As I expanded my video translation for subtitling services to include time-spotting and burning subtitles (the entire process is described here), and later to authoring DVDs, such jobs often required me to disassemble DVDs and reauthor them, sometimes involving audio and video editing.
Having secured the necessary tools, I did this work as a supplement to subtitling and authoring, which led me to notice that good companies, however complete strangers to the audiovisual production industry, often resorted to questionable quality video services.
The most frequent problem I see is in audio. Sometimes the quality is so bad that it compromises translation work. To solve this problem, I adopted as standard practice to "clean up" the soundtrack first, removing undesirable noise, equalizing it by segments, and normalizing the entire track. When I'm requested to do the entire subtitling job, I take the chance to replace the soundtrack with "mine". The usual response is, "The subtitles are great, as your usual standard. Yet what miracle did you perform on the audio? I could never imagine the sound was so good!" I usually do audio work with Acoustica, however sometimes I use Sony SoundForge, and even Audacity.
Some common requests were to replace screens with titles or charts, edit (cut) out some segments, add logos, etc., on top of the need to "slice" a video in parts that would become chapters in a DVD; After having improvides the most varied solutions for each new request, I finally began editing as I should, using Sony Vegas.
Example - Sony Vegas editing screen in one project I did.
This is one of the two videos on an interactive DVD, originally in English.
It was dubbed in Portuguese and Spanish, plus the insertion of some 50 PowerPoint screens.
It was then that I began to notice serious editing flaws, particularly in corporate video. The individual has a Mac, uses Final Cut, and is already drafting their thank-you speech for the day they'll receive an Academy Award. Unfortunately, that day seems to be very far beyond the horizon. Nothing against the Mac nor Final Cut, however upon facing the myriad resources they offer, that person feels tempted to use all of them in every video they edit. The resulting show is a cornucopia pouring images in front of a kaleidoscope, quite bizarre for corporate video. Common sense can never be set aside and, in this case, good taste as well.
I would have serveral samples to post here, however I am sure their respective producers wouldn't like it. There are many videos on the web where professionas from the most varied fields offer valuable, useful and interesting information, obviously in an attempt to sell their services. However even if they are not offering their video production services, the presentation quality somwhat impairs the image of the other services they provide.
They have basically three options:
Hire a professional video producer, which is too expensive, if the intent is just to have the video published on YouTube, Vimeo, or their own web site. If they have other uses for the video, this possibility should be considered.
Hire an amateur who might get carried away by all the special effects available and/or fails to take adequate care with the audio quality.
Hire my services to obtain quality post-production services for an attractive cost.
The problem is that once the video has been edited, it becomes impossible to undo, for instance, any unfortunate image transition. The best solution is to use raw footage, and edit it anew.
Having the experience and the tools it requires, this is another service I am offering to my clients. Unfortunately, all videos I have edited are covered by NDAs, so I cannot show any samples here.
If you need corporate video editing - or even complete post produtction - services, be welcome to contact me, using the e-mail button on the left. It will be my pleasure to study the possibilities available.