New version of Angel.avi vid. Croped w/ added edits (better)

[Orion]

I have changed the aspect ratio to fill the screen (wide screen); this means that the "vivement Dimanche"portion/clip will not have the black bars and will take up the whole screen, as the rest will too. I have also added a pic with Pan and zoom effect (simple) at start and one at end with message (scrolling text).

I think it is way better than the original (hope you think so too - simple improvement worth the download)

129MB: Download DivX player from www.DivX.com
If your GPU has a digital vibrance control or any color enhancement plug-ins, then check them out because it will make your photos and vids even better for viewing, including your desktop and internet sites :D (XP - rightclick on your desktop and choose "properties" - click "settings" tab and then select "Advanced" - then select your GPU tab and see if there is anything for color correction etc. . . .

megaupload:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=O5NQQGDV

yousendit:

http://s65.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1KENYKEML9IR70D93LICQVPG14

[Ekasra]

excellent work!, downloading now, will replace it on my D++
lol message too short?

[medi88]

Hi!
:D

am downloading it now.. this is my first post here... have just discovered Alizee last week, still doesn't understand how i could have missed an angel :cheesy:
but nevermind, better late than never eh? :bounce:

[Orion]

I hope I don't get in trouble for spreading it to the other language forums :oops:

I only pasted the same post I used in this thread to the other language section - I think I am not supposed to unless I use thier language :?

I think I can be forgiven . . . afterall, it's for them . . . and the mods can fix anything (God bless them) :wink:

EDIT: @ medi8. Your post is just soooo right :D Glad you joined and happy to make video for you.

[Ekasra]

I hope I don't get in trouble for spreading it to the other language forums :oops:

I only pasted the same post I used in this thread to the other language section - I think I am not supposed to unless I use thier language :?

I think I can be forgiven . . . afterall, it's for them . . . and the mods can fix anything (God bless them) :wink:

From personal experience, don't post english in the french forums :P

[Orion]

yeah, but I think they will not resort to downloading and then downing me . . . I hope not . . . the French are such great people with a great history hehe

No . . . I wasn't puckering :shock:

Ok . . .I forgot to add . . . just incase you guys are wondering, yousendit has faster downloads but only for the first 25 takers :wink:

[RMJ]

Very nice. It's definitly improved from first version (altho that was good, too). I see you used little less and more subtle effects. Which worked well, think.

The image at the start looks very familiar. :wink:


I have changed the aspect ratio to fill the screen (wide screen); this means that the "vivement Dimanche"portion/clip will not have the black bars and will take up the whole screen, as the rest will too.
Ok... As I am who I am, I must comment few things. :)

Cropping was pretty well done in most parts but there's few places that might have need some more work.

You always cropped the image from the center of the image. So equally much image was cut from top and bottom. As said, it worked pretty good in most of the parts. But in couple places the head got cut when you could have left the head un-touched and crop more from bottom. That's what I meant by 'extra work' in the other thread. Cropping equal amount from top and bottom is pretty generic way to do it. You might manually correct it in some scenes to leave the details that looks more important. I will post lil example in a bit...


I have also added a pic with Pan and zoom effect (simple) at start and one at end with message (scrolling text).
You know, those texts bring one idea in my head... I think you should also add credits at the end of your video. Now, noone who watches video does not know who made it (unless the video is renamed to have credits in the filename, or they happen to see this thread for example). Also, you could include in those credits those you loan material for the video (hint, one certain image in this video :wink: ). But well, it's totally up to you.



If your GPU has a digital vibrance control or any color enhancement plug-ins, then check them out because it will make your photos and vids even better for viewing, including your desktop and internet sites :D (XP - rightclick on your desktop and choose "properties" - click "settings" tab and then select "Advanced" - then select your GPU tab and see if there is anything for color correction etc. . . .
Umm... My advice is not to do this. using that 'digital vibrating' literally fucks up the colors of your monitor. They appreas in no way as they should. It might look interesting in some videos but it's not for daily use, if even for videos.

Instead of using such weird features... How about calibrating monitor properly? You'll get much, much better image/color quality. There's thousands of tutorials (for example: here (http://epaperpress.com/monitorcal/index.html)) on the net how to calibrate monitor correctly.

Especially it's important when you are doing graphics and videos that your monitor is correctly calibrated. Otherwise you might end up to quite weird looking results...

[RMJ]

Firstly... Admins, sorry for double post if no-one has posted before I hit the submit button. It's just so much easier to put this into separate post. If someone has posted while I'm typing this then... well... ignore this excuse. :)

Alrighty... As said, I'd give one example of that cropping. And small disclaimer for this example... This is no way the only way and may not reflect your idea of right way to do it. It is absolutely my own opinion of it. If you like to do it other way, then it's equally good way as it's your way. Just giving and example how it could have done. :)

As said, the cropping in some parts could have done slightly different way. You always cropped the center, cut equally much from top and bottom. This is understandable as it's the easiest way to do it. Lets study one frame from the video. May not be best possible example but it's good enough to show my idea of it.

Original frame from Vivement Dimanche is used for compare (video has 25fps PAL format, encoded with MPEG2. Size roughly 220MB). I only resized it to 4:3 aspect ratio (PAL format has 5:4 aspect ratio: 720x576 pixels). So, width of the picture was increased from 720 pixels to 768 pixels. Resulting to size of 768x576 which is excatly 4:3 ratio and is correct for computer monitor.

(Umm.. I realized afterhand that this very video has the letterboxed performance part so this my example of course doesn't apply into it as it's cropped already by the TV channel... But all this applies to the intro and interview part. And of course to other sources that was used for the video.)

Here's the frame (I did not have any filters on so it has interlacing effects visible):
http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/9239/rmjoriginalaspectcorrected7zx.th.png (http://img483.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rmjoriginalaspectcorrected7zx.png)

Here is capture from your video (I'm not sure if it's 100% same frame but close enough). As you can see, it's clearly cropped from the image above. The image was resized to same width with the example video frame to make comparing easier. Aspect ratio is untouched (16:9). (original frame, without resizing is availalbe, too, here (http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/9462/orionoriginal720p7un.png)).
http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/8396/orionoriginalresized1sx.th.png (http://img483.imageshack.us/my.php?image=orionoriginalresized1sx.png)

Now... My way... Crop from the example frame:
http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/7237/rmjoriginalcropped9pg.th.png (http://img483.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rmjoriginalcropped9pg.png)

See the difference? Her head wasn't cut off but bottom of the image got cut some more. The image is in same aspect ratio (16:9) as yours.

Quite simple trick to get it look slightly better (atleast in my opinion). Of course, sometimes cutting head is correct way to do the cropping but in this case I think my way would be better. It totally depends on the scene. What you want to keep in the image and what not. Some people might like your way better as it gets rid off the eyes at the background. Matter of opinions... But this being example of cropping, we assume my way is better. :) (you can complain about it of course if you feel it isn't the right way. :) )

But lets get even further on this thing.. If you'd like to make it even better there's ways... You see those black edges on the sides? I don't know if they were in the original TV broadcast (they might be there because TV has so called overscan that hides small portition of image behined edges of TV screen) or if they came there when the video was captured or when it was encoded to MPEG2. But anyways, they exists. And as they don't have any information on them, they are useless. Let's get rid of them. Lets crop from sides too. Keeping 16:9 aspect ratio of course. This results to image that is slightly less wide. So I resized it back to 768 pixel wide so the comparing is easier. The result of this:
http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/3086/rmjoriginalcroppedmore8nq.th.png (http://img483.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rmjoriginalcroppedmore8nq.png)

Good, no more black edges. :) This would be the frame I'd use in my video if I'd done one.

But could we go further? Maybe... One alternative cropping here (again it's resized to 768 pixel wide and 16:9 aspect ratio is kept):
http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/1575/rmjoriginalcroppedalternative6.th.png (http://img483.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rmjoriginalcroppedalternative6.png)

Is it better than the version showed earlier? Well.. I'ts matter of opinions... We got rid of the TV channel logo, which is good thing. But this caused lost of plenty of pixels in video, resulting lower resolution (altho, resolution lost isn't very notable, especially in moving image). Alizée's head is slightly closer to right edge now. Which can be good thing or bad. Depends how it fits on the other scenes around it. We get nice close up of her face but we lose her body. Again, it's matter of opinion if it's desired. What you want to show is up to editor.

Of course, this is just one frame. You of course need to keep in mind that she isn't keeping her head still. So little more adjusment might be needed to get the perfect solution.

This is the hard way to do it. It needs more work than generic crop from bottom and top. But the result can be astonishing good. Something to think about. :)



As a side note... Your video seems to have again quite bad contrast. What file you used for source? The colors in the original video I used is much more vibrant. Also, your video again looks bit soft. I don't know if it's caused by the resizing or if the source was softened already. It would look better if it would be bit sharper.

[Orion]

Yes, I have noticed that the contrast is not great. I just just don't know if I can fix that whilr in the production process. I am looking into it now (not to fix this vid, but for future endeavors :D )

I like the 318kb version because I find the space above her head annoying, for lack of a better word. You get to see more of her shoulders (body) and not just a head. I can't explain it very well, but it is just more pleasing to the eye. What you did was a simple crop that adjusted for max head room, but if you look at the frame, it just feels missplaced, imo. There is no need for that space there, especially since her forehead wasn't even close to being cut. It just looks like a fuller picture for the eye - this way your eyes will not be distracted by the space above her head as opposed to no space just below her chest

You see, in editing her body continues on the bottom frames, but in the upper frame (her head) it does not. So, not to fistract the eyes, you want to have the subject's body take up the same amount of space north and south axis . . . otherwise it would be like walking on a beach while loking at the beautiful sunset and suddenly tripoping on displaced soil.

Sometimes, it is even better to cut into the hair a bit to make it go with the rest of her body that is hidden.

One more thing about the contrast: As I see it on my comp, it is not even close to the 318kb frame you use :? I don't know why it is like that in your presentation.

I will check it out again, though . . . strange . . . maybe I need to take a still of it too to notice the diff.

good stuff!

[Orion]

Contrast changed from 50% to 56%.
slight saturation added.
25fps (PAL).
credits added.

for anyone interested (put on DC+ for others, if you can):

http://s65.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2F4G4JPR6ET4O2BW65QXNU7ZR3

[Señor Villa]

Very good work, I just downloaded it. I really like the music for this video. Who sings the song?

[Ekasra]

Contrast changed from 50% to 56%.
slight saturation added.
25fps (PAL).
credits added.

for anyone interested (put on DC+ for others, if you can):

http://s65.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2F4G4JPR6ET4O2BW65QXNU7ZR3

Updated my D++ version of it ;)

[Orion]

@ Ekasra: Excellent bro. For now I am through with this vid . . . it's good enough :lol:

@Señor Villa: "Angels" from Within Temptation . . . (The Silent Force).

[RMJ]

Silly forum went down right after that my last post so I didn't got time to fix it's errors and reply until now... Looks like I also forgot to resize the last screencapture even tho I told in the post I did it... Oh well...


I like the 318kb version because I find the space above her head annoying, for lack of a better word. You get to see more of her shoulders (body) and not just a head. I can't explain it very well, but it is just more pleasing to the eye. What you did was a simple crop that adjusted for max head room, but if you look at the frame, it just feels missplaced, imo. There is no need for that space there, especially since her forehead wasn't even close to being cut. It just looks like a fuller picture for the eye - this way your eyes will not be distracted by the space above her head as opposed to no space just below her chest

Yup, as said. Matter of opinions. :) At the end it's the editor that makes the movie look how it looks. And I'm sure he makes it so that it pleases his eye.

And as said, it was kinda bad frame for this study. :) But if you look around the vid, I'm sure you can find some scenes where alternative cropping would fit better (it would be awfully big coninsident if generic crop would fit on every scene, you know).



Sometimes, it is even better to cut into the hair a bit to make it go with the rest of her body that is hidden.

Yup, definitly. But this greatly depends on the scene. What you want to show, what you want to cut, where you want objects to be and so on.



One more thing about the contrast: As I see it on my comp, it is not even close to the 318kb frame you use :? I don't know why it is like that in your presentation.
You might wanna try adjusting your monitor. :) If you have that silly 'digital vibrance' on? That would definitly explain why you haven't seen the difference.

Also, did you ever watch the final encoded video? You see, the encoding process might have changed the contrast somewhat depending on the settings. You might have not noticed it if you always just watched the video in editing mode (looking sources, not the final production after re-encoding).

But something there is anyways... As those captures are exact frames from the those videos. No post-processing used.

Oh btw, I downloaded this newest version too and looks like that the contrast is better in it. The original source still has bit better contrast but I think one wouldn't notice it in moving video (unless one is cursed to find errors in videos. :( ).

[Orion]

You might wanna try adjusting your monitor. If you have that silly 'digital vibrance' on? That would definitly explain why you haven't seen the difference.


The 318kb version looks different on my comp in that it is clearer than your example . . . not worse :lol:

I think that this discussion is getting a bit dry for me bro . . . if you want to learn more about video production/editing, the web is a great place to start and also your local book store . . . not library, btw.

On a side note: I almost thought that this forum was down for good . . . (*shudders*)

[RMJ]

The 318kb version looks different on my comp in that it is clearer than your example . . . not worse :lol:
Yes I know. :)

But the point was that maybe at editing point it looked TOO good for you because you had some setting wrong or some feature on use that others don't have on their vid card or monitor. :)

But well, as said, the contrast problem isn't so much a problem anymore anyways. It got fixed when you turned it on more.

[Orion]

If you have that silly 'digital vibrance' on?



RMJ, I have to ask . . . do you know what digital vibrance does . . . and how to use it. I think that you don't understand . . . maybe :D

[RMJ]

Yes, I do know excatly what it does and how it works.

[Orion]

well, it would be great if you would explain it for me because I am having a hard time understanding why you refer to it as "silly."

[PayBays]

It works

anbd it makes me teary

for your next Angel Video ( to make me more teary ) use Paul van Dijk - For An Angel

it's....more then Alizée means for me...it really expresses your love for her Orion...

I'm really sitting here like this

Wow a new video : :D
OMG : :shock:
Why did Orion made this : :?
No : :cry:

[Orion]

I will get on that for you PB. I am not sure if I have heard that song or not . . . I think Defcon gave me one of van Dijk's mixes for a major vid I will do when I upgrade my comp. But I will make another vid for you asap . . . I shall do my best.

You are probably one of the few who understands why I come on this forum and how I feel abuout her . . . even though, many of you have no idea

. . . just want you to know that your words mean a lot to me :cry:

[RMJ]

well, it would be great if you would explain it for me because I am having a hard time understanding why you refer to it as "silly."
Sure, I'll explain.

Digital Vibrance (DV) increases color saturation and luminosity. Possibly changes contrast (it's hard to say excatly, as the saturation and luminosity changes affects contrast, too). Also possible effects neighbour pixels somehow (possibly calculates maximum contrast for pixel groups or something... Hard to say as the documentation isn't publicly available).

When you turn DV on you will see that colors becomes brighter (more vibrant), and if you set the effect higher they starts to become like neon-colors with glow. All the shades disappears and becomes one flat color (destroys small details). The result is very unrealistic. Nothing in real world resamples it.

This is common trick in stores that plays videos on TV screens and also in TV commercials. When you make the colors unrealistic vibrant it attracts human eye. Very effective way to sell more stuff... That's why the red apple in TV is so good looking, compared to those apples you got full of bowl...

If you are editing image/video while DV turned on, you got no idea how it will look for others. That's because you are not seeing the real colors of it. You are watching faked, over saturated colors. When you work on computer graphics, it's extremely important to have monitor and videocard correctly calibrated (or atleast close to correct. Doing perfect calibration needs expensive devices. But human eye works pretty well on the job). That way you can make the image/video look like you want and others will see it too same way when watching it (assuming their monitors are calibrated and they aren't using DV or some other settings that shows the colors wrong).

It's same way in real world. You don't see artist work in dark room (well... Unless one is doing some really original stuff... ). You don't see graphic designer doing layout in dark either. Nor in bright black light (Near-UV light). Why? Because they needs to see the right colors.

That's why DV is silly. It fucks up the colors.

[Orion]

haha, I see what you meant now . . . but you have it wrong there, as far as my vid is concerned . . . the DVE does not get copied into the production . . . it is a post production thing. It is used by others to make the colours more vibrant . . . that's why I told people, if they want to, to use their DVE (if they have it) and it makes the leaves greener and brighter and it makes the ocean/water, more blue/grean and brtighter

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2904/dvc4ug.jpg

you have to use just the right amount, though, if you want the best results . . .

EDIT: oh . . . . I forgot . . . . :D (you forgot the smiley, so I'll put it <there)

[RMJ]

but you have it wrong there, as far as my vid is concerned . . . the DVE does not get copied into the production . . . it is a post production thing.
Nah, you got me wrong. :) You are now telling excatly what I meant in earlier. :) I said that even if you have it on, noone else is seeing it in the video (unless they turn it on, too). This is excatly the problem. You are editing the video and it looks good to you. You put it on net and everyone else seeing it undersaturated and washed out (lack of contrast). Excatly because the DV only effect to your monitor. Not the video.


and it makes the leaves greener and brighter and it makes the ocean/water, more blue/grean and brtighter

Yup, as said, it makes them more vibrant. But unfortunately, real world isn't vibrant (unless looked through UV-cutout filter glasses).


http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2904/dvc4ug.jpg

The left image is not calibrated (digitally "developed"). No one should ever let such image on the net. Image taken with digital camera is never ready as is. It must be calibrated.

The right side image is over saturated. It looks like photo taken through UV-cutout filter. The effect in the image quite slight and is could be archieved by calibrating the left image (just lil saturation and brightness change, maybe histogram strech). So no need for extra features.

It also shows you excellent example what you get when you produce video/image when DV turned on. The production will look like the left image (even tho, to you, it looks like right side image).

When the image/video is correctly calibrated, there is no need for DV.



you have to use just the right amount, though, if you want the best results . . .
If it looks good to you then by all means, use it. I'm no one to judge it.

Just remember that the others will see the colors different. So, maybe it would be good just to use it while not editing videos? You'd see the actual colors that you are giving out...

Just my two (euro) cents...



EDIT: oh . . . . I forgot . . . . :D (you forgot the smiley, so I'll put it <there)
Woah.. I think it's my only post without smiley. I must have been in hurry while writing it. :)

[Orion]

Man . . . this sounds like 2 dictionaries arguing over the meaning of a specific word :lol:


I said that even if you have it on, no one else is seeing it in the video (unless they turn it on, too).


Of course, that's what DV is there for to aid your monitor . . . aside from gamma correction . . . DV is a visual enhancement tool you use on your monitor after all the calibrating is done. No matter how much you calibrate your image, for example, DV will make it better visually . . . you can try arguing with the folks over at Nvidia, but I think they will beg to differ.

The above image is not over saturated when compared to its left half . . . Look at the bottom pic . . . see the dif in the water? That is the result of DVE. Whether you have a pic that is calibrated or not is besides the point when using DVE . . . and that is THE point.


Just remember that the others will see the colors different. So, maybe it would be good just to use it while not editing videos? You'd see the actual colors that you are giving out...


As I said, DVE is not recorded in the production. I turn it off when editing/producing videos etc, because I want to get an accurate reading, but I can still leave it on and calibrate the colors normally because, for example, gamma correction AND DV work together with everything else. So, if left on, it would look better on my monitor then on somebody else's but as far as they know it looks great on theirs too. I leave it off anyways, when editing but the aids with gamma correction and the amount of contrast etc., can still be seen with DV on . . . the DIFFERENCE is that it looks better (clearer/brighter) on my monitor. That is finally the point.


You'd see the actual colors that you are giving out...


I see them anyways, just better than you would on yours since you don't use DVC to calibrate your monitor . . . DV enhances what you put on your screen from your windows to all your graphics . . . SOme of the guys here who play video games would love to use DVE . . . after all the monitor calibration and in game calibration . . .

You know . . . this discussion is not for us but for those who need this info :D

RMJ and I are here to please 8)

Now, please . . . lets not discuss this any more :wink: because I fear the "students" are getting restless :lol:

On to more important matters . . . . HOPE YOU ALL HAD A GREAT NEWS YEARS EVE CELEBRATION AND THAT YOU ALL GET WHAT YOU WANT FROM THIS NEW YEAR OF 2006 . . . 6 more years for the dreaded Dec 24, 2012 (Maya calendar ends abruptly :doc: )

I don't care, really . . . as long as I get to meet the angel that puts my senses in a state of constant flux (you'd think you were in heaven :cry: )

[Kyoshiro]

Could someone upload the latest version of that video to yousendit.com? :?
I really would like to see it... :wink:

[Orion]

unless you want to wait for me to upload it, maybe you can use megaupload link on pg 1.
Too slow? let me know.

[Kyoshiro]

Ok, thanks you very much, but RMJ helped me a little bit and i'm downloading it right now.
I'll post my comment of the video soon. 8)

[RMJ]

Man . . . this sounds like 2 dictionaries arguing over the meaning of a specific word :lol:
Indeed :)


Of course, that's what DV is there for to aid your monitor . . . aside from gamma correction . . . DV is a visual enhancement tool you use on your monitor after all the calibrating is done. No matter how much you calibrate your image, for example, DV will make it better visually . . . you can try arguing with the folks over at Nvidia, but I think they will beg to differ.

When monitor and graphics card is calibrated the image is perfect. Threre is no need for extra enchancement. The colors shows excatly as wished.

In my opinion DV doesn't make the image better looking visually. It makes it unrealistic. And unrealistic isn't same as better looking. Of course unrealistic picture can look good but then it's called artistic freedom. It's made purposely unrealistic to make it original.

I'd gladly argue with nVidia guys but I doubt they reads this board. :) But it wouldn't change a thing. I trust my own eyes. :)


The above image is not over saturated when compared to its left half . . . Look at the bottom pic . . . see the dif in the water? That is the result of DVE. Whether you have a pic that is calibrated or not is besides the point when using DVE . . . and that is THE point.
The right side images is clearly oversaturated. Go outside to see what world looks like. It isn't pure colors like in those pictures. The leftside is undersaturated because it isn't calibrated. The perfect image would be something between those two images.

It does matter if the image is calibrated. If you got DV on then uncalibrated image can look pretty good but the correctly calibrated image will look oversaturated, unrealistic. That's the problem. DV sure makes bad source to look bit better but it screws up the perfect image.



As I said, DVE is not recorded in the production. I turn it off when editing/producing videos etc, because I want to get an accurate reading,

Good to hear you turn it off. It wasn't clear before.



but I can still leave it on and calibrate the colors normally because, for example, gamma correction AND DV work together with everything else.

No.

The differensce is that DV messes up the colors.

Gamma correction is used to fix the failures of CRT (or whatever monitor you might use). And it's need to be done manually for each and everyone monitor. Every monitor is unique. And practically every monitor will show colors wrong without proper gamma correction.

Once the gamma correction is right, brightness is set, contras is set, color temperature is set, saturation is set, and whatever settings your monitor might have is set correctly, there is no need for extra enchancement. It shows the perfect image then (well.. 'perfect' as no monitor can truely show the color range of the real world. CRT does it best but it has it's failures, too).


I see them anyways, just better than you would on yours since you don't use DVC to calibrate your monitor . . .
If you have it on then you see the unrealistic colors. They does not equal to what is recored on the video. You don't see how the video actually looks like. You only see how the video should look like if it were done to please you.

So why not turn it off and actually make it look like how you'd like to see it ? That's the point. If the image you see after turning DV on is what you like to see then make the video look like it, even when DV is not on. Then it will represent your vision of the video.


DV enhances what you put on your screen from your windows to all your graphics . . . SOme of the guys here who play video games would love to use DVE . . . after all the monitor calibration and in game calibration . . .

I don't know about video games as I don't play it. But if they have wrong colors then the DV might help to make them look better. Alteast more vivid.


Now, please . . . lets not discuss this any more :wink: because I fear the "students" are getting restless :lol:

It's hard to stop. :) But well, if you don't want to talk about this then let's drop it. We obviously see the world different way and can't agree on what we see. :)

Obviously I cannot change your mind and I know I have no reason to change my mind. But then again, you propably think same way. :)

[KPAR]

Orion,
Good work on that video, I like it. ^_^

[Orion]

Thanks KPAR . . . welcome to the forum!

@ RMJ haha if you read my post again, you will realize that I am right and that you fail to get the point :P
There is a little slider in color correction tab :P that is there for just the right amount of DV :wink: nuff said bro . . . it was a good discussion . . . enjoyed it

do you think that if it went on we could have become enemies . . . over DVC???? :lol:

I am off to bed - Hope you dream in DVE :P

[RMJ]

Orion, could you upload the latest versio again.

I would have given it to Kyoshiro but looks like my file is broken. :(

And the megaupload link on first page is to old version. :(


And don't worry. I never become enemy to anyone just because he have misbelieves. :) Everyone has his own opinions about things and they always doesn't match with mine. It's totally ok.


Hey... one more thing... how about adding versio numero or some other identification to your videos before you upload them? Because as you do many versions of the video it sometimes hard to tell which one is which. Especially it gets confusing when the filenames changes to totally different between the versions (like the older version is called Angel_1.avi but the next one is Production_25fps_PAL.avi and it's pretty much the same video).

[Orion]

Hey... one more thing... how about adding versio numero or some other identification to your videos before you upload them? Because as you do many versions of the video it sometimes hard to tell which one is which. Especially it gets confusing when the filenames changes to totally different between the versions (like the older version is called Angel_1.avi but the next one is Production_25fps_PAL.avi and it's pretty much the same video).


glad you mentioned that: there was Angel_1.avi and Angel.avi

the latter is the better version (if I remember correctly). The latest "remake" is from Angel.avi, NOT Angel_1.avi

Angel_1 had a rough beginning and an ending that wasn't in que with the music (hope I am right about the versions)

The latest edit is the one to replace all the other "Angel" vids.

I won't make anymore "Angel" edits, so the last one posted IS the last and only angel vid that should be out there if everyone exchanges it for the old versions.

My renaming of the final Angel vid I know was bad . . . to say the least, and I realized that an hour or 2 after uploading had taken place.

P.S. I was trying to be funny with the "enemies" comment. I have seen it occur on this forum many times . . . I thought it would be amusing

take care!

[RMJ]

Ah ok.. But I'd appreciate it anyways if you got time to reupload it. :)

And when it comes to me... Well... I save each and every version I ever download. :)

[Orion]

Hi RMJ, I have been away for a bit . . . you want the Angel.avi vid . . . the latest one with the credits and your "angel" pic?

I will upload now.

And I also have a vid I just made for PayBays that I need to upload (lots of overlaying on it . . . I call it the "overlay_overload" vid . . . It made me want to pick up my comp case and throw it on the floor and stomp on it with both feet . . . while I was editing it, the playback (preview) was choppy due to weak system . . . I had to guestimate some ques etc :twisted: . . . worked out ok though 8)

[RMJ]

Yup, that's the one I need.

Thanks in advance. :)

[Orion]

it has already been PMed to you . . . I forgot that I uploaded it a couple days ago . . . dazed and confused . . .

I am uploading a new vid I made for PayBays . . . but it's really for everyone

EDIT:
How the hell did I manage to link to the wrong file on the first page??? :roll:

I'm mixed up . . . I am sure that people got the new file . . . for all people listening . . . make sure that your vid starts with an "lili angel" pic with credits and that it ends with a picture of Alizée with some yellow scrolling text . . . . maybe RMJ can post the link on this page (?) after he finishes with it . . . just in case

[RMJ]

Sure, here's the link.
http://s39.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=326V8TI7M1JQT11Z7OM0HTP4YC

And thanks again.