text:
Premier Pro versus Final Cut Pro
I am thinking about getting some video editing software and I was wondering if Premier Pro or Final Cut Pro is better in  terms of ease of use, compatibility with other audio and video editing programs, and how powerful they are.

In my experience both Premiere and FCP will do pretty much the same thing.
They have similar lay outs and, I would say, are as easy to use as each other. I first used Premiere when I had a PC but moved to FCP when I went to university and got a mac. I find it a lot easier to edit with FCP and the transition to other programs are very simple and effective (file > send to > Color/Compressor).
If you have a mac I would suggest buying the final cut pro studio. It comes with Motion, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Color and Compressor. Everything you need (pretty much except Adobe After Effects). And if you have a PC then go with Premiere. That's my advice.

I would say, after having used both for a number of years each, that Chard was right up until recently. If you are on a PC then it is a no brainer - Premiere is the way to go. If you are on a Mac it is much more complicated with the new release. Apple has stopped selling FCP Suite 3. Now we are all just hoping they increase the functionality of FCPX. As of right now it is pretty useless without external monitor support, unless you just edit on a laptop. If you need to make a purchase soon, I'd go with an Adobe Suite that bundles Premiere with some other useful software like After Effects and Photoshop.

I edited your answer to include the extra information from your comment (thanks btw!). I've deleted our old comments since they aren't necessary now.


text:
Pixelate effect when converting MOV to FLV via FFMPEG
I have a .MOV video -created with Final Cut Pro 7 - which I'm converting to .flv using FFMPEG. I'm very happy about the quality and the size of the output file, but whenever I have fade in/out transitions in the input video, I get a pixelate effect on the output file. Any advice on how to solve this, without increase too much the output file size?
FRAME_SIZE=720x576
BIT_RATE=1200k

ffmpeg -s $FRAME_SIZE -i $1 -g 250 -ar 44100 -deinterlace -b $BIT_RATE -minrate $BIT_RATE -maxrate $BIT_RATE -bufsize 10000k -qblur 0.3 $2

Where $1 and $2 are, respectively, the input and output file.

Can you post what parameters you are using in ffmpeg? It sounds like a bitrate issue

@Colum: There you go.

I think it is an issue with interlacing. Try removing that flag

@Colum. That didn't help. Actually, it causes horizontal lines to be displayed on the output video.

You should explicitly specify a video codec using -vcodec as well as quality settings.
The problem is that ffmpeg's defaults aren't very sensible when you only specify a container format for the output, often choosing a sub-standard video format by default.
If you want H.264 output, try using the presets, e.g. -vcodec libx264 -vpre max. (To see what presets are available, try ls /usr/share/ffmpeg/*.ffpreset.)

Try converting the file using [MPEG Streamclip], MPEG Streamclip is a good free file converter. Export the project from Final Cut Pro 7 and use MPEG Streamclip to convert the file.
(http://www.squared5.com/)

Try the -sameq option. It tells ffmpeg to use the same quality in the output as in the input. I often find that ffmpeg likes to use sub-standard video codecs.

no it doesn't. It tells ffmpeg to use the same Quantizer. Common mistake.

And there is no -sameq option in ffmpeg/avconvanymore.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Managing big Canon 7D files in Premiere CS5.5 with an average computer
I'm new to editing and I'm trying to cope with a 7D project - very heavy files. Usually I don't have any problems with premiere and don't even have to render, but with these files, it's really difficult to get to the point when I CAN render, since I can't figure out which files should be on the timeline (playback is hardly working.)
Is there a way to render all of the footage? (not that many) Or maybe a better solution?
PC specs:
intel i7 2Ghz
4GB DDR3 memory
Nvidia GeForce GT 540M
Win 7

Do a complete offline edit, it you want the quickest editing, use something like DV NTSC Quicktimes and edit on the fly, it will be SD but you never see the difference, then online to the original by replaceing footage back to your H.264...btw play around with your settings in Premiere and do some tutorials, there shouldnt be a reason an H264 file does not play on that system with those specs.  Transcoded is needed to play 5D or 7D footage within FCP but not within Premiere

PCs don't like to deal with footage straight off the 7D. The best thing to do would be to transcode it using MPEG Streamclip. I edit on a mac and use Prores 422 as my editing codec – I'm not too sure what you'd use for PC. Try MPEG-4 and see how that goes.
After you've converted all the footage, import it into Premiere and see if it runs smoother. If not, you may need to re-compress it at a lower quality so that your computer can handle it.
Good luck.

does this mean the final video will be of a lesser quality, or is there a way to export using the original files?

Yes, if you compressed it to a lower quality, the end result would be of lower quality than the raw footage. There may be a way to export using the original files but I've never had to do it. This kind of editing is called offline/online editing - you could try googling it.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How can I find specific PRO grade gear when CONSUMER grade dominates the search results.
I'm trying to keep this question as "non" subjective as possible...
I need to find a very specific piece of hardware (not brand or model, just type), and I'm currently coming up empty handed. I've been cruising around on Google, but all of my search terms are coming up with invalid results. I've contacted the AV suppliers that I know, but they don't seem to have any answers either.
The problem I'm running into is that there are a million consumer grade devices as well as a myriad of software solutions, none of which are useful to me. I need results in the PRO AV grade of electronics.

This is only here to help add context to the above question.

What I'm looking for is a Video Playback Appliance that can be controlled either via TCP/IP or via hard buttons. It needs to play H.264/AAC files, and preferably be able to wire two of them together so that they play simultaneously (for redundancy). I'm currently using an Adtec signEdje, and though it works fantastically (TCP/IP playback controls as well as Ethernet File Upload to internal 80GB HDD), it has no "seek" function, which is a major problem.

I think your trouble is partly related to using the overloaded, usually inappropriate word "pro" instead of "broadcast".  Marketing departments love using the first word, but when you think about it, that word doesn't describe the type of work, nor the level of quality.
The rest of your trouble may just be unfamiliarity with this kind of hardware, which is rather esoteric and specialized.  For redundant playback with various control options, I think you're probably looking for "broadcast video playback systems", one example of which would be the Grass Valley K2 Dyno.

This is true, I do use the term PRO over BROADCAST.

What gets to me about the word "pro", is that it's commonly used to describe the PERSON doing the work, and not the work itself, which distracts us, since the work is usually complicated enough to deserve all of our attention.

Google responds to volume, and the fact is that there are a lot more people looking for consumer grade devices than pro/broadcast grade devices. That's part of the problem, and adding "broadcast" to your query may help, but I think what most people in the business would do is not use Google in the first place. Rather, they'd use a dedicated broadcast equipment supplier of their choice (for example, Markertek) and search that supplier directly.

We use VidCom and Applied Electronics for our suppliers. They've been great... I've just been spending time researching so that I don't waste valuable hours asking stupid questions that I should be able to discover the answers to online.


text:
Is there a way to cut a speech video into parts on silences automatically?
As an English teacher, and also a programmer, I've created a system of listening that works this way:
I choose an interesting video full of speech.
I manually cut it into peices based on slinces where there is no speech (By silence I'm referring the the parts where speaker pauses for a second to breathe. The very very tiny pause between sentences)
I use transcription services to extract text of each part
And many other steps...
As a software programmer I hate manual operations. I don't like the idea of splitting a video into parts by hands. It really is a time consuming and dirty job.
Googling around I couldn't find anything. Is it possible to do that? How?

See my answer to this question: http://video.stackexchange.com/q/16967/1871

Dirty job! Them's fightin' words, pilgrim.  Joking aside, you're going to have to listen to the whole thing after you process it and fix mistakes anyway.  Might as well do it right the first time.  If it's too time consuming for you, hire someone or get a student to do it.

This reminds me of a question on superuser, where he used audacity to monitor the noise his kids made. When it got too loud the screen would switch off.

@Mulvya, thanks for your other answer. Very similar to what I want. I split the video into segments of 1 second, and guess what, mean_volume result was the same for all of'em. I don't know what's wrong here.

Can you upload a sample which contains both speech and silence?

Yeah, as a sample we can analyze this ted talk

See http://pastebin.com/8tBd6a8F

Pastebin has a limit, so I have only pasted the first half of the log.

So, apparently I'm doing something wrong. I have to find it out. Thank you for the precious work.


text:
Final Cut Express vs. Final Cut Pro X vs. Final Cut Studio
I am looking at upgrading from Final Cut Express 3.5 to another Final Cut product. What are the pros/cons of Final Cut Pro X and Final Cut Studio? (In terms of functionality)
EDIT: Which would you recommend: Final Cut Studio or Final Cut Pro X? I am using Final Cut Express 3.5, and am possibly looking to upgrade. Also, how steep is the learning curve going from Final Cut Express to Final Cut Studio?

Why do you want to "update"?

@DoktorHauser Because FCE has been discontinued. I actually ended up getting Final Cut Studio

But Final Cut Studio has been discontinued too.

@DoktorHauser I know.

FCPX, I've heard, is much easier but different. Its like a combination of FCPS and iMove: Simple, Elegant, Powerful, but overall different and in that sense incompatible with other FC project files. Its like OSX was at its time, or iMoive 8: "It breaks the line". If it's for good or not depends on you: how used you are to your workflow/plugins/etc.
Nevertheless, just like with iMovie or OSX, Apple wont go back and support whats old again, it will just keep improving, so I'd Final Cut X to be getting better with time whereas FCS is obsolete already. This plus the fact FCX is finally Cocoa 64bit and makes use of the latest Apple technologies might be enough for you or might not. It all depends on you.
Good luck!

In general I would recommend Final Cut Pro X, because Final Cut Studio has been discontinued. If there are compatibility reasons I would recommend Final Cut Studio. But only to be compatible with external or ongoing projects.
A more suitable recommendation depends on the answer of the question: What's the reason for the update?
EDIT: The learning curve from Final Cut Express to Final Cut Studio is very flat. Largely you won't notice any differences.
Con:

Final Cut Studio has been discontinued.
Final Cut Studio is more expensive.
Final Cut Studio the needed preview-rendering.
Final Cut Pro X needs better hardware. (GPU)

Pro:

Final Cut Studio can import projects from FC Express.
Final Cut Pro X is a lot cheaper.
Final Cut Pro X working is very fast.
Final Cut Pro X is the up-to-date version.
Final Cut Pro X rarely need of preview-rendering.


text:
What mounting adapter do I need for this shotgun mic?
I am looking at this shotgun mic and I am making a boom pole from this video. I know there is a mic adapter and shock mount in that video, but since the shotgun mic comes with a shock mount, what mounting adapter/connector do I need for the shotgun mic to connect to the boom pole?

If you're on a budget, and if you are making your own boom pole - I'm assuming you are, you could try this...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/621574-REG/Interfit_STR116_STR116_Hot_Shoe.html
I'd gaff tape it for insurance.

Yes, I am making my own boom pole. I could use a hot shoe, but I'd rather not as it's not as good quality audio (I also have two cameras)


text:
Is there an online video converter?
Does anyone know of any services that will convert a large video (1gb+)?
I've a bunch of files I'm looking to convert from mkv to mp4's. I'm on an older Mac and I've looked at some sites like video toolbox but they limit to 600mb. I'm willing to pay.

How much are you willing to pay? Send the file to me, and I'll convert it for you :)

HAR HAR, Naw, I've learned to use mkvtools to pass-through the video, takes minutes.

@TheIrishGuy  Does this mean you have found a solution?  If so, please share it with the rest of us by posting an answer to your question.

Don't you spend more time uploading / downloading the video than converting it directly on your old computer ? Unless you have a really fast internet connection and a really old computer !

How old of a Mac? MPEG Streamclip is a great option.

This free software requires at least Mac OS X 10.2 (Jaguar) and QuickTime 6. It is also compatible with Mac OS X 10.3.x (Panther), Mac OS X 10.4.x (Tiger), Mac OS X 10.5.x (Leopard), Mac OS X 10.6.x (Snow Leopard), OS X Lion, and QuickTime 7. It works with PowerPC and Intel based Macs.

Unless you are living the the Stone Age and have a Mac running 10.1 or lower, you'll be fine.
You can batch convert files by going to List>Batch List:

You'll be presented with a screen like this:

You can add files from there and convert them.

Your link is already not actual.

I think Zencoder ist one of the biggest online video converter. But it's not free and it's not made for home use. But if you want to build your own video portal (like Youtube), you are in their target group. For example the Drupal video modul supports Zencoder.

Yes, there is one: Youtube!
As Youtube now supports all common video codecs (just tested it for H.264, H.265 and VP9) and practically all audio codecs and then converts the uploaded video to VP9 based video (MKV or webm) and H.264 based video (MP4), you can just upload your MKV and then use a tool like 4k Video Downloader, JDownloader 2 or aTube Catcher to download the created MP4.
BUT Youtube deletes all protected content (even if you upload it to private), so this might not help you at all.


text:
About film making techniques
I have developed a big interest in film making recently (I hope it isn't a fad). I am interested more in the technical side like cinematography, editing, lighting etc than acting, direction etc.
I am in look out for sites that do a "review" of sorts (more) of the film making techniques than the story, acting etc. I didn't get much help googling. Could you good people on this board lead me to some sites online that discuss these aspects of movies?

Really good question! I am going to need this pretty soon. Thanks for asking.

You might wanna join the filmmaking proposal

Remember its all about the story.
How to tell the story. And the tools you use to tell it.
Editing, lighting, special effects and sound (are the tools used to tell your story.)
Remember: story, story, story.
Starting out:
A good entry level camera to start filming with by Tom Antos.

(Note: The Sony Nex-5 is discontinued, Sony a6000 is its replacement, I have one and I love it.)
Shot design:
Tom Antos again, explaining framing, coloring.

101 Exposure and Lighting Effects:
Andrew Devis of creative cow using premiere pro to relight scenes in your movie clips.

Another great trainer is Maxim Jago of Lynda.com for premiere pro (this would require a monthly subscription to access the lessons)
http://www.lynda.com/Premiere-Pro-tutorials/Premiere-Pro-CS6-Effects-Workshop/123547-2.html
Special Effects:
Post production work might be required and using tools like adobe after effects becomes a must. Evan Abrams is a great help to get you started.
Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF5pdu3Z2Hk8bouDB_C3zFg
Resources:
For budding filmmakers
http://nofilmschool.com/
http://www.creativecow.net/
I know I am missing a ton of other resources, but this is just off the cuff to help you get started.
Good Luck.

Nice set of example videos.  It would be even better if you could summarize some of the key points of each video when introducing them.

Directing actors is a technical part of film making. It's not easy, and if your actors don't give good performances, chances are you won't have a good film. People can usually forgive bland cinematography and clunky editing – but if they don't believe the characters then you're going to have no chance in engaging the audience.
I go to a film school myself and so I haven't really done a lot of research online. I suspect that you wouldn't be able to find everything you need to know just by looking online.
If you're serious about filmmaking then I'd suggest you take some courses. If you just want to take it up as a hobby then the best way to learn is to practice.
Buy a camera (a good DSLR if you can afford it), get editing software on your computer (would recommend Final Cut Pro 7 if you own a Mac or Adobe Premiere Pro if you've got a PC) and shoot  outdoors in natural lighting (cheaper and looks better if you can't light well).
Also, best way to study films is to watch films. Watch a lot of different kinds of cinema. If you like a certain director try and watch all their films, especially their early shorts if they have any.
Just did a quick google search and found this site about
filmmaking in general: http://digital-filmmaking.blogspot.com/
Not sure if it's any good though, sorry mate.
If you're keen on getting a DSLR, this stackexchange site is perfect for information. https://photo.stackexchange.com/

+1 Great answer! This really helps. And thanks for mentioning a DSLR for filming!

While I approve of Chard's answer, I would like to point out that not all films need actors to be great films or even have to have actors to engage the viewer. Consider the countless documentaries on nature, science, and art not to mention art films that exploit this principal "motion is the defining characteristic of life".

Better than sites are the extras on DVDs. Often, you've got people talking about how and why certain things were done. Watch enough of these different perspectives, and you'll get good info. It's ALL aspects of filmmaking, from the technical to the artistic, but since they're all part of the same collaborative team, it's good to at least understand how the director and actor think so the technician can effectively communicate with them.

Find some people IRL who share your interest and enthusiasm for filmmaking.  They don't have to be professionals, and you don't have to pay for a fancy film school, but opening a discussion with real people about technique is the best way to start learning.  Watch movies with these people, press the pause button when something grabs your attention, and talk about it.  How would you achieve something similar?  How would they go about it?  What could be done better, and how? That's step one.
Step two is the hard part.  Actually go out and film stuff.  Use your cell phone if that's all you got.  Actively try to emulate the shots, looks, edits, sounds and techniques that caught your interest in step 1.  Develop an audio/visual vocabulary.  Make up words if you have to.  Once you start to have more conversations with more people who have similar interests, your terminology and your expertise will begin to converge.  You'll know what a c-47 is, and how to use one, in no time.
In your "spare" time, the internet is a great place to supplement your knowledge.  Sites like this one are a great place to ask questions.  Bulletin boards, video hosting sites, and social media are great places to get feedback on your work.  Search engines are wonderful for fact-checking your intuitions.  But nothing beats real-world interaction with people who share your interests.

Chat rooms can also be a great resource if you aren't even sure what to ask.  We actually have a chat room.  Right now it isn't used very often, but there are a few people that monitor it and can meet up with you if you need help forming a question or want to talk about something that doesn't really fit a question and answer site format.

There is one Youtube channel with tons of tutorials on simple, affordable filming techniques. I get most of my inspirations from there:
http://www.youtube.com/user/filmriot

For editing, the best book I've read on the subject is "In The Blink of an Eye" by Walter Murch.  It's nothing at all to do with shortcut keys, premiere tips etc.. It's all about the ideas of film making, how cuts work, what your eye perceives. Highly recommended (and short).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Blink_of_an_Eye_(Murch_book)

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How do I write up a shot list?
I am writing a script for a short movie. How do I write a shooting script? Is it needed? What is the difference between a script and a shooting script?

Shot lists are fairly easy to write. You can draw up your own grid or download a template online. The simplest way is to have four columns: shot number, shot type, action, notes. However you can customise a shot list to include whatever you think is necessary to illustrate your vision.
Here is a template I use for simple shoots:

Notice that they are written in an order that would be logical to shoot on the day. They are not listed in order of how they will play out in the story.
Hope that helps :)

I noticed you used Celtx (or the graphics for Celtx) for storyboarding. Is is worthwhile to buy the graphics pack for Celtx?

I just have the free version and that comes with some basic graphics. I always draw up storyboards by hand - only used celtx this time because it was easier than scanning an image. So I couldn't really say whether or not it's worth it. Sorry mate

The template link is no longer valid. Looks like the site has been hacked. It redirects several times before landing on a malware-looking page.

The script is the blueprint for your film. A shooting script can be as detailed or as simple as you want/need it to be. Obviously the more detailed it is, the easier people are going to understand what you want.
The simplest way to do it (and this is my preferred choice) is to make notes on the actual script so that you don't have to write a whole new document.
The shooting script tells your cast and crew how long the takes are going to be and which characters are in them. It's kind of hard to explain so I drew up a little example. Please excuse the poor quality of both the script and the notes:

On top of this you would usually have a floor plan which details where the actors are going to be and from which angle you want the take to be shot. Once again, excuse the dodgy example:

There's a basic example, hopefully it gives you an idea.

Ok, thanks so much. I probably used the wrong terminology...how do I write a script for the camera operators so they know what to shoot, etc. (Sorry, as I said, I am new to script-writing for movies)

I think what you're referring to is a Shot List. Directors use shot lists and storyboards to illustrate their vision to the cinematographers. Shot lists are fairly easy to write. Just need to write the shot number, the type of shot (eg close up), a brief description of what happens in the shot, and any other information that might be helpful. eg http://www.anchorboltstudios.com/2010/02/how-to-make-a-shotlist/

Yes. That is what I'm looking for. Sorry about the confusion. Can you add another answer so I can accept it?

The question is still 'How do I write a shooting script'. It would be misleading to other people if I submitted another answer and you accepted it. If you want to ask another question then I can submit an answer to that.

There you go...

I'm a director and I designed a new shot listing software called Shot Lister. It's an awesome app that runs on iPad and iPhone so you have your entire digital shot list in your hand as you shoot. Lets you build, organize, schedule and share shot lists all on the fly. Check it out. I think it's really going to answers a lot of your questions.

Although I don't think linking to a product is a good way to answer this question, I can verify that it's actually a really good app. I've seen a couple of 1st AD's use it to much success.
Good work on that one, Zach.


text:
Adobe After Effects vs. Final Cut Express for chroma keying
Which is better for chroma keying, Adobe After Effects or Final Cut Express and why?

have a look at Mocha for After Effects (it ships with it)

I haven't tried chroma keying in Final Cut Express, but I'm pretty sure it depends on your needs and workflow. If you use Premiere for editing movies than AE should be more integrated.
Yet, if you really want to get awesome results and have some spare bucks, I'd say you look at some plugins. After all neither AE nor FCE is specialized in chroma keying. There are plenty of companies out there that build specialized plugins that might give you better results, and they usually offer them for all video solutions (AE, Premiere, FC, etc)

After Effects is well know as a finishing software. The best chroma key plug-in I saw in A.E. was keylight. Very nice full controls, to handle even color/light correction of borders key. I don't know if keylight is avaliable for FCE. Maybe the only benefit inside FCE is rendering time. Real tests can talk a lot more.
My vote goes for After Effects.

While AE has a chromakey plugin in the box, I have good experience with:
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/news/featured/KeyingSuite11/
There are several tutorials on there website, and this gave me the best results.
Of course, your footage is the key


text:
Change sequence frame size Final Cut Express 4
I have a sequence in Final Cut Express 4 that has 1080p video in it, but when I export it, it exports as 720p video, because the sequence settings are set to 720p video. How do I change the frame size?

I think Menu -> Sequence -> Settings -> Load Sequence Preset..., then picking choosing a 1080p  preset might do what you want.  You'll probably have to delete and re-render anything you've pre-rendered.
You can set the default sequence preset for all new sequences with Easy Setup under the application menu.

Fantastic! Now how do I see this option? The only progressive option is 720p

Ah, sorry.  My mistake.  FCE4 only supports 1080i video.  FCP supports 1080p.  I usually take in 1080i50, export in AIC format, then deinterlace and output using the batch mode of MPEG Streamclip.


text:
How do I detect scene changes in Adobe Premiere?
I have a single clip with multiple edits in it. Is there an easy, automatic way to detect these? Ideally I'd just like them labelled in some way with support for "jump to the next label".
I realise it won't be 100% reliable since it would need to detect scene changes automatically, but perhaps there's something that can considerably speed up the process of splitting such a clip into separate scenes?

Could you elaborate a litte? Is your goal for Premiere to automatically detect environment change of a clip (for example from outfoors to indoors) and mark these spots for you?

@Speldosa I suppose anything along those lines would be very helpful, so I'll update the question a bit.

This isn't part of Premiere, but Scenalyzer is an external tool for this that I've had some good luck with.  It can scan a large video file and split it into smaller ones based on frame change detection.  Then you can work with the smaller files much more easily.  There's a freeware version, and a more featured paid edition.

That website design doesn’t inspire confidence, hope it can do the job... Thanks!

It's hideous, yes, and the software is clunky too, but there's a free version and it worked pretty well.  I had a version from a few years ago and it met my needs.  Your needs may be different, and they may have screwed up a good thing since then.  One warning: there's a setting to delete source files when you're done splitting them.  DON'T DO THIS until and unless you trust the software.  I believe they call this kind of splitting "optical", as distinct from actually reading the timecode info.

There is no automated way to analyse scene changes in Premiere.

Ideally I'd just like them labelled in some way with support for
  "jump to the next label".

I recommend you use Markers in Premiere to manually mark scene changes. You can very quickly scan through the timeline and use the M key to add a Marker at the current position.
You can use Shift + M and Ctrl + Shift + M to iterate through each marker (forwards and backwards respectively). Use the Up and Down keys to find the start/end of each clip.
To make it easier to find scene changes, you can drag the divider on the top of the track to adjust the height and therefore get a better preview of the timeline.

I've made a script which allows you to use the scene detection functionality of Davinci Resolve. Detect your scenes, make a new timeline of the resulting clips and export it as FCP7 V5 .xml, run the script on the .xml and you'll be able to import the converted .xml in Premiere! https://gumroad.com/products/CUnOP/


text:
What is a good workflow for producing High quality High definition Videos suitable for a final upload to the internet.
I'm entering my third week into the video editing world, and have already put up a few test videos to youtube. But overall, I am unhappy with the results so far.
Quick background: I am recording video game footage using fraps, and eventually want to create professionally edited productions in the future, for now, I'm still learning.
I have tried h.264 from vegas studio 11(trial)... it looks terrible. I have also tried wmv: that looks much better... but is grainy, so still unacceptable for me (also file size is large in wmv).
And for the last week and a half, I have been playing around, googling, testing programs, researching methods for video production, trying not to ask questions(because the info might already be out there), but I just can't seem to figure this out: I'm stuck.
What information I need:
I would like to know what steps I need to go through in order to end up with a high quality, high definition video with accurate colours(within acceptable parameters of course... i.e. not super dark compared to source video, which is what happens with vegas avc/h.264).
I think I have some idea as to the steps involved, and I will post it below, please fill in the gaps with as much detail as you care to provide, post links to other answers, and also other websites which have supplementary information:
1.Record Video in fraps at 1080p - 29.97fps
2.Encode into intermediate codec (having trouble here, one spot I need help with).
3.Import into video editor (I'm currently trying to use avid studio due to it's unlimited track nature, if vegas studio 11 is better for me, please say so).
4.Edit the video, adding effects and transitions and splicing together video footage.
5.Export the video to h.264 at about 8000kbps or to another much higher bitrate codec.
optional 6. encode into final codec using handbrake or some other encoder.
7. Upload.
So that's what I think the steps are, please correct me if I have them wrong. As you can see, I am stuck at step 2, because I keep getting no video footage after encoding into my intermediate format.
     The intermediate codecs I have tried are: ffmpeg huffyuv, ffmpeg dnxhd and they both get no video output.
If anyone is still wondering what question to answer, I'll abridge it here:
What do I need to do and what programs should I use (max budget $150 total), in order to get a VERY GOOD quality video with fast editing speeds.
Note: I may not have the correct playback codecs, I don't know, I only have the default windows codecs installed at the moment for decoding, the rest are included in ffmpeg.
note2: I am using avantigui to use ffmpeg.

this is kind of a multi question, but considering the fact that someone would need to know all of this(unless I actually don't) in order to start with video production, it should be good.

What is step 2 supposed to be good for anyway? Intermediate lossy codecs are always bad. Or do you just mean "let fraps record in this format"? — h.264 is the best codec for uploading to YouTube. If this does not give you satisfying results, something else is wrong.

fraps video doesn't load into avid... black screen. I can encode to something else, like high bitrate h.264, and put that in... but it's slower than encoding into dnxhd, but that just doesn't work for me. I read that step 2 is necessary to allow for a better editing experience and final export quality, like prepping a room for painting... problem is, I don't know what to do, and I want to edit my video before uploading it to youtube.

Well you've read wrongly. Do encode to lossless OMFI for editing, which is Avid's native codec. (It takes horrendous amounts of hard disk space, but that's a price you need to pay if you want high quality.) And no other intermediate codecs, each of these will reduce the quality.

I don't want horrendous hard drive space, and I don't want a file size any larger than the fraps recording (4GB for 2 minutes approx). But yeah, I would need an intermediate encode anyway if I am to be able to use avid at all... perhaps I should give up and go back to vegas.

Even OMFI is not going to be more horrendous than 4 GB for 2 minutes.  —  Vegas accepts lossy formats better then Avid, but as I said: this will always sacrifice video quality. I personally do not mind for my own YouTube videos, I also use h.264 as an intermediate format to save space. But these videos are not really aimed at high quality anyway.

hmm, I'm going to ask another question... which is more specific... this one doesn't seem to be getting any answers

In video, there is no "I don't have disk space" or "I want to add compression to files to lower my disk space usage and caching".
You should record uncompressed, work uncompressed, and at the final stage export the uncompressed video to a suitable format for delivery.
Record your video.  Edit wherever you want (I suggest Vegas, because is the fastest on pc).  Cut.  Edit.  Do whatever you want.  Then export your timeline to h.264.
I suggest using Adobe media encoder cs5 + to do the job.  Don't encode already encoded video files, because it will degrade your quality.
Check youtube/vimeo/... what formats they play the best (usually there is a guide for file formats and upload)
One more thing:  FRAPS ENCODES in its own codec.  You need a properly installed DECODER/ENCODER for Vegas/Avid/Premiere to see the files properly.
I did a lot of gaming videos before and after HD was introduced.  I did it with FRAPS, game engines....  Uncompressed is what you want.  Or you could force FRAPS to use Avid's DNxHD code c(you can get it on Avid's site.)


text:
Correcting video flicker problem caused by camera's auto white balance
I have shot a video with a handheld camera that uses auto white balance. Unfortunately, the auto white balance seems to have done more harm than good. The camera was readjusting the white balance every time when it was moved. The video ends up having many transitions from dark to bright then back to dark every few seconds throughout it. The video looks as though it was flickering in slow motion.
I have tried adjusting the colour balance of the video in After Effects but because the white balance by the camera was on every frame, a linear colour balance correction doesn't seem to help.
Is there any way to correct this problem without having to retake all my shots?

Probably not easily.  You might be able to try applying a better auto-white balance and hope for the best.  You could also manually adjust it repeatedly and adjust the interpolation between values (on the animation curves) but this is highly time consuming and still won't get as good of a result as reshooting.
If reshooting is an option, it's going to probably be the quickest, easiest and best looking solution.  If not, then your stuck trying some very painful and time consuming adjustments.


text:
Screen refresh rate above 100 Hz noticeable?
Is a refresh rate higher than 100 Hz still noticeable for the human eye?
Tv manufacturers are still taking these refresh rates to new heights, but is there really a noticeable difference between a refresh rate of 100 Hz and 200 Hz, Let alone 400 Hz?
Are there any applications when a refresh rate should be as high as possible?

No, there is no practical limit that we know of yet to what would be best, there is however a practical limit to what we can capture and display.
In tests with airforce pilots, subjects were able to identify a plane from being shown a frame for only 1/220th of a second.1  They eye is able to pull information out of extremely short periods of time, but unfortunately our eyes are also very good at concealing lack of information (which is actually why video works in the first place), so it is extremely hard (possibly impossible) to determine the actual point at which we wouldn't benefit from more information.
Either way, it is almost certainly upward of the current 1/600 mark and often theorized to be beyond the 1/1000 mark.  The problem comes not from how much information we present, but that we don't have enough information to present.
Generally videos are normally not played back faster than 48 frames per second at the fastest and video games normally don't go beyond actually displaying 120 or so.  This is due to a lack of being able to store sufficient data and stream it in an efficient enough manner to display in an affordable manner.
Instead, to make things appear more smoothly, the TV interpolates additional frames to fill the gaps.  It looks at where one frame is and where the next frame will be and generates frames in-between to smooth it out.  The problem is, not all motion is perfectly smooth and interpolation isn't a perfect process.  The result is that unnatural artifacts appear in the video which we can detect and end up being unsettling and eventually start causing more harm to the persistence of vision than the extra frames help.
This is why, when you move in to higher refresh rates it is sometimes better to use a lower setting without the interpolation.  Video is about simulating reality for your eyes.  In reality, there is no refresh rate, any time your eyes chose to process, they get whatever is there at the time.  Thus, higher and higher frame rates will more closely emulate reality as long as the information is actually based around reality rather than something invented by electronics on the fly.
Eventually, we may exceed the "refresh rate" of the eye, but as of yet, we don't definitively know what that is and are pretty certain we haven't hit it yet.

I'm trying to find another reference for the frame interpolation issues.  I've read good things on it in the past, but am having trouble finding references atm.  If anyone knows a good one, please feel free to post it and I'll add it to the answer (or just add it as a reference yourself.)

If the airforce pilot could recognize a frame for 1/220th of a second, i'm assuming that the frames before and after were drastically different from that 1 frame. If tv's with a higher refresh rate than the frame rate of the source create 'in-between' frames calculated on the previous and next frame, those differences would be much smaller, no? So to distinguish those would be even harder than the pilot test, if my assumption is correct. (reference would indeed be nice)

@jan - yes, the point is that we know that the eye can sample an image well enough to identify it in under that time.  Adding frames to video playback is beneficial in better emulating reality until we can have it fast enough that a new frame is displayed every time the eye can capture a frame.  Until that point, increasing frame rate still makes it closer to reality.  I think with the air force  test, they were flashing the image on blackness.  The point was to figure out the minimum amount of time for eyes to sample with enough detail to identify.

The reason why modern TVs have been pushing higher framerates is not because people can see much beyond 30-60Hz, but because if the source framerate and the display framerate doesn't match exactly, then the display has to either drop frames, or add frames.  This mismatch is visible, particularly during panning scenes, for instance.
It used to be that made-for-TV was captured at 30 interlaced frames per second.  Movies are shown at 24 frames per second.  When you want to show a 24 frame per second video on a 30 frame per second TV, what do you do? Well, they performed what's called a 3:2 pulldown, which converted the 24 frames per second into a reasonably acceptable 30 interlaced frames per second. This isn't perfect, though - there are still artifacts and visible differences between watching a film at 24 frames per second, and watching it on a TV with 3:2 pulldown.
So TV manufacturers starting increasing the refresh rate so that each frame could be shown onscreen the same amount of time as every other frame, leading to the ideal viewing given the capture frame rate.
The minimum frame rate this is possible for both TV (30 and 60 frames per second) and movies (24 frames per second) is 120Hz.  This display will show each 30fps frame four times, each 60fps frame twice, and each 24fps frame 5 times.
Newer displays support 240Hz frame rate.  This is necessary for a seamless 3D experience when using active shutter type glasses.  It will allow the display to show 60fps, 120fps, and 48fps 3D images without any timing problems.
There's little point to advertising anything lower than 120Hz, because what you're essentially saying is that you can't display either 30Hz or 24Hz material exactly as it was captured - there's no single framerate below 120Hz that is good for both. However, some display devices meant for serious gamers do advertise lower rates, such as 60Hz, because as gamers they simply want the highest content framerate, and aren't concerned about showing lower framerates exactly.

The logical next step is 600Hz, to handle 50fps PAL content as well.

A similar question (except about 60Hz) was raised on Skeptics Stack Exchange.
The answers there discuss how the human eyes works differently to screens and cameras, and doesn't have a frame rate, and that being able to distinguish flicker and being to perceive that we distinguish it may be separate concepts.

Immediately created an account for skeptics.stackexchange.com :)

As per my knowledge television sets are clocked to 60 hz  refresh rate. As it goes on increasing like 120 Hz the pictures will look more smoother. but lets say for 200 performance will enhance a bit. But for 600 Hz or so our eyes will not feel much difference than 200 Hz.
So as per my opinion its not necessary to have refresh rate as high as possible in other hand it should be moderate.
check following link they have tried to explain it more clearly.:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2379206,00.asp
hope this will help you

That article isn't particularly clear, the main problem with higher refresh rates in those contexts is that the frames are being invented, not that they are occurring.

@AJ Henderson ohk. Do you know any other particular article focusing on more technical stuff about the refresh rates? if yes then do share here.

@dking - see my answer for more details.

@AJHenderson Sorry i cant comment on your answer. But slight doubt, I think after some specific rate our eyes wont sense the significant change refresh rate thats because inherent limitations, so there has to be some limit above which it will be unnecessary to increase rate. Its just a my thought.

@dking - yes, there has to be a limit at some point since it takes some amount of time for the process to occur physically within our eye, but tests seem to indicate it we haven't reached it yet and we haven't been able to determine what it is yet.  The "we may" part is that we may not bother to make displays that fast if we don't see enough of an incentive to do so.

What about for Video that appears high speed, such as Nascar racing, for example? Wouldn't a higher refresh rate clear up some of the blurriness, considering the video was properly captured as well?

I read your link, it answered my question, it does help with fast motion video, such as sports/video games, although the article recommends keeping the refresh rate to a minimum while doing so, I'd say it should be determined by the viewer's eyes and what they like, just like EQ'ing a stereo system.

@bighomie yes that article almost covers all the elements. And yes i think you are almost right but our eyes becomes insensible for very high rate and as AJHenderson said in his answer there is no standart range for refresh rate, it indeed depends on the viewer. But as per my knowledge they set a standard values of refresh rate like 60 Hz for tv 120 for gaming. So tuning is a optional option.

As a gamer, I notice a huge difference between a regular 60hz monitor and a 120/144hz one. The smoothness of fast movements is impressive!
BenQ L2420TE
Asus VG248QE
EDIT - Televisions have input lag, so it doesn't feel as smooth as these monitors.

It is worth noting that input lag doesn't impact video playback as long as it is consistent lag.  It does impact gaming or computer use though.

Most topics have been very well discussed already, I just want to add a case were even more than 400hz is very much needed.
As previously stated by Oddthinking, the eye and human brain don't work like a TV or Camera.
This especially counts for cases where our other senses are involved. E.g. video games, high-frame rates of 60-120hz are very well perceived by most people in this case. Because our "motoric senses" are connected to what happens on the screens and we expect a certain action to occur on the screen within a given time frame.
This gets driven to the extreme with Virtual Reality which has been an increasingly hot topic over the past 2 years thanks to the Oculus Rift. When it comes to your head movement, even the slightest "lag" in our vision is perceived which puts VR infront of a big problem. Suddenly much more than 1000FPS become something very viable, though this isn't really possible in games at the moment without huge losses in graphical fidelity.
So they implement tricks like inserting black frames in between actual frames to trick out brain that it sees fluid motion.


text:
Professional text animation software
In addition to Adobe Flash, what other tools people usually use to make text animations.
By text animation I mean, like animations that has a narration and word or letters from the narration dance on the screen, change in size and color, bump to each other, fall down or fly away.
I am looking for something that professionals would use, some like what is used to produce this video:

After Effects, standard.

I'm a coder AND video maker (20 years of each), but I still don't know what software to use. Your PowerPoint idea sounds good! There are of course animation programs you can buy. I used Anime Studio (Mac) for a few weeks but got frustrated - probably because my first project was too complicated for a newbie. Hopefully someone else will have a helpful answer for you.

So what do you use generally to make videos?

I had the same problem at first- biting off more than I could chew. Keep your first few projects short-- like 5-10 seconds.

@user5881 I shoot with a Sony Handycam HD, edit with iMovie, and compose music with Garage Band. I have a film degree so I know the ART of editing, so a simple tool like iMovie is good enough. (I sometimes have to think of creative ways to get iMovie to do what I want, when it comes to special effects, but I always achieve my vision.) My YouTube channel is listed in my stack exchange account if you want to check it out.

I love this question, and I love that video about the placebo/nocebo effects. I added a comment below to ask a similar question: http://video.stackexchange.com/questions/3121/professional-text-animation-software#comment27793_3136

I suggest asking the actual creator of the video on what app he used.

All of the pro video editors have a means of animating titles to some degree, some are better than others. I am only experienced with Sony Vegas Pro 10, but I have seen my colleagues use Adobe Premiere with Adobe After Effects to create some mind blowing 'dancing' titles. Vegas has plugins available to boost their basic package but the basic package can do most if not all the effects you have in your example while Adobe's Premiere and After Effects might be able to take this to another level as in more 3d attributes.
I recommend a pro video editor over power point as you have tons of flexibility (avi, mov, mp4, m2t, etc) vs. only a ppt file. However, there are many products available to convert ppt files into video such as this free version I just found:
http://www.effectmatrix.com/PowerPoint-Video-Converter/Free-PowerPoint-Video-Converter.htm
Caution: I have never tried this product so I am uncertain on quality.
I should mention that animating titles is not the only thing going on in your example, there is some degree of track motion control and pan/crop as well not to mention compositing.
If you are seriously looking for a pro product, I would seek advice from professionals that already use these products in conjunction with trying out the trail versions if available. I do know that Sony Vegas Pro 11 is available for free download for a 30 day trail. Most of these products will cost between $500 and $2500 and the learning curve can be heavy.
Sony Vegas trial version:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/download/trials/vegaspro?keycode=64506
This is a serious product that costs you both time and money.
I would recommend posting on the appropriate forum on creative cow to seek more inside advice.
http://creativecow.com/
Hope this helps

Thanks, what about Final Cut Pro X? It has some title animation features. But making complext things in it takes a lot of time and is kinda hacky (if you want to do complicated animations). Basically it is not a pro "text animation" tool, are all video editors like that? Is Sont Vegas like that?

I don't have any experience with FCPX or on any FCP version so far but I can tell you that in Vegas Pro it would take me hours to reproduce what is in your example. Pro video editors are precise tools that require time to learn and master, the more practice the faster you can get what you want. I can easily spend 40 hours to edit a 2 minute piece depending how much I am pushing the learning curve.

I arrived at this question because I was hoping to learn how to mimic this Tony Robbins video where text slides in with cool effects and the frame centering is frequently changing/sliding too: http://cf.c.ooyala.com/B2bHAweTrCYvvw4T3SRS6_9XzuuSa9ql/DOcJ-FxaFrRg4gtDEwOjIwbTowODE7WK?_=036ibolb7usngy4on7b9 (http://www.businessinsider.com/tony-robbins-explains-how-train-emotions-2015-12) I assume from the answers of this question that After Effects would be the recommended software to make a video like Tony's? Any ideas for terms that I could search on Google to learn how to do this? Thanks!

Adobe After Effects is probably the most common application for creating motion graphics.  There are plenty of books and tutorials out there to get your started.

I would personally use After Effects, but that's because it's what I have/know. If you don't want to take the purple pill (it's a questionable life decision, let's face it) there's heaps of other software you could use, but three free ones are:

Blender a FOSS 3D animation package that also does 2D and even traditional hand drawn animation, as well as editing video and bringing you cups of tea.
Natron another FOSS alternative, still in its early days as a stable package, probably the closest FOSS software to After Effects, although being node based, it's really more like…
Fusion a professional level node based compositor, similar to After Effects, but completely different. There is a free version of this which is well worth having, as well as a commercial one.

Powerpoint is often used for this sort of simple animation in corporate environments.
MovieMaker can do this sort of thing on home movies.

Thanks, I was hoping for more pro tools, although I have used powerpoint and keynote and sometimes flash (old days when it was Macromedia Flash!).

My two cents on this oldie question.
Watching the animation (not necessarily for text only) we can notice that it is playing with the 3 basic elements for motion graphics, translation, scale, and rotation.
Although some parts could be achieved by scaling and translations, a camera movement outside the plane would make life easier.
I would categorize the programs that can achieve these effects in:
Animation software
Already mentioned, a great option and free is Blender. It is a 3D program for animations, but a 2D animation can be easily done just preparing flat elements with the correct material.
You could also use more expensive ones like C4D, or the ones from Autodesk.
There are several programs that are used for dedicated 2D character animations, and any of them can be used for this.
There are programs made for web animations, but normally for small clips.
Compositing
Normally the effects shown in the video are done on either an animation program or a composting one.
Another free program but quite interesting is HitFilm Express, that has both, a video editing and a composting module.
Video Editing
Video software is evolving, and some have some built-in options to translate, scale and rotate elements. Lately, I am playing a bit with these options on Davinci Resolve.
But I would leave this to the previous ones. A nice point tho is that Fusion, already mentioned too, is integrated inside Davinci Resolve.

Your example looks like it was made in Aftereffects.
Apple Motion could do it as well, much more cheaply, and it may be relatively easy to learn if  Final Cut X is any indication.
Photoshop also has rudimentary animation controls, but the lack of easing makes it nearly unusable for this type of project.
Flash has many of the features that you need, and would certainly be better than Powerpoint, but the learning curve can be steep.

Apple Motion that comes with FinalCutPro is very versatile and if you like Apples approach to video editing you'd like it.
I am learning it at the moment, I'll update as I make progress.
EDIT:
I ended up liking After Effects more because of its versatility, and community support, availability of educational resources, and all the paid or free tools around it. And usually you will end up having it for no additional cost if you use any other Adobe products.


text:
Exporting movie from Premiere Elements 13 seems to only give audio
After creating a movie from some GoPro footage, using Premiere Elements 13 on Microsoft Windows 10, I attempted to export to 1080p 25fps mpeg using the basic export option.
All looked good but when I tried to play back in Windows Media Player, all I get is audio.
I'm new to using Premiere - is there something obvious I'm missing? I didn't see any other export options.
Mediainfo gives me this:

What does either Mediainfo or ffprobe say about the file?

Good point - it could just be a corrupted export. I will try both of them this evening and report back.

One of the worst features of Premier is the ambiguity of what is selected for export.  You can be looking at your sequence all day, but if you have something other than that sequence selected in your Project window, Premier will export that.

Looks good. Which OS? WMP needs decoder for MPEG-2 in Vista or earlier. Try VLC or see https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/306331

Okay - I see where the problem lies...VLC plays the video perfectly, but WMP fails. It's a WMP issue, not a Premiere issue.


text:
Android,iphone,blackberry, Virtual reality content creation
I have a requirement to view pictures I have shot in 360 degree panorama mode as virtual tour pictures in various platforms.
How can I convert from the panoramic picture to the model used in virtual tour viewers?

I wouldn't suggest trying to do it manually unless you are a mathematician - as it really is all about the transforms that take your cylindrical shots and calculate views and sight lines in real time.
Generally this would be done using one of the commercially available panorama to virtual tour applications. There are many out there - I have only used one, but the functionality seems similar across them all.
Try out something like Pano2VR, which has a free trial version to get a feel for how it works.


text:
what software & How to Synchronize sequence pictures with audio and make it a video just like gif image
I recently went on vacation with my family, and while capturing pictures I took some in sequence like in burst mode, for example, I took 4 pictures while the person turned his head from left to right. When I view then in sequence it looks like stop motion.
The real question is, how can I make use of those expressions of the person and synchronize it to music, it should look like he is shaking his head back and forth  reacting to the music.

You can use pretty much any movie editor that allows the import of single frames.
First line up your audio, work out where you want the key frames to be (eg for reversing the movement when shaking the head) and then fill in the other frames.
If your editor allows interpolation between frames, then you can use this to make the movie less jerky.
Or you can use one of the free online gif creators to join your images into a gif and then import that into a video editor - slightly more effort, but not much.

holy crap, you do NOT want to put your photos through GIF before using them.  GIF only allows 256 colors, using a 256 entry palette of 24bit RGB colors.  This is why gradients in GIFs of real photos look so terrible.

Peter - the OP asks how to do gif. Also. It is perfect for some uses.

He asked how to do something LIKE a gif, just to give the idea of the kind of animation loop he was looking for.  Since webm isn't widely supported yet, and HTML5 video is overkill for very short loops, GIF is still the widely used format for such animations.  That doesn't mean it isn't terrible quality!

Point being, yes if you want to publish as a GIF, then make one (e.g. with ffmpeg -i %d.jpg  output.gif).  Otherwise it's a horrible choice for making your image frames into a video that you can import.  (lossless h.264, huffyuv, or utvideo would be good choices, if your editor can't be fed a directory-of-images directly)


text:
What is best practice to manage “all evening” recording to allow improvements to propagate into different videos using it?
Adobe Premiere has had some new and changed features, including new ways to use nested sequences.  I've not used Premiere in a long time, and I'm wondering what the best way to handle this kind of workflow would be?  There might be very new (December 2014) feature details that affect the approach or even change everything on how you would go about doing it.
I would think this is a common idea: record an evening's activities using multiple cameras and audio sources, with clips having no relation to the natural break up into performance Acts.  That in itself I have OK: set a timeline with actual clock time and load up all the source material.  Breaking that up into Acts is also no problem.
The interesting wrinkle is how to make first-draft videos for individual Acts (with different cuts of the same material, as well), and then add new tracks to the Master, then continue editing the Acts videos.
The sticking point is that of adding new tracks.  More video will come in (from other people in attendance), and the continuous audio track will be cleaned up with noise reduction etc.

Added tracks should be lined up on the Master Real-Time timeline, and then be available correctly synched with the various Acts videos, which can then be edited some more to produce a final version.

A detailed walk-through follows in case that's not clear, and to avoid the X-for-Y problem.

Example for Planning Workflow:
My Master Real-Time Timeline contains
⋯ blahblah ⋯ [1111112222333333444444555555] ⋯ blahblah ⋯
with several tracks.
Step 1: Copy the labeled range (between the [⋯]) to a new timeline, which I'll call Act7ver1.  Then, edit it
iii2223334444445ooo

adding clips for intro and outtro, and cutting parts out of the original,
choose which tracks to switch between and what times,
add any effects.

If this were a nested timeline, it would show up the edited way in the Master as well.  Not what I intend!  I think what works is to use the nested timeline in another empty timeline and edit that, so the nested timeline doesn't change.  So we're OK.
Step 2: Receive additional video clips and add them to the Master, and add a new audio track that cleans up the original audio.  The Master Timeline doesn't show anything anymore except a string of nested timelines.  How do I get the new material cut at the same places and pushed into the nested timeline?  I think that is the real question, unless it's an X-for-Y situation.
Step 2b: Revisit Act7ver1.  I'll want to use the new audio track, and decide if I want to cut in any of the new video angles.
Step 3: Copy the same labeled range(between the [⋯]) again to a new timeline, which for sake of the example I'll call Act7ver二.

It will contain the entire unchanged range, not the cut-up version from ver1.
I'll edit it differently, keeping more of the talking between the music, which are exactly those parts cut out of ver1.
Different intro, etc.

If the mechanism of editing another use of the nested timeline rather than the nested timeline itself is done properly, this should work just fine.
Step 4: Some time later, I'll copy a part of the range to a new project.  Since this is a tutorial, I'll switch between the different mic, mix, and edited sound tracks to illustrate the difference.  That is, all the tracks are available, not just the normal presentation copy used normally.  I don't expect to be changing the original anymore, but I like to keep the option of having the various uses see the updated version or keep the original, which is a special case of seeing new tracks present and synced.
If I save over the source file, all uses see the new content.
If I "replace clip", and the replacement is not a complete length of the original (the audio is original is 97 minutes, but I only remix one 8 minute act) it won't line up.  Putting the new mix on the Master Real-Time is my solution, especially in light of (4) showing the before/after as part of the script.
So ideally I want the "smart object" I pasted in the first place to see whatever is currently in the Master at the position it refers to, including tracks that were not present before.
What's with the new Nest feature?
I see a new feature highlight discussing source-edit mode and acting like a copy/paste so all the tracks show up.  But I don't know if this is indeed just a cut/paste or a smart object that still allows updates to the definition (of the timeline being nested) to show up in this usage.  It sounds difficult to reconcile changes to what's on the various tracks.  Anyone explored this new feature and have more than a superficial review posted?  (What I've seen just shows that the tracks show up "like a copy/paste" but does not explore changing the referenced timeline or limitations of editing the "pasted" track’s content.)
My Question:
If the existing features don't do this easily, is it possible to use a script that can generate a new timeline from a marked range, across all tracks that might be present?  Then it can be re-run just as easily if the Master changes, and I don't need them to automatically follow any changes: I'll push changes explicitly.
The underlying issue is getting new content into the various projects, synced up at the proper position, even if I have to explicitly grab it while editing the project.  The new track has to line up properly with the clips being used.

I have made a minor edit just to highlight your question, and reopened. If I have misunderstood, please let me know.

I just kind of figure if I can't read it, others will give up too, so it's best to work on it. Sorry the close reason was not really right :-)

I'd also like to know where I might have more of a discussion on Premiere.  I know that can't be asked as a Q, but maybe in a comment? As this is the only place with traffic and knowledgeable people, I brought it here (after first trying Adobe Community)

You can use [chat] (which has variable rates of activity) for discussions.

You should be prepared to slow down / speed up clips by +/- up to a couple %, if they weren't all recorded with the same camera.  30fps on one camera might match up with 29.5fps on another camera, if their A/V clocksources don't agree on how long a second is.  (I had this problem with audio on a laptop syncing with video from a non-SLR camera, for clips several minutes in length.)

The problem described by @PeterCordes is exactly the reason large broadcast production have timecode jamming - that is, every camera is linked to a single, dedicated decide that 'sets' the time for each and every camera. Also common on feature films - the digital readout on a clapper/slate.

That's not a problem I'm worried about, @nchpmn.  Modern electronics have clocks at least as accurate as a cheap wristwatch: 4 parts per million error. I would expect a drift by one whole frame to take longer than one day in a continuous take.

@jdlugosz That wasn't my experience with a Panasonic FZ28 camera and a Dell laptop (haswell CPU, internal analog audio jack).  I assume the camera's clock wasn't calibrated.  So it always runs at the same (wrong) speed.  Probably phone cameras will be better.  (But many / most will make VFR video in low light conditions, so be prepared for that, too).

re VFR: that's probably why Avidemux went through a rewrite to use absolute time codes rather than frame numbers.  If your camera ran at a noticeable wrong speed, the clock would be always wrong too.  It must use a different frequency standard (oscillator) for the shooting... perhaps a software loop in the MPU.


text:
How to get the highest possible quality out of a MP4 file
I took over the editing for a project recently and I wasn't given the raw files. All I was given was the partially completed MP4 file. I used Final Cut Pro 7 to complete the project edits. When I exported the file, I exported using Quicktime Conversion to create a .mov file.
The issue is that this file must be broadcast quality and it just failed QC because parts of it are pixilated.
I'm wondering, is there a way to export the file - which looks perfect on my end - so that it isn't pixilated and it passes QC?

If the pixelation wasn't in the sources you had, then it was probably introduced by the video encoder you used to export.  (Presumably Apple's h.264 encoder, creating a .mov with an h.264 video stream, as opposed to one of the many other video codecs that the mov container can hold.)
Video encoding always trades off CPU time vs. bitrate vs. quality.  Using more CPU time can get better quality at the same file size.  Different encoders (x264 vs. mainconcept vs. apple vs. IDK what else) will have worse or better achievable tradeoffs.  x264 is the best H.264 encoder for pretty much everything, esp. if you care most about final quality per file size.  It's free and open source, so there's no reason not to use it.
Look for a slider to turn up the CPU usage and/or bitrate until the resulting encode is high enough quality.  I'm not going to go into any more detail, just google for video encoding guides to find out more.
edit: As stib points out, you might well be in a situation where your output file is going to be transcoded before broadcast, in which case you should just turn up the bitrate as high as is reasonable, to minimize generation loss.  Prores has no advantage over h.264 for this purpose, though.  Your file will be decoded once, at full rez, in order.  Prores is intra-only, and can decode faster at reduced rez, but gives up quality per bitrate in order to gain those features.  h.264 and prores both support bit depths higher than 8bit per component (subject to encoder/decoder support), which may be relevant if the TV station that will broadcast it wants to mess with the colors during transcode.  If they won't, then the small compression advantage of 10bit h.264 is of low value, given how much slower x264 is when encoding at higher than 8bit.
prores is (slightly) lossy, but as far as I know, h.264 at the same very high bitrate will be even less lossy.  You can even use x264 to produce lossless h.264, if the people you're sending it to can decode it.
If you were sending it to people that were going to do something and save that as prores themselves, then using prores yourself might make sense.  I think I read that prores is designed to stop losing quality for multiple generations of transcoding.
If you're going to permanently archive the output file, spending some more CPU time (and using x264) to get good quality per bitrate might still be useful.  But if you're instead archiving the FCP project and sources, then that doesn't matter.
end of edit
If you don't want to set up x264 for Final Cut Pro, or export lossless and feed that to x264, then similar controls for the h.264 encoder that comes with FCP probably exist.  I don't use FCP, but this is really a video-encode-quality question, so I'm answering anyway.  An answer from a FCP user would probably still be useful.
BTW, one case where x264 isn't the best choice is encoding a movie for your mobile device or something where you're only going to watch it once, and large filesize doesn't matter.  Then a GPU encoder like Intel quicksync can throw enough bitrate at the video for it to look good enough on a tablet or phone, but be smaller than the dvd or blu-ray source.
If you're doing "encode once -> watch many", like for broadcast, it makes sense to use as much CPU time as you can, to get the best quality for your target filesize (2pass mode).  Or to get the smallest filesize for your target quality (CRF mode).

If he's sending it off for broadcast (and here I'm assuming DVB terrestrial broadcast, as in "on the telly") it will probably be transcoded before the end user watches it anyway. So it's not really an encode once → watch many situation. Better to find out what codecs / formats are accepted by the broadcaster and do the highest quality transcode that fits. For example, the TV stations here in Australia accept ProRes (HQ) encoded quicktime mov media which is great, because there's no guesswork about bitrates or h.264 settings, and it's a damn good codec.

I was thinking Danielle was maybe at a TV station, making broadcast encodes, but your interpretation of the question makes more sense.  Updated.

I probably have a worse impression of prores than you, since I've only ever seen the slow implementation in ffmpeg, not Apple's.  I get that it's fast and convenient for a lot of things due to software support in commercial stuff.  I'd be curious to see how x264 did in quality per bitrate, with settings that make it encode as fast as prores.  As I understand it, prores only really shines as a codec for scratch files that you want to be able to scrub / frame-accurate-seek / fast-decode-at-low-rez, and to avoid generation loss if I'm remembering that part correctly.

Well the big advantage Prores (and dnxHD and even v210) has over h.264 for mastering is that it's 10-bit 4:2:2, rather than 8-bit 4:2:0 (I realise you can do higher bit-rates and lower subsampling if you use the newer features of x264, but good luck getting a TV station to recognise the files). And that's another advantage: because there are no settings to change you don't have to worry about whether your ChromaQPOffset, WeightedBPrediction or VBVInitialBuffer (etc etc) settings are compatible. If you can afford the bandwidth and the processing time it saves a lot of headaches.

Do people really still use h.264 decoders that can't handle all of High profile?  (weightb is the only option you mentioned that does anything requiring decoder support, but I know what you mean.)  I'll grant you that it's inconvenient to get 10bit x264 set up, and decoder support for anything but 8-bit 4:2:0 is limited.  However, if that's what you ARE doing, then just set x264 preset=medium crf=14 and don't touch anything else.  You'll get a h.264 High profile encode, which any compliant decoder will handle.  h.264 High profile hasn't changed for a decade.

Broadcast TV streams invariably go out as 8bit 4:2:0 h.264, right?  Is there any reason you'd encode at a higher bit depth or chroma rez (e.g. 4:2:2)?  (asking because I don't know, since I don't work in professional video.  I just mess around with ffmpeg for my own use, and I find compression interesting. :)  Would that be to make a master that you might use in the future for some higher-quality purpose than HDTV broadcast?

Where I live the TV stations multiplex several channels onto one signal, at different data rates and resolutions. So they'll be re-encoding for each stream. I'd guess the pictures go out through a hardware encoder, so everything would get decoded and then re-encoded anyway. My thinking is that it's better to give them a higher quality master to re-encode, rather than something that's already lost a lot already.

I've come across posts on the ffmpeg mailing list archives from a guy at a TV station (CTV.ca, I think, which is a major network with digital broadcast antennas in many cities, as well as cable) saying he uses ffmpeg / x264 to encode files for final broadcast.

But I completely agree, unless the people you're sending it to request that you make an encode at a bitrate low enough for final use as-is, or can avoid xcoding if you make one, then use LOTS of bitrate, well beyond visually transparent.  (even invisible ringing artifacts look like detail to the next encoder in the chain, so it will spend bits preserving artifacts.)  If you're going to archive this master, though, then size has some relevance, so h.264 is probably worth it.  (assuming decoder compat and similar factors doesn't tip the balance to prores or dnxhd)


text:
How to stabilize exposure of video?
When I shot the video, I forgot to fix the exposure, so now the brightness constantly changes. How can i stabilize exposure in video, I can't reshoot it.
Plugin Flicker Free didn't help. The video goes for an hour, not possible to fix it manually.
Example of video

You can't reshoot, plug-ins won't work and you won't do it manually. What other options do you want? You could pay someone else to do it for you, I suppose. Beyond that, I'm not sure what else there is.

Q: When I shot the video, forgot to fix the exposure, so now constantly changes the brightness ... The video goes for an hour, not possible to fix it manually".
Use "Tonal Exposure" in Lightroom.

The thinking and theory behind dynamic and tonal range:
TutsPlus - "Light & Photography: Exposure and Tonal Range Consideration":
" Ansel Adams devised what is known as the Zone System. The zone system can be applied for obtaining correct exposures under different circumstances no matter how tricky".

Use Lightroom's tonal exposure to match all images to a mid-range image by choosing that image first and individually; then select the rest. You need to treat the video as a series of images if you feel there's to much to adjust, you may want to break it into scenes since you wouldn't want bright outdoor scenes to be too dark and very dark scenes to be overly brightened. Even if you broke 60 minutes into 60 scenes it's not going to take an hour to fix.
Adobe Help - "Color and tonal correction basics".
YouTube Tutorial: Terry White: "How to Match the Exposure Across Photos In Lightroom 5".


text:
How can I export 1920X1080 to 320X240 without losing quality?
I have created a mo graph video using After Effects and Premier in HD 1920X1080. The client wants a much smaller version in 320x240 but every time I render out the smaller version pixilates.
Is there a way I can fix this

That's a bit like the client wanting you to fax them a copy of an oil painting, and then complaining that there's no colour. They're basically asking the impossible.

Why do they want a smaller version?  What are they trying to do with it?  What are the reasons for their constraint?  All of these are critical pieces of information for meaningfully answering your question.

No matter what you try, you will lose quality as you are reducing the resolution significantly. So you are creating each new pixel from an aggregate of 36 - and depending on how you do that it can look okay or terrible, but it will not look anywhere near as good as the original. There is no way to avoid this.
Experiment with the settings for down sizing - for your video some may work better than others.

thanks. i did try all settings i know but nothing works


text:
Inverted colour on output using Adobe Media Encoder
I created an animation in AE, rendered it as a .MOV file, the video looks great, however the file size was huge and I saw that the recommended codec used to reduce file size is h.264 mp4. So i downloaded AME, and every time i render the video using it, whatever format i use, the video comes out with inverted colours.
How can I fix this?

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
DASH Live vs OnDemand profiles
I've read about dash profiles and from what I understood the difference between live and on-demand profiles are that live furthermore splits each representation into segments (which is critical for live videos, as the video is streamed live, but can also be used to play on demand), while onDemand uses one segment (aka the whole file), and take advantage of the Range HTTP header for "segmented" video loads.
After I've explored some more I read in this link the following:

The DASH ‘On Demand Profile’ is only used when offline packaging, as
  outlined in Packaging for MPEG-DASH.

So I'm a bit confused about whether this is good for me or not.
Basically, I'm trying to build a VOD application and this is what I currently do:

transcode the video into multiple quality representations in
different resolutions.
use MP4Box to build an MPD file along with the encoded representations.
upload these file into Amazon S3.

I'm able to stream the videos just fine. But the quote I've mentioned just above gives me second thoughts on whether I take the right approach, or I've missed something.
What are the differences between the live profile and the on-demand profile for MPEG-DASH? And by differences, I also mean when would you use either one.
Any explanation would be helpful, thanks!

@DrMayhem What are the differences between the live profile and the on-demand profile for MPEG-DASH? And by differences, I also mean when would you use either one.

Thanks Gershon - I have edited that into your question post. Makes more sense now.

I know this is an old topic but wanted to answer in case someone else is having the same question.
In general, you can use both the Live and On-Demand DASH profiles for VoD content, for live content you need to use the Live profile. The difference would be that if you have a 1:30 hrs VoD file if you are distributing it using DASH Live Profile you will have a long manifest file with a big segment timeline list and a lot of mp4 (90 * 3600/{segment duration}) segments while if you are using the On-Demand profile you end up having a much shorter manifest file and a single mp4 file.
In the case of Live profile, the player would need to download the segments, while with On-Demand profile it would simply send HTTP byte-range requests to the CDN to target a particular time in the content.
Of course, this would result also in a lower CDN load, because in DASH Live profile, the player would need to download all the segments to play the video, meaning that it would need to download the same mp4 header for each segment.
If you are willing to optimize the content delivery, I strongly recommend adopting On-Demand DASH profile.


text:
ffmpeg video compression : Compress captured video being before saving to file
Is there a way one can compress captured video input before saving to file? I have raspberry pi that I am using to record youtube videos. 1-2 min video takes over a Gb of space. I cant compress the recorded file because the pi does not have enough space to record the initial video. Is there a way using ffmpeg I can compress my webcam video directly after its captured before saving the file versus waiting until I am done recording then compressing the saved file?
I'm using
ffmpeg \ -f v4l2 \ -thread_queue_size 5000 -framerate 25 -video_size 640x480 -i /dev/video0 -y -c:v libx264 ~/Desktop/ffmpegTesting/money.mp4 \ -thread_queue_size 5000 -f alsa -ac 1 -ar 44100 -i hw:1,0 -t 30 -c:v copy -c:a ~/Desktop/ffmpegTesting/money.mp4 \

Ive managed to compress before saving but the audio is disapearring now :(

to be more exact. The audio disappears around the 10-11 second mark in the video

Syntax is malformed, it should be: ffmpeg -f v4l2 -thread_queue_size 5000 -framerate 25 -video_size 640x480 -i /dev/video0 -thread_queue_size 5000 -f alsa -i hw:1,0 -c:v libx264 -ac 1 -ar 44100 -c:a aac -y ~/Desktop/ffmpegTesting/money.mp4

The error I am getting now is :  cannot set channel count to 2 (Invalid argument)
hw:1,0: Input/output error

Ok i fixed problem by setting hw:1,0 to plughw:1,0

ffmpeg -f v4l2 -thread_queue_size 5000 -framerate 25 -video_size 640x480 -i /dev/video0 -thread_queue_size 5000 -f alsa -i plughw:1,0 -c:v libx264 -ac 2 -ar 44100 -c:a aac -y ~/Desktop/ffmpegTesting/money.mp4

The audio still times out before the video ends

After further testing it appears the audio always times out a 4 - 5 seconds before the video ends no matter the length of video. Im starting to belive it has somehting to do when I stop the process. Maybe there is a lag between the video being compressed and adding the audio to it.

How are you ending the process?

Either by pressing Q or Ctrl C


text:
Modify the scale depending on the order of the keyframe values
I want to make a Dorkly animation (

), that is, 8-bit puppets opening and closing their mouths. The difference I want to add is when the mouth is open the puppet get stretched (scaled) in the Y axis and when is closed the puppet returns to its original size. I have managed to get an automatic sync method so the problem now lies with the scale thing.
I've assigned a null that responds to the values adopted by the mouth so I ordered it when the mouth is open, stretch the puppet. To do this, I've used the following expression:
x=thisComp.layer("SIDE MOUTH GREEN").effect("LJ - visemes - MSD")("viseme nr.")
if(x==1)[148,199];
else if (x==3) [148,199];
else if (x==7) [148,199];
else if (x==10) [148,199];
else if (x==11) [148,199];
else [148,189];

The problem is as follows. When there are two consecutive sounds that are equivalent to an open mouth (FOR - GO - tten), the puppet doesn't move and that's a pretty dull stuff. What should be said to AF is: if after an open mouth value goes another open mouth value, on the changed value disable the stretching for X time. What'd be the expression that would be needed to achieve that?
I know I could do it manually but I want to broaden my skills.

Just a tip, try out the new(ish) character animator if you haven't already! I haven't, but it is built for this kind of thing.

Also, could you just use the puppet tool and rig up some bones with DUIK? Does that achieve the look you're after? Then you shouldn't need expressions but can work with parenting (assuming I understand the question)

First of all I wanted to share something I forgot to write in my previous message. Lars is a genius (https://vimeo.com/220359572) and has made an expression that allows the transfer of keyframes from CA (Character Animator) to AF and it works perfectly well. It saves you a lot of time. So, Spencer, I already have CA in my pocket ;P.

Stib, thanks for shortening it. I know little of expressions and my knowledge is based on what people post and my ability to understand and test what they post. Sorry for the mistakes I've made haha. (I've just put the expression and After Effects says "scaleYvals.IndexOf is not a function") Regarding the problem, what I wanted was to disable the stretching for a moment (for example 3-4 frames) and then enable it again. But, obviously, your solution is more logical because the shrinking should take place BEFORE the next open phoneme xd. In other words, it would look something like this:

The mouth opens and the puppet stretches. The next keyframe with an open phoneme is getting closer so the puppet shrinks. The keyframe has been reached and the puppet stretches again. As you have already said, this will be terribly difficult to set up, but as it is an action that is going to happen frequently, I wanted to automate it as much as possible. If you think it's too complicated and it's not worth making something up, it'll be done manually and we'll call it a day.

To shorten what you've already written you could pack all the open mouth values into an array and then find if the x value is in it:
var scaleYVals = [1 , 3, 7, 10, 11];
(scaleYVals.indexOf(x) > -1)? [148,199] : [148, 189];

The second line uses the ternary form of if (foo){bar} else {baz}, which can be written as (foo)? bar : baz. IndexOf returns the index of an element of an array, so if the value of x (bad name for a variable except if you're referring to an x coordinate, BTW) is 7 then indexOf will return 2. If the value is not in the array it returns -1
The problem with looking at the previous mouth shape is that you could still end up with no movement: say there was a sequence: open, open, closed. If you disable the stretching on the second open mouth you'll have the sequence stetched, unstretched, unstretched. It also greatly complicates the expression.
How about you make it so that the stretch happens at the beginning of the open mouth and then goes back briefly before the next phoneme?


text:
Final Cut Pro - does 2GB vs 4 GB video memory make a difference
I'm going to purchase a new iMac and my big resource hog will be Final Cut Pro X, mostly for 1080p videos. For an extra $100, Apple moves from a Radeon Pro 555 with 2 GB memory to a Radeon Pro 560 with 4 GB memory.
Will the difference between the two machines be noticeable? Will it likely be noticeable in a few years, when Final Cut gets bigger and more bloated?

I would say, yes it makes a difference. Rendering in FCPX happens in tiles. The size of the tiles is determined by a combination of the amount of memory they consume, the speed of the graphics card, and other similar factors. Increasing the video RAM will allow more and/or bigger tiles to fit on the card at one time. Bigger tiles means fewer passes to make the same adjustments. More tiles means less trips back and forth to main memory or the disk to retrieve image data.
Whether that helps you or not depends on how you edit. If you're mainly just cutting HD clips together with no effects or color corrections, it might not make a big difference. But if you're editing 4k or 8k footage, adding 2D or 3D titles (particularly 3D), applying lots of effects and color corrections, doing retiming, using the 360° functionality, etc. then it will make a larger difference. In my experience, every little bit helps.


text:
Capturing speech audio and video with a smartphone?
I'm interested in using a smartphone as an expensive tool to capture speech audio and video. Perhaps equipped with a tripod, add-on wide-angle lens and wireless microphone for the speaker.
Anyone with experience in doing something like this willing to share your experiences?
Are the add-on wide-angle lenses any good for this? I have a Galaxy S8. What about video capture software? Is the built-in camera app ok for this purpose or should I use a 3rd party app?
Any experiences with non-bluetooth wireless mics? I'm worried about BT range and other connectivity issues.

Here's a pro talking about filming a short on an iPhone and it will give you some insights on the cons, it's do-able but there are some gotchas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJhsg9KhGKQ

Were I work we used an iPhone 7 and a Samsung S8+ for an experimental web series  to capture video. The result was awesome, specially when you use stuff like the DJI Osmo Mobile 2 Smartphone Gimbal. (The series is not yet released, will updated when the editing is finished)
At first we used Bluetooth microphones but there is a lot of issues with the range and sound quality. We used the Sennheiser ew 112-p and recorded the audio on a Tascam DR-05 . This is a little expensive, an alternative will be to use another cellphone and record the audio there with a wired microphone.
No need for a third party app, specially on the Samsung S8, where you can manually edit all the settings. You should consider the Samsung S8 has a 10 minute time limit when recording 4K video.

Thanks for the feedback.
What kind of content are you recording?
Just wondering should I use a wide-angle lens for recording the talk, so that we can have a focused image while still be able to capture a relatively wide stage are to allow the speaker to move around.
Any experiences in recording talks?
Does a wide-angle lens help?

It was a suspense web series.
I don't really like lenses on cellphones, I prefer to move around the cellphone until I have the correct angle or set the cellphone on a tripod and move it with the presenter. You have a great image sensor on your cellphone, don't damage the image by putting a lens over it.

For audio, I would suggest using a Rode SmartLav+ - it's only £42 but the audio it provides is nice and crisp, but even more so with the mini 'deadcat' you can get as an accessory. For tripods/stabilisers, I would suggest a Steadicam Solo (this has a built-in monopod, and is a bit overkill, but would work fine) and for a tighter budget maybe this (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Handheld-Stabilizer-Adjustable-Steadicam-Monopod/dp/B06Y67P6LC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520779509&sr=8-1&keywords=steadicam+with+tripod) white-label one? In my opinion, lenses aren't usually necessary, but if you insist take a look at 'Moment': they seem to be the industry standard, and make amazing quality lenses with minimal distortion or abboration, and best of all they support the S8 as well. I'm not sure what type of budget you're going for, but this is my suggestion for a pro-sumer/enthusiast.


text:
Play 1000 FPS Video at 1000 FPS
I tried to play 1000fps video on vlc, google drive,etc but the irregularity in the playback is quite visible and sometimes the video gets stuck. Kindly help me out if there is a software/server where it can be played smoothly.

What exactly are you trying to do? I'd say hardware is going to be your biggest obstacle to playing anything at 1000fps, that and the fact that it won't be humanly possible to tell if you're dropping frames.

Since there aren't any monitors that I'm aware of that display 1000 frames per second, I assume you want to play back for viewing in realtime, but don't care about the lost data.  The trick of 1000fps video is that the amount of data is pretty staggering.  If the resolution is pretty limited, it might be doable on non-specialized hardware, but data rate is most likely your enemy here and is probably why you are having issues.
Your best bet is going to be to transcode in to a proxy file that is a more reasonable framerate for viewing.  This will allow you to easily view the file in realtime without losing any information that you wouldn't already be losing due to the screen you are watching it on.

Try ffplay, but you must have proper device for playback. Unfortunately, current monitors can show only 60 fps. Some old CRT monitors can display upto 120 fps.

This answer is incorrect.  Very many modern monitors can show upwards of 60fps, though still not 1000.

If the output is preserving realtime playback, and dropped frames are ok, then ffplay can do it. Add -vf fps=60.


text:
How to make a white background effect for video recording?
I have seen this video on YouTube which has a white background effect with proper video quality.

How could I do this?

You need a white backdrop with the appropriate backdrop stands!  For the backdrop, you have two choices:

Muslin fabric.  Easily transported since you can fold it up and bring it wherever you need. But, it does have to be ironed/steamed until it's completely wrinkle-free.

OR:

Paper backdrop.  You don't have to iron/steam wrinkles out of this.  But it's a pain to transport it since it's a super-long roll of thick paper.

To light this scene, you'll need three lights: key light + fill light to light your actor, and third a Fiilex light, like this one, to place on the ground behind your sitting talent, and pointing upward towards the backdrop.
It's best to turn off all interior lights and block out the windows and only light the scene using these three lights.


text:
16 days in Thailand with GoPro Hero 6 Black [Help]
I'm going to Thailand for 16 days with GoPro Hero 6 and I have three questions because I don't have any experience in this field.
First of all I googled some stats about battery life and how much Mbps does camera take for my case (95% of the time I'm going to use 1080p with 60fps and ProTune on). If I'm correct and for this mode camera will use H.264 codec then stats are as follows:
Battery life (per one charge) : ~1h 40min
60Mbps = ~ 8MB/s = ~ 28 GB/h
Am I correct?
Moving on to the second question with given calculated values I estimated that I will need around 3h of content per day. I also decided that I will buy FeiyuTech G5 gimbal which can extra charge my GoPro. I watched some videos on YT, but no one said if this gimbal can charge GoPro from 0-100%. They said that it has around 8h of battery life for itself.
Can I assume that gimbal will work 3h + charge my GoPro from 0-100% on one battery life to match my 3h target?
This is my first trip with camera and I would like to know your opinion about this 3h target per day. I'm not a professional and I will use it only for myself. How much video content do you record on your vacation?

The important factor is not "battery life" as such. It's mAh (milliamp hours) which is how much current the battery pack can deliver for how long.
For example, my battery pack can supply 20,000mAh to one of my devices, which has a battery size of 4,000mAh. So I can fully charge it 5 times from the pack.
As to your other question - I have had days of 10 hours of footage, and others of under 15 minutes. It will depend entirely on what you do and see, the weather, your preferences etc.


text:
How to face track a 3d model
So say I build a 3d character's head how can I use real face motions   to manipulate the 3d model face details, so for example if I raise an eyebrow it will cause the 3d character to raise an eyebrow.

Are you planning on writing tooling to transfer coordinates from real world to the model? That's pretty complex. I'd suggest using one of the packages that allows you to do this. All they do is allow direct movement of handles from your real world interface instead of having to manually move each one.

It wont be easy. You would have to first rig the 3d character's head well. Then you would have to do a full head tracking which is complex. You would have to link up the tracking to the 3d model. It wouldn't be easy. http://www.thepixelfarm.co.uk/pftrack-geometry-tracking/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcz9ZMTDTwY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg2jhmLEBuE
https://vimeo.com/145325445


text:
Need advice about VCR to PC connection
I need advice for something I want to do with VCR to PC image transfering. I have bought a video capture usb (RCA to usb) but there is a problem with the image... It's shaking right and left.
Like this

Firstly, let me tell you that when I connect the VCR to the TV the image is fine. Also when I connect a DVD player (a device way newer than the VCR) to the PC through the same usb, the image is also fine. So, something must be wrong when the analog-to-digital signal converting is happening. It's like the TV sees this problematic image and has a way to fix it somehow. On the other hand, the usb doesn't have a way to fix it, so I have this shaking image.
So, my question is:
What are the possible explanations/causes for this? Usb device quality? VCR quality? What system has a TV to fix a VCR shaking image?? Is there a software or some settings for PC that do the same fix a TV does?

The problem is almost definitely with the tape or the VCR. Most likely the sync or black level is off or the control track is fluttering, which is throwing off the ADC in the capture dongle. You will need a time base corrector (TBC) or frame synchronizer to correct the problem.
Ideally, you should also have a way to view and adjust the video levels. Usually you can adjust levels with a good quality TBC or FS. You can use software to view a waveform and vectorscope after digitization.

It must be the VCR, because every tape does the same. Thanks for the explanation, even though I don't know much about waveforms and I don't know if I would understand what I would see. :P