Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The next short MTB video

  1. Default The next short MTB video

    So, a few more mtb vids have come about from my riding, there's one that I would like to share as I think it shows my progression in editing. I feel like it is a clear improvement over my very first video here about a year ago!

    This focuses on one descent in Alpe D'Huez. There's a few others from the trip accessible from the link in my sig if anyone wants to see others, but this is the one that I would like critiquing.

    One thing that I would like to improve is the way it ends. Unfortunately, the second rider had an injury which is why he stopped so we never got a particularly good closing shot.
    Questions about the film - The credit role doesn't look very professional... what am I doing wrong? Was the range of shots interesting enough for non-MTBers? How is the colour and contrast - too much? And of course any other observations you care to make

    Thanks for watching and commenting

  2. #2


    My personal view on the titles. I would simply show the film's Title and the two names of the persons. Here is my logic:
    1) There are only only 2 people in the video, so viewers will assume the names are of the 2 riders.
    2) What loss is there in the not knowing who 'produced' the clip. The viewer will guess it must be one of the two names. And does it matter to anyone which of you it is.
    3) I don't think there are any advantages in listing the software and hardware used.

    Keep it simple. And with less text; the remaining words can be bigger, and without scrolling.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Surrey, UK
    Blog Entries


    Agree with Tim about the credits. Whilst you're not guilty of this, one thing that screams "novice" is the same person's name appearing against several credits.
    One reason the credit roll looks unprofessional is that you simply don't have enough credits to make it worthy of a roll! Just put both your names up, nice and big as Tim says, either as static text or some (very brief) transition into and out of static text. If you feel you must, just put a generic "role" to your credits so the viewer knows the two of you did everything (eg "riders/cameras") although again as Tim says, if there are just two names there, the viewer will guess.

    There was a good variety of shots and I liked the grading. However, unless I was one of the riders or knew that route it was far too long as it doesn't "go" anywhere. This may seem a strange thing to say as it sort of follows a journey. But it doesn't really follow a journey, we seem to be cutting back and forth - this may nor be true, but that was the impression I got - take the sequence immeditely after the start with that sort of board thing (sorry for not knowing the jargon). We appear to see one rider approaching and riding up it from behind, then we cut to a reverse angle shot (which would have included that rider if this was edited in the continuity style) and see two riders approach and ride up it, then we cut to the helmet cam of the secodn rider as he again approaches and rides up the board. No I think you're trying to show the same action from three different angles and we often see that on TV, however, possibly because of the length of the shots and possibly because of the order of the shots and possibly both it didn't really come across like that. We just seemd to be taken back in the journey.

    I think you have the right idea about mixing static camera shots with helmet mounted and other shots. Some shots like the one beginning at 0:44 are really great as you manage to get suite a bit of "bike time" as well as see the bikes from all angles. Inevitably there will be a lot of wobble in te bike/helmet mounted shots and I think that's perfectly acceptable in a film like this.

    But I'm afraid this is still pretty much a "montage" type of film and my rule of thumb for that is 1:30, 2:00 max. Funnily enough I realised I'd lost interest, checked the time and it read 1:58.

    So it's really a case from me of the usual advice. Select only your very best shots and keep it really short (if it's for a general audience)

  4. #4


    I liked the opening shot but if you look at the clouds they seem a bit orange. The sequence with the ramp that Tim mentioned as he said is not put together right for the purpose of continuity. It should be something like helmet cam approaching. Cut to static shot of riding the ramp, then cut back to helmet coming off the ramp, then back to second rider on the static camera riding the ramp, then back to helmet cam. If that makes sense

    I think it was a good idea to mix the forward and back facing shots like you did, this adds interest to the video if you had more statics shots this would have helped to carry the video to the 4 mins that you have. I think doing the run with on bike cams running. Then doing it again stopping to set up the static shot approaching the jump/ramp/hill etc. then doing the same but with the camera set up to show a leaving the jump/ram/hill etc. then go to the next one and do the same. This will give you lots of footage to play with at the editing stage.

    You have essentially got the right ideas on this you just need to go that extra inch to perfect them.

    I like that you included ambient sound along with the fitting music track.

    Well done.

  5. Default

    Hmm cool beans, thanks guys. I generally agree I think. Repeating the same section of riding from a few angles does spoil the continuity a bit - I've not really worked out a good way of mixing a variety of shots that I like for the same section. I have tried a few screen-in-screens to show the same thing being ridden from different angles; I might post that tomorrow to see if you think it worked better than this. I 'reversed' quite a bit in this film which does bug me the mroe I watch it because I wanted to show the trail top to bottom, but it's ended up being neither continuous or a montage of best shots. I'll concentrate on one or the other next time.
    Blue - That's exactly how we recorded it one run on helmet cams then another walking it and setting up static shots. (as a side note, the forward facing helmet cam had been zoomed in one step by accident which is why it appears extra shakey and drops frames).
    Given that my first video a year ago was a 16min behemoth, I'm doing well to get them down to 4mins! But - I shall take it under advisement that maybe 2mins is better when there's no real narrative. I'll try that in my next edit, best shots only. And credits... no credit roll next time, just a little note somewhere near the title
    Cheers all!

  6. Default

    Personally I'd cut it much faster than that. Having long shots where the bikes aren't really going very fast doesn't make it seem exciting. I think this is particularly the case with the POV shots though, which I would make much shorter. I'd also try and get some more close ups, which will help with the perception of speed.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I'm With Stupid View Post
    Personally I'd cut it much faster than that. Having long shots where the bikes aren't really going very fast doesn't make it seem exciting. I think this is particularly the case with the POV shots though, which I would make much shorter. I'd also try and get some more close ups, which will help with the perception of speed.
    I just need to be riding faster

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 11:54 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-18-2012, 09:22 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-28-2011, 03:04 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-15-2011, 02:05 PM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-04-2009, 12:48 AM


Posting Permissions

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