View Full Version : My 2nd Aerial - The Neighborhood - Shot in High Definition
DebianDog
05-24-2006, 11:00 PM
This time it was a bit smoother and both of us were a lot less nervous.
I ordered a video downlink today.
Still not happy with the Windows encode but here it is
Windows format - 40 Megs (http://danslagle.com/data/movies/DD2ndAerial.wmv)
Whirly-Girl
05-25-2006, 01:37 AM
Wow, I downloaded it but it plays real choppy. Does that have to do with the encode you are talking about?
Aside from that, the quality of the video is AMAZING. :glasses2:
Jeanette
spork
05-25-2006, 01:52 AM
I know I have that problem with some vids that seem to want to play while they're downloading. Once they have completed downloading I can hit play again and they're perfectly smooth.
I don't know why some seem to buffer ahead just fine and some don't.
spork
05-25-2006, 02:32 AM
OK. I spoke too soon. I downloaded and played the video. Looks very good. But I did see the choppiness Whirly-Girl mentioned. I can't tell if those are encoding artifacts, camera artifacts, stiction in the gimbal, my crappy laptop...
There were a couple of places where the video stops altogether for a moment while the audio continues smoothly. Don't know if that's on my end or yours.
RC
DebianDog
05-25-2006, 07:03 AM
Too much data for your small boxes probably.
rkeith2
05-25-2006, 11:08 AM
OK -
Where are the credits for the artist DD :dontknow
DebianDog
05-25-2006, 11:10 AM
No artist http://www.smartsound.com/sonicfire/ ;)
DebianDog
05-25-2006, 11:17 AM
There were a couple of places where the video stops altogether for a moment while the audio continues smoothly. Don't know if that's on my end or yours.
That is actually on purpose a little "pause" for effect. :glasses:
Whirly-Girl
05-25-2006, 01:03 PM
No artist http://www.smartsound.com/sonicfire/ ;)
Dang, I thought Ron had you there for a sec!
What Edition do you have DD?
I noticed that the video did "pause" for effect, but it still chopped a little during other parts...and audio went smooth the whole time. I don't think it's my machine...it's a brand new Mac. Should be able to handle it.
Jeanette
DebianDog
05-25-2006, 01:25 PM
I have the older (version 3) that I bought on an educational discount.
A few people have complained anout the choppiness I have not seen it myself on my machines. I am sure the QT version will look better anyway ;)
No artist http://www.smartsound.com/sonicfire/ ;)
Dang, I thought Ron had you there for a sec!
What Edition do you have DD?
I noticed that the video did "pause" for effect, but it still chopped a little during other parts...and audio went smooth the whole time. I don't think it's my machine...it's a brand new Mac. Should be able to handle it.
Jeanette
rkeith2
05-25-2006, 04:10 PM
Got an email back from Jody regarding the slow movement of the pan on the broadcast 360. He said to use the radios sub trim versus trim levers since sub trim will do one at a time versus 4 ata time.
DebianDog
05-25-2006, 04:12 PM
Yeah I forgot to post and tell you :oops: Sorry
spork
05-25-2006, 06:42 PM
He said to use the radios sub trim versus trim levers since sub trim will do one at a time versus 4 ata time.
I'm pretty sure my 7CHP allows me to set how many clicks I get for each bump of the trim lever.
RC
Whirly-Girl
05-25-2006, 08:47 PM
You can set the trim 'step' on a 9303 as well.
Longwing
05-26-2006, 04:27 PM
Dan,
Is there anyway you could send me a copy of the music. I thought it was just great. You could send it directly to longwing@shaw.ca
I thought your choice of music for the video was perfect but I myself am a guitarist and want to learn the song.
Thanks
Blake.
DebianDog
05-27-2006, 07:14 AM
Dan,
Is there anyway you could send me a copy of the music. I thought it was just great. You could send it directly to longwing@shaw.ca
I thought your choice of music for the video was perfect but I myself am a guitarist and want to learn the song.
Thanks
Sure I guess...
DebianDog
12-07-2006, 06:56 PM
ttt for finless
GGoodrum
12-07-2006, 08:42 PM
It played back smoothly on my 3 GHz machine with a fairly high-end graphics card (X1600...). QT won't be any faster, or better, not if you are still encoding a 960 x 540 window at a such a high rate. The V9 codec is very good.
-- Gary
DebianDog
12-07-2006, 08:56 PM
I should try another encode that was in May of 2006
LoopBaCK
12-07-2006, 09:23 PM
Very nice video. I really like the pauses. It shows the exceptional quality of the HD video. Very smooth platform also... What cam did you use?
I really like the v9 advanced codec. Been using it with Premier Pro 2 and an HC1 camera. Great quality!!!
DebianDog
12-07-2006, 10:46 PM
This is a QT encode I did at the same time. 30 megs and a tad smaller.
http://danslagle.com/data/movies/DD2ndAerial.mov
The jumpiness is due to the frame reduction (slowed video). I am gonna "bring it hard" the third time I give this a shot ;)
It is a Broadcast 360 mount with a 401 on the tilt. Work in progress. I hunted around. Original footage is offline. A good reason to hate HDV. Drive space...
This is a QT encode I did at the same time. 30 megs and a tad smaller.
http://danslagle.com/data/movies/DD2ndAerial.mov
The jumpiness is due to the frame reduction (slowed video). I am gonna "bring it hard" the third time I give this a shot ;)
It is a Broadcast 360 mount with a 401 on the tilt. Work in progress. I hunted around. Original footage is offline. A good reason to hate HDV. Drive space...
There is no reason to hate HDV. It edits as smoothly as DV now. And it is only 11gb/hr, unless you are using an intermediary codec such as Cineform.
I would suggest only using Cineform if your are doing a fair bit of color correction, as that will slow your playback framerate. Another workflow is to edit native m2t to timeline, complete your edit, then color correct as the last step before rendering. This workflow keeps your framerate optimized for editing.
HDV is here, and there are no handicaps once you become familiar with the workflow.
Piton
12-08-2006, 10:10 PM
HDV for internet is best viewed at very high bitrates. For minimal acceptable HDV quality in the WMV format, I would suggest double the bitrate your current WMV vid is running at. You are running approx. 2500/sec. WMV HDV is best between 5,000 and 8,000. A bit rate any lower than 5,000 is adversely affecting your footage. You would be better off downrezzing to SD at those rates. At high HDV bitrates, many users will not be able to watch your vids due to outdated processors.
If you are encoding to QT, I would suggest using the h.264 codec. You need QT7 player updates to watch it, but it's a wonderful codec. You can download eRightsoft eincoder free of charge on the internet. It is a powerful encoder that will encode any file into just about every codec.
Cheers.
DebianDog
12-11-2006, 05:15 PM
Well I edit native in Final Cut Studio and the speed and work flow is not a problem. This was only my second time using that camera and it was shot this spring. Updates to Final Cut this summer and shooting a lot more HD footage has honed my skills a bit and sped the process. Using the HDV codec it is about 50 gigs per hour which burns up a 500 GB drive pretty quick (standard DV is ~13 Gigs per hour BTW). That is the only thing I hate about HDV besides the increased export times. :?
At high HDV bitrates, many users will not be able to watch your vids due to outdated processors.
and that :(
I mostly worked at being a better pilot this year.... so -next- year LOOK OUT! :WOW
Edit: I am actually looking a DivX again as it is a bit smaller than H.264 or WMV version 9
DebianDog
12-12-2006, 08:10 AM
Umm I am going to have to take that back and say I was wrong. HDV is not burning up as much as I thought compressed. 50 Gigs per hour is uncompressed. :oops: