, 2012, 6:30:04 PM5/16/12
to
Logan Braun has made some of the best ultimate videos out
there, and he knows his shit. His videos were a huge
inspiration and learning tool for me when I started making
ultimate videos 8 years ago. In another life I would have
followed my passion into video/film, but not this one, yet
(NGN, once you start paying living wages and I can find
healthcare somewhere, I'll be knocking at your door).
Point is, Logan actually knows what he is talking about and
is right. Bulb, having an experienced editor is not about
someone with access to expensive software and making fancy
graphics, crazy zooms and cutaways. It's about having
someone that understands how to form continuity between
shots and how to time cuts, when a clip is worth keeping vs
when it's worth cutting (even if it's of a really sick play
and you put hours of work into touching it up already). It's
about understanding how to put a really important play into
context so that the viewer feels the significance as much as
the players did. Logan can do these things. 99% of college
players cannot.
Having expensive video editing software is only 10% about
having effect capabilities that the cheaper software doesn't
have. The other 90% is about making the workflow as
efficient as possible so that editors can work as quickly
and easily as possible. Any pro video editor can use movie
maker or imovie and come out with nearly the same product,
it would just take them 20x longer and they might kill
someone in the process.
there, and he knows his shit. His videos were a huge
inspiration and learning tool for me when I started making
ultimate videos 8 years ago. In another life I would have
followed my passion into video/film, but not this one, yet
(NGN, once you start paying living wages and I can find
healthcare somewhere, I'll be knocking at your door).
Point is, Logan actually knows what he is talking about and
is right. Bulb, having an experienced editor is not about
someone with access to expensive software and making fancy
graphics, crazy zooms and cutaways. It's about having
someone that understands how to form continuity between
shots and how to time cuts, when a clip is worth keeping vs
when it's worth cutting (even if it's of a really sick play
and you put hours of work into touching it up already). It's
about understanding how to put a really important play into
context so that the viewer feels the significance as much as
the players did. Logan can do these things. 99% of college
players cannot.
Having expensive video editing software is only 10% about
having effect capabilities that the cheaper software doesn't
have. The other 90% is about making the workflow as
efficient as possible so that editors can work as quickly
and easily as possible. Any pro video editor can use movie
maker or imovie and come out with nearly the same product,
it would just take them 20x longer and they might kill
someone in the process.
Logan
May 16, 2012, 9:45:39 PM5/16/12
to
I am only responding because you insinuated that I might be jaded
because my alma mater didn't hire me to do the Paula Seville Callahan
video. I did not go to Michigan (thought it would have been obvious
based on the grammar mistakes I made in my first post and the ones
that will undoubtedly be in this one). I went to Eastern Michigan and
am a Hellfish #chipontheshoulder #neweastern
I am not jaded. If anything, I'm jealous. I think they did a better
job with little to no quality footage then the people with hours and
hours of footage.
I have seen countless hours of ultimate footage over the course of my
frisbee career. One of the last college ultimate videos I did was the
Will Neff for Callahan video. As great of a player as Will is and as
many highlights I had of him over the course of the year I followed
magnUM around, I could have also made him look like a total ass and an
idiot on the field. Bad throws, dropped and/or misread discs, falling,
etc. Which is why I don't really watch highlight videos anymore and
why I don't put as much stock into the 'standard' Callahan video. Just
as much as someone can make anyone look like an all-star, they can
just as easily can make them look like a total failure.
My outline, if someone hired me to edit a Callahan video (and shoot if
they got to me eariler in the season) would be as follows.
1. 5-10 second intro. Quick highlights, maybe a goofy moment of two.
2. Still screen with text stating career highlights.
3. Interview with freshman on the team, new to the sport. B-rolled
with footage.
4. Highlights
5. Interviews with rivals. B-rolled with footage.
6. Highlights
7. Interview with 1, maybe 2 very experienced players they have played
with over the course of their college career (no alumni, unless a
coach).
8. Highlights
9. Still screen with text stating career highlights
I promote interviews over highlights for Callahan videos because my
interpretation of what a Callahan nominee isn't just a person with
sick throws and unstoppable D, but a leader and motivator on and off
the field. And what shows that better then just standard highlights
are interviews. Passionate ones.
I don't expect much to change from Callahan videos though. As I said
in my previous post, you get what you pay for. Inexperienced "editors"
trying to make something from nothing.
Also, thanks Ariel! Always glad to hear someone likes your shit.
because my alma mater didn't hire me to do the Paula Seville Callahan
video. I did not go to Michigan (thought it would have been obvious
based on the grammar mistakes I made in my first post and the ones
that will undoubtedly be in this one). I went to Eastern Michigan and
am a Hellfish #chipontheshoulder #neweastern
I am not jaded. If anything, I'm jealous. I think they did a better
job with little to no quality footage then the people with hours and
hours of footage.
I have seen countless hours of ultimate footage over the course of my
frisbee career. One of the last college ultimate videos I did was the
Will Neff for Callahan video. As great of a player as Will is and as
many highlights I had of him over the course of the year I followed
magnUM around, I could have also made him look like a total ass and an
idiot on the field. Bad throws, dropped and/or misread discs, falling,
etc. Which is why I don't really watch highlight videos anymore and
why I don't put as much stock into the 'standard' Callahan video. Just
as much as someone can make anyone look like an all-star, they can
just as easily can make them look like a total failure.
My outline, if someone hired me to edit a Callahan video (and shoot if
they got to me eariler in the season) would be as follows.
1. 5-10 second intro. Quick highlights, maybe a goofy moment of two.
2. Still screen with text stating career highlights.
3. Interview with freshman on the team, new to the sport. B-rolled
with footage.
4. Highlights
5. Interviews with rivals. B-rolled with footage.
6. Highlights
7. Interview with 1, maybe 2 very experienced players they have played
with over the course of their college career (no alumni, unless a
coach).
8. Highlights
9. Still screen with text stating career highlights
I promote interviews over highlights for Callahan videos because my
interpretation of what a Callahan nominee isn't just a person with
sick throws and unstoppable D, but a leader and motivator on and off
the field. And what shows that better then just standard highlights
are interviews. Passionate ones.
I don't expect much to change from Callahan videos though. As I said
in my previous post, you get what you pay for. Inexperienced "editors"
trying to make something from nothing.
Also, thanks Ariel! Always glad to hear someone likes your shit.
Meeri Chang
May 17, 2012, 6:00:21 AM5/17/12
to
As one of the editors for Paula's Callahan video, I
appreciate your comments and suggestions.
What you may not know is that the footage was taken from a
single day of a single tournament, which was Sunday of Great
Lakes Regionals. All regionals footage was taken by my
younger sister, who happened to be there for the tournament.
To give you some perspective, she watches sports on tv, but
knows nothing about Ultimate (aka, had to be told what
breaks and hucks were before filming). The remainder of the
footage/photos were taken by me and "Tots," a fellow
teammate. We're not film majors, we just like making
videos.
Because Flywheel has to either fly or drive 12+ hours to
most of our tournaments, we cannot pay for a videographer.
To even have someone volunteer would require insane travel
expenses. So, given these limited resources, I would say
having any footage is impressive.
Also, the intent of our video was not to be a typical
6-minute long highlight reel. Audience appeal was something
we definitely took into consideration. We have footage of,
and could have shown, multiple scenes of Paula absolutely
dominating the field on zone-o points. But instead we
focused on providing other testimonials from various
credible sources to help paint a more complete picture of
why Paula deserves to win the Callahan (all without boring
the audience in the process). And like I mentioned before,
lack of footage is a huge roadblock from making a typical
highlight reel.
Thanks for the thoughts, though, and if we ever have access
to better footage, I'll keep them in mind!
appreciate your comments and suggestions.
What you may not know is that the footage was taken from a
single day of a single tournament, which was Sunday of Great
Lakes Regionals. All regionals footage was taken by my
younger sister, who happened to be there for the tournament.
To give you some perspective, she watches sports on tv, but
knows nothing about Ultimate (aka, had to be told what
breaks and hucks were before filming). The remainder of the
footage/photos were taken by me and "Tots," a fellow
teammate. We're not film majors, we just like making
videos.
Because Flywheel has to either fly or drive 12+ hours to
most of our tournaments, we cannot pay for a videographer.
To even have someone volunteer would require insane travel
expenses. So, given these limited resources, I would say
having any footage is impressive.
Also, the intent of our video was not to be a typical
6-minute long highlight reel. Audience appeal was something
we definitely took into consideration. We have footage of,
and could have shown, multiple scenes of Paula absolutely
dominating the field on zone-o points. But instead we
focused on providing other testimonials from various
credible sources to help paint a more complete picture of
why Paula deserves to win the Callahan (all without boring
the audience in the process). And like I mentioned before,
lack of footage is a huge roadblock from making a typical
highlight reel.
Thanks for the thoughts, though, and if we ever have access
to better footage, I'll keep them in mind!
Bulb
May 17, 2012, 10:05:05 AM5/17/12
to
Jackson wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 18:27
(paraphrased) in my original post.
Jackson wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 18:27
to make video power hours, and in doing so, learned the
basics for all of the skills you described above. While I
acknowledge there is a learning curve, it is not so steep as
to say that "99% of college players cannot [learn how to do
it.]" The key word here is "learn." You are right that
most of them do not already know how, but I am telling you
(and all of them) that it is *not* that hard.
Jackson wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 18:27
would never touch WMM. But if I were a college kid who
*really* wanted my teammate to win the Callahan, might I
invest 10 or 20 hours of a weekend trying to make his video
absolutely perfect? Maybe, maybe not. But there are some
who would, and if they are reading this thread, I hope they
take my thoughts into consideration (rather than spend 20
hours scouring season footage to find and cut every single
good play their teammate made).
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 21:45
any specific school, just any of the ones that have posted a
Callahan video).
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 21:45
with my original point #2: "Any player can look good against
Cool, I do like your outline. My only comment is that still
screens will bore the viewer. If available, a slow-mo video
(e.g. sick sky) would be better to overlay the career
highlights.
But your outline is very high level, and my comments were
meant to provide specific suggestions within the realm of
"Highlights." Do you disagree with any of them? Do you
think any of them require advanced skills or tools (again,
assuming a willingness to put in 10-20 hours to learn the
basics)?
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 21:45
who are making these videos and then posting them on RSD are
usually frequent readers as well. I bet if we bump this
thread some time during next season, you'll see a few more
"quality" Callahan videos.
meerichang wrote on Thu, 17 May 2012 01:39
purpose of my post was not meant to *criticize* any of the
Callahan videos (or their editors). They all have a unique
appeal to them, for sure. But since I found myself not even
making it to the end of some (any?) of them, I thought it
might be useful to provide my comments to any editors out
there who haven't published their videos yet.
Personally, I would have loved to see footage of Paula
dominating the field on zone O points. So if you have that
footage, I'm a little disappointed you chose to leave it
out. But you are absolutely right that getting the footage
in the first place is the major challenge! And that was
part of my original post - if you DO have any money, don't
bother paying an editor, pay a videographer.
> Bulb, having an experienced editor is not about someone
> with access to expensive software and making fancy
> graphics, crazy zooms and cutaways. It's about having
> someone that understands how to form continuity between
> shots and how to time cuts, when a clip is worth keeping
> vs when it's worth cutting (even if it's of a really sick
> play and you put hours of work into touching it up
> already). It's about understanding how to put a really
> important play into context so that the viewer feels the
> significance as much as the players did.
..my sentiment exactly? I literally said the same thing
> with access to expensive software and making fancy
> graphics, crazy zooms and cutaways. It's about having
> someone that understands how to form continuity between
> shots and how to time cuts, when a clip is worth keeping
> vs when it's worth cutting (even if it's of a really sick
> play and you put hours of work into touching it up
> already). It's about understanding how to put a really
> important play into context so that the viewer feels the
> significance as much as the players did.
(paraphrased) in my original post.
Jackson wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 18:27
> Logan can do these things. 99% of college players
> cannot.
See, I have to disagree with you there. I started using WMM
> cannot.
to make video power hours, and in doing so, learned the
basics for all of the skills you described above. While I
acknowledge there is a learning curve, it is not so steep as
to say that "99% of college players cannot [learn how to do
it.]" The key word here is "learn." You are right that
most of them do not already know how, but I am telling you
(and all of them) that it is *not* that hard.
Jackson wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 18:27
> Having expensive video editing software is only 10%
> about having effect capabilities that the cheaper software
> doesn't have. The other 90% is about making the workflow
> as efficient as possible so that editors can work as
> quickly and easily as possible. Any pro video editor can
> use movie maker or imovie and come out with nearly the
> same product, it would just take them 20x longer and they
> might kill someone in the process.
I absolutely agree. If I were a professional editor, I
> about having effect capabilities that the cheaper software
> doesn't have. The other 90% is about making the workflow
> as efficient as possible so that editors can work as
> quickly and easily as possible. Any pro video editor can
> use movie maker or imovie and come out with nearly the
> same product, it would just take them 20x longer and they
> might kill someone in the process.
would never touch WMM. But if I were a college kid who
*really* wanted my teammate to win the Callahan, might I
invest 10 or 20 hours of a weekend trying to make his video
absolutely perfect? Maybe, maybe not. But there are some
who would, and if they are reading this thread, I hope they
take my thoughts into consideration (rather than spend 20
hours scouring season footage to find and cut every single
good play their teammate made).
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 21:45
> I am only responding because you insinuated that I might
> be jaded because my alma mater didn't hire me to do the
> Paula Seville Callahan video. I did not go to Michigan
> (thought it would have been obvious based on the grammar
> mistakes I made in my first post and the ones that will
> undoubtedly be in this one). I went to Eastern Michigan
> and am a Hellfish #chipontheshoulder #neweastern
My apologies (though I wasn't trying to imply you went to
> be jaded because my alma mater didn't hire me to do the
> Paula Seville Callahan video. I did not go to Michigan
> (thought it would have been obvious based on the grammar
> mistakes I made in my first post and the ones that will
> undoubtedly be in this one). I went to Eastern Michigan
> and am a Hellfish #chipontheshoulder #neweastern
any specific school, just any of the ones that have posted a
Callahan video).
