Start your photography store - 30% off Picfair Plus!

Video fans, I need help with terminology


conrad 14 10.9k 116
23 Sep 2014 3:30PM
Do any of the videographers among you know what this term means in videography?

'assets' (context: "Make a secure copy of all of your work including all assets and project files. Upload the final video and any original assets."

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

saltireblue Plus
9 9.3k 35 Norway
23 Sep 2014 3:43PM
Raw material?
conrad 14 10.9k 116
23 Sep 2014 3:46PM
There's a thought, that seems to make sense, thanks!
llareggub 8 825 United Kingdom
23 Sep 2014 3:50PM
Video production software uses 'assets' and saves their location into a project file and the renders the final result from those 'assets', so if you save the project file and not the 'assets' you are screwed because when you try and render after deletion or in some cases relocation of the files that make up the final video you are well beyond screwed!
lemmy 12 2.8k United Kingdom
23 Sep 2014 3:52PM
As saltireblue says, it would be the components of your video, the sequences of video, the Jpgs and the audio files from which you have compiled the video.

Video Editing software take the assets and displays them as you instruct - that is what your project file is, a script saying 'play this for 10 seconds, then this for 5, play this at double speed' etc. plus pointers to where each 'asset' is stored on disk.

It's only when you export the project that it is made into a stand-alone MP4 or whatever.

It sounds like you are being asked to upload your project file, in which case without the raw material, your 'assets' it cannot make a video.
Chris_L 5 5.0k United Kingdom
23 Sep 2014 3:58PM
That's right, anything that appears on the timeline before rendering the final movie.

It can be sound fx wav files, orignal sound clips, original video, .psd files with titles etc

Any file that would be needed for someone to recreate the video in an editing program from scratch.

Some NLE's allow you to save your project and tick a box that will copy all project files to one folder at the same time. That will save you loads of trouble if your 'assets' are in different folders.
conrad 14 10.9k 116
23 Sep 2014 6:03PM
That's very useful - thank you very much, everyone!
Carabosse 16 41.2k 270 England
24 Sep 2014 12:15AM
Always keep your assets - your original clips etc (video and audio). I just zip together all the clips, plus the project files, sidecar files etc and store the single file away. I'll probably never need it, and it sure makes for a big file, but you never know! Smile
conrad 14 10.9k 116
28 Sep 2014 4:13PM
Well, I don't do, video, really - I just needed to know for a translation. Smile
Carabosse 16 41.2k 270 England
28 Sep 2014 7:08PM
Maybe you should give it a try? Wink

With 4k video set to become the norm on even stills cameras, won't be long before many people just do video and pull stills from it as required.

The cover photo of a recent edition of AP was from 4k.
lemmy 12 2.8k United Kingdom
29 Sep 2014 7:22AM

Quote:With 4k video set to become the norm on even stills cameras, won't be long before many people just do video and pull stills from it as required


Yesterday I drove up to a mountain village and strolled around for an hour. I saw two women riding horses up the main street which made a nice picture. They took about three minutes and I took about 8 frames at moments when I saw the composition and attitudes come together reasonably well. I chose two from the 8 frames I made.

Cut to 4k video. 180 seconds of 25fps gives me 4,500 frames of lossily compressed jpgs at rather less than the optimum quality the camera can produce. If each frame is looked at - not edited - for just 5 seconds that is 6hrs 15m of work. This is easier than taking stills?

To paraphrase Laurence Olivier when he confronted a bedraggled looking Dustin Hoffman who had been up all night so that he could play a man who had been up all night, he asked "why don't you try acting, dear boy?" I'd change that to "why not try photography, dear boy".

I admit to not being against hosing everything down with thousands of low quality frames in the hope of getting a result - it makes the photographers with an eye for a picture and the technical capability to capture it even more valuable than they are now. If a person can't see a picture when it happens, what hope they will see it among thousands and thousands of choices?

Let the dumbing down commence - it can do nothing but improve my bank balance Wink
mikehit 9 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
29 Sep 2014 7:36AM
Excellent thoughts, Lemmy Can I file that and quote it to anyone pompously decrying the death of photography?
Chris_L 5 5.0k United Kingdom
29 Sep 2014 8:34AM

Quote:180 seconds of 25fps gives me 4,500 frames of lossily compressed jpgs at rather less than the optimum quality the camera can produce. If each frame is looked at - not edited - for just 5 seconds that is 6hrs 15m of work. This is easier than taking stills?

I think the 6 hours and 15 minutes is a fallacy. If you were a picture editor you'd watch the clip in the same way you'd watch any short 3 minute film. You'd hit pause when you saw what you liked and you'd scrub a few frames back or a few frames forward. You would have hit pause when you "saw the composition and attitudes come together reasonably well" in the same way you shot your 8 frames when that happened - the picture editor would act like a stills photographer, difference is he can rewind time.

I hate putting the other side of the argument because it horrifies me to think that one day we might look back at how video killed the photo star Sad We can see how a sports photographer using a drive mode of 20fps is virtually shooting video, we witness the convergence of the two formats with some of the most desirable enthusiast video cameras being primarily interchangeable lens stills cameras.

I'm not sure that video will replace stills any time soon.

Look at Hollywood with Panavision cameras, gorgeous film stock, 25k cinema lenses, the studios had and still have plenty of work for stills photographers. They are credited at the end of many movies.

I can get a 4k video on my screen now, when I hit pause it doesn't look as good as a still image. It looks like a 'video still'. Breaking Bad was shot in 4k, look at the publicity shots for it which are proper photos.

Remember also, if you shoot video at 25fps your longest shutter speed is 1/25s, that rules out a lot of styles of photography.
Carabosse 16 41.2k 270 England
29 Sep 2014 11:46AM
4k video is only the start of it. 6k and 8k is not too distant: those video resolutions can produce stills of 19MP and 33MP respectively.

The limiting factor, as already stated, is shutter speed. An ideal speed for video is not always compatible with stills. However even that may in the long term not be as much as an issue as at present. There is an experimental 8k broadcast camera around which shoots at 120fps.

I can imagine UHD video could be a boon for certain types of photography, e.g. street, wildlife etc. For static subjects there no advantage.

Incidentally, the AP article on the subject is worth a read. Smile
Chris_L 5 5.0k United Kingdom
29 Sep 2014 12:00PM
Images shot on a DSLR at 1/2000s look crisp, sharp and clean, high res video looks good when it's moving but hit pause...

Quote:an experimental 8k broadcast camera around which shoots at 120fps

Does this mean that its optimum shutter speed is 1/120s? Using a rolling shutter too?

Speeds like 1/25s and 1/120s aren't good for wildlife and even some street photography, it's going to show up camera and subject movement.


Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.