VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3
FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 61 to 81 of 81
Thread
  1. People use "60i" as a lazy way to indicate the same thing as "59.94i" , which is the same thing as "29.97i" . 29.97i is expressed as frames, 59.94i is expressed as fields . Both ways of expression are officially used by broadcasters, software, camera manufacturers . They both indicate the same thing, that's what jman98 is saying . Just like people say "30p" when they really mean "29.97p" . Rarely do they mean 30.0p

    Actually none of them are correct, and they are all approximations - it should be 59.94006... or 60000/1001

    "60i" interlaced material is NOT roughly equivalent to 30p in terms of content. The former has twice the temporal resolution . You have to distinguish between content, and type of encoding
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Search PM
    does the Blu-Ray Disc standard actually support 60i then?
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by erek View Post
    does the Blu-Ray Disc standard actually support 60i then?

    Yes, if you really mean 59.94i , as in 59.94 interlaced fields per second - yes. If you mean something else like 60.0, no

    People just use "60i" as shorthand for 59.94i or 29.97i - all 3 can be used interchangeably

    Also, that's how 29.97p content is authored for blu-ray. It's encoded interlaced as fields 59.94i , not native progressive 29.97p . Notice there is a distinction between content, and type of encoding
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by erek View Post
    does the Blu-Ray Disc standard actually support 60i then?

    Yes, if you really mean 59.94i , as in 59.94 interlaced fields per second - yes. If you mean something else like 60.0, no

    People just use "60i" as shorthand for 59.94i or 29.97i - all 3 can be used interchangeably

    Also, that's how 29.97p content is authored for blu-ray. It's encoded interlaced as fields 59.94i , not native progressive 29.97p . Notice there is a distinction between content, and type of encoding
    http://grovermind.com/erek/testcomp/colorspace/scan/

    in there i have 60i and 30p videos of the same event recorded as 29.97p (called 30p in my camera's settings)


    that's the 60i i am referring to, it is encoded interlaced encoded with x264 using MBAFF




    is that Blu-Ray Disc compliant?


    "
    Frame rate : 29.970 fps
    Color space : YUV
    Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
    Bit depth : 8 bits
    Scan type : MBAFF
    "
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by erek View Post
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by erek View Post
    does the Blu-Ray Disc standard actually support 60i then?

    Yes, if you really mean 59.94i , as in 59.94 interlaced fields per second - yes. If you mean something else like 60.0, no

    People just use "60i" as shorthand for 59.94i or 29.97i - all 3 can be used interchangeably

    Also, that's how 29.97p content is authored for blu-ray. It's encoded interlaced as fields 59.94i , not native progressive 29.97p . Notice there is a distinction between content, and type of encoding
    http://grovermind.com/erek/testcomp/colorspace/scan/

    in there i have 60i and 30p videos of the same event recorded as 29.97p (called 30p in my camera's settings)


    that's the 60i i am referring to, it is encoded interlaced encoded with x264 using MBAFF




    is that Blu-Ray Disc compliant?


    "
    Frame rate : 29.970 fps
    Color space : YUV
    Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
    Bit depth : 8 bits
    Scan type : MBAFF
    "

    29.97 fps MBAFF is at 1920x1080 , but - it's not enough information alone .

    You need to check many parameters, buffer, level, profile, settings for blu-ray compliance. Also, there are different "degrees of compliance" , and some players may play out of spec streams

    You were discussing multiavchd earlier - note Multiavchd doesn't use a recent x264 binary (it's very old and not updated) - it doesn't use the updated blu-ray compatibility settings (--bluray-compat )
    Quote Quote  
  6. The "60i" file is not compatible for at least several reasons: keyframe interval is too long , no blu-ray compat switch, no buffer settings , mp4 container (when authoring strictly, you should use raw avc streams)
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by erek View Post
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by erek View Post
    does the Blu-Ray Disc standard actually support 60i then?

    Yes, if you really mean 59.94i , as in 59.94 interlaced fields per second - yes. If you mean something else like 60.0, no

    People just use "60i" as shorthand for 59.94i or 29.97i - all 3 can be used interchangeably

    Also, that's how 29.97p content is authored for blu-ray. It's encoded interlaced as fields 59.94i , not native progressive 29.97p . Notice there is a distinction between content, and type of encoding
    http://grovermind.com/erek/testcomp/colorspace/scan/

    in there i have 60i and 30p videos of the same event recorded as 29.97p (called 30p in my camera's settings)


    that's the 60i i am referring to, it is encoded interlaced encoded with x264 using MBAFF




    is that Blu-Ray Disc compliant?


