You'd be right to think that it's possible to
carry out basic video editing on any modern PC running Windows XP
- straight out of the box. XP includes the Windows Movie Maker video-editing
program and, although it lacks frills, it does what it does quite
well.
However, the footage that a lot of people want to edit will have
been recorded on tape and, as bought, most PCs can't bring in video
from tape. That means an upgrade of sorts will usually be needed
but not a major one. For digital camcorder footage, just the installation
of a sub-£30 FireWire card to go in a PCI slot or, for a laptop
PC, a CardBus FireWire card, costing not a great deal more.
As an aside but to prevent any confusion at the off, it's worth
knowing that while most of the world calls the FireWire serial-bus
standard by that very name, Sony calls it "i.Link". The
two terms are interchangeable but i.Link only ever refers to the
smaller, unpowered four-pin sockets found on camcorders and some
laptop PCs, rather than the full-size six-pin sockets that can provide
power.
Mind you, strictly speaking, neither name is correct. Instead,
the FireWire serial-bus standard is more properly known as IEEE1394a
- which probably explains why companies have come up with more memorable
names.
There is also now a newer and faster standard known as IEEE1394b.
Apple calls this FireWire 800 and it now refers to 1394a as FireWire
400 – and these terms seem like they're starting to stick.
But the technology itself hasn't caught on much in the Windows-PC
world and isn’t yet used on any consumer camcorders or VCRs.
One of the great things about using FireWire in video editing is
that it allows you to control the tape transport of a DV camcorder
or DV VCR from within your editing program. Many programs can even
use control over FireWire to automatically record chosen sections
of a tape without the editor being there during capturing.
Things are somewhat different in a number of ways for video that's
recorded on VHS or other analogue tape formats. There what's required
is a slightly more costly dedicated video capture device that can
carry out analogue-to-digital conversion. The device can be internal
again, or external – usually USB 2.0 – with prices typically
£100 or more. Alternatively, some graphics cards have analogue
video-capture capabilities, so an upgrade might not be necessary
at all.
Also, when capturing to a PC from an analogue camcorder or VCR
– or recording out to one - there's no way to control the
machine's tape transport functions except by physically pushing
the play, record or other relevant buttons on the machine or its
remote handset.
Some professional analogue VCRs can be controlled over RS-serial
cables – and some consumer kit does have dedicated control
circuitry and sockets - but, for most people, these are irrelevant
unless editing from machine to machine, rather than using a PC.
Once a PC is ready to capture, there's at least one more potential
hurdle – lack of hard disk space. Video can take up a lot
of room on hard disk – roughly 2GB for just 10 minutes of
DV footage – so it might be necessary to fit an additional
large-capacity hard disk. Actually, it's a good idea to fit a second
HDD anyway - even if the PC's system drive has many dozen of gigabytes
of space free.
That's because, unlike the system drive, a second drive dedicated
to video isn't going to be read by and written to by Windows all
the while the PC is being used. If the PC is set up correctly, the
second drive will only be accessed by the video editing program
and then only when video is being captured, edited or output –
ensuring that these processes can happen smoothly and preventing
frames being dropped coming in and going out.
The most common analogue footage that people want to edit is their
collections of TV programmes held on VHS tape, and they typically
want to put them onto DVD. But that's something that merits a whole
article of its own.
Many, though, will have holiday footage or other family videos
shot on camcorders. Such camcorder footage might be on a large-format
cassette – VHS or Super VHS (S-VHS), the high-quality version
of VHS – but most is on one of the smaller cassette formats,
some of which are analogue and others digital.
The small-cassette analogue formats include compact VHS - VHS-C
– and Sony's rather more popular 8mm format. There are also
high-quality variants of each - S-VHS-C and Hi8.
When VHS and 8mm camcorders record to tape, they mix the colour
and brightness elements of the incoming image in a single signal
and these elements remain mixed when the video is played out to
a TV set via a composite video lead or as composite video through
a Scart cable.
In contrast, their high-quality cousins record the two picture
elements separately to tape and are also able to output them separately
- via an S-video lead or a Scart lead that's wired for S-video.
If an S-video signal is being fed to a TV – which requires
suitable sockets and circuitry - the quality on screen will be noticeably
better than if the set is being fed composite video. Images will
be sharper and more detailed, and there will be less bleeding between
colours.
