VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker or buy PlayOn and record Netflix! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20
Thread
  1. This is the media info for a video i saw on youtube. It is fine but i do not like that it does not have a shallow dof just a personal thing. Am i right the Color space : YUV and Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0 does not indicate very high quality. I just wondered as it was shot by a pro. I am not criticising it/him just wondering what you guy think of the media info data. What could be better. 25000 fps is OK isn't it for film look. What does forced mean? I want to get a camera that can do very high quality and i will want shallow dof


    General
    Unique ID : ************************************************** *******************
    Complete name : C:\Users\username\movie.mkv
    Format : Matroska
    Format version : Version 4 / Version 2
    File size : 120 MiB
    Duration : 4 min 5 s
    Overall bit rate : 4 085 kb/s
    Writing application : Lavf57.11.100
    Writing library : Lavf57.11.100 / Lavf57.11.100

    Video
    ID : 1
    Format : AVC
    Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
    Format profile : High@L4
    Format settings, CABAC : Yes
    Format settings, ReFrames : 3 frames
    Codec ID : V_MPEG4/ISO/AVC
    Duration : 4 min 5 s
    Width : 1 920 pixels
    Height : 1 080 pixels
    Display aspect ratio : 16:9
    Frame rate mode : Constant
    Frame rate : 25.000 FPS
    Color space : YUV
    Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
    Bit depth : 8 bits
    Scan type : Progressive
    Default : Yes
    Forced : No
    Encoded date : UTC 2014-11-07 23:21:27
    DURATION : 00:04:05.840000000
    HANDLER_NAME : VideoHandler

    Audio
    ID : 2
    Format : Opus
    Codec ID : A_OPUS
    Duration : 4 min 5 s
    Channel(s) : 2 channels
    Channel positions : Front: L R
    Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
    Compression mode : Lossy
    Language : English
    Default : Yes
    Forced : No
    DURATION : 00:04:05.901000000
    Quote Quote  
  2. Shallow DOF is dependent on the lens -- iris and focal length. It has nothing to do with encoding, color space or frame rate.

    Look for a camera that gives you complete manual control over the lens such as a DSLR or a high quality video camera that accepts interchangeable lenses.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Virtually all video is distributed as YUV with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling (DVD, Blu-ray, on-line streaming...). The chroma channels are half the resolution (each dimension) of the luma channel. So a 1920x1080 video has a 1920x1080 luma channel and two 960x540 chroma channels.

    No matter what was uploaded YouTube everything you can view/download has been reencoded as YUV 4:2:0.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Virtually all video is distributed as YUV with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling (DVD, Blu-ray, on-line streaming...). The chroma channels are half the resolution (each dimension) of the luma channel. So a 1920x1080 video has a 1920x1080 luma channel and two 960x540 chroma channels.

    No matter what was uploaded YouTube everything you can view/download has been reencoded as YUV 4:2:0.
    ok thanks EDIT then why do some cameras shoot 4:2:2
    Last edited by Sounds; 7th Dec 2017 at 11:08.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by smrpix View Post
    Shallow DOF is dependent on the lens -- iris and focal length. It has nothing to do with encoding, color space or frame rate.

    Look for a camera that gives you complete manual control over the lens such as a DSLR or a high quality video camera that accepts interchangeable lenses.
    i know i was just wondering if the encoding on that film was good as i did not like the dof and wondered if the rest was considered good. it is a personal thing with me not criticising the man who did it
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by Sounds View Post
    i know i was just wondering if the encoding on that film was good as i did not like the dof and wondered if the rest was considered good.
    Uploaders have no control over how YouTube does their re-encoding.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member ChapmanDolly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    The one thing that stands out to me is the low bit-rate of 4085 kbps. Though I have never checked the final bit-rate coming from YouTube, I upload my videos at 1080 50p 35000kbps to eliminate as many YT artifacts as possible.
    Depth of field has nothing to do with the video encoding method. It's how you use your focusing, exposure, and shutter settings.
    Last edited by ChapmanDolly; 7th Dec 2017 at 11:16.
    Canon Legria G40 - Dell XPS8700 i7-4790 4core - Win 10 - 24gb RAM - nVidia GTX 750ti - DaVinci Resolve 14.1
    Quote Quote  
  8. Some camcorders, cameras shoot 4:2:2 or maybe even higher with some hacks, not sure about those GH4, GH5 that folks play with.
    Because of color corrections, for serious PRO job. You load it into videoeditor and you work on that video. Color corrections etc. But as soon you export it for a consumer market from your videoeditor , you always export 4:2:0. They do not even mention that. It comes as a sure thing. You can always archive those files if you want as 4:2:2, if you correctly export it as 4:2:2 l from your videoeditor. That might be a problem. Perhaps in some form of lossless 4:2:2 codec.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by ChapmanDolly View Post
    Depth of field has nothing to do with the video encoding method. It's how you use your focusing, exposure, and shutter settings.
    There is one side effect of using DOF, nothing to do per encoding method as you said, but its result - getting much smaller videofiles. If there is a lot of blurred stuff in a frame, encoded volume drops radically. With objects all sharp with all of their details, bitrate demands can skyrocket. That is one of reason folks wonder why their encoded video is so large and movies are not.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by ChapmanDolly View Post
    The one thing that stands out to me is the low bit-rate of 4085 kbps.
    Youtube isn't interested in high quality. They want to keep bandwidth as low as possible -- just not so low that the average user gets disgusted and stops watching.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Originally Posted by _Al_ View Post
    Some camcorders, cameras shoot 4:2:2 or maybe even higher with some hacks, not sure about those GH4, GH5 that folks play with.
    Because of color corrections, for serious PRO job. You load it into videoeditor and you work on that video. Color corrections etc. But as soon you export it for a consumer market from your videoeditor , you always export 4:2:0. They do not even mention that. It comes as a sure thing. You can always archive those files if you want as 4:2:2, if you correctly export it as 4:2:2 l from your videoeditor. That might be a problem. Perhaps in some form of lossless 4:2:2 codec.
    OK Thanks
    Quote Quote  
  12. This is the video in case anyone wants to see it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_RyPPx1Uzk
    I do not like where you can see the other side of road quite sharp starting about seconds but that is just me i do not like the 'flat' look of video
    Quote Quote  
  13. The point of the video is to be able to see both the speaker in the foreground and the crowd in the background.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    The point of the video is to be able to see both the speaker in the foreground and the crowd in the background.
    i disagree the crowd could have been seen if slightly blurred and the focus on the speaker. imo the speaker is lost in it
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by Sounds View Post
    i disagree the crowd could have been seen if slightly blurred and the focus on the speaker. imo the speaker is lost in it
    Well, now you know how to do it by using the right lenses properly. It's an aesthetic choice at this point, not right or wrong. There's nothing wrong with the footage as-is, you would just have handled it a different way.

    It's also possible to add some blurring in post. How accurate or convincing that is comes down to time, talent and money.
    Last edited by smrpix; 7th Dec 2017 at 14:51.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by smrpix View Post
    Originally Posted by Sounds View Post
    i disagree the crowd could have been seen if slightly blurred and the focus on the speaker. imo the speaker is lost in it
    Well, now you know how to do it by using the right lenses properly. It's an aesthetic choice at this point, not right or wrong. There's nothing wrong with the footage as-is, you would just have handled it a different way.

    It's also possible to add some blurring in post. How accurate or convincing that is comes down to time, talent and money.
    I knew already about the lenses and i said i was not judging him or criticizing him. I said it was only my subjective opinion re the background.. My question was only really about the Color space : YUV and Chroma subsampling. That has been answered

    Magic Bullets looks can blur background to some extent in post
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    In addition to what was mentioned about affecting DoF, sensor size also enters in.
    The pro videographer in the clip was likely using a common ENG camera with a (likely) 2/3" sensor. This is much smaller than the super35 sensor used for digital cinema, so while DC cams often utilize shallow DoF, those ENG cams, by nature of their smaller sensor size and accompanying wider FoV equivalent lenses, usually end up with deep DoF. Not necessarily by artistic design but by logistical, techological and economic needs. And this has translated into an expected newsgathering style.

    You can shoot however you like. But IIWY, I'd spare judgement on other material without having fuller knowledge of both intention & constraints.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  18. There is a trick that can be used, cameraman can step backwords a bit then zooming in a bit to get background more blury. Picture looks a bit more shallow, not sure how to call it, but nevertheless. It could be used now and then.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    That "trick" only works when there isn't a building/river/highway/etc immediately behind, or when the zoom lens allows for the additional adjustment. Then there's the timing and/or immediacy of the shot. News folks have to deal with split second decisions like that every day.

    Again, best not make a habit of being the "monday morning quarterback".

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  20. Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    That "trick" only works when there isn't a building/river/highway/etc immediately behind, or when the zoom lens allows for the additional adjustment. Then there's the timing and/or immediacy of the shot. News folks have to deal with split second decisions like that every day.

    Again, best not make a habit of being the "monday morning quarterback".

    Scott
    obviously you missed the part where the op said he was not judging. bit of a "monday morning quarterback" yourself complaining about point that were not made. hope you can see better through your camera than on here
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads