VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3
FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 73
Thread
  1. You do not need to create any script because you have there some INI files created already, that INI file containes Avisynth script already (it could be one line only, do not imagine some elaborate scripting) , I created those for you
    720p.BAT and 720p.INI that resizes to 1280x720
    1080p.BAT and 1080p.INI that resizes to 1080
    UHD.BAT and UHD.INI that does not resize at all

    so in Vegas having project properties set to 2.7k you just drop that signpost avi into UHD.BAT (just realizing, it is named slightly differently there, same thing) it will render video to that resolution, you drop it to 720p.BAT, it will make 720p mp4, you drop it onto 1080p.BAT it will make 1080p mp4.

    so technically name for that UHD.INI could be NO_RESIZE.INI but I gave it for you a special name. Of course one of those BAT's would need to be copied and renamed to NO_RESIZE.BAT as well. But I named it UHD.INI because x264 command line in there has set buffers to 100000, that is too high for HD content for example. Anyway those 100000 seems quite high anyway. That is why you should test it, like 20seconds and figure out bitrate in bitrate viewer to know where you stand at, if bitrates are too high, you might try to lower crf like 20, 21 etc., if bitrate is going to be much lower you can lower those buffers values a bit also

    point is in that setup I have there, you can easily make a custom encoder for any scenario, changing that INI file (variables and avisynth script) giving it a name you like, and copying any of those BAT's there to that same name. Those BAT's have same exact content, only different names, if you checked, those different names cause that it looks for INI file with same name to pull variables and avisynth script from

    I could make it even more simple letting only one BAT file in that folder and lot's of INI files and designing that batch that it would accept dropping one avi file and one INI file, maybe later in this week, I understand it would be much more readable ...
    Last edited by _Al_; 23rd Feb 2015 at 11:10.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Originally Posted by djteknovibe View Post
    smrpix

    Hey? No-one edits 4K video? Of course they do, i've talked to q few people who edit 4K video, I edit 4K video because with the GoPro Hero 3+ and Hero 4 which can record in 4K the video quality looks better....
    Sure -- and you're posting questions to VideoHelp because it won't play smoothly.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Search PM
    Folks wanting to edit 4K without realizing what they got themselves into is like people who buy an old Ferrari because they think it is cool and then get a shock if they can't do with a $20 Jiffy Lube oil service.

    Editing 4K with a laptop, because, "well my laptop is 4K".

    Thought I had seen it all!

    Quote Quote  
  4. they have to realize that themselves, for example encode 2.7k first and see it, then to see 4k even made in the same camera (when available, because now 15fps is not enough) , I doubt that 4k in some action footage, trembling, shaky video it is capable to make it worthy for now, for now that 4k might be gimmick, that 2.7k is more than enough, seems to me, I could be wrong, tools are needed to evaluate that and understand it more , the whole chain resolution - bitrate - actual resolution

    and upscaling 2.7k to 4k as he was adviced by Sony folks, because software cannot output 2.7k, is kind of lame, thats a start
    Last edited by _Al_; 23rd Feb 2015 at 14:06.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Search PM
    Personally going 1440P as the next step makes a whole lot more sense than going full fledged 4k.

    Also for 4K I would do nothing else than 2.40:1 as ultrawide (ideally curved) obviously allows larger screens for the same viewing distance. Except perhaps for dentists, the time of full frame facial close ups are hopefully behind us in 4K.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Also for 4K I would do nothing else than 2.40:1 as ultrawide (ideally curved) obviously allows larger screens for the same viewing distance. Except perhaps for dentists, the time of full frame facial close ups are hopefully behind us in 4K.
    Haha, that was meant to be a joke right? But with you I'm not sure now
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by _Al_ View Post
    Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Also for 4K I would do nothing else than 2.40:1 as ultrawide (ideally curved) obviously allows larger screens for the same viewing distance. Except perhaps for dentists, the time of full frame facial close ups are hopefully behind us in 4K.
    Haha, that was meant to be a joke right? But with you I'm not sure now
    I'd begun to suspect an increase in screen curvature and width will distort the fabric of space-time viewing distance.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Search PM
    Shot sizes are obviously related to the resolution of the camera and the distance comfort of the viewer.

    Here is a middle of the road TV full frame "dentist" shot, this was considered normal half a century ago:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	full-frame.png
Views:	284
Size:	133.9 KB
ID:	30413

    Functional on crappy old 19 inch ghosting CTR screens half a room size away but obviously unpalatable on a large 4K screen (unless you are a dentist perhaps).

    Here things are getting better in ultra widescreen but shot size is limited because otherwise the details will become grainy:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	wide-frame.png
Views:	221
Size:	256.4 KB
ID:	30412

    4K will allow the best space for filmmakers as details remain sharp and they have unlimited creative framing freedom.

    Of course new filmmakers will slowly learn the benefits of wider framing and eventually viewers will get used to the wider framing and move closer to their screen and thus see more "pixels". And obviously it is easier to look left and right than up and down.

    Needless to say stuffy old directors will continue to perform "dentist" shots till their last film.

    Last edited by newpball; 23rd Feb 2015 at 19:05.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Search PM
    Not sure why those images are blackened, they were fine when I uploaded them. Ok, they are fine now.
    Last edited by newpball; 23rd Feb 2015 at 19:04.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    What is it with you and "stuffy"?

    I would hope that directors will continue to do what they have and they ought: use the appropriate shot for the mise-en-scene and to properly propel the story. Regardless of, or taking into account the varieties of, resolution or screen size or distance (that last one will usually be "unknown").

    Needless to say, stuffy old trolls will continue to try a return volley, laden with gratuitous smileys...

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  11. Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Shot sizes are obviously related to the resolution of the camera and the distance comfort of the viewer.
    Your already tenuous grip on reality is obviously weakening with each post. Why, I don't know, but there's an undeniable correlation.

    Can I play "hijack the thread" too? It looks like fun.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	not.jpg
Views:	205
Size:	28.2 KB
ID:	30420

    Click image for larger version

Name:	wide.jpg
Views:	179
Size:	66.9 KB
ID:	30421

    Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Here things are getting better in ultra widescreen but shot size is limited because otherwise the details will become grainy
    So you could film a few people from a reasonable distance, but obviously there'd be no long distance shots before 4K. Could you imagine a shot size so wide it'd allow the inclusion of a crowd in a stadium? No..... I can't see even 4K cutting that. We'd need at least 320k for a shot that size.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Nice clips, hello_hello!

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston, UK
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by _Al_ View Post
    You do not need to create any script because you have there some INI files created already, that INI file containes Avisynth script already (it could be one line only, do not imagine some elaborate scripting) , I created those for you
    720p.BAT and 720p.INI that resizes to 1280x720
    1080p.BAT and 1080p.INI that resizes to 1080
    UHD.BAT and UHD.INI that does not resize at all

    so in Vegas having project properties set to 2.7k you just drop that signpost avi into UHD.BAT
    Thanks for the reply, I apreciate it, but I have absolutely no idea how to "drop that signpost avi into UHD.BAT", I don't even know what .BAT is, lol.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston, UK
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by _Al_ View Post
    they have to realize that themselves, for example encode 2.7k first and see it, then to see 4k even made in the same camera (when available, because now 15fps is not enough) , I doubt that 4k in some action footage, trembling, shaky video it is capable to make it worthy for now, for now that 4k might be gimmick, that 2.7k is more than enough, seems to me, I could be wrong, tools are needed to evaluate that and understand it more , the whole chain resolution - bitrate - actual resolution

    and upscaling 2.7k to 4k as he was adviced by Sony folks, because software cannot output 2.7k, is kind of lame, thats a start
    I admit that the GoPro Hero cameras not having any image stabilization is truly stupid but i've contacted GoPro about it three times and they simply refuse to address the problem. But there are hand held poles with gimbles on for the camera which you can buy which steadies the video footage massively. Plus on my 4K tv I definately see a different between 2.7K video and 4K video shot with the GoPro Hero 4 so for me 4K is definately worth recording in.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston, UK
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Folks wanting to edit 4K without realizing what they got themselves into is like people who buy an old Ferrari because they think it is cool and then get a shock if they can't do with a $20 Jiffy Lube oil service.

    Editing 4K with a laptop, because, "well my laptop is 4K".

    Thought I had seen it all!

    If you're just gonna continuously mock me for using a 4K laptop then do me a favour and keep your mouth shut please, all you do is make yourself look an idiot for having a go at someone who's asking for help, and you for not seeming to accept that that TWICE now i've said I have it connected to my 4K tv and am using the tv to edit but you seem unable to read plain English, either that or you're just not listening to what i'm saying when I keep saying over and over that I DO NOT use my laptop's screen for editing. Do me a favour and don't reply anymore ok because you're just getting on my nerves pal.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by djteknovibe View Post
    Thanks for the reply, I apreciate it, but I have absolutely no idea how to "drop that signpost avi into UHD.BAT", I don't even know what .BAT is, lol.
    Your Windows might have set to hide extensions in your PC, kind of dumb of Microsoft to have that default, if you ask me. Click START, type: folder , in there, click Folder Options, click View and and uncheck Hide extensions for known file types". In that avi to mp4 folder, there are same filenames but different extensions (BAT and INI)

    To sum it up,
    Do you have that avisynth and dmfs installed?
    Does your dmfs work? Successful installation adds one more export in Vegas.
    After downloading that zip , you have to unzip it somewhere on your hardrive.

    ---You have to go into Vegas , Render As and you should find one more Save as a Type export: DebugMode Frameserver (*.avi). If you can see it there. It is a success already.

    ---Then you select that export option name that avi (only simple alphabetical characters, no special character because of Avisynth). Or better save that avi into that unzip folder avi to mp4. Then windows pops up, you choose RGB32 nothing else and click Next, then you just minimize second pop up window, not cancel. Dmfs window and Vegas also would disappear into bottom Windows bar and frame server is running. What do you see? Nothing. Frame server is waiting. It can be in this stage like forever, sometimes I forget that I have dmfs running for days and it still obediently sits there and waits for something to load that dmfs avi (encoder, player etc.). That avi has couple of kB and it is sitting on hardisk where you saved it. That avi is not complete video, it is just a reference, perhaps some frames are there, like in a buffer, not sure. But for example if you drop it on Windows Media Player your video would start to play, in that moment frame server would kick in and frames are served to that player from Vegas timeline, frame server serves only frames that it was asked for by that player. Same thing with encoder. Not all players and encoders accept that avi though, it is VFW thing.

    ---so after frame server is quietly running you go into that avi to mp4 folder, you would see that avi in there, if you saved it there, grab it and drop it on that BAT file you want. BAT is extension for that file, those files there are named UHD.BAT for example. If you do not see BAT extension, you have disabled to see filename extensions in Windows settings. Encoding would start, frame server would start to serve frames from Vegas timeline to endoder as it needs it.

    --after encoding you can start to encode again, just droppig that avi into different BAT or the same BAT again (after you change settings in INI file for example if you look for optimal settings), it will still work, frame server is still running. You'd have to go back to Vegas (click Vegas Icon in Windows bottom bar and click stop serving . Only then that small avi file that you saved on hardisk would disappear.