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 21:45
> I have seen countless hours of ultimate footage over the
> course of my frisbee career. One of the last college
> ultimate videos I did was the Will Neff for Callahan
> video. As great of a player as Will is and as many
> highlights I had of him over the course of the year I
> followed magnUM around, I could have also made him look
> like a total ass and an idiot on the field. Bad throws,
> dropped and/or misread discs, falling, etc. Which is why I
> don't really watch highlight videos anymore and why I
> don't put as much stock into the 'standard' Callahan
> video. Just as much as someone can make anyone look like
> an all-star, they can just as easily can make them look
> like a total failure.
I'm not sure what your point is, other than to subtly agree
> course of my frisbee career. One of the last college
> ultimate videos I did was the Will Neff for Callahan
> video. As great of a player as Will is and as many
> highlights I had of him over the course of the year I
> followed magnUM around, I could have also made him look
> like a total ass and an idiot on the field. Bad throws,
> dropped and/or misread discs, falling, etc. Which is why I
> don't really watch highlight videos anymore and why I
> don't put as much stock into the 'standard' Callahan
> video. Just as much as someone can make anyone look like
> an all-star, they can just as easily can make them look
> like a total failure.
with my original point #2: "Any player can look good against
chumps; the best players perform when there's a lot on the
line."
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 21:45
line."
screens will bore the viewer. If available, a slow-mo video
(e.g. sick sky) would be better to overlay the career
highlights.
But your outline is very high level, and my comments were
meant to provide specific suggestions within the realm of
"Highlights." Do you disagree with any of them? Do you
think any of them require advanced skills or tools (again,
assuming a willingness to put in 10-20 hours to learn the
basics)?
loganbraun wrote on Wed, 16 May 2012 21:45
> I don't expect much to change from Callahan videos
> though. As I said in my previous post, you get what you
> pay for. Inexperienced "editors" trying to make something
> from nothing.
Well then howzabout we edjumicate them? The players/teams
> though. As I said in my previous post, you get what you
> pay for. Inexperienced "editors" trying to make something
> from nothing.
who are making these videos and then posting them on RSD are
usually frequent readers as well. I bet if we bump this
thread some time during next season, you'll see a few more
"quality" Callahan videos.
meerichang wrote on Thu, 17 May 2012 01:39
> Because Flywheel has to either fly or drive 12+ hours to
> most of our tournaments, we cannot pay for a videographer.
> To even have someone volunteer would require insane travel
> expenses. So, given these limited resources, I would say
> having any footage is impressive.
>
> Also, the intent of our video was not to be a typical
> 6-minute long highlight reel. Audience appeal was
> something we definitely took into consideration. We have
> footage of, and could have shown, multiple scenes of Paula
> absolutely dominating the field on zone-o points. But
> instead we focused on providing other testimonials from
> various credible sources to help paint a more complete
> picture of why Paula deserves to win the Callahan (all
> without boring the audience in the process). And like I
> mentioned before, lack of footage is a huge roadblock from
> making a typical highlight reel.
Let me take a quick second to clarify that the original
> most of our tournaments, we cannot pay for a videographer.
> To even have someone volunteer would require insane travel
> expenses. So, given these limited resources, I would say
> having any footage is impressive.
>
> Also, the intent of our video was not to be a typical
> 6-minute long highlight reel. Audience appeal was
> something we definitely took into consideration. We have
> footage of, and could have shown, multiple scenes of Paula
> absolutely dominating the field on zone-o points. But
> instead we focused on providing other testimonials from
> various credible sources to help paint a more complete
> picture of why Paula deserves to win the Callahan (all
> without boring the audience in the process). And like I
> mentioned before, lack of footage is a huge roadblock from
> making a typical highlight reel.
purpose of my post was not meant to *criticize* any of the
Callahan videos (or their editors). They all have a unique
appeal to them, for sure. But since I found myself not even
making it to the end of some (any?) of them, I thought it
might be useful to provide my comments to any editors out
there who haven't published their videos yet.
Personally, I would have loved to see footage of Paula
dominating the field on zone O points. So if you have that
footage, I'm a little disappointed you chose to leave it
out. But you are absolutely right that getting the footage
in the first place is the major challenge! And that was
part of my original post - if you DO have any money, don't
bother paying an editor, pay a videographer.
0 new messages