Sport, Trick and Freestyle Kite Flying Forum

Moderators: Craig, Davey, Yan, Zippy8

 
User avatar
Zippy8
Topic Author
Posts: 4865
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: Vihtavuori, Finland
Contact:

Squish that video !

Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:06 pm

Given the not-completely-arbitrary 20Mb limit for submissions to VF and the fact that you can now buy pocketable hybrid camcorders capable of recording at FullHD resolutions and 60 frames per second (that would run to well in excess of 200Mb for a VF entry).... let's look at video compression a little.

Firstly, record at the best quality that you can. If you're going to compress afterwards then garbage in=garbage out. Edit your footage into what you want to submit without reducing quality. Hopefully you've now got a video you're happy with but a filesize you're not.

Then get yourself some software to remake the video in a reduced form. I use Super because it's good and because it's free. There are lots of others.

So take a look at how other people are doing this. Martin Madsen has had the largest file size for both VFs 12 and 13 whilst slipping under the 20Mb limit. Using an analyser like GSpot we can see his VF13 entry:-
    1280x720 @ 25fps
    XVID 1.1.2 video codec, 1690kbps
    MPEG-1 audio codec, 44.1kHz, 128kbps
Now comparing this to Eric Beaudry's VF13 entry which is 0.2Mb smaller:
    640x480 @ 30fps
    MPEG-2 video codec, 1728kbps
    MPEG-1 audio codec, 44.1kHz, 192kbps

So Martin gets a higher resolution video for (about the same file size) by reducing audio quality a smidge, a lower frame rate (his video is 7 seconds longer but has 10% less frames), slightly lower video bitrate but mostly by using a more efficient codec. XVID is well regarded but usually needs a download to play with Windows Media Player (although VLC handles it OK). This can be a problem for some people.

Of course, higher resolution doesn't necessarily mean a better looking video and even an especially pretty video isn't going to help you in VF if the flying isn't up to snuff. Super is very good for making multiple tries at seeing how to balance file size and quality (I convert a lot of films to fit a Pocket PC screen) and it's a completely black art. For VF I would have hoped that "good enough" would be just that.

HTH

Mike.
 
Stan Doff
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:19 am
Location: Pembrokeshire

Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:06 pm

That 'Super' looks well super.

This is a topic that's ripe for discussion here,my own tortuous path being AVCHD file (extension m2ts) 1440x1080 (at 6Mbps) to mpeg 1024x576 via Panasonic's "HDWriter" to something else at 720x406 via "IVC" (Internet Video Converter) to adding music/titles in Pinnacle Studio (old standard def version) to output as DV (avi) to mpeg via IVC again.

Note to self:try to arrange trial HD editing software to time out after VF deadline :oops:
 
User avatar
ITBVolks
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:09 am
Location: Canterbury, CT

Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:15 pm

My biggest problem is my old arse Pinnacle software for editing. Showing it's age for sure.

Everything I've done is recorded off my Canon GL-1 which while getting older and not HD, certainly is still pretty capable. 3CCD, some of the best IS out there. 30fps. 100x zoom (I use opto only so 10x). Does pretty well. Problem is file size. Half hour vid is eating some HD space.

My current workflow is record full quality DV. Capture as lossless AVI and then convert from there (generally mpeg). What I struggle with is generating small files. I basically kill anything I have just to make it viewable.

Any suggestions? I'll have to check out Super and see if it's super. ; )

Mike, what are you using for editing software?

E.
 
User avatar
Zippy8
Topic Author
Posts: 4865
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: Vihtavuori, Finland
Contact:

Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:23 am

Stan Doff wrote:
This is a topic that's ripe for discussion here,my own tortuous path being....

Why, oh why, so many steps ?

ITBVolks wrote:
My current workflow is record full quality DV. Capture as lossless AVI and then convert from there (generally mpeg). What I struggle with is generating small files.

With Super (or whatever else) try re-encoding the same lossless file to different codecs and see what differences arise. Then play with bitrate and see how far you can go for acceptable quality. Do this once and remember it :-)

Mike, what are you using for editing software?

Pinnacle Studio Plus v11.1. I upgraded from v9 and I'll skip v12 too. It's OK but far from trouble free.

Mike.
 
User avatar
Kamikaze
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:47 pm
Location: Leeds

Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:14 am

I am using Windows Movie Maker as it comes with XP will Pinnacle give me better results.

David
I am Editing the Wiki anything you would like adding please PM me.
 
Stan Doff
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:19 am
Location: Pembrokeshire

Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:01 pm

Zippy8 wrote:
Stan Doff wrote:
This is a topic that's ripe for discussion here,my own tortuous path being....

Why, oh why, so many steps ?


Well you asked so,first,Panasonic's own software will trim and convert to a lower res file but nothing else.The editing software available would not recognise that file but IVC would and convert it.Then edit,but I couldn't get a suitable output from the editing software so back to IVC for conversion.

p.s. Now it's early morning on the deadline day when I'm doing this so I'm rushing things a bit. So onto Tiscali which uploads,slowly, my 11MB wmv file but refused to mail it.Back to IVC and now an 8MB mpeg (I'm thinking 10MB limit).No,it wont do that either.10 mins of fruitless searching of Tiscali's site and I'm still none-the-wiser as to attachment size limits.
I'll open a google-mail account.
Fill-in details,hit registration button...."We cannot complete......try again in a few hours"
AARRRGGHHH!
hence the GMX.com mail account.

Zippy8 wrote:
Mike, what are you using for editing software?

Pinnacle Studio Plus v11.1. I upgraded from v9 and I'll skip v12 too. It's OK but far from trouble free.

Mike.


A demo of 'Pinnacle Studio Plus HD Edition' came with the Panny camcorder but,on my computer,it just mangles everything.
 
User avatar
ITBVolks
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:09 am
Location: Canterbury, CT

Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:26 pm

I honestly really liked the newest Pinnacle 12 Studio Plus. I've used Pinnacle for many years and several revisions. Not sure any are totally problem free but I through some vid together with the demo a few months back really quickly.

I will admit, the GUI is lacking for someone not use to the program but with some time, it's pretty straight forward.

Now I just need to decide whether to pony up the coin :/
 
User avatar
Zippy8
Topic Author
Posts: 4865
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: Vihtavuori, Finland
Contact:

Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:41 pm

Kamikaze wrote:
I am using Windows Movie Maker as it comes with XP will Pinnacle give me better results.

For the sort of simple take from tape/card and cut a bit out routine that VF needs Movie Maker is fine. You only need a proper video editing program for more whizzy stuff that does you no good in VF. The Vista version offers a make my file this big option but as it has a limited set of codecs (ie; two) it's not really "optimised". Making an uncompressed, edited video with Movie Maker then Super-ing it will probably yield a better quality for the file size.

Stan Doff: you need Super. You should be then able to convert the off-camera data to a format your editor can deal with.

ITBVolks: I only skip a version of Studio 'cos they seem to update it so regularly. Once you've got used to it, it's fine but sometimes it puts options behind options behind options for what you'd think would be commonplace. And it is a bit demanding of PC power.

By the way... I took an interest in this a few years ago when doing some video for my kids' school. One thing I did gather is that anything specific you learn is out of date by the time you've remembered it.

Mike.
 
Stan Doff
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:19 am
Location: Pembrokeshire

Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:50 pm

ITBVolks wrote:
I honestly really liked the newest Pinnacle 12 Studio Plus. I've used Pinnacle for many years and several revisions.


I've got v.9.1.2 (came free with some scrounged hardware) which I used to produce my clip and I made a DVD a few years ago with some footage from a borrowed camcorder,but I'm guessing the demo of v.11 I've got has problems working on what is, in HiDef video terms,a slow computer.
 
User avatar
ITBVolks
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:09 am
Location: Canterbury, CT

Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:33 pm

Zippy8 wrote:
Kamikaze wrote:
I am using Windows Movie Maker as it comes with XP will Pinnacle give me better results.

For the sort of simple take from tape/card and cut a bit out routine that VF needs Movie Maker is fine. You only need a proper video editing program for more whizzy stuff that does you no good in VF. The Vista version offers a make my file this big option but as it has a limited set of codecs (ie; two) it's not really "optimised". Making an uncompressed, edited video with Movie Maker then Super-ing it will probably yield a better quality for the file size.

Stan Doff: you need Super. You should be then able to convert the off-camera data to a format your editor can deal with.

ITBVolks: I only skip a version of Studio 'cos they seem to update it so regularly. Once you've got used to it, it's fine but sometimes it puts options behind options behind options for what you'd think would be commonplace. And it is a bit demanding of PC power.

By the way... I took an interest in this a few years ago when doing some video for my kids' school. One thing I did gather is that anything specific you learn is out of date by the time you've remembered it.

Mike.


I hear you on Studio's updates. It's like my photog work. Software and equip get updated so fast, I don't even bother reading up. I just use what ties into my workflow and works for my desired results.

Video is something a little different. It's all about compression software now. With modern HD ready stuff, quality capture isn't an issue now. Processing it though, I'm still getting a handle on.
 
User avatar
ITBVolks
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:09 am
Location: Canterbury, CT

Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:34 pm

Zippy8 wrote:
Kamikaze wrote:
I am using Windows Movie Maker as it comes with XP will Pinnacle give me better results.

For the sort of simple take from tape/card and cut a bit out routine that VF needs Movie Maker is fine. You only need a proper video editing program for more whizzy stuff that does you no good in VF. The Vista version offers a make my file this big option but as it has a limited set of codecs (ie; two) it's not really "optimised". Making an uncompressed, edited video with Movie Maker then Super-ing it will probably yield a better quality for the file size.

Stan Doff: you need Super. You should be then able to convert the off-camera data to a format your editor can deal with.

ITBVolks: I only skip a version of Studio 'cos they seem to update it so regularly. Once you've got used to it, it's fine but sometimes it puts options behind options behind options for what you'd think would be commonplace. And it is a bit demanding of PC power.

By the way... I took an interest in this a few years ago when doing some video for my kids' school. One thing I did gather is that anything specific you learn is out of date by the time you've remembered it.

Mike.


I hear you on Studio's updates. It's like my photog work. Software and equip get updated so fast, I don't even bother reading up. I just use what ties into my workflow and works for my desired results. I've had Studio 8 Ultimate for years. Just what I've become familiar with.

Video is something a little different. It's all about compression software now. With modern HD ready stuff, quality capture isn't an issue now. Processing it though, I'm still getting a handle on.