How to make good videos(was:best practice)
-
footjam_heger
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1185
- Joined: 25 Sep 2004 11:18
- Location: the world and europe
- Contact:
i posted this already in the "europe on fire thread" but i think it fits well here:
it´s not that much about the ccd! the lense is much more important!
well i don´t know what camera model you got, but i really think you should be able to get that picture quality. (but i still can be wrong;P)
i´ll try to show my "work steps":
1. i capture with adobe premier, from fire wire > i´ll get a video file which is about 240megs/min, this is a dv compressed video file! if you capture analog you´ll have some quality loses! then you should capture in highest quality you are able too!
2. I edit this files with adobe premiere!(www.adobe.com > there you are able to DL some demo) ( i always capture long parts about 20mins and then use a programm called "scenalyzer" it automaticly cuts your big video file in small parts! go to: www.scenalyzer.com for furter information! )
3. When i´ve finished editing my video, i´ll export it UNCOMPRESSED! you´ll get a video file with about 240 meg/sec > you get a very huge file, but it´s the best way for further encoding!
you may use another opportunity: export your video directly from your premiere timeline to your camera using "dv-in" (if your camera supports this) and then "re-capture" it on your pc!
with this two ways your quality loose is very small!
4. The new finished, but uncompressed video file now needs to be compressed! I use a programm called virtual dub, which is easy to use and brought me good results! (www.virtualdub.org) There you´ll have two important options:
i. video: chose full processing mode > compression and there you´ll be able to select your codec. like i said i prefer wmv 9.0! if you use wmv you need do one more step:video > compression > configure > pre-processing: de-interlace frames and encode!
ii. audio: chose full processing mode > compression and there you´ll be able to select your codec. i use MP3! don´t forget to compress your audio part! it´s very important! i think 96 kb/s should be enough.
last but not least you need to select a place where to save the file:
file>save as avi> "chose your folder"
This should be all!
Feel free to ask for more...
greets dAb
it´s not that much about the ccd! the lense is much more important!
well i don´t know what camera model you got, but i really think you should be able to get that picture quality. (but i still can be wrong;P)
i´ll try to show my "work steps":
1. i capture with adobe premier, from fire wire > i´ll get a video file which is about 240megs/min, this is a dv compressed video file! if you capture analog you´ll have some quality loses! then you should capture in highest quality you are able too!
2. I edit this files with adobe premiere!(www.adobe.com > there you are able to DL some demo) ( i always capture long parts about 20mins and then use a programm called "scenalyzer" it automaticly cuts your big video file in small parts! go to: www.scenalyzer.com for furter information! )
3. When i´ve finished editing my video, i´ll export it UNCOMPRESSED! you´ll get a video file with about 240 meg/sec > you get a very huge file, but it´s the best way for further encoding!
you may use another opportunity: export your video directly from your premiere timeline to your camera using "dv-in" (if your camera supports this) and then "re-capture" it on your pc!
with this two ways your quality loose is very small!
4. The new finished, but uncompressed video file now needs to be compressed! I use a programm called virtual dub, which is easy to use and brought me good results! (www.virtualdub.org) There you´ll have two important options:
i. video: chose full processing mode > compression and there you´ll be able to select your codec. like i said i prefer wmv 9.0! if you use wmv you need do one more step:video > compression > configure > pre-processing: de-interlace frames and encode!
ii. audio: chose full processing mode > compression and there you´ll be able to select your codec. i use MP3! don´t forget to compress your audio part! it´s very important! i think 96 kb/s should be enough.
last but not least you need to select a place where to save the file:
file>save as avi> "chose your folder"
This should be all!
Feel free to ask for more...
greets dAb
Sebastian Wäscher
-
FootbagFrenzy
- Hack Fiend
- Posts: 44
- Joined: 21 Apr 2004 18:39
- Location: Crossville, TN
- Contact:
my camera is a hi-8 rather than digital so I can't use fire-wire and have to capture through a Dazzle via USB. the software that comes with it works great for capturing but editing doesn't work so i have tried playing around with premiere and have had no luck. my problem is that i can't figure out how to capture with a Dazzle in premiere. it finds the Dazzle but when i select it as my capturing device it doesn't work. as i mentioned i can capture fine with the software that came with the dazzle... but it captures in .mpeg and that format would not work with premiere (I was using premiere 6.0 by the way.) has anyone else had any experience with using a Dazzle to capture video? any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Brian Heckler
-
FootbagFrenzy
- Hack Fiend
- Posts: 44
- Joined: 21 Apr 2004 18:39
- Location: Crossville, TN
- Contact:
-
NotHisRealName
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2527
- Joined: 26 Oct 2002 03:43
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
To all you budding film makers out there... Go HERE.
You won't regret it.
It's for the cheepest damn steady cam you'll find and will give the coolest variety of shots.
I believe I once posted about putting your camera in a plastic bag with a hole cut out for the lens, just for some cool, low shots. Well, this is so much better, just for the variety, and the fact that you can capture sound.
There are some other varietys around, like one that uses brass bushing instead of drilling the end caps (check out the site, you'll know what I'm talking about). The link can be found HERE, however, I recomend checking out the $14 steady cam site first.
I'm going to price the stuff at work today (I work in a Hardware Warehouse) and look at building one over the weekend. I'll post back and let you know how I went.
You won't regret it.
It's for the cheepest damn steady cam you'll find and will give the coolest variety of shots.
I believe I once posted about putting your camera in a plastic bag with a hole cut out for the lens, just for some cool, low shots. Well, this is so much better, just for the variety, and the fact that you can capture sound.
There are some other varietys around, like one that uses brass bushing instead of drilling the end caps (check out the site, you'll know what I'm talking about). The link can be found HERE, however, I recomend checking out the $14 steady cam site first.
I'm going to price the stuff at work today (I work in a Hardware Warehouse) and look at building one over the weekend. I'll post back and let you know how I went.
-
junkyardjew
- BSOS Beast
- Posts: 457
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004 09:47
- Location: Kingston, ON
- Contact:
ghetto filmmaking
hey, i make a lot of really brutal low res films (cause it takes ten minutes) using quicktime pro and windows movie maker. movie maker comes with SP2 for xp, and quicktime pro comes with quicktime, its just password protected (you can find a serial at www. cracks.am).
quicktime pro is a pretty shitty editor, but you can use it to convert from mpegs to avi or mpeg4 etc. etc. and movie maker is pretty much just a windows knock off of iMovie, with all the same functions. you can speed things up, slow them down, brighten/darken and even zoom in digitally. considering its probably already on your computer if you get regular updates and have windows xp, its not a bad choice.
quicktime pro is a pretty shitty editor, but you can use it to convert from mpegs to avi or mpeg4 etc. etc. and movie maker is pretty much just a windows knock off of iMovie, with all the same functions. you can speed things up, slow them down, brighten/darken and even zoom in digitally. considering its probably already on your computer if you get regular updates and have windows xp, its not a bad choice.
Jared MacKay
-
NotHisRealName
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2527
- Joined: 26 Oct 2002 03:43
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
ASPECT RATIO, dude.
I don't know if this has been mentioned here before, but it occurs to me that most video publishers don't understand aspect ratio, i.e. how to size/resize videos to properly fit a computer monitor. I'll be brief so I don't lose some of you.
Video systems in North America are NTSC format, which has a pixel size of 720x486 (480 for DV) and a native aspect ratio of 0.9 (D1/DV). Computer monitors on the other hand have an aspect ratio of 1.0 (Square). This is important because most of you are encoding your videos as if they will be watched on TVs when they are clearly intended for the web. PAL is basically the same concept but native dimensions are 720x576 with an aspect ratio of 1.066.
Now the important part, to encode your videos to display properly on a computer screen (or any square pixel monitor) you need to resize the image. For NTSC, that means you should resize your 720x480 videos to 720x540, 640x480 or 320x240. For PAL, resize from 720x576 to 768x576, 640x576 or 320x288. This will make the picture appear more lifelike, instead of unnaturally stretched.
If you are working with Anamorphic source (widescreen) and are keeping it anamorphic instead of converting to letterbox, then you probably know enough to encode properly. But for reference, NTSC is 1.2 and PAL is 1.42. These numbers are for digital shooting, and can vary in the world of film cinematography, but that probably doesn't apply to anyone here.
Hopefully some people will read this and we'll all be watching non-stretched images.
Sincerely,
A Video Nerd.
Video systems in North America are NTSC format, which has a pixel size of 720x486 (480 for DV) and a native aspect ratio of 0.9 (D1/DV). Computer monitors on the other hand have an aspect ratio of 1.0 (Square). This is important because most of you are encoding your videos as if they will be watched on TVs when they are clearly intended for the web. PAL is basically the same concept but native dimensions are 720x576 with an aspect ratio of 1.066.
Now the important part, to encode your videos to display properly on a computer screen (or any square pixel monitor) you need to resize the image. For NTSC, that means you should resize your 720x480 videos to 720x540, 640x480 or 320x240. For PAL, resize from 720x576 to 768x576, 640x576 or 320x288. This will make the picture appear more lifelike, instead of unnaturally stretched.
If you are working with Anamorphic source (widescreen) and are keeping it anamorphic instead of converting to letterbox, then you probably know enough to encode properly. But for reference, NTSC is 1.2 and PAL is 1.42. These numbers are for digital shooting, and can vary in the world of film cinematography, but that probably doesn't apply to anyone here.
Hopefully some people will read this and we'll all be watching non-stretched images.
Sincerely,
A Video Nerd.
Ellis Piltz
Flipsider, The New.
Flipsider, The New.
damn slash, that was a really good one.
i had to laugh out loud reading some posts in here. advice not to
use zoom, not to film certain parts etc.... i think its ridiculous.
its not an extreme skill to take smooth pictures when you zoomed
in. you cant rate a "zoomed in" image over a "moved in" and vice versa.
these are two totally different looks you can use.
i think its totally weird and boring to always use the same total shot from
ground to head, except you just want to see shred. but then again you
can just use the oldskool tripod style. or read those strange threads
where people write down the combos.
personally i dont want to see the same style over and over... and i
think its possible to transport more information in a shred video
than just the moves and the player.
if you really want to try out more than just recording an image in
its very meaning, experiment and ignore those dogmatic posts on whats
hip and what isnt.
i had to laugh out loud reading some posts in here. advice not to
use zoom, not to film certain parts etc.... i think its ridiculous.
its not an extreme skill to take smooth pictures when you zoomed
in. you cant rate a "zoomed in" image over a "moved in" and vice versa.
these are two totally different looks you can use.
i think its totally weird and boring to always use the same total shot from
ground to head, except you just want to see shred. but then again you
can just use the oldskool tripod style. or read those strange threads
where people write down the combos.
personally i dont want to see the same style over and over... and i
think its possible to transport more information in a shred video
than just the moves and the player.
if you really want to try out more than just recording an image in
its very meaning, experiment and ignore those dogmatic posts on whats
hip and what isnt.
Fabian Kollakowski
Footbag - Komfort kennt keine Grenzen: Gradeaus gucken wenn es backt!
Footbag - Komfort kennt keine Grenzen: Gradeaus gucken wenn es backt!
could someone who has worked with after effects explain how to make
a glowing footbag effect? I've never worked with after effects, but want
to integrate that effect into my video.
a glowing footbag effect? I've never worked with after effects, but want
to integrate that effect into my video.
bjoern
Munich Footbag
Munich Footbag
I am trying to make a movie right now using windows movie maker, and when i try to play parts back to me it keeps skipping. The whole program seems like it is very slow. For example after i delete a clip or edit a part of it out the program itself will freeze for like 5-7 seconds before i can continue to use it again.
Should i get a different program or is there something that i forgot to do?
Should i get a different program or is there something that i forgot to do?
Troy Erstling 
-
james_dean
- space cowboy
- Posts: 2268
- Joined: 26 Oct 2004 23:11
- Location: Bendigo, Vic, Australia
Is there any decent program that would run on a p3 800, I got enough RAM but my comp is kinda crappy for programs that are now used. Is there an old version of a program I could use? And back to which version should I go? I need some help because I wan't to do a video to have comments on how to improve my game but I don't know which program to use and WMM is kinda crappy because there is many stuffs I can't do.