Disappointing delivery

GeeBax wrote on 5/7/2014, 1:37 AM

I have been doing some tests shooting railway subjects prior to setting out to do the real thing. I am using the Blackmagic Pocket cinema Camera, grading in Resolve and performing audio work, titling and edit in Vegas 13. My intention is to release these programs as high quality HD 1920 x 1080 with Dolby 5.1 surround sound.

My first attempt was spoilt a little by it raining just as the train arrived, but the results were sort of OK. Unfortunately I was not able to record the sound correctly, so it is only that picked up by the in-camera microphones. Actually, it is not all that bad. The delivered clip was rendered out of Resolve as a Quicktime MPEG4 clip at a high bit rate, and then further processed by Handbrake to make the clip a more manageable size.

For the second attempt, I got the whole audio thing together and produced a good audio result, but I am disappointed by the images. Resolve is a great grader, but cannot mix audio for nuts and does not have a capable titler. So I exported the images as a Quicktime YUV 422 10 bit file, and edited, titled them and mixed the audio in Vegas 13. And that where the problems arises.

When it comes time to render the output, there is only one codec offered by Vegas, Sony AVCHD, that can output the audio in Dolby 5.1 (as far as I can tell).

But the video performance is not great. To keep it within a manageable file size, I chose to render it at 4 Mbits/s, and I now find there are some annoying artefacts in the rendered image.

If you care to look, you can download the clips and view them here: http://www.hollywoodfoundry.com/film%20files.htm

The parts of the image that bother me includes the bush on the left of frame. From time to time through the clip, something seems to be possessing the bush, and also the dark green overhead foliage is badly rendered and flickering.

I would love to hear from any of you who can suggest any way to improve this.

Geoff

Back to post

Comments

musicvid10 wrote on 5/11/2014, 1:27 PM

MP4/AC3 plays on KitKat with MXPlayer. Dunno about JellyBean, which is still on the majority of Android devices.

But as you said, that's not the point. The combination is far from universally deliverable.
Youtube doesn't even accept it for upload.
Last time I checked, Flash wouldn't play the audio.
iOS doesn't like it. Neither does PS3.
So what's the use?

musicvid10 wrote on 5/11/2014, 4:01 PM

gbax,
I had some time on my hands (it's snowing today).

So you can thank John Cline for pointing you in the right direction.
UT with 6-ch PCM imports into Handbrake, appears to map correctly, and gives a nice encode to fdk-aac 5.1 with minimal losses.
It meets my standards when compared to the source PCM mixdown.
Remember UT is AVI, so encode full range video.

Here's a working example:
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20519276/Jcs-15pe-1-simon-1-5-1.mp4
Sorry the video was shot SD.
Sorry I don't have an AAC Surround decoder to test it thoroughly. But the mixdown sounds just like the original 5.1 mixdown

Remember to thank John Cline, not me.
Good luck with your experiment.

GeeBax wrote on 5/11/2014, 6:05 PM

Thanks guys, I will experiment further to see if I can get it working with AAC.

[I]" With Apple's market share, you would be doomed to disaster."[/I]

This puzzles me. Given that I intend this to be distributed on DVD or perhaps USB thumb drive, why would it matter about iOS or Android?

Neither of them is the market for the product. I am not making a product that is intended to be shown on phones or small hand-held devices.

musicvid10 wrote on 5/11/2014, 6:25 PM

"They need to be playable by

OK, now I'm hearing mixed signals from you.
To me, "any standard consumer device" includes over seven billion phones, tablets, and portables in use, one for every adult on the planet. Nearly all of them have a usb connection of some sort. The home theater market dried up five years ago.

Guess there's such a thing as receiving "too much help," right?
Knock 'em dead.

Former user wrote on 5/11/2014, 6:57 PM

If you intend to deliver these on DVD, then your only choice is MPEG2 with Dolby AC3 5.1 sound.

musicvid10 wrote on 5/11/2014, 7:52 PM

After looking at your website and footage (which is good), it would be far better to embed the video on your website, perhaps also as a free download, to set up your products, rather than try to offer the video as a retail product by itself. There is simply no market for this.

Whether you intend to sell it or not, you will need a signed waiver and release from each and every person whose face shows on the video; or their parents as in the case of the many children on board. This must happen before it goes public.

If I may be so bold, I would rethink my business model with the help of experts, then rework my video to fit the model, rather than the other way around.

Me, I spend way too much time trying to help others without really understanding their goals and the practical outcomes. Note to self.

GeeBax wrote on 5/11/2014, 8:32 PM

musicvid10 I sense you are getting a bit frustrated with me. When it comes to asking advice here, it is because there are details of which I am not familiar, and there is a wealth of experience that can help guide me through some of these small issues, and for that help I am truly grateful.

These programs are being made for heritage railways to sell in their gift shops, and also for me to sell copies via the web site, so I do not wish to give them away free. They bear no relationship to my other business.

When I said 'any standard consumer device', I was referring to being able to be played back by computer, plugged in to the television set itself as a drive or from a DVD. There is no point playing back these files on any hand held device as they do not have surround sound capability, nor can they take advantage of the 1080p24 format anyway. Some person might want to play them back that way, but it is not my target market.

