[Help Request] Sony Vegas 10 Pro, AVC/H.264 Encoding

[poisondeathray]

You leave the project settings as is.

In the render settings you select 720p25, progressive, etc..., this will deinterlace and scale down to 720p25 from the 1080i50 project

Higher bitrates will give you less quality loss (larger filesizes), but it might not be worth it since youtube will butcher it anyways

[lindenkron]

You leave the project settings as is.

In the render settings you select 720p25, progressive, etc..., this will deinterlace and scale down to 720p25 from the 1080i50 project

Higher bitrates will give you less quality loss (larger filesizes), but it might not be worth it since youtube will butcher it anyways

Okay, something definitely isn't going right when it makes the 720p version. It becomes all blurred again, like an oil paint - and the file size is 26.6MB where as the 1080p is 27MB which makes no sense.

These are the settings I used in this attempt.



If this is usually the case one might as well upload everything in 1080p,
hehe

[poisondeathray]

The reason why filesize is almost the same:

filesize = bitrate x running time

notice resolution isn't part of the equation

But higher resolutions require more bitrate for same "quality" levels




also , you 've set deinterlace to blend again . Blend= blurry

[lindenkron]

filesize = bitrate x running time

notice resolution isn't part of the equation




also , you 've set deinterlace to blend again

Blasphemy! Hold on

Also; If the size is the bitrate x running time, wouldn't that mean that if there's more bitrate for less pixels (720p) you should get a sharper and more clear picture on 720p at same bitrate as 1080p?

[lindenkron]

Alright, double post incoming.

I uploaded the 720p clip to youtube (takes a while with my shitty connection), can you tell me if that's the maximum you can expect to get out of my situation? I don't know why, it just feels like to me, that it should be higher quality at 720p :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e4fS6vKB4I
(It's not me, it's my mate - just a test clip!)

Thanks!!

[poisondeathray]

Also; If the size is the bitrate x running time, wouldn't that mean that if there's more bitrate for less pixels (720p) you should get a sharper and more clear picture on 720p at same bitrate as 1080p?

This is not an easy question to answer. It's not that simple.

It depends where on the compression curve you are (bitrate relative to content complexity) , what type of source you have, actual resolved resolution of the source, many many many factors.

1080p with adeqate bitrate and at true 1080p source will always look sharper than when resized 720p at the same bitrate

[poisondeathray]

Alright, double post incoming.

I uploaded the 720p clip to youtube (takes a while with my shitty connection), can you tell me if that's the maximum you can expect to get out of my situation? I don't know why, it just feels like to me, that it should be higher quality at 720p :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e4fS6vKB4I
(It's not me, it's my mate - just a test clip!)

Thanks!!

Be careful - You cannot assess youtube quality right away after uploading. YT applies processing and encodes several versions. Sometimes it might take a few hours for the full processed version to come out (the version you see when you upload right away might be a lower quality version). So I might come back later tonight or tomorrow and have a look

PS. why are you so "ashamed" of your friend ? You've made it abundantly clear that it's not you

[lindenkron]

Also; If the size is the bitrate x running time, wouldn't that mean that if there's more bitrate for less pixels (720p) you should get a sharper and more clear picture on 720p at same bitrate as 1080p?

This is not an easy question to answer. It's not that simple.

It depends where on the compression curve you are (bitrate relative to content complexity) , what type of source you have, actual resolved resolution of the source, many many many factors.

1080p with adeqate bitrate and at true 1080p source will always look sharper than when resized 720p at the same bitrate

Alright, so what you're saying is - It's the small things that need to all be correct in order to achieve best possible quality?

Be careful - You cannot assess youtube quality right away after uploading. YT applies processing and encodes several versions. Sometimes it might take a few hours for the full processed version to come out (the version you see when you upload right away might be a lower quality version). So I might come back later tonight or tomorrow and have a look

PS. why are you so "ashamed" of your friend ? You've made it abundantly clear that it's not you

Haha, not ashamed, don't know just thought it was worth mentioning.

I didn't know about the youtube quality improvement. So there's different types of 1080p/720p qualities possible? I've never seen an improvement over time but perhaps I haven't been looking for it. I uploaded the 1080p one as well for comparison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLa_ehOfFGg

I'll be sure to check in on it later as well - hopefully it HAS improved and I've come to some sort of closure regarding this. Also this thread is bookmarked so I can go back and re-read the information shared by you guys for future footage - thanks you ever so much, really is appreciated.

Edit:
Oh god, the 1080p is showing interlace lines, the vertical ones. I hope that's not permanent

[poisondeathray]

Yes often if you check an upload right away, YT will still be processing it, and the quality will be improved when you check it the next day. I'm not saying this will happen for you, but I've seen it happen

Your example so far looks typical for what you would expect for this type of content. YT is the lowest common denominator here, the weakest link. It's called the "Great Equalizer" by some people. Why? Even if you upload fantastic footage from $100K cameras, it looks the same as if you took it from your iphone.

In your example, 10Mb/s for 1080p will absolutely be worse than 10Mb/s for 720p when viewed at 1080p - at least before you upload it. Just think, your original footage was 15-16Mb/s . This is a relatively complex scene - all that grass and detail and movement between frames requires a lot of bitrate to maintain the sharpness and detail. But that's not necessarily how it will end up on youtube. Even if a certain version looks better before uploading , that relationship might not hold once uploaded, because YT processes 720p differently than 1080p. You are evaluating how youtube handles uploaded footage. This complicates matters because of so many variables.

[lindenkron]

But some people manage to upload footage continuously with great quality - how is this possible. It must be possible! Looking at RWJ, Destorm, Freddiew, Nigahiga and so forth - also the first youtube video I linked had amazing quality.

Also, I can't stream my own 1080p without having to wait for the stream - but on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu_fNTNbhwE for example, I just watched it on 1080p without having to pause to wait for it to render. This whole render business is mighty complicated - I wouldn't have assumed so after seeing how many people actually manages to accomplish it every day

[poisondeathray]

But some people manage to upload footage continuously with great quality - how is this possible. It must be possible! Looking at RWJ, Destorm, Freddiew, Nigahiga and so forth - also the first youtube video I linked had amazing quality.

Also, I can't stream my own 1080p without having to wait for the stream - but on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu_fNTNbhwE for example, I just watched it on 1080p without having to pause to wait for it to render. This whole render business is mighty complicated - I wouldn't have assumed so after seeing how many people actually manages to accomplish it every day

Having to wait on youtube usually means internet bandwidth issues, usually on youtube's side. If the grey bars is fully loaded, and you still get playback issues, then your computer might not be fast enough (but your specs are fine)

The content betwen the videos you mention is entirely different. I mentioned this earlier. The 1st video is an interview piece shot on a tripod. Yours is handheld and shaky. It's comparing apples and oranges.

Since YT is the weakest link, There are many techiques people use to improve their quality. I mentioned some of these earlier.



PS. I've never seen "great quality" on youtube. Never. It's all relative. YT single handledly dumbed down what people think is "great quality" for this generation

[lindenkron]

PS. I've never seen "great quality" on youtube. Never. It's all relative. YT single handledly dumbed down what people think is "great quality" for this generation

Ye, but compared to what I've achieved so far I can't help but think what I'm doing wrong when you compare it to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJOsjP33nF4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fumBcKC6RE
quality. I don't believe it ain't possible xD

PS: I downloaded Occt and CoreTemp. How you go about me using these properly?

[poisondeathray]

PS. I've never seen "great quality" on youtube. Never. It's all relative. YT single handledly dumbed down what people think is "great quality" for this generation

Ye, but compared to what I've achieved so far I can't help but think what I'm doing wrong when you compare it to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJOsjP33nF4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fumBcKC6RE
quality. I don't believe it ain't possible xD

Are you comparing content quality or actual video encoding quality?

These are very different concepts.

That 1st link bad meets evil looks ok for youtube, but the encoded quality is quite poor in general. If you had the same video on a blu-ray release you will see the difference between good quality and bad quality. The difference between high quality and youtube quality is all in the detail retention. If you look at the faces, everything is smoothed away. Everything is ratty, the edges aren't sharp, no details. There is posterization, and blocky artifacts. People have been so "trained" to watch youtube videos that they think everything looks good.

In terms of comparing your video. Both content and production values are very different. Quality starts at the source. How it was shot. You're comparing a professionally shot and edited piece to a handheld piece shot in a backyard with no stabilization rigs or lighting. Post production wise, they added a lot of effects to jazz it up, graded, edited, but I'm not talk about that.

Content-wise yours is actually harder to encode. The individual blades of grass and leaves are very difficult for encoders to keep all the detail. So youtube's capped bitrate causes everything to deteriorate. If you notice the blades of grass, fine details like hair (ok, your buddy doesn't have any, but you get the idea) are smeared away.... oh wait... exactly like that Eminem video . The encoded quality between yours and that video isn't much different, but there is a huge gap in production values

PS: I downloaded Occt and CoreTemp. How you go about me using these properly?

You just start them and watch the temps. I wouldn't worry about it, since everything is working now

[edDV]

Remember when I mentioned "shooting for compression"?

Assuming the rest of the editing workflow is correct, most of the end compressed video quality is determined in the shooting conditions. The camera used will limit overall video quality. Those music videos were shot in a controlled studio environment against green screen with backgounds defocused and used > $25k HD cameras that weren't recompressing h.264.

Compare your work to others using consumer AVCHD camcorders.

[davexnet]

I think post number 13 is the heart of the matter, because he's working with the source that he has,
and trying to create a 720p version that retains some of the sharpness of the source.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could get a better result using Avidemux - bob-deinterlace, bicubicresize, etc,etc.
I don't have any 1080i 25 fps samples so I can't test it myself. Perhaps the OP would post a short clip of the source.

[poisondeathray]

I think post number 13 is the heart of the matter, because he's working with the source that he has,
and trying to create a 720p version that retains some of the sharpness of the source.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could get a better result using Avidemux - bob-deinterlace, bicubicresize, etc,etc.
I don't have any 1080i 25 fps samples so I can't test it myself. Perhaps the OP would post a short clip of the source.

Maybe, but he might be a bit disillusioned, watching content professionally shot on nice cameras , staged, lighting, planned in a studio, combined with editing, grading , special effects, thinking he can do the same thing with a consumer interlaced camcorder without any of those production and post production techniques

The actual encoding quality is actually not that different between all those videos. All of them suffer from rough edges, posterization, loss of detail. Basically low bitrate side effects. Just encoding it better , using higher bitrates, or denoising it, or deinterlacing it better isn't going to increase the production values very much, especially when it's uploaded to youtube.

[lindenkron]

Hey guys, appreciate you taking the time to reply back.

Poisondeathray, we have made one music video where the quality on most clips were alright, there are some of the clips where you can see the light haven't been sufficient though. And I get where you're coming from with the light and steadiness of the footage as well. I talked to my mates about it, but as the situation is right now we don't have any other possibilities. We actually brought in a spotlight for some footage today, but didn't have anything white to cover it up with to soften the light.

I had a white t-shirt, guess what we ended up setting fire to? Haha, there goes that shirt :')

I uploaded the clean footage of the youtube clip I showed you earlier. Bare in mind it's .MTS:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MYBFO5XB

And when I say "good quality" I don't mean Blueray 1080p sharp on 50" TV - that's not what I need. I just need the best possible youtube quality under my circumstances. If the rest depends on the footage and the camera then the job is done because that's all one can demand.

This is NOT to advertise for views or anything. This is the previous video we did (it has effects on it etc.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oq78S5dWNU
Please feel free not to view it if you feel like this is just commercial.

That previous footage came out alright in quality - it was even rendered in .wmv haha :P

I think post number 13 is the heart of the matter, because he's working with the source that he has,
and trying to create a 720p version that retains some of the sharpness of the source.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could get a better result using Avidemux - bob-deinterlace, bicubicresize, etc,etc.
I don't have any 1080i 25 fps samples so I can't test it myself. Perhaps the OP would post a short clip of the source.

I'd love if you could take a look at previous footage and tell me if there's anyway to improve in compared to what I'm doing right now

You just start them and watch the temps. I wouldn't worry about it, since everything is working now

I had to shut my PC off last night because one of the cores hit 81 degrees and it started making the sounds... something definitely ain't right...

Again, thanks everyone for taking the time!

[davexnet]

OK, I'll see what I can do. Didn't you say your PC is new? Shouldn't be over heating like that. Perhaps get some canned air,
open the box and blow out the dust. Check all fans, vents, CPU heat sink, etc,etc. - Or return it to where you bought it
and have them do it.

[lindenkron]

OK, I'll see what I can do. Didn't you say your PC is new? Shouldn't be over heating like that. Perhaps get some canned air,
open the box and blow out the dust. Check all fans, vents, CPU heat sink, etc,etc. - Or return it to where you bought it
and have them do it.

I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be saying like this either. Here is the sound I recorded when it did it last...
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=W728LFFL

In case you're interested and maybe know what it might be. I think I'll try and dust it out, but I've only had it for like 2 months the PC.