    "
    Frame rate : 29.970 fps
    Color space : YUV
    Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
    Bit depth : 8 bits
    Scan type : MBAFF
    "

    29.97 fps MBAFF is, but - it's not enough information alone .

    You need to check many parameters, buffer, level, profile, settings for blu-ray compliance. Also, there are different "degrees of compliance" , and some players may play out of spec streams

    You were discussing multiavchd earlier - note Multiavchd doesn't use a recent x264 binary (it's very old and not updated) - it doesn't use the updated blu-ray compatibility settings (--bluray-compat )
    i am using kdenlive to render my final product before i go to disc, but i would use multiavchd to author to AVCHD DVD, but not Blu-Ray Disc.




    with x264 using MBAFF to do it's interlaced encoding is it expected that 60i would show 29.97 frames with the scan type being MBAFF? or is 29.97 fps MBAFF actually only 29.97i?


    Here is the complete mediainfo for the video portion of my 60i file,

    "
    Format : MPEG-4
    Format profile : Base Media
    Codec ID : isom
    File size : 77.5 MiB
    Duration : 33s 878ms
    Overall bit rate mode : Variable
    Overall bit rate : 19.2 Mbps
    Writing application : Lavf53.21.1


    Video
    ID : 1
    Format : AVC
    Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
    Format profile : Main@L4.1
    Format settings, CABAC : Yes
    Format settings, ReFrames : 2 frames
    Codec ID : avc1
    Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
    Duration : 33s 868ms
    Bit rate : 18.0 Mbps
    Width : 1 920 pixels
    Height : 1 080 pixels
    Display aspect ratio : 16:9
    Frame rate mode : Constant
    Frame rate : 29.970 fps
    Color space : YUV
    Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
    Bit depth : 8 bits
    Scan type : MBAFF
    Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.290
    Stream size : 76.2 MiB (98%)
    Writing library : x264 core 123 r2189 35cf912
    Encoding settings : cabac=1 / ref=1 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x1:0 / me=dia / subme=2 / psy=0 / mixed_ref=0 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=0 / trellis=0 / 8x8dct=0 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=0 / threads=4 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=tff / bluray_compat=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=0 / b_adapt=1 / b_bias=0 / direct=1 / weightb=0 / open_gop=1 / weightp=0 / keyint=250 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc=abr / mbtree=0 / bitrate=18000 / ratetol=1.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=51 / qpstep=4 / ip_ratio=1.25 / pb_ratio=1.25 / aq=1:1.00
    "
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by erek View Post


    with x264 using MBAFF to do it's interlaced encoding is it expected that 60i would show 29.97 frames with the scan type being MBAFF? or is 29.97 fps MBAFF actually only 29.97i?
    You can think of MBAFF as "sort of" interlaced encoding, a more efficient way of doing PAFF, which is what you would normally see in camcorders and what you would think as traditional interlaced. MBAFF is fine for blu-ray

    Read my previous post regarding compatibility issues .

    You need to use blu-ray compatibility settings. But since you are doing DVD5 media authoring this imposes other restrictions on the bitrate. The transfer speed of DVD5/9 media is a lot lower than BD25/50 media. The --vbv-maxrate and --vbv-bufsize should <15Mb/s on DVD5/9 media

    Read these posts for blu-ray on BD , and especially the 2nd for "AVCHD on DVD5/9" encoding settings

    https://sites.google.com/site/x264bluray/home
    http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=154533


    Also, AAC audio is not compliant for BD or AVCHD on DVD 5/9 . AC3 or LPCM should be used (you won't have room for LPCM on DVD5 media). You should also be using raw streams (no container) for authoring
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by erek View Post


    with x264 using MBAFF to do it's interlaced encoding is it expected that 60i would show 29.97 frames with the scan type being MBAFF? or is 29.97 fps MBAFF actually only 29.97i?
    You can think of MBAFF as "sort of" interlaced encoding, a more efficient way of doing PAFF, which is what you would normally see in camcorders and what you would think as traditional interlaced. MBAFF is fine for blu-ray

    Read my previous post regarding compatibility issues .