My only concession to those devices is that if someone tried to play them back on them, the pictures and sound need to be compatible, in other words the 5.1 should be able to fall back to simple stereo, which it does anyway.

If necessary, I will output the files in several different forms for different release mediums. At this stage I am trying to come to grips with these forms.

Rob Franks wrote on 5/11/2014, 8:45 PM

"When I said 'any standard consumer device', I was referring to being able to be played back by computer, plugged in to the television set itself as a drive or from a DVD. There is no point playing back these files on any hand held device as they do not have surround sound capability, nor can they take advantage of the 1080p24 format anyway. Some person might want to play them back that way, but it is not my target market."

If you're talking about playback on DVD, Blu Ray and computer then I would go with DVD(ac3).
DVD will work in all three of those devices. These machines also have downmix ability built in for those who do not have surround sound. That's about as close to one-size-fits-all you're going to get. The only problem with dvd though is it won't be hi def. If you can live with that then great but if not then I don't think you have much choice but to offer multiple formats.

GeeBax wrote on 5/11/2014, 8:53 PM

Thanks Rob, yes I think you are quite correct there. It seems I am going to have to produce multiple formats.

Serena Steuart wrote on 5/11/2014, 9:41 PM

>>> you will need a signed waiver and release from each and every person whose face shows on the video<<<

This is not, I think, correct. There is a difference between photographing people to directly promote a commercial product (waiver required) and documentary photography (no waiver required).

musicvid10 wrote on 5/11/2014, 9:55 PM

Nope. It's about public display, distribution, or intent to do so in the US. That is completely independent of any commercial or noncommercial interest.

The parents of a child have the right to decide if their child's image is to be displayed by others, even on Facebook or Youtube. If a parent says their child's face, clothing, or other identifiable features cannot be shown on the 9 pm news, it must not be displayed, even if the child consented to an interview in the parents' absence.

If I shoot some phone footage at a school Field Day, and post it on the internet without informed consent from each parent, I am subject to criminal and civil remedies if someone objects and I do not take it down.

Regardless, the OP has made it abundantly clear that he plans to produce and sell these images in retail gift shops. That means he intends to publicly display and distribute them. That means signed releases from everyone shown in the product or its promotional materials.

Serena Steuart wrote on 5/11/2014, 10:05 PM

Obviously I don't have to work within the restrictions of US law and the internet is not always reliable for clarifying what it is, so you might like to correct this:
"The law
First, the good news: most states' laws say that people have very few privacy rights over those things that they do in public. Furthermore, the First Amendment is very protective of the rights of filmmakers, documentarians, and news crews. However, several areas can and do trip up unsuspecting filmmakers.

Commercial use
At the outset, it's important to draw a bright line between photographing a subject for commercial use as opposed to all other uses. Although the First Amendment protects most forms of speech, communication, and expression, it is somewhat less protective of commercial speech. As a rule of thumb, the commercial use of the subject's likeness will almost always require that person's express written permission.
For filmmakers, it is often helpful to think of television commercials, promotional videos, and advertisements as sitting on the commercial speech side of the equation, and narrative films, documentaries, and news as sitting on the other side."

musicvid10 wrote on 5/11/2014, 10:07 PM

Regardless of what one thinks, that all changes when the subject is under the age of eighteen (in most states). Have you watched his sample video?

GeeBax wrote on 5/11/2014, 11:51 PM

Yes, but the same laws do not apply in other countries. It is not necessary in Australia to get permission from everyone that appears in films, even children.

It is regarded by the law as a courtesy here, so it can be covered by simply putting up a sign and/or making an announcement that film work is being undertaken and you may be photographed, and that by being on the train is explicit agreement that you understand this fact.

The problem is more complex if the person appearing is an indigenous person actually.

Serena Steuart wrote on 5/11/2014, 11:58 PM

Yes, I've watched GeeBax's video and this is an excellent example of why any such absolute restriction makes news and documentary work impossible. In this particular example the issue is that the people are in a public place where they may expect to be photographed -- especially so on tourist railways. In Australia the matter is covered by Privacy Law, which differentiates between private and public arenas and between private and public acts. Photographing children (under age 18) falls within the Privacy Act and parents and children have the right to object to being photographed (e.g. school events may restrict photography without permission) but they would be very hard pressed to restrict the sale of documentaries of the nature shown in the sample. Interviews with specific children (for example), even in a public place, should have the permission of parents and children involved. People tend to assume that children may be photographed only with specific permission, but that is not the law (in Australia). It is a given that the unsavory use of photographs has made parents sensitive to all photographers, but we must be clear about what can and cannot be done.

musicvid10 wrote on 5/12/2014, 9:04 AM

I don't see anywhere he indicated he was making a nfp documentary. I have seen at least two references to selling the images in retail gift shops. Regardless of Australian rules, wouldn't that then make this a moot discussion on anyone's terms?

GeeBax wrote on 5/12/2014, 6:23 PM

Whether it is not-for-profit or otherwise does not come into the equation, the law does not make that distinction.

But if it did, the heritage railways, who are the benefactors of the sale, are all NFP organisations anyway.