Best Video maker

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:04 am

Janzki wrote:Do they pay you for this?

I'd expect better promotion if there was money behind it

Flint the Dwarf · Post by **Flint the Dwarf** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:39 pm

So true.

And obviously, Vegas 4 users have never witnessed the glory of MS Paint +MS Word. It's simple, you load a picture into MS Paint then you open up MS Word and tell it what you want the picture to do. Usually, I only need to load 20-30 pictures for a decent video.

Corran · Post by **Corran** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:21 pm

flint_the_dwarf wrote:So true.

And obviously, Vegas 4 users have never witnessed the glory of MS Paint +MS Word. It's simple, you load a picture into MS Paint then you open up MS Word and tell it what you want the picture to do. Usually, I only need to load 20-30 pictures for a decent video.

Arigatomyna wrote:Okay. Now you can lock it. And feel free to check the sticky threads in the 'Software Help' sections for more info on programs people use. ^.~

He is asking for our opinion, not the truth. :/

Avisynth all the way! Script based editing is the best. : ) I was going to try doing this... But the video will have to be more simple than my current ideas...

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:32 pm

Corran Productions wrote:He is asking for our opinion, not the truth. :/

But-but-but....this:

Words of wisdom:

It isn't the program being used - it's the creator using that program.

...*is* my opinion. It certainly is not the truth.

Take a great creator, give him Premiere and tell him to make a vid, then give him wmm and tell him to make a vid. The amv done with Premiere will be better because it's a better editor. If the creator is constant, then some editing programs simply *are* better than others - more versatility, more options, more formats, more effects, more ways to obtain excellence in details that involve frame-by-frame editing. Fact would be to say: "If you're a bad editor it doesn't matter what you use, but if you want to be the best, you should *use* the best in order to reach your potential - meaning whatever program has the most features."

So I did give my opinion, not fact. ^_^

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:19 pm

Arigatomyna wrote: If the creator is constant

I wouldn't call that a good premise. People were making kickass vids on two VCRs...

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:23 pm

trythil wrote:
Arigatomyna wrote: If the creator is constant
I wouldn't call that a good premise. People were making kickass vids on two VCRs...

>_<

and more:

Keeping the creator's level of skill constant just doesn't make any sense. Sure you have more bells and whistles in one editor than another -- but programs don't make videos by themselves. Someone has to command them to do things.

That's where it counts -- the human factor. It's about what you can do with what you have. It's not about how many floating overlays you can throw in it.

Which is why the program doesn't matter, and the creator does.

risk one · Post by **risk one** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:33 pm

trythil wrote:
trythil wrote:
Arigatomyna wrote: If the creator is constant
I wouldn't call that a good premise. People were making kickass vids on two VCRs...
>_<

and more:

Keeping the creator's level of skill constant just doesn't make any sense. Sure you have more bells and whistles in one editor than another -- but programs don't make videos by themselves. Someone has to command them to do things.

That's where it counts -- the human factor. It's about what you can do with what you have. It's not about how many floating overlays you can throw in it.

Which is why the program doesn't matter, and the creator does.

True, however what wmm can do, premiere can do too, but wmm certainly can't do everything premiere can. So, though it's definitely not impossible to make kickass videos with wmm, premiere can accomodate to a wider range of video ideas, and thus a wider range of good videos (a small percentage of the entire range of videos).
In other words, there are good videos imaginable that can be made with premiere, and not with wmm, but the converse is not true.
By this definition the best video editor would be the one that can create the widest range of videos (AE springs to mind).
That of course isn't true either, because the smoothness of the editing process is a factor too.

I'm going to bed.

godix · Post by **godix** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:52 pm

I think many great AMVs are nothing more than well chosen clips set to music and for those pretty much any editor will do. As an example, Caffeine Encomium wouldn't have been improved at all regardless of what program was used (I believe it wasn't even done with a computer but I could be wrong).

Once a creator starts playing with special effects, even basic ones like a color flash, then it starts making a difference which editor is used. A video like Ermacs Soul of an Angel would have sucked if done in WMM and I recall taking off points in an op of one of Arigatomyna's videos for problems that turned out to be a direct result of the WMM not having layers.

In the end, poor creators aren't improved by great tools but great creators are hurt by poor tools. I couldn't do jack with the finest brushes in the world but Leonardo da Vinci couldn't have painted the Mona Lisa with a mop.

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:10 am

I think some people got confused by my use of the word 'constant' - since they were still agreeing with me.

A great creator - say you take a great creator. This creator is great. He can make great vids with any editor he touches. He wants to make great vids because he has the skill and talent to do so. He is only limited by his tools - what he's filtering that talent and skill through. This means he is only limited by what he's working with.

When I said 'if you keep the creator constant' - I meant, if you only do comparisons between creators who are on the same inherent skill level. For instance, you don't compare what a good creator can do with wmm to what a great creator can do with wmm. You don't compare what a poor creator can do with Premiere to what a great creator can do with Premiere.

You compare 'constants' - what a great creator can do with one program versus what another creator at the same 'greatness' level can do a different program that lacks the basic options.

Yes, people made great vids with two vcrs - but they could have made vids that were *much* better if they'd had a better program to use. That's my point - that's what I meant by 'constant.' I wasn't saying all creators are the same or any two creators can get the same results out of the same program. I was saying that if you take creators who *are* the same (skillwise) and give them a good editor and a bad editor, the one with the more powerful editor will make a better vid. Because the program is better.

Eh, sounds simple to me, but I guess I'm not voicing it well.

Daio Kaji · Post by **Daio Kaji** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:16 am

godix wrote:In the end, poor creators aren't improved by great tools but great creators are hurt by poor tools. I couldn't do jack with the finest brushes in the world but Leonardo da Vinci couldn't have painted the Mona Lisa with a mop.

IS THAT A CHALLENGE??!!

GOOD SIR, IS THAT A CHALLENGE??!!
A CHALLENGE?! THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING YOU IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTING!!

lol... yeeeeeah, GET 'EM LEO!!

grrrrrr!!!!

(my first posted pic! i found out how, yippie!)