    You need to use blu-ray compatibility settings. But since you are doing DVD5 media authoring this imposes other restrictions on the bitrate. The transfer speed of DVD5/9 media is a lot lower than BD25/50 media. The --vbv-maxrate and --vbv-bufsize should <15Mb/s on DVD5/9 media

    Read these posts for blu-ray on BD , and especially the 2nd for "AVCHD on DVD5/9" encoding settings

    https://sites.google.com/site/x264bluray/home
    http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=154533
    i am going to do render out two different sets of finals for my media now


    1: 29.97p is for DVD a la AVStoDVD (9 Mbps 720x480) and then the untouched 29.97p 1080 file will go directly to YouTube at 18 Mbps

    2: 60i (25 Mbps for now) for Blu-Ray Disc




    I have not decided on what software to use for authoring to Blu-Ray Disc, yet... the only software i know of that is capable of it is multiavchd. do you have any recommendations for free?




    also, i am running into a problem with considering using my 29.97p footage for conversion to 23.97p because when i did that the video came out really choppy.. would it be significantly better to shoot at 23.97p then attempting what many in Hollywood recommend doing. I heard that shooting at higher frames like 120p and then rendering out at 60p results in much better 60p than native recorded 60p. unfortunately it doesn't seem like 29.97p is easily divisible by 23.97 by whole numbers. I have heard of expensive software alternatives to converting 30p to 24p involving Adobe Affects and then using Twixtor to slow it down nicely. I cannot afford that software yet.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by erek View Post

    I have not decided on what software to use for authoring to Blu-Ray Disc, yet... the only software i know of that is capable of it is multiavchd. do you have any recommendations for free?
    The only free ones are multiavchd, tsmuxer (no menus), easy bd lite



    also, i am running into a problem with considering using my 29.97p footage for conversion to 23.97p because when i did that the video came out really choppy.. would it be significantly better to shoot at 23.97p then attempting what many in Hollywood recommend doing. I heard that shooting at higher frames like 120p and then rendering out at 60p results in much better 60p than native recorded 60p. unfortunately it doesn't seem like 29.97p is easily divisible by 23.97 by whole numbers. I have heard of expensive software alternatives to converting 30p to 24p involving Adobe Affects and then using Twixtor to slow it down nicely. I cannot afford that software yet.
    It's always a problem doing frame rate conversions from 29.97 to 23.976 . Twixtor, AE and all optical flow methods can have big big problems as well with edge morphing artifacts. Essentially what you are doing is converting to 120fps by synthesizing the "in between" frames, then taking every 5th frame so they are "evenly spaced" in time. It's ALWAYS better to shoot the native framerate .

    There are also free methods in avisynth using mvtools2 that get similar results to AE's pixel motion, and the non pro version of twixtor (the pro version of twixtor allows for manual manipulation of guide points)

    120p to 60p can be worse than native 60p, depending on how the shutter is set, and the acquisition format characteristics (if you have inadequate bitrate or capture format, the quality can be poor) .
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by erek View Post

    I have not decided on what software to use for authoring to Blu-Ray Disc, yet... the only software i know of that is capable of it is multiavchd. do you have any recommendations for free?
    The only free ones are multiavchd, tsmuxer (no menus), easy bd lite



    also, i am running into a problem with considering using my 29.97p footage for conversion to 23.97p because when i did that the video came out really choppy.. would it be significantly better to shoot at 23.97p then attempting what many in Hollywood recommend doing. I heard that shooting at higher frames like 120p and then rendering out at 60p results in much better 60p than native recorded 60p. unfortunately it doesn't seem like 29.97p is easily divisible by 23.97 by whole numbers. I have heard of expensive software alternatives to converting 30p to 24p involving Adobe Affects and then using Twixtor to slow it down nicely. I cannot afford that software yet.
    It's always a problem doing frame rate conversions from 29.97 to 23.976 . Twixtor, AE and all optical flow methods can have big big problems as well with edge morphing artifacts. Essentially what you are doing is converting to 120fps by synthesizing the "in between" frames, then taking every 5th frame so they are "evenly spaced" in time. It's ALWAYS better to shoot the native framerate .

    There are also free methods in avisynth using mvtools2 that get similar results to AE's pixel motion, and the non pro version of twixtor (the pro version of twixtor allows for manual manipulation of guide points)

    120p to 60p can be worse than native 60p, depending on how the shutter is set, and the acquisition format characteristics (if you have inadequate bitrate or capture format, the quality can be poor) .
    i was just reading this article that illustrates the artifacts you described. http://prolost.com/blog/2010/3/8/converting-30p-to-24p.html

    so to go to Blu-Ray Disc for me the best results would be to render my 29.97p footage out as 60i (x264 MBAFF) and possibly use multiavchd? seems like it is a better idea to shoot at 29.97p instead of 23.97p and rendering out at 23.97p compared to 29.97p -> 60i, but correct me if i am wrong.


    the major downside to recording at 23.97p is that my DVD and YouTube (laugh) releases won't be the faster framerate
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by erek View Post

    so to go to Blu-Ray Disc for me the best results would be to render my 29.97p footage out as 60i (x264 MBAFF) and possibly use multiavchd? seems like it is a better idea to shoot at 29.97p instead of 23.97p and rendering out at 23.97p compared to 29.97p -> 60i, but correct me if i am wrong.
    This decision should be made from creative direction, not technical aspects. It's the motion cadence or "look" that you want. You shoot 23.976 for "film" like features . You shoot 59.94p (59.94p isn't blu-ray compliant and must be converted to interlaced) or 59.94i for sports, fast motion. 29.97p is like an "ugly stepsister" , it's in between and not really used much for except web video , video games

    1080p29.97 native progressive isn't blu-ray compliant, so it has to be encoded as 59.94i MBAFF or PAFF . However, 23.976pN (native progressive) is blu-ray compliant . All the Hollywood and theatrical releases use this.

    So you shoot 23.976p if the project dictates you should shoot that rate.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by erek View Post

    so to go to Blu-Ray Disc for me the best results would be to render my 29.97p footage out as 60i (x264 MBAFF) and possibly use multiavchd? seems like it is a better idea to shoot at 29.97p instead of 23.97p and rendering out at 23.97p compared to 29.97p -> 60i, but correct me if i am wrong.
    This decision should be made from creative direction, not technical aspects. You shoot 23.976 for "film" like features . You shoot 59.94p or 59.94i for sports, fast motion. 29.97p is like an "ugly stepsister" , it's in between and not really used much for except web video , video games

    1080p29.97 native progressive isn't blu-ray compliant, so it has to be encoded as 59.94i MBAFF or PAFF . However, 23.976pN (native progressive) is blu-ray compliant . All the Hollywood and theatrical releases use this.

    So you shoot 23.976p if the project dictates you should shoot that rate.
    doesn't Hollywood usually shoot at 48 or 120fps progressive and derive 24p from that or am i mistaken?

    i got my start on this higher framerate converted to 24fps from Douglas Trumball's Showscan Digital format @

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Search PM
    i am going to try out 23.97p and see how i like it because not a lot of my footage is high action... and it seems kinda rough going to do a good 30p to 24p conversion without a lot of hassle and artifacts that is not like going from 48 or 120 to 24...

    thank you for your help so far everyone
    Quote Quote  
  15. For some reason you want to covert and convert something into something.

    You want 24p, shoot it that way, you want 30p , the same, but you will find out it is not easy. With those two you can get sort of film look. But you have to know what you are doing. 30i is good in a sense you can point and shoot anything and it will come out alright. The same goes for 60p. As you know 30p mixed with 30i will come out alright also. You encode tff, x264 encodes MBAFF.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by erek View Post
    doesn't Hollywood usually shoot at 48 or 120fps progressive and derive 24p from that or am i mistaken?

    i got my start on this higher framerate converted to 24fps from Douglas Trumball's Showscan Digital format @

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg

    No , Hollywood film is always 24p exclusively since the beginning of motion pictures. That's what film runs at. Even recent features that use digital cinema cameras for aquisition (not actual film) shoot at 24p cadence. The exception was the Hobbit at 48fps, but that will remain an exception

    Nobody shoots at 120FPS unless it's for special effects. Some FX shots and slow mo shots are done at higher FPS, even 480, 960 FPS with special cameras, but they are slowed down back to 24p for slow mo (every original frame is kept, just played slower), not conformed like you are doing for 29.97 to 23.976.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by erek View Post
    doesn't Hollywood usually shoot at 48 or 120fps progressive and derive 24p from that or am i mistaken?

    i got my start on this higher framerate converted to 24fps from Douglas Trumball's Showscan Digital format @

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg

    No , Hollywood film is always 24p exclusively since the beginning of motion pictures. That's what film runs at. Even recent features that use digital cinema cameras for aquisition (not actual film) shoot at 24p cadence. The exception was the Hobbit at 48fps, but that will remain an exception

    Nobody shoots at 120FPS unless it's for special effects. Some FX shots and slow mo shots are done at higher FPS, even 480, 960 FPS with special cameras, but they are slowed down back to 24p for slow mo (every original frame is kept, just played slower), not conformed like you are doing for 29.97 to 23.976.
    oh wow, so they just use slow motion on the high fps footage and have it play back at 24p, that's interesting

    so 24p cadence is the way to go... i just hope that this doesn't exacerbate shaky or abrupt footage/shots... heh
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by erek View Post


    i got my start on this higher framerate converted to 24fps from Douglas Trumball's Showscan Digital format @

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg

    Many issues with this, and why it's not for "normal" people

    120 FPS at 1/240 shutter will look very "strobey" when reduced to 24 FPS by decimation

    24 FPS is normally shot with 1/48 shutter, with motion blur. All theatrical movies look like this . Faster shutter is better for less blur, but will look poor for theatrical content

    Yes, 120 FPS will give you more options, but you need to add motion blur to a 120 FPS => 24FPS conversion (you can't just take every 5th frame) . Post production blur is never as good as real shutter blur . So that's why only FX shots are shot at different FPS's . The main sequence is always shot at 24 FPS . You always shoot at the intended FPS .



    oh wow, so they just use slow motion on the high fps footage and have it play back at 24p, that's interesting

    so 24p cadence is the way to go... i just hope that this doesn't exacerbate shaky or abrupt footage/shots... heh
    That's the "art" of cinema. It's very difficult to get 24p looking professional without the gear and experience . That's a big part of what makes up the Director and DoP's paycheck

    You need to pay attention to shooting techniques , especially framing, shot composition, camera movements, stablization rigs, focusing and depth of field etc.... or it will look very bad

    Although sometimes "shaky cam" is an intended effect... think of the Bourne movies
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by erek View Post
    doesn't Hollywood usually shoot at 48 or 120fps progressive and derive 24p from that or am i mistaken?

    i got my start on this higher framerate converted to 24fps from Douglas Trumball's Showscan Digital format @

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg

    No , Hollywood film is always 24p exclusively since the beginning of motion pictures. That's what film runs at. Even recent features that use digital cinema cameras for aquisition (not actual film) shoot at 24p cadence. The exception was the Hobbit at 48fps, but that will remain an exception

    Nobody shoots at 120FPS unless it's for special effects. Some FX shots and slow mo shots are done at higher FPS, even 480, 960 FPS with special cameras, but they are slowed down back to 24p for slow mo (every original frame is kept, just played slower), not conformed like you are doing for 29.97 to 23.976.
    Not to belabor the point, but there have been (and continue to be) a number of exceptions, plus 24 wasn't set into stone until the Sound era.
    Otherwise, I totally agree with what you're saying to the OP.

    @erek, for your existing material, you'll have to be careful what you do with your settings to massage it correctly into its final desired format. But for future material, you really need to first decide WHAT your goal is. DVD? BD? Youtube?...Then shoot your footage with the goal in mind, with the idea that you won't vary from the intended/expected framerate (and hopefully, frame size). Otherwise, you are in for some hurt WRT quality loss.

    Scott

    BTW, after 1 1/2 decades of "shakey cam", I'm so tired of it and hope it is becoming old hat!
    Quote Quote  
  20. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    IMAX has been shooting at 48p/etc for years now.
    Is BJ_M still around? That was his job.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by erek View Post
    doesn't Hollywood usually shoot at 48 or 120fps progressive and derive 24p from that or am i mistaken?

    i got my start on this higher framerate converted to 24fps from Douglas Trumball's Showscan Digital format @

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg

    No , Hollywood film is always 24p exclusively since the beginning of motion pictures. That's what film runs at. Even recent features that use digital cinema cameras for aquisition (not actual film) shoot at 24p cadence. The exception was the Hobbit at 48fps, but that will remain an exception

    Nobody shoots at 120FPS unless it's for special effects. Some FX shots and slow mo shots are done at higher FPS, even 480, 960 FPS with special cameras, but they are slowed down back to 24p for slow mo (every original frame is kept, just played slower), not conformed like you are doing for 29.97 to 23.976.
    Not to belabor the point, but there have been (and continue to be) a number of exceptions, plus 24 wasn't set into stone until the Sound era.
    Otherwise, I totally agree with what you're saying to the OP.

    @erek, for your existing material, you'll have to be careful what you do with your settings to massage it correctly into its final desired format. But for future material, you really need to first decide WHAT your goal is. DVD? BD? Youtube?...Then shoot your footage with the goal in mind, with the idea that you won't vary from the intended/expected framerate (and hopefully, frame size). Otherwise, you are in for some hurt WRT quality loss.

    Scott

    BTW, after 1 1/2 decades of "shakey cam", I'm so tired of it and hope it is becoming old hat!
    I have a Pearstone VT-1200 Fluid Head tripod, but it is the cheapest of the real Fluid Heads that i have been able to find. It does alright for the most part, and i sometimes use the Rubber Band trick and it helps immensely. Sometimes though i am in a situation like a car show where it is best to be able to walk around the cars. I have been using my tripod with my Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS II lens to help dampen the shakiness of me walking around looking at the cars. I don't even think a tripod dolly would work to well with very uneven and very rough surfaces and even grass. I hope to perhaps look into steadicam solutions.


    Other events I have the luxury of not having to walk around, so the tripod is stationary unless i am simulating the use of a vision mixer by hand and switching to my secondary camera while making adjustments and movements with the primary.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

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