Thanks for taking a look at the footage!

Update:
After rendering a movie for 3 minutes - it looked like this. It seemed to have worked, the fact that I took the side off of the PC so it can easier get rid of the heat... major heat problem up in here... water cooling seems like a good idea


Also I think I might need to add an extra fan. It currently has 5 fans in it, 1 for CPU 3 for the GFX and 1 suction. Think adding a fan to "de-suction", spit warm air out of the rig, would be a healthy addition, no?

[lindenkron]

Bump..

[poisondeathray]

That's a bit high for SB, even air cooled with such a low overclock. Even the stock intel cooler should do a better job... What are your room temps like ?

This is NOT to advertise for views or anything. This is the previous video we did (it has effects on it etc.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oq78S5dWNU
Please feel free not to view it if you feel like this is just commercial.

That previous footage came out alright in quality - it was even rendered in .wmv haha :P

Took a quick look at your 1st video - It has a bunch of blends (ie. ghosted image or double images) , maybe you used the same workflow? (vegas blend deinterlace) or speed changes with "smart resample" enabled ?

There are some problems with highlight clipping as well

[lindenkron]

That's a bit high for SB, even air cooled with such a low overclock. Even the stock intel cooler should do a better job... What are your room temps like ?

Took a quick look at your 1st video - It has a bunch of blends (ie. ghosted image or double images) , maybe you used the same workflow? (vegas blend deinterlace) or speed changes with "smart resample" enabled ?

SB? - I'm pretty sure it's standard cooler on - I don't recall paying for anything more. I'd guess my room does heat up quite a bit, I haven't actually taken the temp in here. Sec, will do.

I'm not sure I quite understood the 2nd part of that.. You mean the music video? It has quite a few effects on it yes, but it's still managed to stay sharp etc, and I didn't do ANY thing towards the "resample" or interlacing... I just used .wmv standard settings (1280x720p) etc.

Thanks!

[poisondeathray]

SB? - I'm pretty sure it's standard cooler on - I don't recall paying for anything more. I'd guess my room does heat up quite a bit, I haven't actually taken the temp in here. Sec, will do.

SB = Sandy Bridge ; it's the processor family codename you're using. Many pre-overclocked systems will replace the stock cooler, but even the stock cooler should be adequate at higher speeds than you are using . If you go >4 Ghz or so, then consider getting a higher end air cooler or watercooling. Low end water coolers are worse than high end air coolers. Anyways... you can visit various forums on overclocking and watercooling for more info, this isn't the place to discuss such things

I'm not sure I quite understood the 2nd part of that.. You mean the music video? It has quite a few effects on it yes, but it's still managed to stay sharp etc, and I didn't do ANY thing towards the "resample" or interlacing... I just used .wmv standard settings (1280x720p) etc.

Not referring to the effects here. I'm referring to the BLENDS.

Blends = blurry . Double images. Whenever there is motion, you have a mix of frames = blurry , so it's less crisp

In vegas this commonly happens if you blend deinterlace, or do speed changes with "smart resample" enabled. (that's the default setting)

[poisondeathray]

Please don't take it the wrong way ; Overall I think the music video looks pretty good - I'm just providing constructive criticism - suggestions to improve it , or maybe the next time you do a project

What I mean by blends - every few frames are "ghosted" or blurry. It's more noticable when there is motion. Some viewers might not "percieve" this , but some viewers are very sensitive to this.

Denmark is 50Hz region correct ? If you shot at 25FPS, you should have uploaded 25FPS video. But the youtube video is 29.97 - might be youtube's fault as well they might have screwed up the conversion.

The 2nd part, the highlight clipping , refers to overexposures. Parts are too "white" or blown out, with no gentle rolloff. It's likely a shooting problem (most consumer cameras don't have exposure control or monitoring devices), but improper use of software can cause clipping

This is what I mean by "blends"

[lindenkron]

What are your room temps like ?

My room is 25C / 78F - which isn't too bad is it?

Please don't take it the wrong way ; Overall I think the music video looks pretty good - I'm just providing constructive criticism - suggestions to improve it , or maybe the next time you do a project

What I mean by blends - every few frames are "ghosted" or blurry. It's more noticable when there is motion. Some viewers might not "percieve" this , but some viewers are very sensitive to this.

Denmark is 50Hz region correct ? If you shot at 25FPS, you should have uploaded 25FPS video. But the youtube video is 29.97 - might be youtube's fault as well they might have screwed up the conversion.

The 2nd part, the highlight clipping , refers to overexposures. Parts are too "white" or blown out, with no gentle rolloff. It's likely a shooting problem (most consumer cameras don't have exposure control or monitoring devices), but improper use of software can cause clipping

This is what I mean by "blends"

I won't take anything said in a constructive or kind manner negatively, don't worry - I realise that compared to what can be known on this subject, I know next to nothing. I take any information I can get and try to make sense of all the things I don't understand, so I really do appreciate you taking your spare time explaining these things to me.

I believe we do run 50Hz yes, but I am not certain.

I just checked my old project and it is set for 29.97 FPS - I believe this was an error 40(40 cm in front of the screen).

So how do you get rid of these blending modes, etc, without hurting the footage? - When doing 60 FPS into 24 FPS for a good slowmotion, using AAE you need to do these "added" frames, some blur mode as well, that's the only time I've encountered adding "extra frames" with "blur" on. I didn't know vegas did this as well.

I'm still not sure what you mean by the "Highlight clipping" - The footage is drawn up strongly in black/white on purpose, they wanted it like that. Is that a bad thing, or?

Best regards.

[poisondeathray]

I just checked my old project and it is set for 29.97 FPS

This is why there are blends. It would look more crisp if you rendered it as 25fps (the native FPS of the footage)

So how do you get rid of these blending modes, etc, without hurting the footage? - When doing 60 FPS into 24 FPS for a good slowmotion, using AAE you need to do these "added" frames, some blur mode as well, that's the only time I've encountered adding "extra frames" with "blur" on. I didn't know vegas did this as well.

Do you have 60 fps footage ? Shot at 60 fps ? 60fps footage slowed down to 24fps adds no extra frames. Each frame is a real, unique frame. You are just playing it more slowly - thus the duration increases. But every frame is real and clean.

If you right click the clip and look at the properties, select "disable resample" , that will stop the blending (not the blending from rendering it as 29.97)

What is "AAE" ? Do you mean AE as After Effects ? AE has "pixel motion" and "time warp" , these are motion interpolation methods. They synthesize new frames from motion vectors. You can get bad artifacts and edge morphing as well because the frames are not real. Vegas cannot do this, it can only do the other 2 methods, (a) either inserting dupicates (when you have resample off) , or (b) inserting blends (resample is on) . Those are the 3 general methods of slow motion, when you don't have true higher FPS footage. They all have pros/cons . The best method for slow motion is to shoot a higher fps.

I'm still not sure what you mean by the "Highlight clipping" - The footage is drawn up strongly in black/white on purpose, they wanted it like that. Is that a bad thing, or?

B/W is fine, that is a stylistic decision .

What I'm referring to is the data loss or clipping . Blow outs. Things like skies lack detail. Maybe there should have been clouds there. The roll off is abrupt (if you look at the highlights in the face, they are blown, but the transition edges are too sharp, it's not gradual) .

The other scene where this is clear is when there is water to the right of the singer, and the middle of the water is pure white, and skies are pure white. Those are blown, but the gradations are too abrupt , they are not smoooth. They go from grey to white in 1 step. This makes it look more "cheap" or "video-y"

If you look at the attached, look at the wave form tracing where there is a hard white line - that is data loss and clipping. All luminance values above that are clipped (lost)

Real film , or higher end cameras have more "latitude" or dynamic range. They capture more shadow detail and highlight detail with gradations and less clipping. You would see more details in the sky, the face highlights wouldn't be so delineated (they would be smoother). They look like "blobs" here. Highlights don't look like that in real life. The highlights in the water wouldn't go from light grey all the way to bright white in 1 step. If you prevent overexposure , you can often bring more detail back when you grade highlights

When shooting try to control your exposure (using monitors for exposure, waveform, zebras - not all cameras will have them, maybe only prosumer and up, ND filters). In vegas look at you waveform monitor, histogram, vectorscope (if using color)

My room is 25C / 78F - which isn't too bad is it?

That's a little bit warm, open a window or turn on the AC

Higher ambient temps will increase your CPU temps, it's more than a linear relationship.

[lindenkron]

This is why there are blends. It would look more crisp if you rendered it as 25fps (the native FPS of the footage)

Do you have 60 fps footage ? Shot at 60 fps ? 60fps footage slowed down to 24fps adds no extra frames. Each frame is a real, unique frame. You are just playing it more slowly - thus the duration increases. But every frame is real and clean.

If you right click the clip and look at the properties, select "disable resample" , that will stop the blending (not the blending from rendering it as 29.97)

I don't have any 60 FPS footage, no - that's our current issue when wanting to create slowmotion that isn't laggy . We only have a $500 camcorder at the moment.

What is "AAE" ? Do you mean AE as After Effects ? AE has "pixel motion" and "time warp" , these are motion interpolation methods. They synthesize new frames from motion vectors. You can get bad artifacts and edge morphing as well because the frames are not real. Vegas cannot do this, it can only do the other 2 methods, (a) either inserting dupicates (when you have resample off) , or (b) inserting blends (resample is on) . Those are the 3 general methods of slow motion, when you don't have true higher FPS footage. They all have pros/cons . The best method for slow motion is to shoot a higher fps.

AAE - Adobe After Effects . I guess it goes by the name AE as well, just not how I know it.

I was hoping there was another decent way to make slowmotion footage without having to have a camera that can record 60FPS, swing and a miss. So AAE uses Vectors to try and "create an extra image" that would fit between two other images - guessing where the next pixel will be? - Otherwise I can't see how this differs from the blending method :P

B/W is fine, that is a stylistic decision .

Ye, as you mention further down, the gradients are mashed out as a result of us trying to get sharp black, and sharp white. As little greys as possible.

What I'm referring to is the data loss or clipping . Blow outs. Things like skies lack detail. Maybe there should have been clouds there. The roll off is abrupt (if you look at the highlights in the face, they are blown, but the transition edges are too sharp, it's not gradual) .

The other scene where this is clear is when there is water to the right of the singer, and the middle of the water is pure white, and skies are pure white. Those are blown, but the gradations are too abrupt , they are not smoooth. They go from grey to white in 1 step. This makes it look more "cheap" or "video-y"

If you look at the attached, look at the wave form tracing where there is a hard white line - that is data loss and clipping. All luminance values above that are clipped (lost)

Ye, the reason all of those are missing is the VideoFX applied to the video. The details are there, but not after we changed it to "sharp black and white" as requested. Can't have it all I guess

Real film , or higher end cameras have more "latitude" or dynamic range. They capture more shadow detail and highlight detail with gradations and less clipping. You would see more details in the sky, the face highlights wouldn't be so delineated (they would be smoother). They look like "blobs" here. Highlights don't look like that in real life. The highlights in the water wouldn't go from light grey all the way to bright white in 1 step. If you prevent overexposure , you can often bring more detail back when you grade highlights

When shooting try to control your exposure (using monitors for exposure, waveform, zebras - not all cameras will have them, maybe only prosumer and up, ND filters). In vegas look at you waveform monitor, histogram, vectorscope (if using color)

All of these terms I'll have to study once I get a camera where these are adjustable individually. You reckon it's possible on the DSLR, Canon 550d?

That's a little bit warm, open a window or turn on the AC

Higher ambient temps will increase your CPU temps, it's more than a linear relationship.

It's always that warm in my room, otherwise I freeze! haha, I have a bad time keeping warm :P - While typing this all cores are on 39C*, it just doesn't seem right that the PC can't run with it's cabinet on without overheating .

Cheers.

[poisondeathray]

I don't have any 60 FPS footage, no - that's our current issue when wanting to create slowmotion that isn't laggy . We only have a $500 camcorder at the moment.

Your new device can record 720p60 (720p50 in 50Hz regions) . Use that for planned slo mo sequences.

You actually do have 50fps footage, indirectly. You double rate deinterlace your 50i footage to 50p . Recall that 50i is 50 fields per second. 50 moments in time are represented each second.

There are many different kinds of deinterlacers. Some produce excellent results, some very poor.

Sorry to brush you off, but deinterlacing is big topic, it's been discussed many times and thoroughly. There are comparisons and example videos posted. If you have specific questions , then ask.

What is "AAE" ? Do you mean AE as After Effects ? AE has "pixel motion" and "time warp" , these are motion interpolation methods. They synthesize new frames from motion vectors. You can get bad artifacts and edge morphing as well because the frames are not real. Vegas cannot do this, it can only do the other 2 methods, (a) either inserting dupicates (when you have resample off) , or (b) inserting blends (resample is on) . Those are the 3 general methods of slow motion, when you don't have true higher FPS footage. They all have pros/cons . The best method for slow motion is to shoot a higher fps.

AAE - Adobe After Effects . I guess it goes by the name AE as well, just not how I know it.

I was hoping there was another decent way to make slowmotion footage without having to have a camera that can record 60FPS, swing and a miss. So AAE uses Vectors to try and "create an extra image" that would fit between two other images - guessing where the next pixel will be? - Otherwise I can't see how this differs from the blending method :P

Yes that's how it works. The "inbetween" frame is not a dumb blend. Under good conditions, it can produce far far superior results. But under some conditions it can produce worse results . There are free methods as well through avisynth. Other pay methods include twixtor

This is a lengthy discussion, it's been discussed before if you want more information do a search. I've posted some examples and comparision on this site. To summarize briefly, some types of content are interpolated well , but others are not. Random motion like water droplets, or fast non linear motions are not interpolated very well, you get edge morphing artifacts. Slow, linear motions are predicted much more accurately and you get smooth motion

But the best is always shoot a higher progressive FPS

Ye, the reason all of those are missing is the VideoFX applied to the video. The details are there, but not after we changed it to "sharp black and white" as requested. Can't have it all I guess

Sorry I didn't know it was required. I think it would have looked better with "not sharp B&W" then.

All of these terms I'll have to study once I get a camera where these are adjustable individually. You reckon it's possible on the DSLR, Canon 550d?

oh boy, can of worms...

Yes it's possible., but DSLR shooting is a huge huge huge topic. You can't expect to just point and shoot and get great pictures. It's very difficult to get it done right. There are a gazillion issues. If you prepare the shots and have a lot of experience knowing what shots are suitable, and which ones are not, plan , prepare, and light your shots properly you can make very good "filmic" pieces. I' ll list a few keywords here briefly, that you should look up in DSLR forums

Pros:
inexpensive
shallow depth of field
good lowlight performance

Cons:
expensive - once you configure it properly with lenses, matte boxes, follow focus, stabilization rigs...etc...
mushy codec, low shadow detail
CMOS skew and "jello"
aliasing
moire
overheating
limited record time
soft image, low resolution

Aliasing & Moire are deal breakers. They make some shots totally unusable. Be warned.

CMOS skew and jello produce very unprofessional look, but you see it all the time in music videos

[lindenkron]

Reading that last post of yours started alarm bells, just watching skew and jello seems to be an insanely large topic at hand. Something about the shutter speed of the camera... hmm, I guess there's only one way to learn it unless you feel like spending 10000 hours reading topics... trial and error ;P.

It did really scare me though, to come across footage such as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6eKV9nu2Ao (look at the roof). That's totally unacceptable, but I guess one just shouldn't do footage near things that may cause that?

or the aliasing in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUQ_9VXNLbw
damn.. it looks like some of it is in zoom? I assume that's the problem.

But there's always going to be some problems on the camera's you buy unless you're willing to pay the $25,000 - I just want as many problems that you can plan your way out of, and less of the limited to the camera issues .

I'll be looking into the x264 and avisynth.

Again, thank you ever so much for your time and I'm sorry for starting to go into things that are giant topics - I didn't know that. My problem is just that I don't know anyone that knows anything about this or I'd go to them first. So your valuable time have been greatly appreciated. I'll open this topic again at some point when I've got more questions, which I undoubtedly will once I acquire more information. If not you, then hopefully someone else will response!

Once more, thank you!

[deadrats]

to the OP:

i personally can't stand sony's vegas app and related software, some people swear by it but to me it looks like a chimp coded it and quite frankly it's output options are an insult to video.

try this instead:

http://www.roxio.com/enu/products/creator/suite/overview.html

the company behind roxio, sonic, is well known in the professional community for it's pro apps plus they bought out DivX which in turned owned Main Concept; this app has the most complete implementation of main concept's codecs that i have ever seen, with the ability to change any encoder parameter within the sdk, including how many threads you want to use (up to 16), simd optimization, etc.

you could also try some open source apps that will give you more fine grained control of the encoding process, avidemux is a decent video editor if that's what you really need, if you just want to encode try xmedia recode and media coder, both of which will allow you to output a bunch of different output container, audio codecs and you can use x264, which offers a ton of customization parameters, so you can crank up the settings at the expense of speed.

all these options also offer you better de-interlacing capabilities than vegas, seriously, who really uses this app for anything?