Zero, I think you're missing my intended point somewhat. I'm not suggesting that 3 minites would be reasonable length and I'm not suggesting that editing is tedious. I'm certainly not suggesting that the market is begging for shorter wedding vidos. Quite the contrary. If you read my posts with a less empassioned view, I would hope you see that I am trying to convey a message that there's an important distinction between including everything that happens and including everything that, perhaps, should be included. I am quite the fan of law of succinctness. Everything I include is included for a reason. That's generally my ethos and video editing is no exception.
I also note that the poster in the thread you linked complains about the quality, not the length. They want more in terms of quality. This is about matching a clients expectation with what one delivers.
I feel like I am repeating myself somewhat, but I feel I must also try and elaborate my point. My point is that, in my opinion, there is a correlation between required length and the expected quality. As a video tends twoards 2+ hours, there tends to be a reduction in the expected 'wow' factor. I therefore suggets that the length of video is directly proportional to the 'wow' factor.
But these are my opinions. I'm not suggesting, and never have done, that a client is wrong to ask for it - nor that an editor is wrong to provide it. More importantly, and whilst I take on boards your comments concerning making a long edit interesting, I feel that the an editor's skill is shown more in the shorter edits than the long. To include all of the 'salient facts' and match expectations to delivery in 30 mins is an artform and a skill. |