Video Editing Help!!!!

[123ski]

Alright, I need some help editing some video. I Have a camera that records video in 1260 x 720 HD video. I know it isn't as good as a full on HD video camera, but all of the reviews said that it atleast took better video than a normal video camera and I love the camera due to its size. It is very convenient to use. Anyway, it records its video in M-Jpeg, which is pretty much an uncompressed format. I am using Morgan M-Jpeg V3 codec so that my computer can read it and edit it. Now comes my question. The raw format looks really awesome. I can pause it anywhere and it almost looks like a photo. Unfortunatley, when I compress the video it looks really ghosty. Is this due to the settings, do I need to use like interlace or progressive, or something with the upper and lower fields. I have no idea what all of those settings mean. I will show you an example of what I mean when I say the video looks quite ghosty. Now keep in mind this was just an edit for fun, nothing really impressive footage, crappy music, etc. Here is one that I compressed:

Click Here For Movie

[iscariot]

I'm not sure how to help...


But I have to say...that is some sick riding.

[123ski]

thanks dude, glad you liked it.

[quebecfreestyler]

might get more answers on this issue on ns with all those kids who are crazy good at editign and understand computers a lot.

I think it's prolly just the format you used to export the vid.

[JimLad]

Your source video is progressive, so you should keep it that way. You don't need to do anything with upper/lower fields.

[123ski]

might get more answers on this issue on ns with all those kids who are crazy good at editign and understand computers a lot.

I think it's prolly just the format you used to export the vid.

Yeah ced. I am having Stonebroke over there help me a little. I think that I need to make sure I am doing it as de-interlaced and make sure that the video frame blending is turned off, since Adobe tries to turn it on naturally. I will make like a 20-30 second edit this weekend and try different settings like that. Do you think it could be the Morgan Codec?

[123ski]

http://blip.tv/file/728645

I took some new video and tried some new settings, it is looking better. The light was bad so it still doesn't look perfect. Now I just need a tripod. The thing that most helped was using a different M-Jpeg encoder and not allowing frame blending since it is a progressive video. Thanks for the help.

[cranked]

Alright, I need some help editing some video. I Have a camera that records video in 1260 x 720 HD video. I know it isn't as good as a full on HD video camera, but all of the reviews said that it atleast took better video than a normal video camera and I love the camera due to its size. It is very convenient to use. Anyway, it records its video in M-Jpeg, which is pretty much an uncompressed format. I am using Morgan M-Jpeg V3 codec so that my computer can read it and edit it. Now comes my question. The raw format looks really awesome. I can pause it anywhere and it almost looks like a photo. Unfortunatley, when I compress the video it looks really ghosty. Is this due to the settings, do I need to use like interlace or progressive, or something with the upper and lower fields. I have no idea what all of those settings mean. I will show you an example of what I mean when I say the video looks quite ghosty. Now keep in mind this was just an edit for fun, nothing really impressive footage, crappy music, etc. Here is one that I compressed:

Click Here For Movie

Canon TX1? If so, I was having the same issues...I have a PC, so I snagged Ulead Video Studio. Still trying to figure out what the right settings are for movies, I am outputting right now at MPEG-2, ~15,000kbps and it seeps pretty good. Are you editing on a PC or Mac?

[123ski]

Yeah, TX1, I am on a PC. I just found that by using Premier Pro CS3 and outputting in a .mov HD file it works pretty good. Are you shooting 1280x720 or 1280x720LP? What are you using for your m-jpeg decoder?

[cranked]

Yeah, TX1, I am on a PC. I just found that by using Premier Pro CS3 and outputting in a .mov HD file it works pretty good. Are you shooting 1280x720 or 1280x720LP? What are you using for your m-jpeg decoder?

I am storing on my hard drive in raw format, then importing clips into Ulead and outputting from there. Still very new to the video editing thing...still trying to figure out what the best output format is in terms of quality/compression.

Love the camera though...

EDIT: Just found this...testing my setup out with these settings now.

[123ski]

Yo, I just made a video after trying some new settings and stuff, and here is what I came up with:

http://blip.tv/file/794159?filename=...AndSean139.mov

[mordy07]

Unfortunately any time you compress you'll probably lose a bit of quality. But with the TX1 you'll probably need to anyway (if I remember right it takes very large raw files). Looks like you're finding ways to get a better picture though. I just got an HD camcorder as well and had lot of trouble with Adobe altogether. I had an old version of Premiere Pro, but I got the new Elements 4 so I could have HD capability. The thing crashed on me all the time, and was incredibly slow. So looked around a bit more and ended up with Sony Vegas Movie Studio 8 Platinum... and it performs so much better it's not even funny. They have a full feature trial of the program on their website, so you may want to give it a try if Adobe gives you any problems.

[123ski]

Thanks for the tip Mordy07. What I have been doing is compressing as H.264 files which seem to get pretty small. I don't compress before editing though, I just use an MJpeg codec to make them play better on my computer.

[Wetdog]

Whatever you are now doing to produce the second clip is vastly superior. It appears to be a larger file with less compression, based on the down load time, which is quite a bit longer. You have to remember that all digital video formats, even professional HDcam compress the video signal to a greater or lesser degree. Consumer video formats are heavily compressed especially M-Jpeg which is actually an older codex. The problem comes when you re-digitize it to your computer into another codec which your editing software utilizes, then when you recompress that again going out to a format you can burn to DVD or release on the Web. I don't know much about your particular camera or editing software, but you need to find the chain that offers the least degradation of the image. Going from progressive to interlace, or one heavily compressed format to the other or changing resolutions or frame rates all hurt image quality. Your first video had interlacing artifacts, known as tear, in places with faster motion, mostly in places where you have speed things up or slowed them down, where you can actually see the video lines. It also seemed to be a slower frame rate as the motion was quite jittery and the pans strobed quite a bit. The last one is quite smooth, no tearing, less jitter, although there is still some, and seems to be of higher resolution and or much less compressed. You are on the right track. Sometimes it takes a lot of trial and error and experimentation. Knowing what properties you are dealing with for source material and what you are doing to it by converting into other formats for editing and distribution helps a lot during that experimentation. Many video cameras say that they are progressive scan, but that only means they capture progressively, but then they convert the images into interlaced video often using a 3/2 pulldown to go from a cinema mode of 24 frames to a broadcast rate of 30 frames. Others actually record the video in a progressive format. A lot of editing software can remove interlacing and 3/2 pulldown if it is present. Somewhere along the way, in your first video you got some interlacing, as you can see it, probably a product of the speed changes. Finding out why that is happening is a step toward solving the problem, but it seems you have come a long ways in that direction with the second video. When compressing it for output, it is a fine line between quality and ponderous file size. Experimentation will find the right balance. Keep at it.