So, for best quality when capturing S-VHS, S-VHS-C and Hi8, ensure
that the computer's capture device has an S-video input - plus an
S-video output if you're planning to record the edited project back
out to tape.
Take care, though, if you live in Europe. Most analogue camcorders
sold here don't have video input sockets of any type – so
you may have to record back out to an S-VHS VCR to maintain the
picture quality. Maddeningly, some digital camcorders sold here
have no working inputs either – possibly preventing you creating
high-quality digital masters of final projects.
On the digital side, the best-known small-cassette formats are
MiniDV and Digital8. These were joined at the tail end of 2004 by
HDV. That's the family name for two high-definition standards aimed
at consumers, rather than pros. One is called 720p, the other 1080i,
and each uses the same tape cassette as MiniDV.
And the use of MiniDV was a clever choice. By opting for the same
well-proven cassette and tape-transport designs, the makers pegged
back not only the design costs but also the manufacturing cost.
One important consideration in doing so, though, was the recording
time of the cassettes when they're used for HDV.
The makers believe that, for HDV to be viable, this had to be the
same as for standard-definition recordings to MiniDV. But that created
a problem – the need to use a very efficient compression system
that could squeeze all the extra data onto the tape.
Another shared characteristic is that HDV camcorder footage can
be captured to a PC, via FireWire. But this needs the right software.
Fortunately, that means almost any of the latest versions of the
big-name video editing programs, and not just the expensive ones.
However, editing and outputting HDV requires a PC to be far better
spec'd than for DV or Digital 8. In addition, 1080i HDV is more
demanding than 720p, largely because it records at a higher resolution
- 1440x1080 vs 1280x720. In comparison, MiniDV's resolution is 720x576
for PAL and 720x480 for NTSC.
Even though HDV is of far higher resolution than DV – around
four times greater in the case of 1080i - that's not the only reason
why each of the HDV formats requires a meaty PC. Another factor
is the video compression system that the makers came up with to
solve the recording-time problem.
HDV uses MPEG-2 compression with video recorded as groups of pictures,
not as individual frames or fields. This format is hard for the
PC to "untangle". Each entire group has to be decompressed
for any of the pictures within it to be edited because information
about the different pictures in a group is spread around the group.
Although this is highly efficient in terms of data rates –
which translates to longer recording times and less hard-disk space
being needed – it causes extra work during editing.
Some editing programs get around the problem of untangling the
MPEG files by transcoding all HDV footage before the editing starts.
They turns it into a more conventional form - AVI video composed
of frames/fields. That way, the only burden during editing is caused
by HDV's additional resolution. Other programs take the problem
on the chin and have found clever ways of untangling the group-of-picture
MPEG footage on the fly.
However, anyone familiar with editing DV footage on a PC who moves
on editing HDV usually has a bit of a rude awakening. MiniDV editing
has been refined over many years - close to a decade - and, right
now, it's possible to have a very smooth workflow in which the changes
made can be previewed accurately almost instantly.
It's what's called real-time editing – you don't have to
wait. Depending on the power of the PC, it's possible to stack up
a whole lot of DV clips or effects in an editing program and work
on them without the PC slowing to a crawl.
But, even with a state-of-the-art PC, the editing of HDV can be
far less fluid than DV, feeling much like it did way back in the
bad old days when digital video editing first became possible.
However, if you don't stack up numerous HDV clips and don't go
mad with effects – or if you use a dedicated editing card
that's able to relieve some of the burden from the CPU – then
HDV editing is not only possible but actually quite practical.
Nonetheless, it's best carried out on the most powerful PC you
can afford. That means one with two or more fast processors (or
at least one fast dual-core CPU), lots of fast RAM (at least 1GB,
but 2GB or more ideally) and a very fast, modern graphics card with
plenty of RAM (256MB-plus).
Tape-sourced video isn't, of course, the only thing you can edit.
The list of possibles seems to grow almost daily. Many digital stills
cameras are now able to shoot short movies, and the same is true
of an increasing number of mobile phones, with videos now being
swapped via PCs or phone-to-phone via Bluetooth. Software is available
to edit these sorts of footage and many others, too.
Also significant are the videos that can be piped around the house
over a network - from PCs to network media players connected to
TV sets or AV systems. Some of these might be TV programs but a
large number are movies that have been ripped from DVD. Legally,
this is a dangerous area to dabble in and to write about –
especially for those living in the USA.. On that side of the pond,
there seems to be no legal defence possible for copying copyright-protected
movie DVDs.
Even so, cracking DVDs is now a very simple process and one that
can be achieved using software that's readily available free on
the Internet. And, once a movie has been cracked – or if,
say, you've created an unprotected DVD from your own camcorder footage,
virtually all the main editing programs let you chop it about and
repurposed it in a variety of formats. That includes formats suitable
for sending around a home network or indeed, for swapping between
PCs.
Even parts of Sony look to condone commercial movie repurposing
– whether they admit it or not. The company, along with others,
recently released software that lets PC users convert movies to
a format compatible with PlayStation Portables. Yet this is a company
that, as a whole, uses copy protection to defend its own digital
assets – and has done so in an especially aggressive way with
the protection system it uses in the USA to guard against copying
of CDs put out by its own music label.
To set PC-based editing in a context, let's go back to the early
days of consumer video when the usual way to edit was tape-to-tape
– between a couple of connected video recorders.
In fancy editing set-ups back then, connections went through a
mixer/effects box. This allowed fades, wipes and other special effects
to be added, and also meant that video could be fed in from more
than one source. Separate monitors were required for source and
record machines, so the necessary hardware and cables in any half-decent
editing set-up quickly took over all available desk space.
Editing tape-to-tape was also slow. It still is. Very slow. If
the final video requires clips to be assembled out of order –
which is far from unusual – the editor has to spend a lot
of time chasing around tapes. The next required clip on a tape may
be at very end or at the beginning, so the editor is constantly
winding tapes forwards and backwards trying to locate clips. Then,
having found a clip, the source player has to be carefully cued
up to play it, and the recorder has to be ready to bring it in at
just the right point in the production.
Basic automated tape-to-tape editing also featured on some consumer
VCRs but programming the selection of clips was a chore and the
idea never became mainstream – in part because camcorders
weren't selling in massive numbers back then, so demand was limited
.
Computers started to play a part when they began being used to
control the source and record machines via serial connections but
there was a hefty price premium to pay for machines that could be
controlled this way. Computers were also used to generate special
effects and titles – with the output turned from digital to
analogue and fed into an mixer box and from there to the video recorder.
Now compare this whole slow and messy business with the ease with
which video can be captured to a PC and edited. If the source is
a digital camcorder, this is connected by and controlled over FireWire
from within the editing program. The footage that's brought in will
be identified by name or date/time or timecode or by thumbnail images.
It can usually also be catalogued with a whole lot of additional
information if the editor is willing to type that in.
Editing software can even scan the incoming tape and break it up
into a series of clips – of a certain duration, or according
to other criteria, including changes of scene.
Once the video is on the PC, the editor can skim through it at
high speed; go from the start of a recording to the end instantly
or jump around backwards or forwards with the click of a mouse or
by use of a keyboard shortcut.
When the chosen clips are being edited – and they can be
edited with frame-level accuracy - it's possible to apply a massive
raft of changes and instantly see the results. Changes can be made
wholesale or on selected clips or portions of a clip – and
can be instantly undone if they've not turned out as expected or
wanted.
Footage can be made to play backwards or at a high or low speed,
and it can be mirrored, colour-adjusted, wrapped around 3D objects,
tweaked for sound levels and made suitable for playing on surround-sound
systems.
When everything is just so, it's then possible to output the final
video to tape, to CD or DVD or save it in a wide variety of formats
suitable for a variety of viewing situations – streaming around
the house; downloading from a web site; uploading to a mobile phone;
you name it and, almost without exception, today's video editing
software can do it.
There's very little that can't be done in the best of the budget
video-editing software – but there's a whole lot of added
control and sophistication available from more expensive programs
and software/hardware combinations.
Better control leads to a better final video but the quality you're
going to aim for needs to be considered in the context of who will
be watching it and where and why.
What shouldn't be overlooked, though, is that we're all used to
the high production values that broadcasters and films makers have
set - for sound, as well as pictures. That means that anyone who
sees any video you create is likely to be judging it against those
standards.
If you don't want your videos to look and sound amateurish, you
need an editing program with rather more bells and whistles than
Microsoft's free editor and, for most editing tasks, you'll require
something better than a bog-standard PC.
For good results, you'll have to be willing to spend time understanding
the "grammar" of moving images and mastering the tools
available to you. For the best results, though, you'll need a bit
of luck and to have been blessed with more than your fair share
of talent.
