Any video experts who can lend a hand? - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

MikeSmoke

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 3241
Share

Post
#1

Any video experts who can lend a hand?

07-14-2011, 09:24 PM

My video guy is having a baffling problem - I know nothing and can't help - but I'm hoping someone here has an idea on how to tackle this.

The widescreen clips he's been producing for a while have been fine, but now, all of a sudden, his new clips look like they're in a much smaller "window" even though they're still in a 1280x720 container. That is, the area where video can be seen is much smaller than the entire 1280x720 pane.
To try and show what I mean: sample screen grabs:
OLDER, GOOD CLIP: http://www.cigargirl.com/video1.jpg
NEWER, SMALLER CLIP: http://www.cigargirl.com/video2.jpg

He swears not a single setting has been changed on the camera or in Vegas, and he can't come up with anything that would explain what's happening.

Anyone have a clue as to what may be going on?
Thanks

Last edited by MikeSmoke; 07-14-2011, 09:30 PM.

icq: 541-739-92
Tags: None
jMEGA

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 671
Share

Post
#2

07-14-2011, 09:26 PM

same export settings?

Design | SEO | Photo / Video Editing
( ICQ 49354667 )
Comment
jMEGA

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 671
Share

Post
#3

07-14-2011, 09:27 PM

btw you have the same links. I think you meant to post this:

http://www.cigargirl.com/video1.jpg

Design | SEO | Photo / Video Editing
( ICQ 49354667 )
Comment
MikeSmoke

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 3241
Share

Post
#4

07-14-2011, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by jMEGA

btw you have the same links. I think you meant to post this:

http://www.cigargirl.com/video1.jpg

Yes, same export settings as well - and sorry for the double post of the same url.

icq: 541-739-92
Comment
Tempest

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: May 2004

Posts: 10217
Share

Post
#5

07-14-2011, 09:56 PM

The dimensions of those caps are different.. 1280x720 and 1706x720... One says it's from Windows Movie Maker... That program has "issues".. Especially if you don't set the right aspect ratio..
Comment
MikeSmoke

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 3241
Share

Post
#6

07-14-2011, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Tempest

The dimensions of those caps are different.. 1280x720 and 1706x720... One says it's from Windows Movie Maker... That program has "issues".. Especially if you don't set the right aspect ratio..

I only used Windows Movie Maker to do the caps quickly - the videos have all been done in Vegas.
I'll upload samples from each of the clips in a minute.

icq: 541-739-92
Comment
MikeSmoke

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 3241
Share

Post
#7

07-14-2011, 10:07 PM

OK, here are samples:

OLD CLIP - came out fine: http://www.cigargirl.com/video1.wmv

NEW CLIP - came out small: http://www.cigargirl.com/video2.wmv

icq: 541-739-92
Comment
Tempest

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: May 2004

Posts: 10217
Share

Post
#8

07-14-2011, 10:20 PM

They're not converted exactly the same... I can tell cause the audio format is different and one has WMFSDKVersion : 11.0.5721.5275 and the other WMFSDKVersion : 11.0.6002.18049

It's hard to figure shit like this out unless everything is identical.

When you're looking at the versions that are different, are they straight from the camera? Or after they've been converted with Vegas? To truly see if it's a problem with the video from the camera, you would have to take a new "raw" and an old "raw" and then do the exact same conversion on both.

I've seen something similar to this in the past, and it had to do with aspect ratio settings.
Comment
MikeSmoke

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 3241
Share

Post
#9

07-14-2011, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Tempest

They're not converted exactly the same... I can tell cause the audio format is different and one has WMFSDKVersion : 11.0.5721.5275 and the other WMFSDKVersion : 11.0.6002.18049

It's hard to figure shit like this out unless everything is identical.

When you're looking at the versions that are different, are they straight from the camera? Or after they've been converted with Vegas?

To truly see if it's a problem with the video from the camera, you would have to take a new "raw" and an old "raw" and then do the exact same conversion on both.

I've seen something similar to this in the past, and it had to do with aspect ratio settings.

It was after they were converted in Vegas, not straight from the camera.
My video guy has just gone to bed (he's eastern time, I'm west coast) - will get him in here tomorrow to help me answer the questions. Thanks

icq: 541-739-92
Comment
jMEGA

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 671
Share

Post
#10

07-14-2011, 11:16 PM

Video 1 has Frame rate: 30.000030

Video 2 has Frame rate: 29.970089

I would try using one of the built in export settings and see if you can get good results and modify the settings a little at a time to see what breaks it.

Design | SEO | Photo / Video Editing
( ICQ 49354667 )
Comment
MikeSmoke

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 3241
Share

Post
#11

07-14-2011, 11:50 PM

Thanks, guys.
Will pass all this along - if you can stop by the thread tomorrow after my guy has a chance to get in here and digest it, I'd appreciate it

icq: 541-739-92
Comment
MikeSmoke

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 3241
Share

Post
#12

07-15-2011, 10:41 AM

Well, he's solved it - sort of.

For some reason, the earlier videos were rendered in Vegas with pixel aspect was 1.0 square. The later videos were done in 1.2121 DV Widescreen and looked smaller.

We don't know why the 1.0 square look good and the 1.2121 come out smaller, though - if anyone has an answer to that it would be greatly appreciated

icq: 541-739-92
Comment
PR_Glen

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2006

Posts: 9058
Share

Post
#13

07-15-2011, 11:23 AM

that was the one problem I had with vegas video when I used to be an editor... exports... the variables are so huge. We used to get content in all sorts of formats so finding the perfect one for each was tough...

Great program for editing though, very straight forward and endless amount of features.

webmaster at pimproll dot com
Comment
xenigo

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2001

Posts: 8067
Share

Post
#14

07-15-2011, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by MikeSmoke

Well, he's solved it - sort of.

For some reason, the earlier videos were rendered in Vegas with pixel aspect was 1.0 square. The later videos were done in 1.2121 DV Widescreen and looked smaller.

We don't know why the 1.0 square look good and the 1.2121 come out smaller, though - if anyone has an answer to that it would be greatly appreciated

1.2121 is a much wider pixel, Mike. If your camera has square pixels, you must use the square pixel setting always when working with footage.

A lot of the older HDV cameras cameras shooting 1440x1080 used that pixel size to end up with the correct 16:9 aspect ratio.

Shooting 1920x1080 and 1280x720 have the 16:9 ratio built in, using square pixels.
Comment
MikeSmoke

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 3241
Share

Post
#15

07-15-2011, 11:31 AM

Thanks. That helps a lot

icq: 541-739-92
Comment
NoWhErE

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Sep 2005

Posts: 10583
Share

Post
#16

07-15-2011, 11:42 AM

Its a common mistake alot of video editors make.

I corrected 2 of my guys today having the same problem.

skype: lordofthecameltoe
Comment
Jim_Gunn

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2003

Posts: 5702
Share

Post
#17

07-15-2011, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by xenigo

1.2121 is a much wider pixel, Mike. If your camera has square pixels, you must use the square pixel setting always when working with footage.

A lot of the older HDV cameras cameras shooting 1440x1080 used that pixel size to end up with the correct 16:9 aspect ratio.

Shooting 1920x1080 and 1280x720 have the 16:9 ratio built in, using square pixels.

FYI, many HDV cameras like the popular Sony FX-1 shoot at 1440 x 1080 with a 1.33 pixel aspect ratio to achieve a 1920 x 1080 video frame, not a 1.2121 p.a.r.. Just do the math!
Comment
DWB

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 31779
Share

Post
#18

07-15-2011, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Jim_Gunn

FYI, many HDV cameras like the popular Sony FX-1 shoot at 1440 x 1080 with a 1.33 pixel aspect ratio to achieve a 1920 x 1080 video frame, not a 1.2121 p.a.r.. Just do the math!

Speaking of... what do you think a used Sony FX-1 is worth?
Comment
Jim_Gunn

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2003

Posts: 5702
Share

Post
#19

07-15-2011, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by DWB

Speaking of... what do you think a used Sony FX-1 is worth?

I don't know offhand, but it's a very popular camera so I would look at whatever they are selling for on Ebay to get a realistic number. I would sell mine since I have moved on to a Sony EX-1, except that I have one small client that still prefers HDV tapes since he edits in iMovie which cannot handle the professional XDCAM EX codec. Plus the firewire port is burnt out on my FX-1 anyway- not an issue or me since I still have a Sony professional HDV deck- and that would kill re-sale value anyway.
Comment
xenigo

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2001

Posts: 8067
Share

Post
#20

07-15-2011, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Jim_Gunn

FYI, many HDV cameras like the popular Sony FX-1 shoot at 1440 x 1080 with a 1.33 pixel aspect ratio to achieve a 1920 x 1080 video frame, not a 1.2121 p.a.r.. Just do the math!

I thought about doing the math, but then I figured the point would be the same either way.
Comment
sinclair

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 1431
Share

Post
#21

07-15-2011, 01:11 PM

Mike,

I just spoke with him he said he had this figured out. Is that the case? I could head over to his place and take a look at his set up if you need me too.

--
skype:vmgsinclair

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human sex."
Comment
marcop

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2005

Posts: 4150
Share

Post
#22

07-15-2011, 02:15 PM

I only ever hear of webmasters using Vegas... shooters and pro editors seem to use Premiere, FCP, or Avid. Is that a valid observation?
Comment
MikeSmoke

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 3241
Share

Post
#23

07-15-2011, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by sinclair

Mike,

I just spoke with him he said he had this figured out. Is that the case? I could head over to his place and take a look at his set up if you need me too.

Hi Michael -
Thanks. He's got it figured out now - this was indeed the issue and everyone here was great in helping us out.

icq: 541-739-92
Comment
MikeSmoke

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 3241
Share

Post
#24

07-15-2011, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Jim_Gunn

FYI, many HDV cameras like the popular Sony FX-1 shoot at 1440 x 1080 with a 1.33 pixel aspect ratio to achieve a 1920 x 1080 video frame, not a 1.2121 p.a.r.. Just do the math!

Not a lot of people here would get the reference, but you might (I think).....
to paraphrase Dobie Gillis....."MATH!!!!!!!!!!!!"
(I know, Dobie said work, not math, but the emotion is the same ;) )

Thanks

icq: 541-739-92
Comment

Previous template Next

Working...