Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 76, Issue 5, pp 6889–6914 | Cite as

Video editing with pen-based technology

  • Diogo Cabral
  • Nuno Correia


The manipulation of video content is still a difficult task due to its complexity and richness. This paper applies pen-based technology to video editing, with the goal to improve such interaction. In this research, digital ink is replaced by video content, aiming to provide a more familiar and creative interaction for video editing and to study how pen gestures can be used on this context as well as what kind of changes are needed in the interface. The concept was implemented in a Tablet PC prototype and evaluated by expert and non-expert users. The user feedback shows that this approach proved to be natural and at the same time to foster user creativity as measured by the Creative Support Index.


Video editing Pen-based interfaces Pen-based video editing 



This work was partially funded by the UTAustin-Portugal, Digital Media, Program (Ph.D. grant: SFRH/BD/42662/2007 - FCT/MCTES); by FCT/MCTES NOVA LINCS (UID/CEC/04516/2013) and by FCT/MCTES LARSyS (UID/EEA/50009/2013 (2015-2017)).


  1. 1.
    Benedek J, Miner T (2002) Measuring desirability: new methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab setting. In: Proceedings of UPA usability professional association conference. Microsoft CorporationGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cabral D, Correia N (2009) Pen-based video annotations: a proposal and a prototype for tablet pcs. In: Proceedings of the 12th IFIP TC13 Human-computer interaction international conference, part II, vol 5727. Springer, Berlin, pp 17–20Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cabral D, Valente JG, Arago U, Fernandes C, Correia N (2012) Evaluation of a multimodal video annotator for contemporary dance. In: Proceedings of the 11th international working conference on advanced visual interfaces, AVI’12. ACM, New York, pp 572–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carroll EA, Latulipe C, Fung R, Terry M (2009) Creativity factor evaluation: towards a standardized survey metric for creativity support. In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on creativity and cognition, C&C ’09. ACM, New York, pp 127–136, doi: 10.1145/1640233.1640255, (to appear in print)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Casares J, Long AC, Myers BA, Bhatnagar R, Stevens SM, Dabbish L, Yocum D, Corbett A (2002) Simplifying video editing using metadata. In: Proceedings of the 4th conference on designing interactive systems, DIS ’02. ACM, New York, pp 157–166, doi: 10.1145/778712.778737, (to appear in print)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chandler G (2012) Cut by cut: editing your film or video, 2nd edn. Michael Wiese Produtions, Studio CityGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cherry E, Latulipe C (2014) Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the creativity support index. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 21 (4):21:1–21:25. doi: 10.1145/2617588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dancyger K (2011) The technique of film and video editing: history, theory, and practice, 5th edn. Focal PressGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis M (2003) Editing out video editing. MultiMedia IEEE 10(2):54–64. doi: 10.1109/MMUL.2003.1195161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diakopoulos N, Essa I (2006) Videotater: an approach for pen-based digital video segmentation and tagging. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, UIST ’06. ACM, New York, pp 221–224, doi: 10.1145/1166253.1166287, (to appear in print)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Girgensohn A, Boreczky J, Chiu P, Doherty J, Foote J, Golovchinsky G, Uchihashi S, Wilcox L (2000) A semi-automatic approach to home video editing. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, UIST ’00. ACM, New York, pp 81–89, doi: 10.1145/354401.354415, (to appear in print)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldman DB, Curless B, Salesin D, Seitz SM (2006) Schematic storyboarding for video visualization and editing. ACM Trans Graph 25(3):862–871. doi: 10.1145/1141911.1141967 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldman DR (2007) A framework for video annotation, visualization, and interaction. Ph.D. thesis, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hinckley K, Chen XA, Benko H (2013) Motion and context sensing techniques for pen computing. In: Proceedings of the 2013 graphics interface conference, GI ’13. Canadian Information Processing Society, Toronto, pp 71–78Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hinckley K, Yatani K, Pahud M, Coddington N, Rodenhouse J, Wilson A, Benko H, Buxton B (2010) Pen + touch = new tools. In: Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, UIST ’10. ACM, New York, pp 27–36, doi: 10.1145/1866029.1866036, (to appear in print)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hürst W, Götz G (2008) Interface designs for pen-based mobile video browsing. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on designing interactive systems, DIS ’08. ACM, New York, pp 395–404, doi: 10.1145/1394445.1394488, (to appear in print)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jokela T, Mäkelä K, Karukka M (2007) Empirical observations on video editing in the mobile context. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on mobile technology, applications, and systems and the 1st international symposium on Computer human interaction in mobile technology, Mobility ’07. ACM, New York, pp 482–489, doi: 10.1145/1378063.1378140, (to appear in print)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lienhart R (1999) Abstracting home video automatically. In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM international conference on multimedia (Part 2), MULTIMEDIA ’99. ACM, New York, pp 37–40, doi: 10.1145/319878.319888, (to appear in print)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu S, Guimbretière F (2012) Flexaura: a flexible near-surface range sensor. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, UIST ’12. ACM, New York, pp 327–330, doi: 10.1145/2380116.2380158, (to appear in print)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mackay W, Pagani D (1994) Video mosaic: laying out time in a physical space. In: Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on multimedia, MULTIMEDIA ’94. ACM, New York, pp 165–172, doi: 10.1145/192593.192646, (to appear in print)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mackay WE, Davenport G (1989) Virtual video editing in interactive multimedia applications. Commun ACM 32(7):802–810. doi: 10.1145/65445.65447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marshall CC (2010) Reading and writing the electronic book. Morgan and Claypool PublishersGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martin T (2012) Interactive quadruped animation. Master’s thesis, University of, California, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meyer A (1995) Pen computing: a technology overview and a vision. ACM SIGCHI Bull 27(3):46–90. doi: 10.1145/221296.221308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nakanishi Y, Ishii Y, Koike H, Oka K, Sato Y (2004) Enhancedmovie: movie editing on an augmented desk as a large-sized display. In: Adjunct proceedings of the 17th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, UIST Adjunct Proceedings ’04. ACM. UIST ARCHIVEGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Potel MJ, Sayre RE (1976) Interacting with the galatea film analysis system. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 10(2):52–59. doi: 10.1145/965143.563285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ramos G, Balakrishnan R (2003) Fluid interaction techniques for the control and annotation of digital video. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, UIST ’03. ACM, New York, pp 105–114, doi: 10.1145/964696.964708, (to appear in print)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ramos G, Balakrishnan R (2005) Zliding: fluid zooming and sliding for high precision parameter manipulation. In: Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, UIST ’05. ACM, New York, pp 143–152, doi: 10.1145/1095034.1095059, (to appear in print)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ramos G, Boulos M, Balakrishnan R (2004) Pressure widgets. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’04. ACM, New York, pp 487–494, doi: 10.1145/985692.985754, (to appear in print)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reiffel L (1971) Superimposed dynamic television display system, us patent 3617630Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rubine D (1991) Specifying gestures by example. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 25(4):329–337. doi: 10.1145/127719.122753 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ryokai K, Marti S, Ishii H (2004) I/o brush: drawing with everyday objects as ink. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI ’04. ACM, New York, pp 303–310, doi: 10.1145/985692.985731, (to appear in print)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Silva J, Cabral D, Fernandes C, Correia N (2012) Real-time annotation of video objects on tablet computers. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia, MUM ’12. ACM, New York, pp 19:1–19:9, doi: 10.1145/2406367.2406391, (to appear in print)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Song H, Benko H, Guimbretiere F, Izadi S, Cao X, Hinckley K (2011) Grips and gestures on a multi-touch pen. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’11. ACM, New York, pp 1323–1332, doi: 10.1145/1978942.1979138, (to appear in print)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thompson R, Bowen CJ (2009) Grammar of the edit, 2nd edn. Focal Press, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vaucelle C, Africano D, Davenport G, Wiberg M, Fjellstrom O (2005) Moving pictures: looking out/looking in. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 educators program, SIGGRAPH ’05. ACM, New York, pp 27:1–27:7, doi: 10.1145/1187358.1187391, (to appear in print)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vaucelle C, Davenport G (2004) A system to compose movies for cross-cultural storytelling: textable movie. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on technologies for interactive digital storytelling and entertainment, lecture notes in computer science, TIDSE 2004. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 126–131Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Viviani C, Baptiste M, Gili JA, Logette L, Sauvaget D et al (2011) Dictionnaire mondial du Cinèma. Larousse, ParisGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vogel D, Balakrishnan R (2010) Direct pen interaction with a conventional graphical user interface. Human-Comput Interact 25(4):324–388. doi: 10.1080/07370024.2010.499839 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weda H, Campanella M (2007) Use study on a home video editing system. In: Proceedings of the 21st British HCI group annual conference on people and computers: HCI...but not as we know it - volume 2, BCS-HCI ’07. British Computer Society, Swinton, pp 123–126Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weher K, Poon A (1994) Marquee: a tool for real-time video logging. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: celebrating interdependence, CHI ’94. ACM, New York, pp 58–64, doi: 10.1145/191666.191697, (to appear in print)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yeo BL, Yeung MM (1997) Retrieving and visualizing video. Commun ACM 40(12):43–52. doi: 10.1145/265563.265571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zigelbaum J, Horn MS, Shaer O, Jacob RJK (2007) The tangible video editor: collaborative video editing with active tokens. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, TEI ’07. ACM, New York, pp 43–46, doi: 10.1145/1226969.1226978, (to appear in print)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Madeira-ITIUniversity of MadeiraFunchalPortugal
  2. 2.NOVA LINCS, Departamento de Informática, Faculdade de Ciências e TecnologiaUniversidade Nova de LisboaCaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations