widescreen 1080i [Archive]

Orion

16th December 2005, 15:48

I think it was Bizz and Ternuc that wanted to know about high quality vids.
I have one that was encoded in 1080i, but it is 7m42s long (1.2GB)! I made this just to show how beautiful Alizée's old vids can look rendered.

I need to know how to upload a 1.2GB file. I know you have to split it (I had the program I just forget which one it is. Maybe Ben can tell me!

awaiting . . .

Finally got things done:

Resolution: 1920x1080
Framerate: 29.97 (NTSC)
Video Format: Elecard MPEG2 Video Decoder
Size: 1.5GB
(best viewed in your Divx player ( www.Divx.com or WMP10)

Just a collection of various scenes put together simply with great music.
(HiRes vid)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=F0J2T53D (PART01)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZOLR9FUT (part02)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=5UCE9BYW (part03)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LHC2X8NY (part04)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=41W2V7CY (part05)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=54OMYNMC (part06)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=5A3M15PG (part07)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SHJ2XEIH (part08)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WD493I5Z (part09)

I wish I had the masters of all vids used = true HD rendering :cry:

Bizz

16th December 2005, 16:16

REALly interesting !

I wait

RMJ

16th December 2005, 16:34

I wouldn't call them hiqh quality as they are just resampled low definition videos. Depending method the resampling is done it can be slightly better looking. That depends hugely on filters you used to create the data from nothing.

But what really wonders me is... Why did you use 1080i ? 720p provides much sharper image when it comes to moving picture. 1080i is interlaced format. Interlacing is very bad thing. :( 720p (as being progressive) looks much sharper. If you had to have the higher resolution then why not do it atleast proper 1080p?

Orion

16th December 2005, 16:46

That's not finally the point, RMJ. There is still a debate about p v. i
1080i v.720p is about the same thing on your tv. But besides all this, the size and time needed to make 1080p (which not all DVDplayers/TVs support yet), would be overwhelming for most. I can do the 1080p but with the files we have of Lili, it would not be wise.

The rendering I made(1080i) is good enough for the videos we have. It made them much better and the point is not to see this file on your Comp (which is fine, though), but to watch on your DVD player set up with your widescreen TV. There you will see the dif. :wink:

So, anyway, maybe I should PM Ben and ask about how to split the file (which program is best).

staos

16th December 2005, 22:02

try splitting the movie into two part through winrar and then upload them to filefront. (unless of course someone here objects to the filefront servers)

RMJ

16th December 2005, 22:07

That's not finally the point, RMJ. There is still a debate about p v. i 1080i v.720p is about the same thing on your tv.
'About' is not same as 'excatly'. 720p looks sharper. The motion is a lot sharper. The faster the motion is the better 720p looks because it has no comb effect. And in stills 720p overhelms 1080i (I mean when taking still of moving object. Of course if the object is totally still then interlacing has minimal effect to it's quality).

But besides all this, the size and time needed to make 1080p (which not all DVDplayers/TVs support yet), would be overwhelming for most. I can do the 1080p but with the files we have of Lili, it would not be wise.
I don't see your point. 1080p is easier to make than 1080i. Interlacing is the most time taking part. Interlacing is used only because it halfs the needed space. If there wouldn't be space and bandwidth problems in past, interlacing would have never invented. It's just ugly fix for low tech devices.

The rendering I made(1080i) is good enough for the videos we have. It made them much better and the point is not to see this file on your Comp (which is fine, though),
If you did it correctly then it might really look somewhat better than original source. But again, why interlaced? Interlacing video source that is likely interlaced (because most of her performances are interlaced) is quite a weird choice. You had to do deinterlacing anyways so why didn't keep the good quality that it gave to you?

I'm very glad that you even bother to do these but I just cannot see the idea behind this one choice. It makes no sense.

but to watch on your DVD player set up with your widescreen TV. There you will see the dif. :wink:
Depends pertty much what kinda of 'widescreen tv' we are talking about. Strictly speaking... If it's one of these normal CRTs then CRT monitor definitly provides better quality. In plasma's and LCD's... Well, they can usually provide better resolution than most small monitors (smaller than 21") but they lacks in color dynamics. So I'd go for monitor if I wanted highest possibly quality. (CRT projectors are way ahead of course. But very few of us can affort one)

So, anyway, maybe I should PM Ben and ask about how to split the file (which program is best).
Split it with WinRAR. It's best for it. Set it to 'storage' mode so it won't try to compress it (as it would not save any space at all because the video is already highly compressed).

Orion

16th December 2005, 22:36

RMJ

16th December 2005, 22:55

Well, this is a long running debate. Right now I don't care for the diff between 1080i v. 720p because the differrence is only noticeable on paper, and not so much with the naked eye. There are those that say that 1080i allows more info and blah blah, but in the end it is what can be oberved with the eyes.
Excatly. The 1080i is better on paper (higher virtual resolution) but to naked eye 720p looks much better.

I rarely use winrar, so I would need to check it out first (ignorant in this matter) Thanks for the tip. I'll try, but I think it is better if I split it in more than 2 parts even.
You can split it in any number of parts with WinRAR. It's very easy to use and pretty much every has it (and if they don't, it can be downloaded) so it's easy for everyone to put it back together, too.

If you can't figure out the how to do the splitting then ask me or Ben or anyone who has used it. Just remember to take the compression off or it will take hours to make the archives (without any save of space in result).

Orion

16th December 2005, 23:06

Thanks bro. I asked Ben a while ago but he did not respond to the PM yet.

Anyway, it will have to wait for Monday (file split).

Defcon 6

17th December 2005, 01:27

I may be wrong but isn't her en concert DVD filmed in HD? Been forever since I watched it.

RMJ

17th December 2005, 02:09

It is been said that it was filmed at high definition cameras. But there's no such material available.

The En Concert DVD itself is of course normal (Low Definition) DVD. Not even fully progressive. There's soem comb effects visible in few frames. :( ).

Maybe someday they will re-release it as HD DVD. Assuming it really was filmed at high definition cameras.

Defcon 6

17th December 2005, 02:27

thanks for the info RMJ!

Ekasra

17th December 2005, 02:30

Nice peice of work for someone trying to collect vids for the 1gig for the D++ server if you host it lol

Emmerdale001

17th December 2005, 04:14

Ekasra

17th December 2005, 04:31

You need 2 gigabytes to get into the DC++ hub, not 1. Before you get into the DC hub and get 2 gigs worth of files, you can share 2 gigabytes worth of whatever until you can get enough alizee files. Then you can switch over and share just Alizee when you have 2 gigs of her stuff.

Alizée DC++ Hub - Rules:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rule #1 Share at least 1Gb of Alizée videos, 2 slots open, for DC++ use 2 slot per HUB [Scripted]
Rule #2 Don't share anything not related to Alizée or french music!!! [Kick + Ban]
Rule #3 Do NOT close your uploads or leave the hub while downloading. You are here to share!
:shock:

Defcon 6

17th December 2005, 04:52

I noticed a guy in there with 2 tib of shared files today...

ArlettyFan

17th December 2005, 09:56

Orion

18th December 2005, 22:42

About the HD En Concert DVD: It was filmed in HD, but to view the dif in your TV, you need a HD box (decoder). HDTV means that you can watch a vid encoded in HD, but you need a decoder. I bought teh "Over Canada" DVD filmed in HD and it looks great @ 1080i right now the HDTV, but if I had the decoder, I could watch true HD picture and sound.

I think that JVC has a HD camcoder allowing you to record in 720i-p and 1080i-p. It costs $7000US. BUt I have the Denon 3910 DVD player and that only supports 720p and 1080i. My TV, though, supports only up to 1080i, but not 720p (maybe it does, but I can't get my DVDs to play @ 720p on my TV, just 1080i).

I hate when tech gets so disorganized :?

P.S. I am uploading the final fiels for the mpeg file I made (1.5GB) - tonight for sure . . . if all goes well. I have turned the vid into an exe file that allows you to watch the vid by simply DB CLK on it. (file split into 9 parts @ 98mb each :roll: )

Wish it could have been easier for us all . . .

EDIT: sooner than thought:

Look @ my first post on page 1 . . . (updated w/ DL links)

NOTE: this is NOT the sequel to "mother of all videos" :lol:

Snatcher42

19th December 2005, 01:25

About the HD En Concert DVD: It was filmed in HD, but to view the dif in your TV, you need a HD box (decoder). HDTV means that you can watch a vid encoded in HD, but you need a decoder. I bought teh "Over Canada" DVD filmed in HD and it looks great @ 1080i right now the HDTV, but if I had the decoder, I could watch true HD picture and sound.
There's no way to watch the DVD (or any standard DVD for that matter) in "true" HD. It would have to be re-released on HD-DVD first, which is an entirely different disc format. For now, the content is just not on the disc, so trying to watch it in HD is like trying to squeeze water out of a stone.

When they say the concert was "shot in HD", it just means (like RMJ said) that they used HD cameras and then mastered down to standard non-HD DVD format for release. It's like mixing music with lots of tracks and then mastering that down to just two channels for reproduction on CD. You can't get those original tracks back off the CD. You could play it on a surround sound system and fudge it, but that's not the same. Likewise, when playing any standard DVD on an HD system you're just blowing up the disc's non-HD encoded content. It may look better than on regular TV, but it's not true HD. For that, En Concert would need to be re-released on HD-DVD with a new master from the original source.

Orion

19th December 2005, 03:26

I know about that . . . I thought that the DVD wwaaaaass in HD DVD format :lol:

The DVD that I mentioned, "Over Canada," is an HD DVD . . . all this time I thought that the En Concert DVD would be greater still, once I got my HD box :cry:

I guess that they will probably not re-release the En COncert DVD in HD media . . . not worth it for them . . . but maybe for a future release?????????

Snatcher42

19th December 2005, 05:20

Defcon 6

19th December 2005, 06:26

NOTE: this is NOT the sequel to "mother of all videos" :lol:

I am really looking foward to this sequel :!:

Orion

19th December 2005, 06:50

haha, before that happens, defcon, I will get my thermaltake "Tai-Chi" case, an AMD 64 Dual core X2 CPU, 4GB DDR2, an ASUS A8N SLI extreme MB a few of the new t166 HDDs etc . . . . . Then I'll put out a vid to die for; but right now, I am tired of using the same scenes and tired of having to wait for my comp to catch up with my editing :doc:

Stay tuned . . .

P.S. has anybody downloaded the files yet . . . any probs with them?? (don't know if I did it right)

RMJ

19th December 2005, 17:06

Yeah, no, En concert's not an HD disc. And considering its modest sales in this format, I doubt there are any plans to re-release it. But then again, in the future when HD is the standard and normal DVDs are obsolete, maybe they will re-visit it...
Also depends a lot on her future career. If her future albums gets nice sales and she does concert tournee again, there might be chance that her old concert material could be re-released (for new format. HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, HVD, you name it).

Altho... If she is going through image change, then the old material might not fit on her new image and hence it would be never re-released. (This is scary idea in general... Think about it... What if she doesn't want to sing her old classics ever again in public? No more Moi Lolita or ACC... :( )

Orion

19th December 2005, 17:16

Don't worry guys. She can't do a complete 180 just like that. Whatever changes there will be, they will not amount to shock or complete denial of past life :lol:

It will be subtle and beautiful, no doubt . . . just like the change from Gourmandises to MCE . . . you see . . . no worries mates 8)

RMJ

19th December 2005, 17:20

Oh btw...

The downloads seems to work fine except they are slow as hell which is typical for megaupload. But atleast they are working... I got half the files already and d/l other half tonight.

Orion

19th December 2005, 17:34

yeah, I tried yousendit but I kept getting page errors :evil: I really hate megaupload for its speed. It almost makes my work feel useless, but you guys will enjoy just watching it . . . I hope :wink:

EDIT: What about download accelerators? Flashget etc. probably same shit anyway . . .

staos

19th December 2005, 22:08

I used getright but I just got ipbanned from megaupload. Apparently getright forces multiple mirrors and they don't like that. If someone can upload files 8 and 9 on sendfile, filefront or even rapidshare, I would really apreciate it.

Thanks Orion for the videos.

Orion

19th December 2005, 22:17

I will upload files 8-9 for you. The only reason I make videos is to make you guys a bit more happy. I hope that others can make vids that are better than mine so that I can get happier too . . . that's what's it all about.

RMJ

19th December 2005, 22:59

EDIT: What about download accelerators? Flashget etc. probably same shit anyway . . .
Doesn't work because they limits the bandwidth per IP. And also they limits one connection per IP.

Tho, there's work around for this. Use multiple proxies. I had 3 simultaneous downloads on Firefox, two of them using proxies.

Just finished downloading them but looks like part2 was only partially loaded, so, I gotta redownload it.

Orion

19th December 2005, 23:43

ok Staos, I have uploaded parts 08-09 for you (cherck your PM). after you dounload you files, maybe you can offer the links to people who are having to wait a long time for megaupload; it's so slow that any help they can get is great (megasucks).

kekekeke

20th December 2005, 00:28

didn't really notice all that much difference in quality, but the vid was awesome :P

Orion

20th December 2005, 21:41

I am glad you like it ke; that's what it's all about . . . no competition, just enjoyment . . . whatever we can get until her next album.

RMJ

20th December 2005, 21:46

Watched the video last night. The video was again great. Very nice editing.

But lets talk some tech talk. :)

Firstly. The video isn't 1080i. It's in 1080p30 NTSC format (due to nature of NTSC actual frame rate is 29,97 and not 30). Good thing is that it's progressive so there's no interlacing problem visible. Bad thing it has 30FPS when the sources are mostly 25FPS. Change from 25 -> 30 will make the motion unsmooth (because about every 3rd frame is doubled). Why not use 1080p25 instead? It would give smoother motion.

The video quality itself is pretty good. But it isn't as good as the original. It's much smoother and it has obvious artifacts of re-encoding. That's the biggest problem when resambling video to bigger resolution. You need to be careful when dooing it because you are creating data from nothing.

For example the ACC music video which you used. I can get much sharper picture when simply playing the original file and resizing it runtime to the same resolution as your video. No other filters used.

In general, there's no reason to do resizing to bigger resolution and then saving it. It easily causes quality lost. Resizing it runtime is usually much better choice as it doesn't cause re-encoding artifacts and isn't bandwidth limited like saved video (well, of course it has limited bandwidth too... But the limit is the device what is used to play it, not the source material).

Sorry for being critical again. :)

But if you keep continuing doing them you should thought about these things. If you'd want to create killer movie then try 720p50 (PAL). Instead of just doubling the frames, use motion prediction to create every second frame from it's neighbour frames. It would give very smooth motion. And use 720p instead of 1080p because it offers very good quality with much lesser file size. And because there's no visible difference anyways as the source material is low quality (720x576 PAL). Also it's important to apply the filters in right order. First deinterlacing (if the source is interlaced), then resizing, then maybe slight sharpening (look how it looks with and without), and maybe contrast correction (for some reason, your vid has quite bad contrast compared to original ACC video).

Orion

20th December 2005, 22:01

I encoded it in 29.97 NTSC. I can't see why you woul;d see it as 30fps. Yeah I have noticed that about some of the scenes. I got a hint of the problems when I tried to make a dvd of the vid: the 1.5GB file translated to 700MB for the DVD and it wasn't great to view on the TV as it was on my comp. Thanks for the tips. I will try it out and see if there is a diff. Hope my Comp can take it :cry: At first I had reservations about the resizing, but I just wanted to see the diff and what was involved. The reason for some of the chopiness is due to the fact the a few of the vids are of diff res. Sometimes, though, the artifacts can be a result of a missing plugin or upgraded software needs. It plays smooth on my comp. Also, I guess that the high res is only usefull if you have a 22+" monitor (when I used Divx player, the res was so great that the screen only displayed a portion of the actual vid - the other was hidden off screen . . . I had tyo resize my screen to fix the aspect ratio/res . . . I am learning :lol:

Don't be sorry for being critical; without criticism, how can we improve?!?
I appreciate your help. Thanks!

staos

20th December 2005, 23:02

sorry about the slow post Orion. I think there was something wrong with my internet connection because I couldn't get on the forum yesterday.

Here are the two links for 8 and 9

http://s54.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3A3VMQMP09OCC3GUBGWPQ3WJZ2
http://s54.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=03DA7A836GA1Z33Z0XLF0O2RIP

Thanks again Orion

Orion

20th December 2005, 23:09

Yeah, the forum was down for everyone.

It was no problem.

RMJ

21st December 2005, 05:53

I encoded it in 29.97 NTSC. I can't see why you woul;d see it as 30fps.
Nah, the specs of HDTV says it's 30fps. But due to nature of NTSC it's actually played 0.1% slower which cause the 29.97fps. So the video really is 1080p30, even tho your editing software might have showed 29.97. You see, 1080p30 can be either NTSC or PAL format. If it's PAL then it's played at excatly 30fps but if it's NTSC then it's played at 29.97. But it's nothing to worry about. I just mentioned it. :)

But for next video I think you should use 1080p25 or 720p25. Then you don't have the 25 -> 30 fps convert which is bad idea. If you want more frames then rather use 50fps (which doubles the bandwidth of course. So it takes twice as much space).

At first I had reservations about the resizing, but I just wanted to see the diff and what was involved. The reason for some of the chopiness is due to the fact the a few of the vids are of diff res.

I don't think this is the problem really. It was more like artifacts caused by re-encoding. And then there's very little to do about it as you are forced to do it if you want to save the video. Of course trying other settings for encoding might work.

Here's one example frame (frame from your video vs. frame from video that was resized on the fly):
http://www.3rdw.net/alizee/stuff/vidcompare/
The difference is huge I think. Save them on your computer and open your favorite image viewer and go back and forth those frames. It's the easiest way to compare two images (Or open them in separate tabs on Firefox and jump between them). And as earlier said, no other filters were used except resize.

It plays smooth on my comp. Also, I guess that the high res is only usefull if you have a 22+" monitor (when I used Divx player, the res was so great that the screen only displayed a portion of the actual vid - the other was hidden off screen . . . I had tyo resize my screen to fix the aspect ratio/res

I played it at 19" CRT with 1920x1440 resolution so it fit in window without resizing. :)

Don't be sorry for being critical; without criticism, how can we improve?!?
I appreciate your help. Thanks!
Well, good thing you don't fell hurt for it. :) I'm just trying to point out the problems I can see in technical part of this videos. :)

Orion

21st December 2005, 06:56

About the vid compare: that seems like just a contrast problem of a couple of clicks. I don't see it being so shady on my screen, as it is on your example, though :? But, obviously, the comparison is clear there.

I don't think that 1080p and 720p would make any difference unless I have the masters. If I were to use 25fps v. 30/29.97fps, there would be a big difference and a problem: the original vids are of different frame rates and it would not be wise to use a dif rate. I learned that when making videos, the frame rates should be the same and the aspect ratios should also not differ from the rest of the vids in the production. If they do, then the vid will become choppy or not as smooth.
When they don't match, the number of specific frames changes by deletion or multiplication. If you use 30fps, then you can't use 25fps because it would make things choppy (as I said), You can avoid this if you use multiples of 30fps : 30, 15,10.

The mistake I made was NOT in making a resolution too low, but too high instead, because it was not worth the memory. It should always be proportional to the original vid. EDIT: that is why I want the masters so bad (can you imagine)

The other problems can all be fixed by a simple mouse click to make the vids more clear as in the example you showed I did not do that because I did not see the vid that way - maybe it's the digital vibrance I have set on my display; which also affects videos (good thing).

About Pal v. NTSC: Pal and NTSC have nothing to do with aspect ratio and 1080p/720p. One does not depend on the other.

The reason why NTSC is not 30fps is that it was made for B/W videos; due to color intro, it was made to “accommodate” 29.97.

haha, I have a measly 15" screen (I hate you :mrgreen: )

By all means bro, keep pointing things out becasue this is one of the most interesting threads to pop up in a while. :wink:

I love this stuff (I am learning new things every day)

RMJ

21st December 2005, 07:55

About the vid compare: that seems like just a contrast problem of a couple of clicks. I don't see it being so shady on my screen, as it is on your example, though :? But, obviously, the comparison is clear there.
It's not just contrast problem. There's significant amount of artifacts, too. And the sharpness is like from other planet. Also notice the color bleeding on the 'clip des clips' overlay. Also look at the 'i' in that very same overlay. The dot of the 'i' has melted to body of the 'i' in your video (clear lack of sharpness).

If I were to use 25fps v. 30/29.97fps, there would be a big difference and a problem: the original vids are of different frame rates and it would not be wise to use a dif rate.

Most of the videos are at 25fps anyways. I can't even remember video that isn't at that frame rate (there is such videos but I don't really have time to go through them all right now as I got few hundreths of videos of her). There's good reason why most are at 25fps. They are recorded at Europe. And big part of Europe uses PAL (or SECAM) format and it's usually (not always) 25fps.

So, in my opinion, the 25fps is clear and the only choice for Alizée videos. 30fps just makes the motion unsmooth because of frame doubling here and there (if you have ever compared NTSC and PAL DVDs of same movie, you know what I mean).

Also, one could make the 30fps source to play at 25fps. It would be then slight slow motion but in this kind of video, I think it wouldn't matter (as there's no need for lip syncing). Might make interesting effect actually. Most people might not even notice the slow motion.

I learned that when making videos, the frame rates should be the same and the aspect ratios should also not differ from the rest of the vids in the production.
Of course they should. But frame reduction from 30 to 25 is quite good choice. Especially as the 30fps video is most likely made from source that has 25 or 24 fps. The 30fps video already has doubled frames. Just get rid of the doubled frames and you'll get back the original 25/24 fps without losing any data.

About Pal v. NTSC: Pal and NTSC have nothing to do with aspect ratio and 1080p/720p. One does not depend on the other.
I never said anything about aspect ratio. Nor that resolution would depend on color format. :) I know very well what NTSC/PAL/SECAM stands for (they are actually just color encoding formats).

The reason why NTSC is not 30fps is that it was made for B/W videos; due to color intro, it was made to “accommodate” 29.97.

Yes, as I already said: 'due to nature of NTSC the 30fps is actually played at 29.97'. Didn't get into details as they are boring. :)

Orion

21st December 2005, 09:09

RMJ

21st December 2005, 10:27

RMJ, it looks like you also know your way around a vid; how about making one for us. If you're good at editing, then you should try it. Editing is time consuming, especially if you have a weak comp, but I think you should try it out, even if you haven't edited before. All that knowledge is a terrible thing to waste . . . that's partly why I am doing it 8)
I have been thinking of giving it a try... But we'll see after new year. I don't have time before that.

I have done some editing in past (the time when Adobe Premier 2.0 was state of the art sotfware :) ) but I got lots to catch on. I know the theoretical part very well but I'd need some practice. :)

The videos I used have been encoded to 29.97fps and AR 16x9 before the production/editing process, so they were not in 25fps

This could be the problem in the first place. Seems like you have used re-encoded videos as for source. That would definitly explain the quality loss. Because, I know for sure that most of her highest quality videos are at 25FPS (all the ACC videos, performances and the music video, for example).

The 30-25fps is an interesting thought, but it can backfire on you since it is not a clear multiple of 30 (15, 10) - it can make the vid choppy, not just slow motion.
It doesn't need to be multiple of 30. You are mixing things. It's irrelevant for human brain if it's 25 or 30 or 50. It can process it to create the motion. The 'choppyness' becomes when some of the frames are doubled (as in case of 24 -> 30 fps conversion). If you play video that has 30fps (and has shot at 30FPS, not converted from 25) at 25fps or 50fps it will be excatly as smooth as at original speed. It just shows slower or faster. This trick is what they use at highspeed cameras. They shoots 1000fps second and make it run 25fps (or 29.97 if you wish. It's irrelevant which one to use. Only the speed is slightly modified). It looks very slow motion then, and it's totally smooth. Same thing when you shoot at 30fps and show it 25fps. It' will be few per cents slower but still smooth.

It gets choppy when you take video that is shoot at 30fps and remove few frames to make it 25fps. Then you the lenght of video is same and the frame rate is correct. But the video isn't smooth anymore.

There's also very good example of this thing in film industry. Most of movies are shot at 24fps. For television they are converted to 25fps (PAL/SECAM) or to 29.97fps (NTSC). Conversion from 24 -> 25 is simply done by increasing film speed 4%. Nothing extra work is done. This needs zero computer processing to archieve. You just make the little motor that spins the film to spin 4% faster and that's it (of course there's no motors when talkin about digital image... but it's just silly example :) ). The 4% speed increase is so small that 99% of people don't notice it. They don't even notice the increase in pitch (of sound) which is actually very clear when comparing to original format (or to NTSC).

But it gets ugly when you want conversion from 24 to 30 fps. If you'd simply increase the speed it would be noticeable by human eye. So... How to handle this? Well... It's too ugly way to describe by words. But usually it includes frame doubling and 2:3 pulldown techniques. But how ever it done technically, the result is usually less smooth than the original video. And it's noticeable in many movies, for example (and especially in TV series where they uses faster tehchniques to archieve the conversion. It causes quality problems very often).

Probably not that big a deal though. > deleting double frames - but why the extra work?
It sure is extra work but for perfect solution it would be needed. :) It can be automated too, I'm sure about it.

For these videos, there is no need to get too worried about specifics, imo, unless the original master recordings are present; otherwise the importance lies mainly in the editing for me. 8)

Of course. But then agian, why to use the best format if the source is so low quality anyways? It doesn't fix the quality problem. I mean, why to even bother to convert from DVD/DVB format to HDTV format when there's nothing to gain really. The limiting factor is the source material. It might be better to stay at original resolution and work on the editing instead. After all, it's the editing that matters in these fan vids. :)

Orion

21st December 2005, 20:01

It might be better to stay at original resolution and work on the editing instead. After all, it's the editing that matters in these fan vids.

Hey your stating what I said :P

haha yeah, after so many tries it becomes obvious. the aspect ratio of the original vids sucked, though, so that is the only good thing about the encoding . . . and maybe with the right program, the pic can look even better than the original too.

I wonder how I can use the En Concert DVD (*scratches head*). Like we both decided . . . . stick to editing :cheesy:

Hey, thanks to your idea, I have encoded the vid into 720p @ 1280x720 (30fps). New vid size: 215MB :lol:

I am uploading now . . . (it's a headache for others to download all those files, I know)

Orion

21st December 2005, 21:01

sorry for the double post, but it's clearer this way:

Here is the link to the whole vid (215MB)
EDIT: thanks to RMJ for his advice on shrinking the vid 8)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=96F6JRF8

I made one for Yousendit, but it went numb on me (curses)

RMJ

21st December 2005, 21:40

Downloading.... :)

About that En Concert material... Basically I see two way to use this material with other performances:

Crop (pan & scan) it to 4:3 if used with material from other performances (as most of them are shot for normal 4:3 TV). Result is video without black bars during it. This pan & scan should be done for other 16:9 material, too. It's some more work but it might look very good (in current fan vids it's kinda annoying how the video jumps between 4:3 fullscreen and 4:3 letter boxed. But it's of course understandable knowing the limits of availalbe source material). Of course pan & scan destroys the original view what director had in mind but it's not necessary bad in this case as it's only small clip and the point usually is to concentrate on the pretty girl in it. Putting some time on this might make kick ass video...

Other choice would be to use the DVDs 16:9 aspect ratio and use other material that is in 16:9 format (her music videos are letterboxed so they works well. Also, there's some live performances in 16:9, too. For example Hit Machine videos are letter boxed 16:9). Some of the 4:3 material could be possible to crop to 16:9, too. Lot's of manual work would be needed to archieve good artistic croppping. But this also could work quite nicely when put some time on it.

I'll promise to do some examples after new year. :) I don't know if I have the artistic view that is needed for editing decent video but atleast I can give some hints for others. :)

vonstar

21st December 2005, 23:49

Orion, your avatar, what is that commercial for? Its pretty funny :D

RMJ

21st December 2005, 23:55

Orion, your avatar, what is that commercial for? Its pretty funny :D
It's from Alizée's music video: J'en Ai Marre

ArlettyFan

22nd December 2005, 01:30

Orion, your avatar, what is that commercial for? Its pretty funny :D

It's for the EPA, urging people to throw away their photo camera's and go digital for the protection of the environment.

:mrgreen:

Orion

22nd December 2005, 01:35

EDIT: @ RMJ (you guys are fast)

I have done many conversions from 4:3 - 16:9. It's not that difficult . . . you just have to work on the final product a bit more, that's all.

If you try to edit video I would suggest premier pro for advanced users and Roxio Video edit for the rest . . . both are really great and sometimes Roxio is even better, especially 8 (got it). I also have Adobe premiere 1.5 (7) and it is very good (one of the best). But you don't need expensive programs to make great vids. I haven't used many yet, but if you can, try to use many plug-ins for great effects - they are easy to find :wink:

Everyone is artistic . . . so are you. Do what you think looks "cool" and don't listen to what others say - you do not have to make the vids fit with the music, maybe work in some transitions where the music changes and choose the right transition for the particular feel of the music (sound).

If you remember my Angel.avi vid, I used a live scene from Parler tout bas (when the stage lights began to flash) to fit in with the sudden up tempo of the song (raised voice - more dramatic sound against the backdrop of the stage behind Lili coming to life . . . look at it again and you will see the subtlety in that.

simple things like that are what seperate the good vids from the rest - it's not simply about step by step alignment (boring) - use the right moments to shine, don't shine at every beat.

have fun!

Orion

22nd December 2005, 01:43

double post: (sorry)

Vonstar: I did not understand what you meant by "commercial" - that threw me off and I did not realize that you could have been talking about MY av. :lol:

Both RMJ and JanG are right.
If you don't have that vid, I will upload a high quality version for you.

vonstar

23rd December 2005, 04:41

Orion

23rd December 2005, 07:53

hey orion, that'd be great :D it really looks like a commercial.

JanG - ahahaahahah. It actually looks like some sort of skin cleanser commercial. its like shes saying "it fights dirt and grime, keeping your face nice, clean and oil free"

I PMed you 3 HQ vids (I did not know if you had the rest . . . or in better quality):

J'en ai Marre (commercial :wink: ) - A Contre-Courant - J'ai Pas Vingt Ans