Chris Blair
Forum Replies Created
-
I think you’re misunderstanding how the chapter files work. You could have 40 chapter points with thumbnails and only 1 .vob file with all the clips in it. Or…you could have 40 chapter points and thumbnails and 20 other .vob files. Without knowing exactly how the camera works when it shoots and records…what happens when it gets turned off, what happens when capture media is removed etc….there’s no way to know for sure. But it’s unlikely there are 40 separate video clips on your disc. Just like when you shoot on tape….you have many many scenes, but they’re all on one piece of media and if you put it in a tape deck, it’ll play as one continuous entity (or file) if that makes more sense.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog -
A 672KB file is less than 1MB. So there’s no way that particular file can hold 40 video clips, 18 minutes in length.
Most Sony cameras come with software utilities to get footage off the drives or discs. So I’d suggest finding the model number of the camera and then finding whatever software is available to get the clips.
Or…if it truly is recording in MPG2 format, then the actual .vob file or files containing the clips is a hidden file. Search Google for showing hidden files on whatever computer platform you’re using if that’s the case.
But there’s absolutely no way that 672KB file contains your video. I can guarantee you that.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog -
cassie ross wrote: I have one VOB file that has 672 KB on it
A .vob file with 18 video clips would be MUCH larger than 672KB. What you’re loading is most likely the frame grabs that represent the chapter points in your video….just like when you search through scene files on a movie DVD.
So look for a larger .vob file on the disc or drive.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog -
Good to hear. Like I said, it’s one of those things that is counterintuitive on the surface, but once you learn a little about how compression works, it starts to make sense (sort of).
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog -
One thing I’ve seen cause what you describe is incorrect keyframe settings. If your settings offer keyframe options, set them to about 10 seconds or 300 frames. Some programs call them other things. I believe “scene change” is a replacement term in some encoding apps.
One high-end program we use (Carbon Coder) uses a really odd term for it (that I can’t recall). Most encoding gurus suggest setting keyframe intervals at aforementioined 300 frames.
Another thing to check is if you’re using VBR compression, don’t set your low data rate value too close to your high value. The idea with variable compression is to allow the program to take the data rate really low in non-complex scenes (like during black sections of the video or really simple graphics, like a white background with one line of text), then take it fairly high in detailed scenes (like the fall foliage or bright orange pumpkin scenes you mention).
So most encoding folks suggest setting your highest bit rate at around 8000Kb/sec, your average bit rate at around 6000, and your lowest bit-rate at about 2000-4000. If you set them at something like 6000-low, 7000-average and 8000-high, you might see the weird artifacts you mention. It sounds counterintuitive, but I’ve seen this phenomenon with my own eyes so I know it’s true. Another thing you could try is using CBR or constant bit rate, which should eliminate that issue altogether…but it will produce a larger final file since your bitrate is constant.
Hope that helps.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog -
Don’t feel bad if you’re confused. Flash in general and flash video in particular is a pretty confusing subject. Adobe hasn’t helped things over the years by giving it’s web browser plugin and its authoring program the same name. Nor have they helped by not differentiating between the original SWF vector based format and the newer FLV, video based format.
SWF isn’t technically a video format or codec, it’s a vector (math-based) shockwave flash object. So if you see an embedded (all in one) .swf video file, it will typically contain the video file embedded within the player interface that shows up on a web page. Some programs allow you to encode a video to .swf without a player interface, but there is absolutely no good reason or advantage to doing it that way. Years ago, some web authoring programs worked better with .swf files because .swf was created first and was originally used for the aforementioned vector based animations. So web authoring programs supported it more broadly than FLV.
So videos encoded using .swf were easier to load in authoring programs while flv files were problematic. Of course…that’s not the case anymore. Despite this we STILL get requests from web designers for .swf video files.
The HTML you’re getting from your encodes is just a web page with the SWF interface embedded which then calls or loads the flv (or .mov or f4v or mp4) video file. You can copy and paste that code into a webpage, or you can link to the HTML page as a popup on your website.
According to Adobe’s website…flash video a broad term for the container format for video and has been the format used for Adobe Flash Player versions 6–10. The official video file extension has been .flv for as long as I can remember. Flash Video content can still be embedded within SWF files but I believe it can only work that way with flv’s.
Modern flash players can load and use FLV, F4V, MOV, or MP4 and possibly others.
There is little reason to encode videos using the .swf extension anymore. Except when a web designer stuck in 2004 asks for one.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog -
Whoa…I didn’t even know I was a forum leader! Actually…I don’t think I am…but glad to be up there!
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog -
Probably 90% of our projects are SD; we only load “good” takes for projects, and we have a really good backup workflow. We backup to a 4TB LaCie network drive every night, then once every 30 or 60 days we offload about 500GB – 1TB of that to 2 External SATA drives that can be hot-swapped on one of those external docks.
So we just buy 500GB sata drives and offload old projects. If we need them for revisions, we just restore what’s needed and we’re off and editing. We also backup to multiple drives for redundancy.
We’re getting to the point of needing to look into expanding since we’re starting to do more HD projects, but 4TB has been plenty for us so far.
I think a lot of facilities have really awful pre-production routines and many, many young editors think they need EVERYTHING that has been shot before starting an edit. We mark takes during a shoot, then review before the edit and pare those down even more before we ever start editing, so we don’t load the drives with hours and hours of unneeded footage.
I’m 50 and started editing with film, then tape to tape, so I think I have a better pre-production process than a lot of younger editors who seem to think storage is endless. I also train our younger editors to edit and prep this way and I honestly think it makes them better editors as well.
As we move more into HD I’m sure we’ll have to add storage…but with the vStor, we can just add another unit and increase space and performance…so we should be good for at least the forseeable future.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog -
Handbrake can also likely convert it for you.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog -
I’m not sure you’re understanding what David and I are saying. There’s no advantage to going to ProRes or any intermediate format first, then going to MPEG2 for DVD. You should simply to straight to MPEG2/DVD.
You’re not going to improve the quality of the original VHS recording in this process. The only way to improve it would be to capture it uncompressed then use enhancement software in After Effects or other compositing and NLE apps, which I’m sure isn’t worth the time or effort.
VHS to dual-layer DVD recorders are made and they’re a little more expensive than regular VHS—>DVD recorders but not much.
If you can’t afford that, just capture direct from the VHS to MPEG2 (if possible). If that isn’t possible, then capture to the highest quality you can in your system, then encode to MPEG2. That’s the best you’re going to do.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog