|
Hey guys, hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction as there doesn't seem to be a more 'hobbyist making things for fun, youtube and the like' thread (unless I'm being blind). I'm trying to cut up loads of movies into really short clips of mainly B-Roll so I can make a new context for them and have them projected during a club night. As it seems easiest to source from MKV, I did what an editing guide suggested and used QT7+Perian to dump them into a file that FCPX could read without problem, which was wonderfully straightforward and great. So I went through the first film in the bin, just using the Event Viewer and marking my in/outs and tagging as favourite when I found the clips I wanted. Unfortunately I'm now getting issues such as the frames corrupting - sometimes by accessing the Favourites in the event viewer again (although sometimes these would then vanish) but more consistently when I drag to the timeline. Out of 50 clips, it's happening on say 8 or so, and only for a little bit until it 'settles'. I remember from years ago the different types of frames (I,B and P?) and I'm wondering if I'm tagging my 'in' on a 'bad frame' ? if so is there a simple way of correcting this? It took hours just to do the first film yesterday and it kinda sucks a fair chunk of the footage is currently unusable. I've done a quick render of a 60 second clip to a h264 and tested in QTX and it's happening in there too, so it's not just in my edit window. e: screen cap in case I'm explaining like an idiot. This will only ever happen at the beginning of the clip and last a few seconds - however some of the clips are only a few seconds long anyway.  e: urgh, I think it might have come down to not transcoding the media on import. I've done a few 720P ones instead of 1080P since and its been far smoother. I think I might just have to redo it using the time codes. Quality of output doesn't seem as good but it's being projected in a club anyway and I'll be butchering the OAR so it's not so important. Think I've solved this one at least... EL BROMANCE fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Apr 6, 2014 |
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
I'm guessing when I check the 'Transcode Media' box in FCPX, it defaults to ProRes 422 yeah? It's gone far, far better after doing that (to the degree I managed to tag up about 5x faster today) . Hardware wise I'm not too awful - Quad i7 2012 iMac with 12GB RAM. Working in a lower res is probably a big benefit too! Cheers!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Is there anywhere outside of eBay where I can cheaply pick up a DSR 11 or similar deck (essentially just needs to be able to play back PAL MiniDV tapes and dump over FireWire) ? Looks like around $100 inc postage is about doable on there. E: I’m in the US, just all my tapes were shot on a PAL camera when I was in Europe. I probably have 100+ tapes, so would rather a deck as I found putting a camera through that wasn’t too great for it and I’m hoping a deck would handle dropouts etc a bit better too. EL BROMANCE fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Jul 6, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
That’s not a bad idea, I’ve seen some sites before for selling gear on I’ll have to see what around south florida might have what I’m looking for. I’m just relieved that the pro decks generally seem to have ntsc/pal playback at least.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
Because I'm perpetually stuck in 2005, I have a bunch of PAL SD DV footage I'm working on, with the primary delivery being YouTube. I'm planning on messing with a bunch of methods, but just in case anyone here has gone through similar I'd love any tips and tricks you picked up. I'll be editing with FCP on a 2012 Mac Mini. The main concern right now is getting the footage to look as good as possible on YT. I did a native resolution output to ProRes which I've read is generally the better codec to work with for this kind of thing and... it looked like rear end. I'm guessing YT just sees the SD resolution and assumes it's going to be bad quality, and bitstarves it. So, my guess is to upscale everything to 1080p in my editor (or perhaps FFMPEG and then correct the square pixels and the fact some of my footage was shot with an anamorphic lens too in one go) and then output that out to ProRes which I'm guessing YT will play a ton better with. I'd love to use Topaz to prep everything, but it's beyond slow on any hardware I've got to hand and I've got too many tapes to plough through sadly. No real downside to delivering 16:9 black barred footage to preserve the original aspect ratio right? Any major flaws to this before I go too far down the line it'd be a nightmare to start again? In the last few weeks of dealing with 50 out of 100 or so tapes so far, I've truly learned to hate non-square, interlaced, taped based video all over again.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
Thanks! Yeah I read MP4 was the official YouTube guidance and that ProRes was something people say they got great results out of following their own experiments. If it simplifies to work in MP4 I'm happy to do that (I think that's what I was probably doing with the batch I worked on a few years ago). I'm working in DV25 raw captures right now so luckily no transcodes so far. I think I did one of my tests using FCPs YouTube based template but I think I need to work on getting the raw footage to interact with that properly to maintain correct aspect ratio as it misinterprets the 720x576 native resolution wrong due to the pixel aspect ratio and wants to kick out a non 4:3 squashed image by default. I asked a friend to run a few minutes through Topaz on his gaming rig and drat, it looks so pretty. At least I can use that footage as a 'aim for this' in FCP or FFMPEG as long as I can get it to render in reasonable timescales.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
I guess it’s defaulting to non-square pixels because it wrongfully thinks 1440px wide must be HDV even in 2023. At least you get the joy of just changing that setting and going on your merry while other fools (like myself) are stuck in a world of multiple aspect ratios because the world used to be an awful place.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2023 04:38
|
|
|
Not really a question but more a wish that won’t ever come true: could every pro house please just hire someone who understands how to ingest interlaced footage on their staff? It’s not going away for a long time and I swear 90% of shows I see with clips from the past just look like utter garbage that I can’t believe made it out the door. Do better!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
Just venting as this is something that’s been bothering me for so long, but if you’re working on archival footage for actual productions can you at least have one person who understands how to process interlaced footage? Because time and time again I’m watching these shows and it’s just a loving mess of barely watchable clips, and knowing that someone watched this and went ‘yes, this is the quality content I am happy with’ infuriates me.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2023 15:23
|
|
|
With YouTube I don’t really care how big the file is, but ideally I want the deliverable to be something they just accept and don’t do their own (undoubtedly bad) compression except for people watching at down res.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/WKDIhErILac I was looking for something karaoke related recently and stumbled upon this vid, wasn’t what I needed but might be more applicable for you.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
So my workflow is pretty much set MiniDV to computer via a DVCAM deck and DVRescue That file through Topaz to deinterlace and upscale to 1440x1080p50 square pixels and exported in ProRes Edited in Final Cut Pro (and some annoyance their 1440x1080 preset doesn’t actually work) Exported in ProRes Result looks really as good as I could ever expect my SD interlaced tapes to ever look, and worth the day long processing. Upload that pro res to YouTube and… it looks fine. Not great, but fine. Way better than before, but just not as nice as the file I’m feeding it. Is there anything further I can do? I’m sure it’s simply just a case of seeing the before and after and being able to pixel peep and see where the bitstarving happens. It’s darker footage as it’s all gigs in badly lit clubs, so it’s hardly the world’s best exposed footage (luckily I had a PD150 as my main). Anything more I can do to wring out a bit more bandwidth from them that isn’t a complete time sink is appreciated.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
I was gonna ask if 4K would make a difference just based on resolution (I don’t wanna scale it to that in Topaz as I’m sure it’d take 4x as long), I’ll give that a whirl at the final export. Sounds like a good archive file for myself too. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
That sounds a fun project, I'd definitely put things up on archive.org as well, as people can then get the original files you've uploaded and they might be a bit more protected. I think I did my original comparisons back about 2 years ago, and while I'm not sure I did a deinterlace but no upscale comparison between Topaz and FCP, the tests I did do convinced me that despite the incredibly slow nature of Topaz on my systems (I'm a Mac user, so no Nvidia hardware. I'm sure the M1 class stuff is better, but I literally get a frame or two per second on my machines so I just have it doing it in the background mostly overnight) it was the definitely the right path for me. The deinterlace model definitely looks like it's improved since I first tried it out, and it does a better job of letting me specify export in the resolution/PAR I want than it used to too so I'm happy to put it right at the start of the workflow. I do have a bunch of projects that I already uploaded to YouTube back in 2018 that I think I have the sources for still in a FCP library and edited, so I'll probably do those too. It'll be interesting to see how things like text elements that will be added on in the NLE will look compared to going the other way.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2023 16:00
|
|
|
Sounds odd that they supplied something so low in bitrate already. Is it not something they made and just grabbed from YouTube or another site? The best thing about 2023 is for final stuff, filesize has become somewhat irrelevant due to big storage and fast internet. The finals I’m sending to YouTube now are in the 30gb range rather than the 800mb range when I was working with this footage the first time around.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:The thing is, my current laptop is about twice as thick as it used to be, so I’m thinking I should probably replace it eventually. Is this a metaphor, or is your battery bulging like crazy? Because if it’s the latter, that’s a ‘you need to deal with this now’ scenario.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2024 06:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
As someone who utilizes YouTube for old commercials, I appreciate that you’re doing them individually and not sticking them into a single video that can’t be losslessly split apart.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2024 06:58
|
|