"Hi, I'm EyeCandy and I'm an amateur editor. I'm trying to teach myself how to edit and this is my first montage. I do not make any money off my videos, it is purely for learning and fun. I hope you enjoy and any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to read this and to watch my clip.

EyeCandy"

Source Vimeo

Sorry eyecandy, but no self-posting on VS.

*ban
*discard

"Editor at Large" makes it sounds like he is on the run from the law, traveling by night from town to town, righting grammatical wrongs, asking for nothing in return apart from some new appreciation of the language.

Okay. I have to lay down a lesson here for the folks in the video. This has been a pet peeve of mine for years, from Dawkins vs. Religion, to ignoramuses vs. education, BUT:
Showing a guy you agree with say something that's true, to counter a clip of a guy you disagree with saying something that's untrue, does not disprove him.
Just because I know, understand (and have a man-crush on) DeGrass Tyson, nothing he said in that short clip proved or disproved anything in the previous one.

This is an issue with the video editor/author, but this video is a clip of two guys saying opposite things. That is it. (Even if one of them used more words to do so, and happens to be right.)

It's journalistic-masturbation.

The video does not enlighten, inform, or disprove anything. If people want to truly break down the walls of ignorance, they absolutely must start "showing their work". You can't expect Limbaugh to go back to school just to reeducate himself.

I've always seen those things, but I've never asked what they are, I'm assuming it's for the editors, but whats with the clicking thing.

Too bad she couldn't steal the ability to be a competent video editor.

Chroist!

These guys got the moves. Also, an editor.

Take up perhaps then, your woefully didactic point with the editors at the urban dictionary??

You got the gist, innit??

God, this country!! "I wake up today and errant misspelling corrections are at the top of the gnu's list!"

To be clear, in the original video the cop's lines from: "Pardon me" up to "sign here" are fabricated. Replacing the original soundtrack and dialogue of the lady relaying her address to the cop as he copies it down and spins the clipboard around for her to sign.

I'm an experienced sound editor. If there's one thing I understand in this world, it's audio and how to hide an edit. At its core this video fails to do that on several levels and all I hope to accomplish here is to educate people who want to learn how to spot a fake in the future.

I am 100% certain this is a fake, rendering it zero true value to the sift.

Don't you find it at all suspicious that in the original video the lady is audible whenever she speaks except for when she supposedly asks the cop the implied question? Why wouldn't she be heard then? It's because when he asks for her present address (actual dialogue) her actual dialogue (stating her address while he writes it down) is removed and the cop's zinger is shoe-horned in.

Notice the awkwardness in the jump in time between the the end of the zinger "sign here" and "This is not an admission of guilt"(actual dialogue). The difference in the fidelity of the audio (the fake dub vs the actual dialogue) is apparent. Besides that, it's just an unnatural rhythm of speaking forgetting that the dubbed voice is way off in terms of a match for the cop when listened to back to back at such a close proximity. The dubbers didn't have a large window of time to work within giving the dialogue a rushed quality which helps to expose it as a fake.

Also note the cop's body language while he is speaking to her throughout the original video. He frequently looks at her making eye contact when addressing her. During the false exchange his body language in no way reflects the bewilderment that is expressed when he repeats her assumed hushed dialogue.

On top of all that the dubbers failed to add foley of the sound of him handling his clipboard, a sound close enough to the cop to be picked up or cause interference with the cop's mic. There is just silence instead since they removed all sound during the exchange added a background ambiance loop (plenty of b-roll to draw from) and then dubbed in the lines which has fooled 110 (as of this post) into voting it into the #1 spot.

These are the exact kinds of tricks that are used in "reality" tv to take raw footage of people and construct characters in post utilizing the most sensational dialogue available and place a musical backing track to let you know how you are supposed to be feeling about a certain person or situation.

TL:DR See funny thing, upvote and move on.

"Editors note: This story was initially reported on January 30th citing a press release on the Iranian, Pars Oil and Gas website. $40 million was the number placed on the value of what sank off Iran.

An update from the Pars Oil and Gas website today proves what is abundantly clear by watching this video. The sinking structure is the “jacket,” or the structure used to support the topside production facility which has yet to be installed. Jackets such as this one do not cost $40 million to make.

We apologize for making this out to be more than it is, but considering we don’t speak Persian and Google Translate pretty much sucks, getting the real facts is a challenge sometimes.

If we get any further updates, we’ll pass them along."
http://gcaptain.com/watch-irans-40-million-platform/

Nothing he espouses is particularly radical in any way. He mostly goes along with the majority of Americans, like how he says we should stop threatening Iran. Or we should accept the two state settlement on the table that the American government and Israel have been denying for almost 40 years now. I can't think of very many stances he takes that are radical at all.

Also you haven't understood any of his talks if you think he subscribes to "Corporate conspiracy theories". He explains it very plainly, if you are the head of GM your best interest is in maximizing your profits in the short term. That's not a conspiracy that's just sanity. In order to do that you lobby to keep wages and restrictions down and work to throw doubt on global warming.

The main point I'm trying to put to you is you have to read the books, you can't "Trust" Chomsky just on your own. He provides the citations, you can look them up. The one book I would suggest you start with is "Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky". That book is a collection of his talks and interviews and it's followed up by research done not by him but by a couple of smart editors who put the book together. He uses it now as reference sometimes because he was surprised at what a good job they did. The best part about the book is that it has a dedicated website that contains the references and you can check it while you read.

The most important thing you can know about Chomsky is that he has a LOT of enemies that look for whatever they can to use against him. Which is why he can't make very many mistakes, so he's quite conservative and careful with his research. I expect you to be too, you shouldn't just trust people, you should do your own work on the subjects that interest you.

The Youtube video editor has an image stabilization feature that provides a steadycam-like smoothness to camera movements. Sometimes it warps the image though, if there's a lot of shaking initially.

Speaking of movies, that would be a trip. We have 360 degree cameras now...

Though I wouldn't like to be the editor.

One must remember that sometimes the one shooting the scenes is a surfer, not a professional video editor. I agree that it is bad, but I don't think it was made for us discerning sifters.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Editor: Hey, you know what this baby snatching eagle video needs? Chariots of Fire music!

Having worked in the adult industry as an editor, photographer and videographer for several years I can say that most porn shoots are not even remotely like what Ms. Lubben describes. BUT that is not to say, that as with all industries, there are small unprofessional companies that crop up that don’t follow industry guidelines and ethics.

The company I worked for did fetish porn, so slapping, choking and inflicting pain were all a part of the days work. The actors that perform in these videos are professionals who have very clear guidelines as to what they will and won’t do, those guidelines are in writing with the contract signed by them prior to shooting and are gone over again in a interview prior to shooting the scene which are recorded on camera. All professional production companies work with talent agencies who are familiar with what scenes their actors are willing to perform in and also have a clear list of their artists “hard no’s”. Again, unprofessional agents and companies will not follow these guidelines.

Porn is not mostly shot at private locations as Ms. Lubben asserts in the video, it’s shot either on sound stages or at locations that are rented from private owners and permitted with the city for shooting a film. Here again, unprofessional companies will slide past these regulations and shoot rogue.

Bodily fluids?! Yes, of course, it’s sex. All the fluids she spoke of are part of sexual contact and rightfully so are part of the shoots. Again a professional company is prepared to clean up and deal with this. If anal work is part of the shoot, actors are given guidelines, if they are not already familiar with them, on how to prepare themselves for this kind of a shoot, including dietary info and a bowel evacuation schedule prior to shooting.

Up to date health reports are verified prior to starting work, if you aren’t compliant, no shoot. PERIOD. People’s lives and welfare are at stake and it’s taken very seriously.

My personal take on the video shown here is that Ms. Lubben has a very personal agenda, her experience in the industry was not a good one and it seems to fall under working for unprofessional companies. The video “Porn Set” used to illustrate her points in her speech shows actors who obviously had major issues with the shoots they were working on and who should have left them immediately. Also from the video shown it looked like some of the actors were either high or drunk. The use of drugs and alcohol on set is a huge NO at any professional shoot; Ms. Lubben’s experience in the industry again seems to fall foul of that. I personally have turned away actors (in the kindest way possible) who were visibly intoxicated showing up for to work. It’s incredibly unsafe as with any work place to perform impaired.

How to solve these problems? Regulation is a good start, but also a sticky area (no pun intended) for gov’t to get involved in. Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry with little to no regulation. BUT as you begin to regulate, you legitimize the actions of porn, which in the simplest of terms is prostitution, and with that word politicians start to turn and run. Should gov’t be involved? I for one think in the long run it should be, to protect the workers health and safety and weed out the unprofessional elements of the porn industry, and who knows eventually professionalize the sex industry all together.