Some Lame Video

[Ride-A-Lot]

Not too exciting but what the heck. It's content and a good waste of 7
spinning minutes.

Not much I can do with non-technical trails other than ride fast
(sometimes).

http://tinyurl.com/jpb9x (90 MB)


--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

 

[p e t e f a g e r l i n]

Ride-A-Lot wrote:
> Not too exciting but what the heck. It's content and a good waste of 7
> spinning minutes.
>
> Not much I can do with non-technical trails other than ride fast
> (sometimes).
>
> http://tinyurl.com/jpb9x (90 MB)

Some feedback:

90 mb is pretty huge for that duration but if
people aren't complaining go for it.

You need to export a deinterlaced avi and then
render that to a wmv to get rid of the jaggies on
moving elements.

If you're going to be shooting in shitty light
like that make a lens hood for the top of the wide
angle lens to cut down on some of the distracting
lens flare.

Lose the cheesy transitions. Distracting and
horribly amateur.

Practice being very loose on the bike while
keeping your head as steady as possible. And then
practice even more. Bouncy helmetcam footage gives
many people headaches.

When you render to wmv for web audiences you
should be selecting "square pixels." As it stands
now your footage is vertically compressed when
viewed on a computer monitor.

 

[Ride-A-Lot]

p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
> Ride-A-Lot wrote:
>> Not too exciting but what the heck. It's content and a good waste of
>> 7 spinning minutes.
>>
>> Not much I can do with non-technical trails other than ride fast
>> (sometimes).
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/jpb9x (90 MB)
>
> Some feedback:
>
> 90 mb is pretty huge for that duration but if people aren't complaining
> go for it.

I tried to get better quality. The normal setting I used would have put
it at 75 MB, but it was fuzzy.

>
> You need to export a deinterlaced avi and then render that to a wmv to
> get rid of the jaggies on moving elements.

Thanks Pete, I appreciate the help. I always wondered how you get rid
of the extra artifacts. I was playing with every setting to no avail.
So I export the avi and then use the Adobe Media Encoder to put out the
WMV or a different encoder?

>
> If you're going to be shooting in shitty light like that make a lens
> hood for the top of the wide angle lens to cut down on some of the
> distracting lens flare.

Lens hood sounds good, but I probably should buy a better quality wide
angle lens too.

>
> Lose the cheesy transitions. Distracting and horribly amateur.

I know, I know but I'm addicted. I just can't break the stupid habit.
Every time I tell myself "just the dissolve" I see those animated
blinkies in my head. I swear I'll kick the habit. Maybe I need an
intervention.

>
> Practice being very loose on the bike while keeping your head as steady
> as possible. And then practice even more. Bouncy helmetcam footage gives
> many people headaches.

I'm still building the neck muscles. There's a three pound difference
between the new setup and the bullet camera. I have a permanent
indention on my forehead from the helmet pressing against it.

>
> When you render to wmv for web audiences you should be selecting "square
> pixels." As it stands now your footage is vertically compressed when
> viewed on a computer monitor.

Can you do that with 16x9?


--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

 

[p e t e f a g e r l i n]

Ride-A-Lot wrote:

> So I export the avi and then use the Adobe Media Encoder to put out the
> WMV or a different encoder?

Export the avi from your original timeline, create
a new sequence, drag the avi (that was
automatically imported into your project) into the
new, empty sequence, right click on the avi that's
in the timeline, select "field options" and then
"always deinterlace.

Hit enter to render the timeline and then use
media encoder to export to wmv.

> Lens hood sounds good, but I probably should buy a better quality wide
> angle lens too.

I'm using a cheap $29 wide angle lens and it has
less lens flare than my $129 wide angle because it
uses two elements rather than three.

> Can you do that with 16x9?

Yes.

Square pixel for 16x9 web output(computer monitor)
to wmv. Native 16x9, 1.2 pixel aspect ratio for
wmv that will be viewed on a 16x9 TV.

 

[Ride-A-Lot]

p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
> Ride-A-Lot wrote:
>
>> So I export the avi and then use the Adobe Media Encoder to put out
>> the WMV or a different encoder?
>
> Export the avi from your original timeline, create a new sequence, drag
> the avi (that was automatically imported into your project) into the
> new, empty sequence, right click on the avi that's in the timeline,
> select "field options" and then "always deinterlace.
>
> Hit enter to render the timeline and then use media encoder to export to
> wmv.
>
>> Lens hood sounds good, but I probably should buy a better quality wide
>> angle lens too.
>
> I'm using a cheap $29 wide angle lens and it has less lens flare than my
> $129 wide angle because it uses two elements rather than three.
>
>> Can you do that with 16x9?
>
> Yes.
>
> Square pixel for 16x9 web output(computer monitor) to wmv. Native 16x9,
> 1.2 pixel aspect ratio for wmv that will be viewed on a 16x9 TV.

Excellent! Thanks. I'll try to regenerate the video tonight.



--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

 

[Ride-A-Lot]

p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
> Ride-A-Lot wrote:
>
>> So I export the avi and then use the Adobe Media Encoder to put out
>> the WMV or a different encoder?
>
> Export the avi from your original timeline, create a new sequence, drag
> the avi (that was automatically imported into your project) into the
> new, empty sequence, right click on the avi that's in the timeline,
> select "field options" and then "always deinterlace.
>

Wow! I got it down to 70 MB (could probably go a little smaller if I
reduce the average bit rate (about 1200 right now with a peak of 1865))
and the quality is much better.

I replaced the file that currently up.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws