100% completely impressed

xberk wrote on 3/15/2012, 7:54 PM

Impressed me too.

12coyote wrote on 3/15/2012, 8:26 PM

I was wondering what happens when people download the video, but don't have the hardware to view 1920 x 1080p @ 60 fps. Does Windows (MAC too?) automatically scale it to the level of the hardware, or does it just error out? Anyone know?

TheHappyFriar wrote on 3/15/2012, 9:44 PM

Normally it just plays as best it can.

12coyote wrote on 3/15/2012, 9:50 PM

Normally? All due respect, but what in the world is normally? Win7 with the wind blowing out of the South on a Tuesday?

Hulk wrote on 3/15/2012, 10:56 PM

I don't know, maybe it's me. I downloaded it and played it normal speed, and half speed in Nero Showtime V8. It looks like the contrast is cranked up way too high. Blacks are crushed and whites are blown. Also there is quite a bit of aliasing due to the extreme contrast.

12coyote wrote on 3/15/2012, 11:29 PM

To that I would have to say, "Of course". First is the camera's optical zoom is 12x. I had the camera set to "intellegent zoom" that goes to 30X digitally. So there's some pixel level manipulation going on there. Second is I'm perpendicular to the car while it is moving in excess of 100 mph tracking it by panning at a much higher than normal rate. I'm not video-ing a static bird sitting on a limb here! And may I ask why would you half speed the video in order to crtique it?

johnmeyer wrote on 3/16/2012, 12:30 AM

There is something strange with the MP4 you uploaded. I put it on the timeline in Vegas 10.0e. I matched the project properties to the clip (59.94 progressive 1920x1080) and set the preview resolution to Best Full. I did this because something didn't seem right when I played the video.

As I looked at the video frame-by-frame in Vegas, I found all sorts of intermediate "ghosted" frames, indicating that some sort of resampling had taken place. I can't tell you what went wrong without having access to both the original footage and the VEG file, but I suspect that your render settings are not correct.

12coyote wrote on 3/16/2012, 1:32 AM

HHHhhhmmmm . . ... I don't know what to tell you. It looks awesome on all my computers, but of course all my computers have 1920 x 1080 HD displays. But I even saw the video at my brother's house on his ancient PC and it still looked great! I tried several different ways of rendering the .mts to .mp4. When something didn't match it was very easy to see. The render settings I chose all matched the original file and the render itself was quite quick. When some setting is wrong the render takes twice as long and the file size is twice as big. I'll be out at the track again tomorrow I'll get some more footage and experiment a bit more.

Marton wrote on 3/16/2012, 2:14 AM

Ghosting is also here.
Maybe this is because the resampling 60fps to 59,94?
Good look when just playing back at normal speed, but
you will see while step frame to frame.

farss wrote on 3/16/2012, 2:28 AM

Ghosting is obvious here and the skew, oh my.

There's also some artifacts on the edges in the freeze frame that shouldn't be there, might help to wind Detail down in the camera. Using a sane shutter speed (1/120) would mask the skew and stress the codec less as well.

Bob.

ushere wrote on 3/16/2012, 2:56 AM

of course, to view it as intended ON line you're going to need a pretty fast connection!

so that counts me out.

dl'd

agree with all of bob's comments (sycophant that i am ;-p)

TheHappyFriar wrote on 3/16/2012, 6:57 AM

Normally? All due respect, but what in the world is normally? Win7 with the wind blowing out of the South on a Tuesday?

Normally like the definition says. You got a broken computer, that's not normal. You're encoding something while playing, that's not normal. You have beta drivers, rigged up registry, that's not normal.

Everything on a computer has always tried to go either a) as fast as it can or b) as fast as it's programmed to. Video goes as fast as it can up until it's at the speed the computer things it should be running. Even DOS did it this way.

amendegw wrote on 3/16/2012, 7:25 AM

"As I looked at the video frame-by-frame in Vegas, I found all sorts of intermediate "ghosted" frames, indicating that some sort of resampling had taken place. I can't tell you what went wrong without having access to both the original footage and the VEG file, but I suspect that your render settings are not correct.I've seen some strange things happen when I place 1080 60p footage from my Panasonic TM700 on the Sony Vegas timeline (for instance, I've seen 59.940060 fps) see: Mercalli and rendering. These problems are normally solved when I "Disable Resample" see: Whither Smart Resample

...Jerry

JJKizak wrote on 3/16/2012, 7:33 AM

Played fine on mine with WMP.
JJK

megabit wrote on 3/16/2012, 7:40 AM

Ghosting is very bad indeed, and as to the skew, well... It must be something much more than a usual CMOS skew, as my 330i doesn't look nearly as low and long.

;)

Piotr

amendegw wrote on 3/16/2012, 8:05 AM

Here's a screengrab that shows both the ghosting and skew. You might be able to help the skew by adding a stabilizer FX and clicking on the rolling shutter correction.

I might say, that skew is much less than I would have expected for panning that quickly. And, of course, watching full speed my old eyes don't notice it.

...Jerry

Jay Gladwell wrote on 3/16/2012, 8:42 AM

Jerry, your image above reminds of something I haven't thought of in years--many, many years.

Think back to when most of us ol' timers watched cartoons from Warner Brothers and MGM. When someone or something went racing past and the "camera" panned with them, the background was skewed to show speed.

I wonder how were those animators able to see into the future?

12coyote wrote on 3/16/2012, 8:47 AM

I see what you all are talking about now. All the items mentioned are there in the original .mts file. I thought video just did that in an exceptionally fast pan in order to make real time look smooth? I think it may have something to do with what Panasonic calls Hybrid Optical Image Stabilization (H.O.I.S.). Today at the track I will try the different settings of OIS to see if I can eliminate the artifacts?

amendegw wrote on 3/16/2012, 9:03 AM

"All the items mentioned are there in the original .mts file"Two things:

1) Did you right click on the video event and "Disable Resample", and
2) Did you use the "Match Media Settings" wizard to set your project properties?

...Jerry

12coyote wrote on 3/16/2012, 9:33 AM

In the video everyone is referencing 1 NO, 2 YES. Unfortunately, I knew I was going to the track again today and formatted my storage. As such I can't get my original .mts anymore. However, today I will try all the different camera settings in order to determine if I can make awesome even better.

Hulk wrote on 3/16/2012, 11:43 AM

OP,

I played it at half speed because I was noticing weird things at full speed and wanted to have a closer look. The ghosting is the biggest problem.

- Mark

farss wrote on 3/16/2012, 12:09 PM

"I thought video just did that in an exceptionally fast pan in order to make real time look smooth? I think it may have something to do with what Panasonic calls Hybrid Optical Image Stabilization (H.O.I.S.). "

No. Image skew is caused by the CMOS imager's "rolling shutter" and is a function of the imager's readout time. By comparison CCD imagers have a global shutter and don't cause image skew.

As you can see the car itself is not affected as it is stationary in the frame. Using a much slower shutter speed will mask the effect. As the background is moving across the frame quickly a 1/60th sec exposure time will cause it to blur quite a lot whereas the car will not be blurred apart from the wheels. Apart from making the skew less noticable the blurred background will also help the subject (the car) standout from the background.

Bob.

megabit wrote on 3/16/2012, 12:39 PM

"Think back to when most of us ol' timers watched cartoons from Warner Brothers and MGM. When someone or something went racing past and the "camera" panned with them, the background was skewed to show speed."

Jay, but they did skew in the other direction than the rolling shutter does today :)

Piotr