Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: The Gap Theory of Genesis

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Huntington, West Virginia USA
    Posts
    909

    Default The Gap Theory of Genesis

    There is nothing more boring than a video with a talking head, especially when that head is talking about Bible subjects.

    So, I designed an animated Bible commentary video to explain the Gap Theory of Genesis creation to students. Although you may not agree with the thesis of the subject matter, I am posting the video here to demonstrate how creative editing and the proper visual effects and music score can make even the most dull subjects interesting.

    This work was done using Sony Vegas Pro 9 in the HD 720p mode and uploaded to YouTube as a HD 4.5 mhz .wmv file. With the exception of a few original bits of animation and artwork, most everything else you will see was available in the public domain, from various sources. The music was scored from a combination of royalty-free tracks and one original score segment that I'm using with permission of the composer. There is a narrator, but no talking head on camera. The piece runs 08:31.

    This is a prototype for a future project, so I would appreciate constructive feedback.
    Thanks in advance.

    Last edited by worddigger; 05-21-2010 at 11:46 AM. Reason: change URL

  2. #2

    Default

    Each video you produce is better than the last one. This is very very well put together. The animations where terrific. VO was spot on.

    I can't fault it.

  3. #3

    Default

    I found the video fantastic. It held my attention for the whole time; each new scene appearing to be more attractive than the previous.

    I had to watch it 3 times before I could find any 'errors'. It is extremely minor and hardly worth mentioning. At 4:23 the highlit text of the rightmost part of the"d" in "heavens were of old" still appears red.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Huntington, West Virginia USA
    Posts
    909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TimAndrews View Post
    I found the video fantastic. It held my attention for the whole time; each new scene appearing to be more attractive than the previous.

    I had to watch it 3 times before I could find any 'errors'. It is extremely minor and hardly worth mentioning. At 4:23 the highlit text of the rightmost part of the"d" in "heavens were of old" still appears red.
    Nothing gets past you.
    In order to highlight those verse letters, I had to make an identical copy of the text source and place it directly under the original and change the color of the copy. Then, I used Vegas "cookie cutter" plugins on the original (adjustable rectangle setting) to mask the phrase I wanted to highlight, allowing the rest of the red text of the copy to pass through. It required two (2) plugins per highlighted phrase to get the alignment right (or almost right in this case )

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,192
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Wordy, I am not religious, in fact completely the opposite and can be quite scathing about the whole kaboodel despite (or perhaps because of) doing occasional work for the various God channels. I hope you realise then that this isn't a criticism of you, just a comment on your video and disagreement with your beliefs. I won't comment on the content apart from pointing out that it's obviously made for believers. The phrase "preaching to the converted" comes to mind. It would be more sales-efficient to make something to try and convert those who don't believe in the bible's version.

    What you're assuming is that the viewer believes in the bible and then you show how scientific facts seem to fit what's written in the book. I would suggest that you approach it from the other angle, firstly telling the bits which science has discovered (naturally leaving out any bits which don't agree with your point of view) and then referring to passages in the bible which coincide with the scientific facts. A bit of a "see the scientists are discovering what we already knew".

    The voice-over was a tad too Cecil B DeMille for me, the deep Morgan Freeman type voice is getting a bit kitchy when used to quote the Bible. It's also a bit too dominant, making the meaning of the words disappear behind the deep tone of the speaker. I also found the music a bit corny, too much pathos. The heavenly orchestra is all a bit schmaltzy and I feel that modern viewers would see it as being manipulative.

    Having said that, way above the standard of most of the videos we see and it was superbly edited, but then you know that I'm a fan of your work anyway.

    I was a bit disappointed though expecting the documentary to be about the period after Phil Collins had arrived but before Peter Gabriel left to go solo.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Huntington, West Virginia USA
    Posts
    909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gaffer View Post

    I was a bit disappointed though expecting the documentary to be about the period after Phil Collins had arrived but before Peter Gabriel left to go solo.
    Good one!

  7. Default

    Terrific, very watchable & very professional. I watched it to the end intrigued so your intention succeeded.
    I did find the commentary audio a bit odd & off putting. Some sibillance, clipping & some odd effect like a cross between reverb & chorus marred it.
    (I presume this is not my system).
    I do like to see Christianity defended even if my own beliefs although originally staunchly Christian are now a little more eclectic in order to incorporate modern thinking.
    Science is out to get Christianity but I dont see it making fun of other religions, which shows how brave science is!


    Sarah

  8. #8

    Default

    (A casual observation; and in no way intended as a critique or review etc.)

    When selecting font sizes; either for titles or as Mr GoldDigger has done; there appears a general assumption that the viewer will watch the movie on a standard sized screen.

    But. I suspect most YouTube is watched using the default YouTube size.
    In addition, in recent years; we have increased usage of small screen players; whether a phone or IPad or zen or whatever.

    Whether producing educational or marketing videos, might small screens usage encourage producers into using larger texts or into producing different edits of their videos?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Huntington, West Virginia USA
    Posts
    909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TimAndrews View Post
    But. I suspect most YouTube is watched using the default YouTube size. In addition, in recent years; we have increased usage of small screen players; whether a phone or IPad or zen or whatever. Whether producing educational or marketing videos, might small screens usage encourage producers into using larger texts or into producing different edits of their videos?
    Tim has brought up an excellent point, which does need to be considered. The trend for video viewing is moving more towards the portable hand-held device market. This will require producers to format their screen presentations differently as compared to formating for larger screen viewing, such as using larger fonts in text. It will also affect how we frame camera shots and how the entire production is designed. Programming for the computer/portable device market also is precipitating a trend towards shorter presentation durations (because of shorter attention spans and increasing competition). Of course, this is counter intuitive to how things have been done in the past. Personally, I like going for the big-screen look, but the Internet generation is demanding a paradigm shift for visual media which we all need to eventually accept to reach a changing audience.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,851
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    This might seem a bit harsh and somewhat out of kilter with what others have said.

    Yes it looks great. I can watch these shots from NASA/ESA etc for hours, especially when accompanied by grandiose music. The editing is presumably OK because with two exceptions, I didn't notice it.

    OK, let's get those two exceptions out of the way - the question mark and the no-entry sign. They looked very 2D and monochrome against the fantastic images of the rest of the video. You'd gone to some trouble to make sure the text was clear and yet fitted with the tone of the video - why not these two? I recommend you spend 10 mins each (OK, I know how this goes, two hours on each) in PhotoShop or something just to bring the the quality of these two graphics up to the standard of the rest of it.

    You wanted to show how you can use "creative editing and the proper visual effects and music score can make even the most dull subjects interesting" and to be honest, from my point of view it failed.

    Absolutely the film was interesting - I wasn't going to fall asleep - but neither was I listening to the commentary because I was so distracted by the beauty of the images.

    I think you've taken a subject which surely should be interesting anyway, no matter what your view on the subject is (if you believe in it, you want to hear stuff which reinforces your belief, if you don't you want to look for flaws in the argument) and distracted people (well, me anyway) from listening to it

    The text on the screen at 1.53 was downright confusing - the narration was putting it into some sort of context, but there was no way I could read the passage and listen to the commentary at the same time so I was totally confused. This would obviously not be the case if I was very familar with the passage, so for a certain audience this might not matter. When you do a similar thing at 3.36 this does not seem to have the same problem Possibly because the "noah" quote is more general and doesn't require reading/understanding and the Genesis one has already been cited.

    More than this though, I have to say I think it was structured wrongly. You are making a case for something, but you don't reveal what it is until the end. You've structured it like a story. I wasn't sure where it was leading and so I couldn't fugure which bits I really needed to concentrate on (especially with all the distraction of the images and and music).

    Surely, when you are making a film of this nature - call it propaganda, teaching, information or whatever you should:

    1. State what you are going to argue/explain at the outset. eg
    "The Gap Theory of Genesis asserts that there are TWO creations referenced in the bible. The first in Genesis 1.1, the second in 1.3 onwards"
    2. Then show your arguments to back up the claim (ie the bulk of the film)
    3. Conclusion, restating the theory.

    This really is not the sort of film where you want to leave it's main claim as a surprise at the end.

    You've covered 2 & 3 - the hard work. I recommend you seriously consider re-doing the beginning to state the theory that the film is about to discuss.

    However, no one else has mentioned this so I could easily be wrong.
    Tim

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Theory question - Audio sync
    By TimAndrews in forum Sound Recording and Audio Editing
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-25-2009, 03:49 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-13-2007, 12:51 PM
  3. GENESIS 2004 FILM COMPETITION-FINAL DEADLINE NOV 30
    By genesismedia in forum Pimp the Link
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-20-2004, 11:32 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •