I agree, it is a little too flickery...but I think I did that just to hype it up, and because I don't really know what else to do (as I'm pretty inexperienced still at it) to make it slick.
As for the time-laps, yes I agree too; however, I only had access to the roof across the street that day, and only for a few hours. If they hire me, I'll get plenty of more interesting shoots. Thanks for your comments!

First, you can embed your YouTube video by typing the following:

[link=

Next, IMHO you have gone overboard on the FX's. If your intention is to display the kinds of things you can do in your video editor, that's fine, but if the intention is to use FX's to enhance your story, I don't think you've accomplished that.

btw: to my (old) eyes, the interior lighting looks great. Edit: Upon re-looking at the clip, I do agree that there are blown-out areas in the whites. I guess I was focusing on the statement " We're trying to decided if natural light will do" and looking for areas of insufficient lighting.

...Jerry

I won't comment on the FX, although I tend to agree with the other opinions.

A couple of technical notes for Youtube:
-- Are you sure you're uploading strict 16-235 levels? Your whites look blown out in several places, much as if you're sending it 0-255 RGB.
-- Do you know that giving Youtube 1080 resolution doesn't give 1080 back? YT decimates (discards) to 540p (saves them a lengthy processing step).
So 720p is actually 33% higher vertical resolution on Youtube than 1080.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AGrandt#p/u/26/O9qK9GgLCCY

I outputted my file the same way I always do. Some of the whites are blown because I exasperated with the levels when filming because the client want it to be really lit up--in my opinion too lit up! So the fact that some of the windows, and some of the furniture is blown out is just part of the sacrifice needed to keep the room really well lit.

I am not questioning your shooting technique.

If you apply a "Computer RGB -> Studio RGB" Levels filter to your project before rendering, it will at least preserve the detail you've shot, rather than blowing it out even more when Youtube's servers get ahold of it. This is true no matter what kind of footage you are uploading. Or if some clips are already in gamut and some are not, you may just want to apply the levels filter to the events that are outside. Just trying to help.

Music vid, my comments weren't meant to imply that i didn't think you were being helpful, sorry if i cam across that way. You are always helpful and I always appreciate your feedback.
I guess I'm just not sure how to do what you're suggested. Would you be willing to point the way?

Here is what it looks like when you apply the levels filter at the Event level. The levels you see in the second example are the maximum you want to send to Youtube because it will clip them if they are outside the 16-235 range, destroying detail and increasing contrast.

I guess i can't tell where youtube is blowing out the levels, I'm sure it's there though, but i can't notice. That being said I"m re-rendering using the levels plug-in across the board to see if it looks better. I have a very bright monitor and everything tends to look good on it.

"I guess i can't tell where youtube is blowing out the levels,"Not to interrupt the dialog between you & musicvid - after all, he IS THE MAN when it comes to YouTube & Levels!. This might help:





Good Luck!
...Jerry

Edit: I'm not the expert in this area, but I saw this post as an opportunity ot test out my 30-day free trial of Snagit {grin}

I see the pics of the graphs but I'm not sure what that's supposed to show me? Sorry, I'm just ignorant? Anyway, I'm re-rendering now another version of the clips using the plug-in. I'm curious if it'll look better on your monitor.

Let me try to explain this (although musicvid and others are far more expert than I).

First, the VideoScope images I captured in my earlier post were from your YouTube video - and that's after the "damage has already been done".

Much discussion on this in recent weeks, but when a user renders a video for upload to YouTube (or Vimeo or elsewhere), the color levels should be in the 16-235 range prior to upload as YouTube post-processing then does it's thing and expands the color space to 0 - 255. If your upload is already in the 0-255 range, YouTube attempts to expand it further resulting in loss of detail.

Using the Sony Levels FX - "Computer RGB to Studio RGB" template will automatically compress your levels to the 16-235 range - compensating for the YouTube post-processing.

Experts: Did I explain this properly?

...Jerry

Yes, perfect. Thanks. I'll have a new link to the same clips to different music that have been compressed (or whatever you call it) with the levels plug-in in a few minutes.

hi liquid,

basic idea is pretty good, but have to agree, much too much flicker, and all that time on a cold roof for what amounted to a still with motion - if you know what i mean (man!). as pointed out, time lapse 'needs' action, whether from the weather, people / traffic movement, or building lighting (three or so lights going on in the night shot isn't really 'umphy' enough!)

i wont enter into the blown white discussion since you're already in great hands, suffice to say i understand where you're coming from - white rooms CAN look pretty dull if not exposed correctly. and i for one am always in favour of natural light whenever possible - otherwise you might be having to invest in a pretty heavy duty lighting kit to light large rooms effectively......

Same clips, different music with levels filter. Any difference ?

Okay, here's what I see:

Before Levels Correction:


After Levels Correction:


...Jerry

Ah ya, I see now too! I guess I'm used to only looking at the edits and the flow, not those little details, but now that you've pointed these out I'll keep my eyes open to it in the future.
So do you just always use the levels plug in regarldess of what you're outputting? Is that a safe bet?

"So do you just always use the levels plug in regarldess of what you're outputting? Is that a safe bet?"Not necessarily. So far musicvid has confirmed this for uploads to YouTube, Vimeo & JW Player, however there may be others. The Video Scopes are your friends!

...Jerry

PS: If you have time, I'd be interested to see your results by rendering the indoor (white scenes) to an DNxHD Intermediate and then using HandBrake to produce the final file for upload to YouTube. See: http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=745821 If this is too complicated, could you provide a link to the souce clip for the bedroom scene so I could "give it a go"?

liquid,
I'm sure you can see the highlight differences between these two grabs. If your monitor is so bright that you are having trouble seeing differences in the highlights, you should have your monitor professionally calibrated.

Here is a printer step wedge I created a long time ago, that is also a quick and dirty monitor check.

If you can't see differentiation between 0% and 5%, your monitor is too bright.

I can't see a difference, but in order to see a difference I've had to turn the brightness down to zero and now my monitor looks quit dull. That can't be right either.

No, it's not. Go back to factory defaults and see if you can determine what's happening.

Hope you are not using a CRT monitor; they won't reproduce levels below 16 or above 235.

If you have Adobe Gamma on your computer, this is a useful document:
http://www.adobe.com/education/pdf/cib/ps7_cib/ps7_cib17.pdf

"I can't see a difference, but in order to see a difference I've had to turn the brightness down to zero and now my monitor looks quit dull. That can't be right either."Wanna spend some $$ to get it right? see: http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-mc-s3express.php

I've got one of these (maybe it's the Spyder 2 - can't remember). Use it once, and it goes into the closet.

...Jerry