Bouke Vahl
4
Apple Final Cut Pro X Coins
8
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
Of course there is. Put LTC on one of the channels.
Not the most logical way, but hey, you want a cheap recorder, you get a cheap recorder.
Bouke
http://www.videotoolshed.com -
[ryan elder] “I was told it was because a wheelchair is just not meant for smooth camera movement.”
Oh really? Who told you that? Someone on this forum? You did not know that before you were told? What did you think it was for, making smoothies?
Now stop this crap. You call yourself a director, direct. Make something. Figure things out.
A director makes decisions. You don’t. You only ask questions in a way that a couple of very seasoned people do not want to answer you anymore, as your behavior starts to look like trolling.Bouke
http://www.videotoolshed.com -
Did you try to zoom out / use a wider lens?
It will not solve the vibration, but will make it way less visible.Bouke
http://www.videotoolshed.com -
But, did you indeed record at 96000 Hz?
(the only ones who do so are very snobby extremely expensive studios, and technical people who do research.
Human hearing goes up to 20Khz tops, and that is for young people. My hearing stops at 10Khz. So it makes no sense to go over industry standard 48Khz.
If you did record at 96000, I have no clue.
For math, it’s simple.
96000 samples per second * 3 bytes per sample / 1024 makes 281 Kb per second.
Your 11.2 file becomes 3.07 Mb
So far all is fine. Then there is a bit more in the file, the bitrate. But that is redundant for uncompressed as the math is very simple, so it is ignored by most players.Iow, I’m clueless without seeing a file.
One other thing to try, you could use Audacity and tell it to import RAW. then fill in your values.
if that does not work, experiment. But if you have to fill in other values, your recording went bad.
(I can imagine, as 96Khz is not used often, not sure if your soundcard / capture system supports it well.)Bouke
http://www.videotoolshed.com -
What happens is that the playback software sees a sample rate that the recording was made on, and that value seems to be wrong. (it’s just 4 bytes in the beginning of the file.)
So, if that value says the file is recorded at 48000, while it was in fact recorded at 24000, it will playback 48000 samples every second.
So, open with VLC or WaveAgent or Quicktime or whatever, and look at the sample rate. If that says something else than expected you know where to look for.
Now if this is indeed the case, not sure what can fix it without rendering, but I can write something simple to change the value. (But there ‘must’ be something out there that can do it. The whole operation for lots of files should take less than a second.)Bouke
http://www.videotoolshed.com -
No clue as I never use Compressor. (I did look at it years ago and decided it was not good enough, even with the bit ‘A’ stamped on it.)
XDcam in SD is I frame only. and Compressor ‘should’ support that (Not very sure about Compressor, as Apple does make mistakes, XDcam HD had a wrong gop size so it was not conform specs)So, no clue why you want MpegII I frame only, (GOP of 12 is broadcast standard over here), but it is a valid combo of settings.
Why not switch to something that will do this? (FFmpeg probably does (never tried though), and is free.)hth,
Bouke
http://www.videotoolshed.com -
[ryan elder] “. So it makes me think that it’s normal, as I cannot find documentaries that keep the original aspect ratio of the archival footage.”
So, you never saw my work.Who cares what others do.
Doing what everyone else does is easy, and will not make you an artist. Nor a good software developer / product designer, nor a famous cook.
Driving as fast as the rest probably won’t win you the race.Now, without any clue what this is about and what footage you have, it’s impossible to have more precise advice other than stay off the pink bordered heart wipes.
Bouke
http://www.videotoolshed.com -
You will not switch aspect ratio, you will do ‘something’ with the archive footage to fit it in the raster of choice.
Now, if you shoot a doc about a historical superwidescreen movie, you will go at least that wide.
Otherwise, it’s totally up to you.
Think of a good way to pillarbox, not the ‘zoomed blurred mirrored same image left/right’ used for vertical video from phones.
Whatever you do, do not pan/scan. It ruins the footage and looses a lot of resolution. Do keep in mind that some old footage must be cropped as it was shot with the intention to crop.Others will think different I’m sure.
Bouke
http://www.videotoolshed.com -
You’re welcome.
But you’ve seem to have missed the essence of my writing. (Apologies in advance if I’m wrong on this one.)
Google will find this. And the exact meaning of my post was to do research and test BEFORE the shoot. Not after.
I don’t know why but people dive head first in shallow water and then complain it hurts.(Oh, this is written on personal title in my free time, not my companies hours.)
Bouke
http://www.videotoolshed.com -
some of us actually live in Europe, where EVERY movie is speeded up from 24 to 25.
The whole (and sole) reason for video being able to be 24 was to deliver 24 for cinema (obsolete, cinema can have any framerate), nowadays to deliver 25 with speed up, 29.97 with pulldown added (interlaced, so not an option for internet, only broadcast / dvd / blu ray)
So, totally forget about interpolation. That is for standards conversion that you do not need.Why do you want to deliver 24 and ask these questions? Normally people who WANT to deliver 24 know why they want it. (Those who must due to contract obligations might be puzzled.)
Again, 24 is no longer a delivery format, as it serves no other purpose than to be universal to go to 25 or 29.97.
A higher framerate is better, no broadcast over traditional channels is at 24 and 24 in cinema is an option, not a requirement.
And if anyone states ‘it looks filmish’ let him pay the stock and handling fees for 35mm, see if he likes it then.Shooting 25P for a night scene makes no sense at all, unless you have very old fluorescent light that flickers at 50Hz
(Modern fluorescent lights are high frequency and have no issues.)
If you have shot under such old light you have shot in a dirty factory. (Very well possible, and in that case 25 was a wise descision, but you suggest this was an important carefull well lit scene.)Bouke
http://www.videotoolshed.com