    In our case, by using those BAT files, there is one more cool thing going on. It is going through Avisynth as well. Avisynth is a frame server as well. So video goes from Vegas through dmfs to Avisynth frame server, where video is easily fixed there, resize, color spaces etc, (by Avisynth script) very handy, and Avisynth serves it to x264 encoder. All of it live, at one go.
    Last edited by _Al_; 24th Feb 2015 at 10:57.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Shot sizes are obviously related to the resolution of the camera and the distance comfort of the viewer.
    Your already tenuous grip on reality is obviously weakening with each post. Why, I don't know, but there's an undeniable correlation.
    Here is a fair quality article about the future of aspect ratios that supports my preference for 21:9 for ultra high definition.

    http://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/1370-8k-is-not-the-future-of-tv-we-think-2...een-is-instead

    Quote Quote  
  18. You're citing Red Shark as a prognosticator? Entertaining, but way too much energy drink over there.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Yes marketers at the end will tell you what to look at, anyway ... new devices are always needed ...

    Suppose lens is always wide enough in the first place.
    I think in reality we focus constantly using somehow erratic pattern where we look. You need to have some up and bottom available to look at also for future virtual viewing. Huge screens. Something like "helmet" experience. You need some free will to look up and down peripheral vision is not a long rectangle. Or perhaps with lots of free will shape it starts to be less important what shape it is. As long you can look left, right, up and down with good range. Sphere as a limit. For resolutions big enough and viewing size, you mostly decide where to look, so perhaps it is going to be focused everywhere, not like cinematic experience, where they tell you where to look. So again it could differ, it could go both ways, or reality shoot, post production blurred for 2D viewing in cinema. Art way type, they make you see what they want you to see, specific format, feel what they want you to feel by listening to specific sound or real reality, delivered the other way, focused anywhere, with lots of range to look at, but still red pill virtual reality anyway, don't be fooled ...
    Last edited by _Al_; 24th Feb 2015 at 11:49.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Couple of my notes on that RedShark article:
    • 4:3 wasn't ever considered "too narrow" until WS became the overwhelming majority
    • Letter-boxing doesn't waste a lot of the screen (<4% for most WS movies = 1.85:1)
    • 21:9 is NOT closer to 1.85:1 than 16:9 is (29% diff vs. 4% diff)
    • Pillar-boxing of 16:9 would NOT be considered acceptable by many, and HUGE pillar-boxing of 4:3 would be ridiculously wasteful (as wasteful as pillar+letter-boxing).
    • 21:9 is NOT currently any standard and none of the up-and-coming standards support it (natively or anamorphically) either.
    • Not cheap nor easy to deal with anamorphic, as a content producer, distributor, or consumer - learn lesson from DVD.

    Clearly that article's author is NOT fully understanding of the technical details involved.

    Scott

    <edit>21:9 will be an option on HDMI 2.0</edit>
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 24th Feb 2015 at 13:42.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston, UK
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by _Al_ View Post
    Originally Posted by djteknovibe View Post
    Thanks for the reply, I apreciate it, but I have absolutely no idea how to "drop that signpost avi into UHD.BAT", I don't even know what .BAT is, lol.
    Your Windows might have set to hide extensions in your PC, kind of dumb of Microsoft to have that default, if you ask me. Click START, type: folder , in there, click Folder Options, click View and and uncheck Hide extensions for known file types". In that avi to mp4 folder, there are same filenames but different extensions (BAT and INI)

    To sum it up,
    Do you have that avisynth and dmfs installed?
    Does your dmfs work? Successful installation adds one more export in Vegas.
    After downloading that zip , you have to unzip it somewhere on your hardrive.

    ---You have to go into Vegas , Render As and you should find one more Save as a Type export: DebugMode Frameserver (*.avi). If you can see it there. It is a success already.

    ---Then you select that export option name that avi (only simple alphabetical characters, no special character because of Avisynth). Or better save that avi into that unzip folder avi to mp4. Then windows pops up, you choose RGB32 nothing else and click Next, then you just minimize second pop up window, not cancel. Dmfs window and Vegas also would disappear into bottom Windows bar and frame server is running. What do you see? Nothing. Frame server is waiting. It can be in this stage like forever, sometimes I forget that I have dmfs running for days and it still obediently sits there and waits for something to load that dmfs avi (encoder, player etc.). That avi has couple of kB and it is sitting on hardisk where you saved it. That avi is not complete video, it is just a reference, perhaps some frames are there, like in a buffer, not sure. But for example if you drop it on Windows Media Player your video would start to play, in that moment frame server would kick in and frames are served to that player from Vegas timeline, frame server serves only frames that it was asked for by that player. Same thing with encoder. Not all players and encoders accept that avi though, it is VFW thing.

    ---so after frame server is quietly running you go into that avi to mp4 folder, you would see that avi in there, if you saved it there, grab it and drop it on that BAT file you want. BAT is extension for that file, those files there are named UHD.BAT for example. If you do not see BAT extension, you have disabled to see filename extensions in Windows settings. Encoding would start, frame server would start to serve frames from Vegas timeline to endoder as it needs it.

    --after encoding you can start to encode again, just droppig that avi into different BAT or the same BAT again (after you change settings in INI file for example if you look for optimal settings), it will still work, frame server is still running. You'd have to go back to Vegas (click Vegas Icon in Windows bottom bar and click stop serving . Only then that small avi file that you saved on hardisk would disappear.

    In our case, by using those BAT files, there is one more cool thing going on. It is going through Avisynth as well. Avisynth is a frame server as well. So video goes from Vegas through dmfs to Avisynth frame server, where video is easily fixed there, resize, color spaces etc, (by Avisynth script) very handy, and Avisynth serves it to x264 encoder. All of it live, at one go.
    Ok thanks i'll give it a go and see what happens, will this give me the same quality video but lower the bitrate so it's not 100376kbps, is that what we're trying to do here? It's hard taking it all in as I have ADHD.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Originally Posted by djteknovibe View Post
    will this give me the same quality video but lower the bitrate so it's not 100376kbps, is that what we're trying to do here? It's hard taking it all in as I have ADHD.
    I think so, this is what it is all about, to realize that that much bitrate is not needed, especially for 2.7k.

    There is a certain bitrate limit where increasing it would not visually make a difference at all. This mission is to find out what bitrate you are going to be getting if you set CRF to 19. CRF is quality settings. And what CRF is still fine with you, and what CRF already looks not like original, much worse. But Vegas just creates bitrate that might not be even necessary and also upscales, which is totally unnecessary. By upscaling that video will not look better, it might look even worse comparing it to encoded 2.7k.

    It could be counter intuitive for you to realize that software can encode to "certain" quality. It can. It just compares original and if it is with those quality limits set by you (choosing CRF number, that is called quantizer) it will encode it that way , giving it a certain bitrate for every video scene. You might use CRF 19 only to realize that max bitrates were about 60000 even with action scene. So bitrate, average bitrate, video size, could theoretically be only half what you are getting now from Vegas.

    The point is I cannot even guess what those bitrates are going to be, I do not have GoPro. You could point me to a website where I can download some 2.7k raw footage and I tell you what I got, I post encoded result, you can compare it with what you get from Vegas.
    Last edited by _Al_; 24th Feb 2015 at 14:53.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Couple of my notes on that RedShark article:
    • 4:3 wasn't ever considered "too narrow" until WS became the overwhelming majority
    • Letter-boxing doesn't waste a lot of the screen (<4% for most WS movies = 1.85:1)
    • 21:9 is NOT closer to 1.85:1 than 16:9 is (29% diff vs. 4% diff)
    • Pillar-boxing of 16:9 would NOT be considered acceptable by many, and HUGE pillar-boxing of 4:3 would be ridiculously wasteful (as wasteful as pillar+letter-boxing).
    • 21:9 is NOT currently any standard and none of the up-and-coming standards support it (natively or anamorphically) either.
    • Not cheap nor easy to deal with anamorphic, as a content producer, distributor, or consumer - learn lesson from DVD.

    Clearly that article's author is NOT fully understanding of the technical details involved.

    Scott

    <edit>21:9 will be an option on HDMI 2.0</edit>
    Bookmark this posting and check it 10 years from now, chances are you have a 21:9 screen and are a great proponent.

    Quote Quote  
  24. But camcorders shoot 16:9, so what's the point? Are we going to crop like in the past DVavi's (well some, not me) to make super-duper cinematic experience?
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Couple of my notes on that RedShark article:
    • 4:3 wasn't ever considered "too narrow" until WS became the overwhelming majority
    • Letter-boxing doesn't waste a lot of the screen (<4% for most WS movies = 1.85:1)
    • 21:9 is NOT closer to 1.85:1 than 16:9 is (29% diff vs. 4% diff)
    • Pillar-boxing of 16:9 would NOT be considered acceptable by many, and HUGE pillar-boxing of 4:3 would be ridiculously wasteful (as wasteful as pillar+letter-boxing).
    • 21:9 is NOT currently any standard and none of the up-and-coming standards support it (natively or anamorphically) either.
    • Not cheap nor easy to deal with anamorphic, as a content producer, distributor, or consumer - learn lesson from DVD.

    Clearly that article's author is NOT fully understanding of the technical details involved.

    Scott

    <edit>21:9 will be an option on HDMI 2.0</edit>
    Bookmark this posting and check it 10 years from now, chances are you have a 21:9 screen and are a great proponent.

    I am not much of a betting man, but I'd easily bet money that your supposition will NOT be true (either owning or great proponent).

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  26. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    I am not much of a betting man, but I'd easily bet money that your supposition will NOT be true (either owning or great proponent).
    Well if I lose I can make you an ultrawide version of "Duck Soup", but I am not sure you will appreciate it.

    Look at this vid, doesn't it scream ultrawide?



    Last edited by newpball; 24th Feb 2015 at 16:46.
    Quote Quote  
  27. I updated that Dmfs Avi to MP4.zip , dropping avi and INI file into AVI_to_MP4.BAT batch it encodes right away,
    it's pretty cool, INI file is simple, something like this, that resizes video to 1280x720:
    Code:
    path_destination      :C:\Destination
    path_temp             :C:\Temp
    x264_variables        :--crf 18 --ref 6 --tune film --vbv-bufsize 20000 --vbv-maxrate 20000
    nero_variables        :-lc -cbr 256000
    delete_temp_folder    :yes
    
    
    write avisynth script between lines, no loading clip line in there!
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    ConvertToYV12(matrix="PC.709")
    Spline36Resize(1280,720)
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    variables are pretty straight forward,
    -command lines with no output or input otherwise everything could be put there,
    -Avisynth script could be written between those lines,
    -batch script also checks for syntax errors in that Avisynth script,
    -it can batch encode from frame server too, so more rendering from same dmfs avi possible over night, frame server can run only one process at a time, so it waits for current process to finish and then some other process picks up,
    -it also works droppind DVavi directly with INI file , or any avi file, as long as avisynth loads audio, any avi in general ...

    so dropping a 4:3 DVavi file directly (no frame server) and this INI file below:
    Code:
    path_destination      :C:\Destination
    path_temp             :C:\Temp
    x264_variables        :--crf 17 --bff --sar 8:9 --ref 6 --tune film --vbv-bufsize 20000 --vbv-maxrate 20000
    nero_variables        :-lc -cbr 256000
    delete_temp_folder    :yes
    
    
    write avisynth script between lines, no loading clip line in there!
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    encoding interlaced mp4, just putting it here so it is clear how those INI files work ...
    Last edited by _Al_; 1st Mar 2015 at 02:08.
    Quote Quote  
  28. vimeo,
    I downloaded RAW 2.7k GoPro footage from Vimeo, it is 2704x1440, 2:52 min, 923MB video, so it is not 16:9, but close to 1.85:1, precisely 1.8777777:1. Video has steady bitrate about 45 Mbits/s.

    I loaded that original clip into Vegas, project properties set to 2704x1440, 48000Hz, then muted audio track (audio is just quad-copter buzz) and exported frame server,
    using this INI file, to not resizing video, so leaving it to 2704x1440:
    Code:
    path_destination      :C:\Destination
    path_temp             :C:\Temp
    x264_variables        :--crf 18 --ref 2 --vbv-bufsize 80000 --vbv-maxrate 80000
    nero_variables        :-q 0.5
    delete_temp_folder    :yes
    
    write avisynth script between lines, no loading clip line in there
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    ConvertToYV12(matrix="PC.709")
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    I got Sunset-Los_Angeles_2704x1440.mp4, 432 MB with average bitrate 21 Mbits/s and max peak about 32Mbits/s, so nowhere near 100 Mbits, CPU during playback on computer was about 32%.

    using same INI file,but adding fast decode, which might be handy with UHD resolution for easier playback, and again - no resizing and getting 2704x1440:
    Code:
    path_destination      :C:\Destination
    path_temp             :C:\Temp
    x264_variables        :--crf 18 --ref 2 --tune fastdecode  --vbv-bufsize 80000 --vbv-maxrate 80000
    nero_variables        :-q 0.5
    delete_temp_folder    :yes
    
    write avisynth script between lines, no loading clip line in there
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    ConvertToYV12(matrix="PC.709")
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    I got Sunset-Los_Angeles_2704x1440_fast_decode.mp4, 502MB with average bitrate 25 Mbits/s and max peak about 37Mbits/s, CPU during playback on computer dropped to about about 25%.

    then I used this INI file, resizing it to 1920x1024:
    Code:
    path_destination      :C:\Destination
    path_temp             :C:\Temp
    x264_variables        :--crf 18 --ref 4 --tune film --vbv-bufsize 40000 --vbv-maxrate 40000
    nero_variables        :-q 0.5
    delete_temp_folder    :yes
    
    write avisynth script between lines, no loading clip line in there
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    ConvertToYV12(matrix="PC.709")
    Spline36Resize(1920,1024)
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    I got Sunset-Los_Angeles_1920x1024.mp4, 216 MB, with average about 11 Mbit/s, where one peak was about 18Mbit/s

    so to sum up:
    original 2704x1440, 932 MB, CPU 36%
    encoding 2704x1440, 432 MB, CPU ~32%
    encoding 2704x1440, 502 MB, fast decode settings, ~CPU 25%
    encoding and resizing to 1920x1024, 216 MB, CPU less than 20%
    Last edited by _Al_; 2nd Mar 2015 at 02:10.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Here is a fair quality article about the future of aspect ratios that supports my preference for 21:9 for ultra high definition.

    http://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/1370-8k-is-not-the-future-of-tv-we-think-2...een-is-instead
    How does it support your claim?
    Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Shot sizes are obviously related to the resolution of the camera and the distance comfort of the viewer.
    That's what I was commenting on. Why did you quote me and then post something that has nothing to do with what I said?
    Quote Quote  
  30. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by _Al_ View Post
    But camcorders shoot 16:9, so what's the point? Are we going to crop like in the past DVavi's (well some, not me) to make super-duper cinematic experience?
    The point is that someone with at least some artistic inclination will not necessarily limit his chosen aspect ratio to the aspect ratio of the camera.

    I think the scene and artistry should determine the aspect ratio. Obviously we have to work with what we got, if you have a 4:3 SD camera there is almost no point in composing for ultra wide as there are simply not enough pixels, for 1080p that becomes less of an issue and is almost a non issue if you shoot 2.5k+

    I ran a poll sometime ago here about what people prefer to use as an aspect ratio, unfortunately most people seem to have no understanding of what was asked and many just trolled away. A missed chance!

    After all video is much more than just fine tuning Avisynth scripts.

    Quote Quote  
Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!