Jon Barrie
Forum Replies Created
-
Can’t Maya Take image sequences?
That might be your work around for now…
That banding has be thinking your colors are not in safe ranges and are in 32-bit float so the 8-bit and 16-bit will be banded. Can you show us the details of the original source footage with all the bit depths like you have been for the outputs.
Cheers JB
Jon Barrie
Adobe Video Solutions Consultant ANZ
Jon’s YouTube Tutorial Page
follow Jon with twitter -
Title is a powerful tool and selecting objects inside it works much like a layers photoshop file, although there aren’t any tracks to view, which would be a nice addition, you can select an element and toggle your way through with the shortcut keys ctl+alt+[ or ctl+alt+] replace ctl with cmd on Mac.
Hope this helps…
JB
Jon Barrie
Adobe Video Solutions Consultant ANZ
Jon’s YouTube Tutorial Page
follow Jon with twitter -
Hey Kevin!
David,
It’s just what I explained in an earlier post except you would just grab the inside of the cropped area. I have provided a video clip to demo the process 🙂
Crop Effect, How to Use it Demo
JB
Jon Barrie
Adobe Video Solutions Consultant ANZ
Jon’s YouTube Tutorial Page
follow Jon with twitter -
Let me see if I understand the outcome here.
You get slides, which are always 1920×1080, that top and tail video content, which could be a variety of formats and dimensions.
Why are you getting video content with different dimensions for starters. Perhaps everyone can gain better outcomes with a strict format to work to, nobody watches anything below 360 wide and that’s only for mobiles these days, which get sized automatically by the flash media server in Youtube or something similar.
160×90 has clearly been tampered with and was never shot or originated from this dimension. Blowing this up will always results in horrible results. Best Idea is to keep the pixels accurate and have it live in a boxed frame when going up to another resolution. Even doubling it is mathematically going to results in some pretty blurry and horrible results. Especially going to even DV dimensions.
I would look at speaking to those that provide the media content and explaining the value of keeping everything at the highest possible quality at recorded stage.
There must be a point where clients need to understand what they are forfeiting in being behind the times and the users expected quality of experience.
Where is the internet content being hosted/managed?
Most used dimensions these days are 1280×720, that goes for HD, which can upres to 1080 quite well, and down to DVD nicely too, but can stay as 720 for web.
Streamlining is where I would be looking and making strong points of delivery experience. If the content you are getting is old, and there are no more higher quality or dimension versions of it then you are stuck with the lowest quality experience and anything you get that is lower than the lowest export dimensions I’d consider not increasing the scale by any more than 25% and leave it in a black bordered box.
Perhaps your clients are not willing to shift their thinking or future proof themselves, but I’d not expect the old saying to be any different these days “rubbish in, rubbish out”. There are some expensive ways to upres, but even they require an SD dimension to get something decent out for HD.
How do you feel a conversation with the client/s go around supplying higher quality video?
JB
Jon Barrie
Adobe Video Solutions Consultant ANZ
Jon’s YouTube Tutorial Page
follow Jon with twitter -
Hi Paddy,
I really don’t understand your workflow here.
Can you set for us the actual output of what you want the final output to be and we can test this for you in a realistic and sensible way.
To have something 1920×1080, then put it in a 160×90 timeline, only then to blow it back up again at the export to 1920×1080 is just going to look like rubbish.
Granted you may have stumbled onto a bug in that the interface thinks it will come out looking clean, but it’s just a trick, and wouldn’t reflect simple mathematics of an image being told to be small and then blow up the pixels to fit a new, 10x dimension.
I want to help you find the best workflow, but lets be realistic about the needs first.
Cheers JB
Jon Barrie
Adobe Video Solutions Consultant ANZ
Jon’s YouTube Tutorial Page
follow Jon with twitter -
I am curious to see what it looks like with the QT format and set to None and then set to Animation.
The banding is from exporting to 8-bit. which TV and Web are. I think you are working with something that is originally in wither 16bit or 32-bit float.
Dithering can help with the banding issue, but you will lose some sharpness.
I don’t know where the 405 dimension comes from, it’s not a standard anywhere and doesn’t divide by 2, 406 does. I’m not sure you are working to a standard that calculates well when exported.
– JB
Jon Barrie
Adobe Video Solutions Consultant ANZ
Jon’s YouTube Tutorial Page
follow Jon with twitter -
The “grainy” look is from compression and not from frame rates. Compression simplifies the colour sampling used to show the frames = less colours which makes chunks or grainy look. This process makes a smaller file size but the quality is lost. Trying to get a happy medium is the way to go.
6 Mbps or 6,000Kbps (same thing) is about where you will want to be for fullHD bitrates with smaller file size and decent quality using the H.264 codec/format.
JB
Jon Barrie
Adobe Video Solutions Consultant ANZ
Jon’s YouTube Tutorial Page
follow Jon with twitter -
Why not work within the timeline?
If they are all in there, then why not make choices in there.
You can stack a sequence in the UI so there are two tracks shown, whereby 1 can be used to set I and O points around a section you want to keep and lift that which pulls it into the clipboard ready to paste into the next sequence you have open. (although I work in reverse of that and I O around the junk and life the rubbish out)
Working my way I make a RAW seq, the Duplicate that, then work from the duplicate as my Pass 01 and pull out the rubbish. Then If I really need to I would set markers to know what sections are doing what.
This way I can scan the mouse over the markers to get the comments in the pop up box.
Move on to Pass 02 and start to reorganize the clips into the edit.
To remove all gaps, if I used lift and not extract, which close the gaps left behind from a lift function, the “trick” is to add a black video or Colour Matte clip across the top the entire length of the sequence. The select all, and remove the selection of the black video or colour matte clip with the shift key held down, the drag the rest of what is selected over, to make overwrite, the black video or colour matte clip. Then drag it back down to where it was. What’s happened here is effectively you have cookie cut into the top clip (black or colour matte) Then you just select the top clip and do a ripple delete (Shift+Del) and the gaps will be gone!
Let me know how it works for you.
There is a video here that I did that shows how to use the two “stacked” Sequence panels.
https://youtu.be/1qcJVlq9bcs?t=48sJB
Jon Barrie
Adobe Video Solutions Consultant ANZ
Jon’s YouTube Tutorial Page
follow Jon with twitterSome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
I would really think that the progressive setting from HD i would yeild better results. You might want to have the “Use Maximum Render Quality” ticked as well. It is meant to handle better scaling results, which is exactly what you are doing.
Let us know. Might be best to do some short in out or workspace range samples to compare.
Ticking the Use Maximum Render Quality box will make for a much longer processed export time.
JB
Jon Barrie
Adobe Video Solutions Consultant ANZ
Jon’s YouTube Tutorial Page
follow Jon with twitter -
Here’s a hazarded guess as to why this worked.
You have asked the clip that is essentially 25fps to be that but live inside a 29.97 (interlaced?) sample of time, which means its probably repeating some frames or overlapping the interlace in 3:2 samples…
If you interpret the 25fps clip as 29.97 you are effectively telling the clip to use the actual frames that do exist but show more of them within a 1 sec sample, effectivly the same total of existing frames are showing in a short total time = shorter duration.
JB
Jon Barrie
Adobe Video Solutions Consultant ANZ
Jon’s YouTube Tutorial Page
follow Jon with twitter