text:
How does Apple Motion compare to Adobe After Effects?
I am looking at Apple Motion and Adobe After Effects. How to they compare to one another? What are the pros and cons of each?

I'm looking to get into more serious video editing right now. What may be considered is how much of a pain Adobe software is on OS X or is it not that bad? My experiences with other Adobe tools and their horrible updaters etc. makes me not want to run any Adobe software on my computer if I can avoid it.

After Effects is much more powerful than Motion when you get into advanced stuff like scripting your animations.  After Effects is much more tolerant to large projects, and you can "precomp" different sequences (which is difficult to explain without you actually seeing it; basically allows you to put one timeline inside of another or reuse a specific portion of your project over and over, if that makes any sense).  Apple Motion only allows one timeline per project, you cannot nest sequences inside one another without rendering out a QuickTime movie.
Apple Motion does however boast that it gives you "realtime previews" which plays your animation instantly, whereas After Effects typically requires you to render a RAM preview in order to see your animation in realtime.  Of course this depends on the speed of your computer and the complexity of your project, so this is really only handy for simple projects.
When you want to start doing really custom effects like particle systems and other physics based or true 3D compositing, your options are very limited in Motion.  After Effects has a whole range of plugins available online that will do almost anything you can think of.  The Trapcode plugins are very well-built and very popular.  There are very few plugins for Motion compared to After Effects.
I've used both for years, and Apple Motion seems to crash more often than After Effects, especially as your projects get more complex (just personal experience, maybe this has improved as of version 5).
I actually started animating for the first time in Apple Motion, and I agree that the learning curve isn't quite as steep as After Effects (although that was Motion 2.0 and 3.0, and now they're at version 5.0).  Once I mastered Motion and dove into After Effects, I haven't looked back.  I recently fired up Motion for the first time in a few years and I was struggling to get it to do what I wanted to do, my brain has just been trained to think like After Effects.  Even though at first I was more productive in Motion than After Effects (because After Effects is more complex), I have completely reversed and now I feel like I'm a speed machine in After Effects and Motion is now useless to me.
The bottom line: if you're serious about getting a professional tool to do professional work, save up to get After Effects.  If you're just a hobbyist that wants to dabble in animation, get Apple Motion (now that it's on the Mac App Store the price has come down considerably).
Hope this answers most of your questions!  If you have any other specific ones, let me know and I'll be happy to talk.

Hey, thanks so much for that! I do get the idea of nesting sequences, and I find it odd that Apple didn't include that. I was considering getting Motion ($50), but now I am seriously considering After Effects. Thank you so much!

I find this too biased toward After Effects and likely not properly informed, since the latest version of Motion 5 is quite different. I find "Behaviors" in Motion5 extremely powerful & don't know of any "limitations" in creating particle systems. From talking to many people, I understand now that Motion5 is, for 80% of tasks, much easier and more pleasant to use, but After Effects is the more professional tool - especially with plugin/template support. I've heard at least one professional say that there's almost nothing he can't do in Motion and that for most tasks, it's more fun to use.

I use both. Agree with all of the above for After Effects, I use it for any heavy lifting because Motion just drives you insane if you try anything too tricky with it.
The beauty of Motion is the way it is integrated into FCP. So I tend to use it for things like lower thirds or credits, because I can create "Master Templates" in Motion and import them into FCP and re-use them with different content. For example this allows you to use the same Motion composition for all your lower thirds, but change the text in FCP as you edit.
It's also good for simple things like Ken Burns' effects (panning and zooming on photographs), if you want them to look a bit more polished than FCP's rather sucky motion tools can give you. And being able to tweak things in Motion and see it instantly update in FCP is a lot better than exporting to AE > tweaking > rendering > relinking in FCP.

While the other answers here cover the feature comparison better, I feel they aren't representing the cost difference adequately.
Motion has a one time cost of $50.
In order to get After Effects from Adobe, you need to sign up for Creative Cloud, which is basically a software leasing scheme being represented as though it were a service (which it most certainly is not). I signed up for Creative Cloud over a year ago to get After Effects and paid $60 a month. Despite 15 years of experience animating with programs like Flash, Modo, and Maya -- After Effects had a substantial learning curve to do the same things very differently, and was basically useless to me without having my full day to dedicate to learning and using it.
The problem with the $60 a month model is not only that the money is wasted if you don't use the software - it's that as far as you do use it, you are increasingly tied to continuing the payments. Once you cancel "Creative Cloud" you lose access to all of your work.
When I went to cancel my subscription, I was required to wait a long time to sit through a very frustrating conversation with a chat bot, that ultimately ended with my issue being forwarded to some committee that took over week to get back to me. They tried to tell me that I had to pay half the cost of the remaining year's subscription for "early cancellation" even though my first year was up and they automatically renewed my commitment without my permission. I was never able to get a hold of an actual human being once, and ultimately had to reverse the automatic charges through my bank in order to close my account with Adobe.
So we aren't talking $50 vs $1000. Supposing you needed to use the software for about 30 years, your talking more like $50 vs $20,000. And if in year 31 you need to cancel your subscription, all your lifetime of payments earned you was the right to lose a lifetime of work. Except perhaps fighting disease and reversing the aging process, I can't think of a feature that justifies such a compromise.

Certainly Motion wins on price, unless you factor in the extra cost of having to buy Apple hardware to run it on. Also your comparison over 30 years doesn't include the cost of upgrades, which can be significant. After all if price is the deciding factor then it's time to learn Blender.

I have used After Effects, and from what I know, the main difference is that Adobe's has a much steeper learning curve but is also more powerful than Motion. AE is truly like a "Photoshop" for video, and its great for Special Effects. Motion, I've read, is the easiest for making compositions and great if you are working with FCP because it integrates pretty seamlessly.
Again, I haven't tried Motion, though I'd love to use it sometime. You can download the AE trial here.
Perhaps this link proves useful.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2728496?start=0&tstart=0
Hope it helps!

Thanks! I won't accept your answer right away; I'm going to wait for more answers.


text:
How can I find good quality discounted audio gear?
I need to buy some basic accessories (XLR cables, mic stands and clips, etc) on a tight budget. I'd rather pay more for quality gear than buy something cheap that will break quickly, but a lot of times if you look hard enough you can find quality items that are discounted because they're overstock or last year's model, etc.
Does anyone have some recommendations on how to find local or online stores that sell discounted gear, or other creative ways to buy it without paying full retail price? For local stores, I'm specifically looking in Seattle, but some general tips would be good to help people in other cities as well.
I definitely want to buy cables new, but I don't mind buying mic stands used.

I don't think this is on topic here - realistically the usual places are craigslist, ebay, freecycle, local theatres and clubs etc

I realize it may be kind of a grey area, so I'm happy to delete it if the mods think it should be, but I think it's a very practical question for most people in the field. I phrased it in general terms so that it's not a "Let's Go Shopping" question.

I think it's useful and on-topic. Everything (except the mention of your home city) seems specific enough to get helpful answers, but not so localized that it's only relevant to your situation. Of course I'm not the only voice here - if you disagree, please -1, vote to close, or open a question on meta.

Nothing beats word of mouth. Ask other producers, technicians, and musicians in your area who you talk with (I presume you do some networking). Everyone likes a deal; see what your contacts do for theirs.
Here are a few approaches that I've had luck with:

Check classifieds, both on paper and online classifieds such as Craigslist. Look for organizations that are going out of business or upgrading their stock. Check the garage sale section, too. People occasionally clean out their home studios. Does your area have an auction site? I bought a nice synthesizer once from a site like that, through a local college that was upgrading their music program's equipment.
Look to see if there is a regular swap meet or flea market nearby. In my area, there is an audio swap meet every six months, plus a weekly general market. I've found decent used gear at both of these, and generally you can try it out.
Finally, search for pawn shops. Most cities have at least a few, and most of the ones I've seen tend to have a bit of musical equipment.
Look for "deal of the day" sites such as goingtoday.com or woot.com or Musicansfriend's Stupid Deal of the Day. You will probably have to wait a while before something you need shows up, but when it does, it's usually under retail price, and usually refurbished.

Very little of this applies specifically to audio equipment - variations on these basic ideas could work for finding TVs, cars, computers, whatever.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What's the difference between a DVCAM tape that is mini and a MiniDV tape?
What exactly is the difference between a DVCAM tape that is mini and a MiniDV tape? They look pretty much the same in terms of size. It seems like Sony is making DVCAM tapes that are the same size as MiniDV tapes now, and it’s getting hard to tell what, if anything, is different. I’m cataloging videos that have either been captured on tapes that say DVCAM, MiniDV, and some tapes that actually have both DVCAM and MiniDv printed on them. I’m basically trying to figure out what I should put as the "media format." Any ideas?

Originally there was miniDV which is a standard consumer tape format (using ME tape) holding DV (at the time DV wasn't really a file format in it's own right).
Sony released a professional version of this called DVCAM with locked audio and which records at a shallower angle, running tape faster at the expense of running time, to reduce dropout.
You could use either DVCAM tapes (now known as DVCAM-L) which as well as holding more tape for longer runtimes used higher quality MP tape, or you could record on miniDV tapes in either DV mode (to remain compatible with miniDV cameras) or in DVCAM mode to take advantage of the better format.  (The larger tape format uses the same width tape so the same head is used for either.) More recently DVCAM mini tapes have been available which use the better quality tape in the smaller package.
So DVCAM encompasses a file format, a recording format, the larger tape format and a marque of professional quality tape in the mini size tapes.  DVCAM mini and miniDV tapes are interchangable but they are branded towards their intended use and there is a general difference in quality/price between the two.
In your case regardless of the brands written on the actual tape you should probably use miniDV if it holds DV and DVCAM or DVCAM mini if it holds DVCAM.  If there is nothing recorded on the tape then it is suitable for either.

According to this wikipedia article, it appears that DVCAM is Sony's proprietary (electronic) DV container format, and MiniDV is a physical media.
MiniDV media, as well as other sizes of DV media, can be used to store DVCAM (or any other DV stream variety).
To confuse matters, it appears that Sony markets a media format/size called DVCAM-L (visible in the photo demonstrating various DV cassette sizes) , presumably simply meaning "DV-Large" format, but with their proprietary container format brand as the name, for marketing reasons.
In summary, MiniDV is the physical media, (analogous to 5.25" floppy disk versus 3.5" floppy disk) and DVCAM is the "file format".  Labeling a MiniDV tape with "DVCAM" is like labeling a CD as "Music compatible!" (which I have seen done before).  It's true information, but worthless information, as the media can store any format of data.
To answer your final question, what to put as the "media format", that depends on whether you mean the physical format (which is MiniDV in your case), or the electronic format (which may be DVCAM in your case).  I would probably say 'DVCAM', as that's the only piece of information that won't be immediately apparent to anyone looking at the physical tape.

this is not entirely accurate, dvcam is not just a file format, the data is recorded onto the tape differently.

@JamesRyan: Thanks for the clarification, and more detailed answer.

The tape also operates at a different speed. It was more then speed than anything else. DVCAM still ised the 4:1:1 25mbit video format that DV used, but used a faster tape speed which allows for guard bands between the tracks which greatly improves interchangability between machines.  Many DV decks will playback a DVCAM tape no problem. Decks like the Panasonic AG DV2500 will play both the mini and large DV and DVCAM tapes.

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

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


text:
Are there any (visible) differences between R1 and R2 DVDs (or blu-rays, thereof)?
I was wondering whether there is any visible difference between Region 1 and Region 2 movies. Region 1 is encoded in 23.976 fps standard, right? And Region 2 is 25 fps.
But as I assume the movies are shot in 23.976 only, the R2 releases are just some convert/recode to be compatible with the region.

Which ultimately leads me to a question: If presented with a movie
  playing from R1 and R2 discs simultaneously, can a trained eye see any
  difference?

I know for a fact an eye can see the difference between 23.976 fps and 25 fps. A lot of low-budget movies/web series are being released lately since the Canon dSLRs can record video and there definitely is a visible difference between the standard 24 film fps and the "fluid, unnatural" 25 fps.

You seem to have asked several questions here.  Is there a visible difference between DVDs for variuos regions? and Does region coding imply frame rate? Along with some commentary about frame rates. You would probably do well to turn this into two or three separate questions.

There is no visible difference, unless the DVD/BR publisher labels their discs as such.  Any region code (or even region-free data) can be burned or pressed on to any media.
Furthermore, region encoding (at least on DVDs, and I assume on BRs) has nothing (technically) to do with the video format.  Now, you're likely to find Region-1 DVDs in NTSC format, Region 1 is the U.S. and Canada, and the U.S. and Canada use NTSC, but there's no technical barrier to creating a R1 DVD in PAL format.
See the Wikipedia article on DVD Region codes, and specifically the section on NTSC vs. PAL.

You can only see the difference in compression of those 2 dvds, as for FPS, untrained eyes wont see the difference in 1 fps. trained eyes do.

Compression and FPS have nothing to do with region encoding. At all.


text:
What metadata can be stored in a .dv file?
I'd just like to know what information I can expect to extract from a dv file. A lot of file formats have provisions for embedded metadata of all sorts, so my question is what if any data could a .dv file have?

you can check http://www.videohelp.com/tools/DV_Datecode and http://www.avpreserve.com/dvanalyzer/dv-metadata/
the rest is on google :)
i was using an automated software developed in house to extract the info, later on we moved to FinalCutServer so we get to manage everything in there...
edit: this link could help you. http://premierepro.wikia.com/wiki/DVMP

Thanks. Just waht I needed, but was unable to come up with using Google.


text:
How do video producers cope with matching or normalising inputs from multiple differing devices?
I am looking to make a music video from a number of live shows by getting fans to send in their clips taken at the shows. We run our timing from a backing drum track on Cubase, so that is fixed, which means this should work, however I have never tried to use that many inputs in different formats, with different light levels etc. I don't need to worry about sound from the devices - we can take that from house sound.
Are there any things I should plan for?
More generically - how do video producers cope with matching or normalising inputs from multiple differing devices?

Apple's Final Cut Pro X includes a variety of auto-analysis and auto-correction features — stabilization, compensation for rolling shutter, color balance, et c.  It can also attempt to automatically time-sync multiple clips, which I've found does a pretty decent job at roughing out the timeline.
While I normally would feel uncomfortable relying on automated corrections, for a large set of variant inputs, it's the only practical solution I've found.


text:
Choosing an import format: AAF vs OMF
I am developing a video rendering application. I would like to import editing projects from non-linear video editing application like Avid or FCP.
Which format should I start with, AAF or OMF? What would be the pros and cons of either?

AAF is the newer and more complete framework.  It is the successor to OMF, which still lives on but mostly because of legacy applications.
Note that Automatic Duck makes a line of highly-regarded tools that help with import and export of these interchange formats and have recently been made available for free.


text:
How would I develop AGFA Moviechrome 40 film?
I recently was crawling through old boxes and came across my grandfather's old Canon Zoom 518-2 Super 8 video camera. Inside was a cartridge of AGFA Moviechrome 40 film. I'm wondering where/how I'd go about getting this developed and was wondering if anyone had any suggestions?

AGFA 40 film is from the 70's and film processing has changed a huge amount since then, and I don't think the old processing even exist anymore (in shops or repo centers) Instead of trying to replicae the old proceess the developers will just process as they would B&W film.
If they do this (which is very likely) then you will end up with very flat and grainy images that unless they have some value wont be worth looking at.
However as with this type of thing curiosity is a very funny thing and i'm sure I would just give it a go to see what comes out.
(p.s this question is slightly off topic as it is about videography)


text:
What are the advantages camcorders have over zoom digital cameras?
It seems that the latest models of compact digital cameras come with many features which used to be only in camcorders: image stabilization, low-light shooting mode and of course high-definition to name a few.
This article shows some candidates which IMO give pretty good competition to modern camcorders.
I already have a decent SLR camera for taking still pictures, and now i am interested in buying a camera for shooting home videos. I thought of buying a digital camera instead of a  camcorders - but only if I will not be missing out anything that only camcorders have to offer.

From the point of view of image quality, I think the choice is clear. Camcorders shoot good video and crappy stills, digital still cameras shoot good video and good stills.
Some digital still cameras shoot even better video than camcorders. I have a $800 Canon Vixia camcorder that shoots 1080p at 24fps with 24Mbps bitrate. The little SX230 HS referenced in your article also shoots 1080p at 24fps but at 36Mbps, and all for about $200, a quarter of the price!
Problems I see with using digital still cameras for shooting video:

Still cameras are not comfortable to hold for shooting video. Camcorders win this category easily.
Audio recording is pretty bad in still cameras, so for any serious shooting you will need a separate audio recorder and microphone, plus editing software.
If you plan to do in-camera editing with effects and such, then a camcorder will probably give you more options than a digital still camera. But if you plan to edit on the computer this is not a problem.


text:
Color correction workflow
I completed my first short film in December. One of the most time consuming aspects of the project was making the colors look nice. I used Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5 and the free Magic Bullet plugin. I learned a lot. I now realise that color correction and grading is more of an art than an established set of rules.
Could an expereinced colorist provide some practical tips about dealing with color correction and grading over the scope of the entire project.

Should I wait until I have a rough cut until I start correcting?
Should I correct individual clips on the timeline, or correct the original source?
Should correction (of exposure etc.) and grading (achieving a "look") be done at separate stages?
What kind of automated colour correction tools are there?
Are there things I can do during production that would help with the color correction (i.e. using a target with color squares printed on it like this)?

I am not an experienced colorist but I believe I can provide you with some answers. At least from an indie filmmaker's point of view.

Wait until you have the final cut (or lock-off cut) before you grade. Grading usually happens at the same time as the sound design as both require a locked-off cut. It is best to wait until this stage so that you don't have to go back and grade new shots if the director decides he/she wants to make a change.
Correct individual clips on the timeline. You said you grade in Premiere using a plugin. That's cool. But there are other options. I always went from Final Cut to Apple Color but have recently discovered DaVinci Resolve. The Lite version is free. Here is a bit of info on it.
Grading clip by clip is the best way to go because you can see what the clip before looked like and so you know what the next one needs to look like, i.e. it's easier to reference.
You don't want to color grade the original video incase you decide you want to change something later. I believe doing something like that is called destructive editing. You want to keep it raw so that you can always come back to it.
In my experience, no, it happens at the same time.
Not too sure about this one. Avid Media Composer has pretty good color grading capabilities, I never use the auto correct on it, but it's there if you need it. Check out this tutorial on grading in Avid. Other editing programs may have similar features, but I personally don't use them. And if you're editing a film, I don't see why you would want to.
Yes there are things you can do to help with grading in post. That color chart you linked to wouldn't really help you. I think that's more for when people shoot on film. They shoot 10 seconds or so of color chart on every new reel of film to make sure that the people who are processing their film are consistent. So, they have the same color chart and the same film. Provided they shoot it with the same lighting and exposure, the color charts should all look exactly the same when they come back from processing and telecine. If they don't the film processing company can get into trouble.
During production you pretty much want to make sure you get the flattest image possible and correct exposure. If you under or overexpose a part of the scene, there is no detail recorded and there is no way to get it back. If you shoot on Canon DSLR there is a great (free) picture profile which helps to obtain a flat image optimized for color grading. It's called CineStyle by Technicolor. Otherwise you can shoot with the neutral picture profile with the contrast turned all the way down.
I only have experience with Canon DSLRs so if you are using something else you would need to do some research on how to achieve a flat image.

Do you know how to set up your Nikon camera like CineStyle for Canon? Is TassinFlat good?

I disagree with points  5, probably because this answer is seven years old, but DaVinci Resolve includes a color match feature explicitly for working with color checker charts like the one in the question.  I also disagree on point 3.  A basic "one light" grade is often done before the edit to get the white balance and exposure in the ballpark.  Often, this is performed by a DIT or assistant editor, and is a shot-wise adjustment.


text:
Adobe Premiere Pro CS4 - Looping a clip
I'm trying to get a clip to loop on my video for its entirety. (The clip is the water mark.)
I can't really copy paste it everywhere, it would take hours (the clip is 10 seconds, on an hour long vid.)
So is there some way to do it? To loop a video so it will play for the entirety of the video?

Is the watermark a video or a still image? If it's a still you can usually just increase its duration.
Otherwise, copying and pasting is the best way to go about it. Copy and paste it 10 times, then select the 10 clips, copy and paste that 10 times, then select the 100 clips, copy and paste that etc. until you get the desired duration.

Thanks. I was wondering if there was a function do to so, and you pretty much confirmed that there is not.


text:
Are there any good video editing apps for photographers?
Photo editing apps like Lightroom have very intuitive ways (my opinion, of course) of performing operations on pictures.
I occasionally do small video projects that I edit either in Sony Vegas on Windows or Final Cut Pro 7 on Mac. These apps seem pretty lacking in some areas, when compared to Lightroom. For example, there is no option to show the EXIF data stored in DSLR clips, as far as I know, so I can't easily see what lens I've used for this or that shot, or what the aperture, shutter and ISO was. White balance is done by selecting a white area of the picture, which is fine, but then there is no slider to go warmer or cooler, instead I have to do this by hand using the full blown color correction filter.
I was wondering if there are any video editing applications that have a digital photography friendly workflow. I don't have any constraints on operating system or cost.

The newest version of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom - Version 4(beta) has improved video capabilities. You can now do many of the standard Lightroom image adjustment controls to video clips as well. You also have the ability to play, trim(non destructive), and extract frames from video clips.
Some examples of the adjustments to video include: exposure, contrast, clarity, and white balance temperature and tint.
As your original question was asking, this is very friendly to photographers, as Lightroom is primarily a photo editing and organizing piece of software. Only the most recent versions have started to include video editing features.

You might want to try out Adobe Premiere Elements/Pro depending on what suits you. There is excellent interoperability between Photoshop and these Apps so you should be able to jump too and fro rather seamlessly. I can't check right away, but I think Adobe App do display Exif data for video files as well as image files. I know for sure Adobe Bridge does.


text:
How do I edit video footage from an interview?
I was asked to produce a set of video interviews for a friend's wedding consisting of individual single-subject interviews (the interviewer is not on camera or mic) with the bride, groom, close family, and wedding party.
The questions were prepared, the lighting and scenery set up, the subjects miked for sound, the cameras positioned, the interviews conducted, and now I have a bunch of video files sitting on my hard drive.
In short my question is, "How do I edit together interview footage?"
To word it in more detail: My experience and background is weighted towards shooting video rather than editing it. I have access to all the software I might need and I know the basics of how to use it (Premier Pro, Sony Vegas), but I don't really know what I am doing. Is there a crash course in video editing, or possibly interview editing, that I could study to get started? Or quintessential interviews to watch? Or books to read?

There is no one right way to edit anything. I've never watched a video of this kind so I probably can't give the best advice. But if I was in your position there are a few ways I'd consider cutting it together:

Edit it a bit like a 'behind the scenes' video. Begin with footage of someone talking and then use appropriate cutaways of the wedding. Cut back to different people whenever it is appropriate and put some music underneath, something that fits the mood.
This would be my preferred way but you'd need a fair amount of footage of the actual event and even some archival footage or photos would be very handy. Most movies have a behind the scenes on the DVD so I'd suggest watching one or two of those if this method sounds good to you.
The simplest way would be to show each interview one by one. So you'd show the first person's interview in its entirety followed by the next person's, and so on. Crossfade between them and have music underneath. This would probably be a boring video to watch in the end, but it'd do the job.
Similar to my previous suggestion, this would require only the interview footage (no event or archival footage). However, you'd intercut the interviewees based on topic. For example, if the bride talks about how she met the groom you'd intercut that along side the groom talking about how they met (assuming he does). This way you would be able to cut out a lot of the fluff that you get when interviewing people.

That's how I'd go about it anyway, mate. Hope that helps you out a little.


text:
D7000 HD video format - can each frame contain metadata?
In fact the question is the other way round:
I shoot a HD video with my Nikon-D7000, and along the way things happen, such as I change zoom, focal length, light levels change such that the D7000 adjusts its sensitivity during the recording...
Is all this data available for reading somewhere, and if yes how?
I could not find the information on regular websites (Nikon's, www.imaging-resource.com, general google search).
I tried exiftool, but it seems to only show general metadata that is true for the overall video recording.
So is this data recorded somewhere, and can I read it on my Linux system?
Any answer or hint appreciated.

Thanks Miguel, sounds like I might be out of luck, as it seems to me that since they already use exif, it would be the best vehicle for that sort of data.

@Miguel, wow, I wish I had something like this for my Nikon!


text:
Any video editing software with own codecs?
I just tried the new Lightworks and even though I followed the installation instructions rigorously I managed to hit codec problems.
Is there any (preferably proprietary) video editing software with own codecs so that it would run on any Windows? I just want the software to work. Preferably without crashing.

I installed Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD ($34). The download took half a minute, the same to install it, no prerequisities ( except the software updated windows installer ) and everything worked and has been working like a charm.

Depends on what your end goal is, Sony Vegas is nice but VERY outdated, youd be better off spending the extra money on Premiere


text:
Scaling optimal video frame dimensions
I'm trying to setup my site to store uploaded user content in a 640x360 frame size, which will be presented back for viewing in that frame size and in a smaller frame size.
I'm trying to understand why this site (and others): http://www.encoding.com/what_are_the_best_flash_video_frame_dimensions recommend only the following values for smaller sizes:
384 x 216
128 x 72

when clearly others like:
320 x 180
256 x 144

also exist.
What is the mathematical reason behind recommending only these frame sizes?

Does this question belong elsewhere?

This question seems more broadcast and compression specific than AV Production! Inviting experts to a new site proposal Broadcast and Media Technologies which aims to capture more architectural and theoretical views around subjects like this. Join and invite others.

According to the site you referred to:
http://www.encoding.com/what_are_the_best_flash_video_frame_dimensions
The math behind the "Best, Better, and Good" video formats are based on if both Horizontal and Vertical pixels are divided by 16 for best, 8 for better, and 4 for good.
Therefore 256x144 is best, while 384x216 & 128x72 are better, while 320x180 is good.

The resolutions you mentioned are standard in Video codec development are CIF [352x288] and QCIF [176x144] (some other formats here: http://dvrsecurityforum.com/showthread.php?tid=30)
The reason why all these formats recommend multiple of 16 - is because MPEG compression has Macroblocks which are sized 16x16.
CIF = 22 x 18 Macroblocks. and QCIF is essentially half of it both sides.


text:
Dynamic saturation exaggeration
What is this type of processing called?
In some popular songs with a very strong bass beat, the strength of the bass beat is exaggerated by momentarily "turning down" the rest of the sounds while the bass beat hits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducking

The effect in question can be used with side chain compression, parallel compression or even with a excessive compression.
The side-chain effect is the one used to create "a "pumping" effect which can clearly be heard in "Call On Me" by Eric Prydz, "Hung Up" by Madonna, and 99% of Daft Punk housier tracks. Almost all DAWs come with compressors that support side-chain, in the worst case scenario you can look for a VST to do the job, but I'm pretty sure you'll need a VST3 compatible DAW to route the signal.
Parallel Compression is more associated with rock music than electronic - but since many NY Producers end up using it (Like Armand Van Helden), some people confuse it with side-chaining.
Anyways, the effect can also be achieve by adding a strong compressor the song and making the kick really loud - obviously you'll have little control over the amount of effect and you'll have a hard time mixing/mastering.

Yup, don't know why datageist didn't expand, but it's called ducking.  The song or part of it 'ducks' out of the way of a signal, usually a big ol' kick.
You can insert a compressor into the signal chain of the track to be ducked, with a side-chain key input (as J.K says): meaning that the kick's amplitude/level will cause the mix to be compressed, i.e. reduced in volume.

You don't need sidechans to get this effect; it's a natural result of mix bus compression with a really loud transient.  If release is kinda slow you get this pretty dramatically.

I really wish @FriendOfGeorge would stop editing things that aren't mistakes in people's answers.  If someone says "hope that helps", it's a kick in the nuts to remove that sentiment.  Considering this site has next to no activity, it might be helpful to keep the users happy, and not put words in (or take words out) of their mouths

To say "hope that helps" is redundant.  The only reason to post an answer is in the hope that it helps someone:)  I'm just trying to keep the signal to noise ratio up.  In my opinion, Thanks and Hope that Helps belong in the comments, not the Q&A.  If you would like to discuss this further let's move it to chat.

Well, I guess you have to keep yourself busy somehow.. completely pointless and fairly derogatory to correct people's good intentions. Whatever makes you happy.

Meta question on this subject here.

The effect can be achieved with side-chain compression.


text:
Adobe After Effects Frame-By-Frame Editing
I am currently editing a clip in After Effects. We had a very limited supply of green screen so I am now having to edit some of the white wall too. The thing is, the actors move around, not allowing me to clip out these parts.
I was wondering if there was a thing in After Effects that allowed me to break up the clips so that I can work around the actors in certain time intervals and get the white wall to be transparent.
Thanks!

There's no easy way.  Luma key on the white walls, and roto any trouble spots.

I hope I understand this correctly, are you saying that you have actors in front of a green screen and sometimes they are off the screen? If you want to chroma key the green screen to be another surface you have to have it consistent all the way through. Green screen is hard enough to get right. (Green or blue screen backgrounds have to be evenly lit with a flat diffused light, non-reflective, and no shadows, otherwise the green screen will look blotchy,
and have noise areas that you can't just tweak out.)
Trying to mask out where your actors fall out of the green screen frame does not have a solution in it. If you didn't get this right in production you won't be able to fix this in post. At least not fix it in post with anything that looks close to natural. I highly recommend you shoot this over.

It is fixable in post, though it's more work. And as mentioned in my answer there is a tool for exactly this job.

Have you used the Roto Brush? It was designed for situations like these.
For those unfamiliar, there is a nice concise tutorial here on how to use the Roto Brush.


text:
AE - Imported mp4 seems to be missing audio
I'm new to After Effects, but my experience with video editing so far has been that audio and video are treated separately. When I add an mp4 to my composition, I get the video element, but I can't figure out where the audio is at. When I hit play on the preview toobar, the audio does not play. I checked to make sure "mute audio" wasn't enabled.
I'm sure it's something simple, I just need to be pointed in the right direction.

Some video clips doesn't have it's own sound layer, it's just there (or not there) all the time. It depends on which format you use. But if it is H.264 (MP4) it may look like you don't have full support for the format. My last computer didn't manage to save to it. Do you have a good computer, and is the clip formatted properly? Check how the clip is set up if you right click on it in the clip manager in the top left corner.

If you just play the comp it won't play audio. You need to do a RAM preview. Hit 0 (zero) on the numeric keypad or Ctrl+0 if you're on a laptop.
. (period) on the numeric keypad (or for laptop ctrl+.) plays just the audio from wherever the playhead is.
If your footage does have audio, you will see the waveform in the preview thumbnail in the project window, and the item description will tell you the audio format, as below (in this case 44.1kHz, 16 bit unsigned pcm, stereo audio)

If the clip has audio and you bring it into a compositon you should see a little speaker icon on the layer with the audio, next to the eye icon, on the left.

After Effects works differently than normal video editors.
To play audio on a composition (your video project), press 0 on the numeric keypad (or Ctrl+0) to start the RAM preview.
This way, After Effects loads the audio through the RAM. If you skip to parts of the video that are not in the green bar below your composition preview, you have to wait for AE to render it.


text:
AE Error : Imager Buffers exceed internal limits. Decrease the memory requirements for the rendering of this frame. (12804)

I'm kinda new to AE and having a weird issue while trying to render a 1920x1080 Composition.
After rendering about 10seconds, i get the following error:

I've checked all of my objects and i have no composition with the large dimensions mentioned in the error.
Did anyone ever bump into this error ? It would greatly help me to hear from the more experienced one.
Cheers,
Shai.

It would be helpful to know what effects & plugins you're using - certain effects can cause errors like this - repetile used to do similar things when I was using a RAM constrained PC (a few versions ago).

Guys, seriously - this question is 3 years old.

It would be good to know what OS your machine is running and if it's 32 or 64 bit, and the resources as in type of processor (Dual Core, i3, i7?) and how much DRAM is on the motherboard. I am not an After Effects user (yet) but this error appears to be a resource error, which is common to many other video editors.
It would also be helpful to have you describe what you are trying to render in AE. For instance how long is the piece, how many video tracks, what effects are used, etc.
Without knowing your computer's resources is not a show stopper, here are some items to check.
Are you running anything else when AE is trying to render, if so try your render again with nothing running but AE.
If you have a 32 bit machine you may have a 2GB limit on the RAM, which is going to be an issue. Have you tried this on a 64 bit machine with more memory?
What resources do you have AE using besides the requested render? For instance do you have the preview screen on 'auto' size mode, you might try to make the preview smaller and in a 1/4 or 1/2 mode so AE doesn't have to figure out each display frame size thereby freeing up some cycles.

Thanks for the help, It's a MacBook Pro 17" ,i7 2.4, 8GB Ram. I fixed it though, apparently it was CC RepeTile repeating too many times :) Thanks!

It might also be that your project is set at 16-bit, but your photography is in 8-bit.
You can change the bit in project settings or at the bottom of the Project folder to the left of the UI.

It says in the screenshot that his project is 8bit.

I found a way to raytrace 3d work. it turned out that the company has not updated adobe lib optix. in the parts that comes with the after effect is version 3.0.0 in August 2013. It is not present in the card support on the architecture "maxwell"
I downloaded from the site Nvidia optix version 3.8 and simply replace the file optix.1.dll. and lo and behold I have on my card earned ray-trace 3d.
I checked today at work on a gtx 970 and bonded 2x gtx 980 all worked fine
mini guide

Download https://www.sendspace.com/file/lt8trf
create one backup c: \ Program Files \ Adobe \ Adobe After Effects CC 2014 \ Support Files \ optix.1.dll I just renamed optix.1.dll in optix.1_bak.dll
Copy the downloaded file in the c: \ Program Files \ Adobe \ Adobe After Effects CC 2014 \ Support Files \
In the after effect turn "Enable untested, unsupported CPU for CUDA acceleration or ray-traced 3D renderer" or you can add your card in the c: \ Program Files \ Adobe \ Adobe After Effects CC 2014 \ Support Files \ raytracer_supported_cards.txt
Profit

Screenshots
http://www.sendspace.com/filegroup/zJxzSUA%2BuKBdr0L0Gtea6Q
GPU work:gtx 750 ti, gtx 970, gtx 980, gtx 980 ti, gtx titan X. A few mobile gpu from 8xxm series.
I wrote on the forum adobe. but this instruction and criticism towards their company, they are removed

Dmitri - the OP already commented on the accepted answer what the problem boiled down to.

This happens because of motion blur. Deactivate it or change the movement of your layers if they pass close to the camera.
Cheers.

Could you expand on why it's related to motion blur? I suspect you might be right but some explanatory detail would go a long way.


text:
Which decoder allows for fast seeking or how to configure k-lite codec pack?
I am using mostly Haaly Media Splitter for input and ffdshow for decoding (libavcodec).
Actually I am ok with the default profile 7 installation of k-lite codec pack.
At the moment I have the default options in the ffdshow decoder configuration and in the Haali media splitter filter.
What I want is to make seeking as fast as possible. Any suggestions on how to detect the bottleneck or how to reduce seeking time?

Let me describe what the bottleneck in seeking is.
You didn't say what format are your videos encoded in, but I'm guessing you are using H.264 or maybe MPEG-2. Am I correct?
To maximize quality, these codecs have different compression formats, and each frame gets encoded differently. This is a brief summary of the compression types:

I-frames (I stands for intracoded) are frames that can be decoded easily, as they don't depend on any other frames.
P-frames (P stands for predictive) are frames that encode only the differences from one or more previous I or P-frames. To decode a P-frame you need to first decode all the I and P-frames that this frame depends on.
B-frames (B stands for bi-directional) are frames that encode differences like P-frames, but unlike P-frames, these differences can refer to previous or future I or P-frames. As with P-frames, To decode a B-frame you first need to decode all the past and future frames that are dependencies.

So now I hope the performance problem with seeking is clear. You jump to the middle of the movie clip, and chances are, you are going to land on a B or a P-frame. So the decoder now needs to find all the references required by that frame, decode them in the correct order and only then it can finally decode the target frame.
To achieve better compression and higher quality, encoders create a lot less I-frames than P or B-frames. The idea is that the compressed stream starts with a really high quality I-frame, and then for a number of frames that follow, smaller P and B frames encode just the differences. Of course if you go for a long time like this quality starts to degrade, so at some point the movie will include another big and nice I-frame and the cycle starts again.
When a movie clip is played from start to end, the different frame types appear sorted in the file so that when playback reaches a given frame, all its references have already been seen by the decoder. This allows for very efficient playback at 1x speed. Unfortunately when you play at other rates or when you seek the amount of work the decoder needs to do to find referenced frames is much larger because frames are read out of sequence.
So going back to your question, the problem isn't really in the decoder. If you need to improve seek time you need to use videos that are encoded to minimize seek time. In essence this means videos that have more frequent I-frames, also called keyframes sometimes. The more I-frames you have, the less references will be required to decode P and B-frames so the decoder will have less work to seek.
I hope this helped understand the problem.

Well explained! One doubt - how does the container affect seeking speed? When I encode an H.264 / H.265 video, seeking time is much faster on VLC on ios (iPad) when I use MP4 container, and really bad when I use the same video in MKV container.


text:
Does the M4V file type have direct support for Audio?
I am working with a video vendor who just ripped a dvd and sent me BOTH m4v files AND aac files (audio and video separately),. When I asked him why he did not just send 1 m4v file with the audio and video in ONE FILE, he wrote me back this (Which I need to confirm is true or false):

.M4V is a video format that doesnt directly support audio so the computer automatically rendered the audio files out as .AAC. What you
  say is an .MP4 format is really just the "file type" and not the
  extension itself.

Doesn't sound quite right, but I am not a video pro. But I do not want to have to splice all these files together again.
Please advise: Is his statement (above) correct?
Thanks, sleeper

I find the m4v extension a bit confusing.
For MPEG-2, the .m2v extension is associated with a raw video stream. Those files can have only video.
Now for MPEG-4, Apple uses the .m4v extension as a container format, and in fact if you rename an .m4v file to .mp4 it is likely to play on players that only read .mp4 files, since the two format are essentially equivalent.
I think you would need to check this .m4v file and make sure it is really the container format, and not an elementary video stream similar to what you find in .m2v files for MPEG-2.
If you feel comfortable inspecting files with a hex editor, just open this .m4v file, skip the first four bytes and check if the next four are the letters 'ftyp'. If they are, then you have an MP4 container file that should have no trouble holding audio along with the video. If, on the other side, you've got something else, then you may have an elementary stream, in which case you may want to recommend to your vendor to use a different extension for these files. Using .avc is probably more appropriate for an H.264 elementary stream.

SO.. I think what your saying is the answer to my question is "MAYBE". And that .M4V is simply a container so it depends on some variable(s) within the container. I know nothing about working with a hex editor, plus the files came to me ALREADY split into audio and video files. So I guess I'm stuck with re-editing the files.

Are you on Windows, Mac or Linux? I can give you specific instructions for your OS to inspect the file if you want.

Yes. That would be great! Thank You so much. I'm on Windows 7 64bit (Home/Office) Windows.

Download the XVI32 hex editor from http://www.chmaas.handshake.de/delphi/freeware/xvi32/xvi32.htm#download. Then unzip to any folder (it does not come with an installer). Then double click XVI32.exe, select File|Open and then choose one of your .m4v files. Take a screenshot of the application window and paste it on your question. I'll take a look and tell you what it is.

I took the screenshot but unfortunately I do not yet have enough "Reputation Points" to post on the stack, so I posted it here on Google sites. (see attachment). Thanks again for your help.

No problem. Guess what, this is NOT a container file, you have a raw H.264 elementary stream. Your vendor was right, that file format cannot hold audio. You may want to suggest that they use a different extension for these files, I've seen .avc and .h264 used for this format. Also, you may be able to generate a .mp4 from he m4v and the aac using ffmpeg, if ffmpeg is smart enough to recognize the m4v file as an elementary stream.

Cool. I guess we don't have to feed him to the lions now :D  I have adobe premier pro (CS4). I should be able to put them together using that. Thanks again for the "super" support!


text:
Looking For A Video Editor that will maintain the codecs of the original source video
Im trying to test various video/audio codecs by editing clips from larger videos that have the codecs I want to test.  Although every video editor i have tried changes the codecs of the clips i create to different codecs than what the original used.
Are there any video editors out there where I can create clips of videos without changing the codecs of the original video...I want to create clips, yet keep the audio/video codecs in tact.
I have tried:
Windows Movie Maker
Avidemux 2.5
AVS Video Editor
VideoLAN Movie Creator

Thre is a new site proposal that should take Codecs and Compression  algorithms/products in great depths. Participate in Area51 proposal site Broadcast and Media Technologies.

In many instances you can use ffmpeg to create a clip out of a longer clip, and request that the original frames are copied instead of re-encoded.
I'm writing this from memory so you may want to double check, but I believe the command line options you need to use for this are:
ffmpeg -i <source-filename> -vcodec copy -acodec copy -ss <start-position> -t <duration> <destination-filename>

Inviting expert for the new site proposal that should take Codecs and Compression  algorithms/products in great depths. Participate in Area51 proposal site Broadcast and Media Technologies.

Adding if you want to do the opposite and combine multiple clips of the same codec you can make a textfile with a line file 'path/to/clip' for each clip and then run ffmpeg -f concat -safe 0 -i 'path/to/textfile.txt' -c copy 'path/to/output'. Source. The concat demuxer "requires the same codecs, but different container formats can be used; and it can be used with any container formats"

QuickTime Pro 7 does this, as long as the media is inside a QuickTime (.mov) container.
If I understand how it works correctly, it's because the player is able to play back the source material in a large number of ways (on the fly). You could have multiple clips on the screen with different geometric properties, multiple audio tracks, cuts, etc--and the player will just play back the appropriate parts of the media at the right time with the specified scaling, masking, and other attributes. The app itself is approaching obsolescence, and had a limited feature set to begin with, but it could do what you're talking about.
Also, many high-end non-linear video editing software will read many codecs natively and archive the highest-quality files for use when you actually encode your project (to avoid fidelity loss caused by multiple encodes and decodes in the editing process).

You could try VirtualDub since you haven't got it working yet.. I have only used it with AVI though..

Inviting expert for the new site proposal that should take Codecs and Compression  algorithms/products in great depths. Participate in Area51 proposal site Broadcast and Media Technologies.


text:
Do I need tripods etc. for filming?
I'm going to make a movie now with a D7000 I'm going to buy. I want it to look as professional as possible, but I don't want to blow the budget. (I'm a 16 years old student..)
What equipment do I really need to make a normal movie with a few action scenes? Is it good enough with a monopod, or do I need a tripod? In that case, do you know a concrete product I can buy? Is a DIY Manfrotto Fig-Rig better than completely hand-held? My budget is around $200, but if it is like as important to spend a bit on this as a good camera, then of course I'll put some more money into it.
Do I need something like this to get smooth shots? http://viewitem.eim.ebay.no/NEW-MANFROTTO-701HDV-701-HDV-Pro-Fluid-Video-Head/280535333409/item
Thanks for your answer and time!

A fig rig would be an excellent choice for an action piece. If the fig is out of your budget range look at the Opteka X-Grip. Cheap ($30) and pretty flexible, especially if you mount it sideways instead of with the handle parallel to the lens barrel when the shot needs it.
Also if you have access to After Effects spend some time learning the stabilization and tracking capabilities. That will probably improve your shots, helps with rolling shutter issues too that you may experience on a DSLR.
Borrow a tripod. Lots of tripods sitting around in closets in this world.
Edit: Audio is the achilles heal of DSLR video. Make sure you take that into consideration. You can pick up some decent but cheap shotgun microphones that will plug into the D7000, that will help. Also consider grabbing an H4, or several H1s.

I actually use AE a lot! Isn't the new Warp Stabilizing effect a good choice?

And, I use The Foundry Rolling Shutter :) But can you explain what the fig-rig is used for, I mean, what's the benefits of using a Manfrotto Fig-Rig versus a homemade Fig-Rig?

I don't see any advantage in the real thing vs. home-made. If you have more time than money especially ;-). Warp stabilizer is great, but play around with multiple approaches on some test shots. I've seen surprising results from just regular "stabilize motion" on 5.5.

I have accumulated several tripods over the last 30 years and here is what I've learned that might help you.
1) If you want to do pans or tilts with a tripod be sure to get a tripod that has a fluid head and is heavy enough to support your camera with a good wind and not get any shake.
A nice way to make these pans and tilts a lot smoother even with a fluid head is to add a
deflated balloon to the tripod handle. Expand the throat of the balloon around the handle end so that the rest of the balloon lies like a limp rag. You may have to squeeze the air out of it after you insert it on the handle. Once in place, take your thumb and index finger and hold on to the loose end, gently move the camera with the head loosened for pan or tilt. You will immediately see how the movement is vastly improved for smoothness, so much so, you can even increase the focal length further with no camera shake. A 12" or 18" balloon works great and these are usually under 50 cents each.
2) It's far better to have a steady shot from the start then to rely on post production stabilization software to fix it.
3) "Portability links to opportunity". Remember this as a good reason to have a tripod that is so handy that you can almost stuff it in your pocket. I recently bought a JOBY Gorilla that has proven to rank very high on versatility and portability:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/633362-REG/Joby_GP3_BHEN_Gorillapod_SLR_Zoom_Flexible_Mini.html
While this is no substitute for a fluid head tripod as it would not be very smooth for panning, consider the bendable legs that can attach to a fence or other pole to place the camera where a tripod would not fit. I have attach this to my car door to get some great tracking shots. Also, I have found that by bending the rear legs up to make a bicycle like handle bar and use the front leg as a balance or pivot point, you can really have some very smooth handheld shots with it. The key here is to get one that is heavy enough to support your camera. I am using my Joby with a pocket camera that weighs in at about 7.6 oz. (214g) while the tripod can support nearly 7 pounds so it is very stable. Your Nikon D7000 with a lens is going to be more than 2 maybe 3 pounds so you might want a heavier Joby.
I realize the following is out of your budget and mine too but if you are looking for really smooth dolly shots especially for product shots or small scale shooting consider this modified version of the JOBY invented by an MIT engineering student:
http://cinetics.com/

Thanks for sharing your advice! Could this be good? Pearstone VT-2100

The specs look fine: fluid head, 360 pan, supports up to 15 lbs and under $70 ! But sadly, I have no personal experience with it. I recommend a visit to a store that sells these to get a test drive and kick the tires a bit to see it in action. Tripods can be personal like buying cloths, you want to try them on for size before you buy.


text:
Tripod duel, which one is the best?
Has anyone tried this for filming? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/223630-REG/Davis_Sanford_PROVISTA12_ProVista12_Video_Tripod_System.html
It's more expensive than this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/727498-REG/Pearstone_VT_2100.html But is it worth it?
The first one I haven't found any good reviews on.
The second one I saw a Youtube Review on:

Best for what? The tripod is only part of the story, what you plan to put on it and how you plan to use it is the part that will help determine which tripod is best for the job.

Best for filming, panning and tilting without jerky movements.

How to judge a tripod.
Generally I would go with the heavier tripod of the two which appears to be the first one weighing in at 9 lbs vs. the 2nd one at 4.5 lbs. However, this is at best a calculated guess as I have not played with the head. Fluid heads can vary on smoothness, and the only way to really tell what's going to make the smoothest shot is the old 'A vs. B' test. This would require you to take similar footage with the same camera on both tripods and compare the results.
Suggested tests:
1) make a pan and a tilt shot for each with the widest angle lens.
2) repeat pans and tilts, continue to work the focal length with more telephoto, see which one is smoothest as you use more magnification.
3) take it outside on a windy day, see which one can handle the wind the best.
4) how does it feel? Is it easy to adjust or does it feel sticky and sluggish.

I'll try that. Do you know if a 18-200 is wide enough for filming? I haven't bought the camera and the lens yet, just so I don't get any unpleasent surprises. (I need 200 for regular photography.)

Are you saying 18-200 mm based on a 35mm format? If you are not sure you can learn about "the crop factor" from this tutorial on Vimeo's video school: http://vimeo.com/videoschool/lesson/127/crop-factor. If this was a 35 mm camera with a 18 - 200mm lens you would have a very wide to about a 4x telephoto. This would cover live action and portrait like close ups.

It's a DX sensor..

Ok, so you need to learn about the 'crop factor' so you can convert your lens numbers into a meaningful number.

Oh? I always use the lens millimeters?


text:
What is a good efficient way to isolate clips from long movies?
I am making a video that is an analysis of various films. My hope is to get clips from the movies to demonstrate various points I'm talking about.
I'm using Kdenlive on Ubuntu. One issue is that it seems like loading a whole movie length video slows it down making it hard to move around to the right frames (the computer is an i5 with 4GB RAM, so it's not a particularly slow computer).
The main problem, though, is that I want to select sections and edit them out so I can have them as clips ready to include in my master edit. However, if I go through the render process, I'll end up affecting the compression and video quality settings.
Is there a way I can specify a start and end point in hours, minutes, and seconds, and then output that portion into a new file, without changing the quality of the video?
Perhaps something at the command line? That way I could scan through the video using a more efficient player like VLC or something, and pick out my start and stop times there.
Additional note, in case it matters: I don't need the sound, just the image.

What format is your long video? The seeking performance problem may not be in Kdenlive but in your movie. If you aren't yet, you should consider using a container format that has index tables.
Now regarding extracting a clip from a movie, I believe you can do that with ffmpeg, specifying a codec named "copy" and setting a start position and a duration (in seconds):
ffmpeg -ss <start-position> -i <source-filename> -vcodec copy -acodec copy -t <duration> <destination-filename>

The videos are in a variety of formats - matroska, MP4, and avi. Thank you for the code, I'm trying to make it work, though it seems to be balking on the audio output codec. Also, I assume the time format is hh:mm:ss...?

The documentation for ffmpeg is at http://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg.html. It looks like you should put the -ss option before the -i as that does a direct seek into the start position. The format of -ss and -t can be in seconds or hh:mm:ss.xxx.

Cheers for that. I think eventually I'll be able to tweak the settings to be able to extract clips as needed. This looks like the way to go.

For those coming across this, this is using ffmpeg 6.1.1 and allows from and to timestamps and appears to be very efficent
ffmpeg -i original.mp4 -ss 00:00:02.285 -to 00:00:12.925 -c copy first_clip.mp4 -ss 00:00:19.905 -to 00:00:53.245 -c copy second_clip.mp4 -ss 00:01:03.065 -to 00:01:14.625 -c copy third_clip.mp4 -ss 00:01:17.615 -to 00:01:53.585 -c copy fourth_clip.mp4 -ss 00:03:14.345 -to 00:03:43.73 -c copy fifth_clip.mp4


text:
Is 18 mm enough for video?
Do I need a lens that is wider than 18 mm to make a professional looking video (which should be wide enough to give us some space, so the audience doesn't feel like claustrophobia)? I'm going to make a movie filmed with 1080p and a wide ratio.
 ___________
|           |
|           |
|___________| <--- HD.

 ___________
|           |
|___________| <--- Wide ratio.

What you're referring to is the aspect ratio. 1920 by 1080p is HD video, you would have to letterbox it in post production to achieve the 'wider' aspect ratio (I'm assuming you want 2.39:1).
As for the lens, 18mm is a pretty wide lens. If you have a 35mm sensor you may experience some barrel distortion – which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just as long as it's used well.
Not too sure what you mean by your audience feeling claustrophobic. However, a 50mm lens on a 35mm sensor closely replicates the field of view of the human eye as does (approx.) a 30mm lens on a crop sensor.
So to answer your question: no, you don't need a lens wider than 18mm to make a professional looking video.
EDIT: You mentioned that you will be using a kit lens. Typically kit lenses have a low build quality and are rarely used by professional cinematographers. Obtaining a better lens will make your videos look more professional due to the superior build quality and glass.
A good way to look for good lenses is to, firstly, figure out what focal length you require (8mm fisheye, 50mm, 85mm etc.), search online for different brand's lenses (you have  a Nikon but there are many companies that make third party lenses such as Tamron, Tokina, Sigma), look online for reviews of the lenses and test footage (Vimeo is a great place to find test footage) and then you can make an informed decision on which lens is best for you.
I'd recommend obtaining a good 50mm prime lens. Primes have less glass and generally produce a sharper image. Not too sure what Nikon lenses are like but you could try purchasing a 2nd hand lens off eBay and then buying an adaptor to get it onto your camera. This option is usually pretty cheap and if the lens is in good condition you will most likely be impressed with the result. I bought myself a Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.8 for $80 and an adaptor for $5 – now it's one of my favourite lenses (and definitely the cheapest).

I'm going to crop the video by letterboxing it, yes. By 18mm I mean, is it wide enough to shoot a "open" shot inside for example? Do the audience get an overview of the room, or do you need a wider lens for that? I'm about to buy a D7000 with the kit lens 18-200 3.5-.. for $3000 in Norway. And, if I get the camera to realize I have to spend another 1000 bucks on a 10-24mm lens, that's not fun...

It's too hard to say without seeing the size of the room. 18mm is pretty wide and should be ok, but it really depends on what you want. If you end up needing a wider lens I can highly recommend the Tokina 12-24. I use it often with my 7D and it performs very well. http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Tokina-AT-X-124-AF-PRO-DX-AF-12-24mm-f-4-II-Nikon-Black-No-VAT-/170748348312?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item27c1650798#ht_3349wt_1093

It isn't a cheap lens: http://www.komplett.no/k/ki.aspx?sku=503733
$1200, but what would you recommend then? (I think it's a lens the shop sells along with the camera, not a kit lens..)

True. It's not a 'kit lens'; looks like a well built mid-range lens. Should perform nicely. I can't really recommend any lenses to you because I don't know what you need from them.

Ok, I need (a) lens(es) that I can use for nature photography (landscape and animals), portraits (I don't need a special lens for this as this is only a tiny bit of what I do - price), movie making (both action and mostly still camera).

For landscapes you'd want a wide lens. I used to shoot landscapes with 18mm but usually wanted to go wider (which is why I bought the Tokina 12-24). A wide lens for animals is also useful if they move around a lot. Portraits, 50mm and 85mm are popular but it really depends on the individual. For filmmaking the principles are the same; however wider lenses are better for hand-held shots as camera shake is greatly accentuated by the long focal length of a lens.

Thanks, so if I buy the D7000 with the 'kit' lens 18-200G VRII I'll still 'need' the 11-16?

I suggested the 12-24mm, however the 11-16mm is another viable option. I was tossing up between the two but finally decided to go with the 12-24mm because for the 1mm you are gaining on one end you are losing 8mm on the other – and 24mm can be used nicely for portraits. I can't say whether or not you NEED a wider lens, but they are definitely a great investment, especially if you are into landscape photography.

Well, then I'll make some space for the wideangle lens. Thanks for your time and effort, it's really helpful!


text:
How to simulate a photo being taken from the photographer's POV in a film?
How would I go about simulating a photo being taken from the photographers POV in a film?
I want the still to be part of the shot, with moving images before and after the still. And I want the supposed camera to be an analogue old school one.
More accurately I'd have to

superimpose an analogue style viewfinder (I could only find effects for camcorder ones so far)
simulate the closing of the iris
add a filter to make the still look more like an analogue photograph
add a sound effect (at least that's not a problem)

Any tips on how to do this? I'm still in pre-production so all info from setting up the shot to post production would be helpful.
Relevant Equipment
I'll be shooting with a Canon 5D MkII, 50mm prime lens
Editing in Final Cut Pro

Drawing out a viewfinder should not be a big deal. You can do this quicker than searching for one. Do it in photoshop or another decent app. Draw the lines with anti-aliasing on a transparent layer and export it as a PNG with transparency. You may want to set the layer compositing mode in FCP to be something other than the default, play around a bit.
Simulating closing of the iris is just a quick fade to black and back; the sound effect sells it.
Desaturation, the addition of grain. Don't over do it.

I would try 'pillar boxing' the viewfinder shot (4:3 inset in the 16:9 frame of the film), possibly reducing the size so it is inset from the outside frame completely (black all around in addition to being 4:3) as this will give more of the feeling of being 'inside' the camera viewfinder. Then when the taken photo is shown that is full frame.
You may find that desaturating the viewfinder view and showing the taken photo with normal saturation does a better job of achieving what you want; this will depend on the narrative purpose of this effect.


text:
Audio cd ripping with AccurateRip
Does anyone know why are there different results in accuraterip database? For example:
When finish with ripping an audio CD, the results might look like:
Track 1 (98/120) Accurately ripped
Track 2 (98/120) Accurately ripped
Track 3 (98/120) Accurately ripped
Track 4 (98/120) Accurately ripped
Track 5 (98/120) Accurately ripped
Track 6 (98/120) Accurately ripped

Offsetted by -6
Track 1 (22/120) Accurately ripped
Track 2 (22/120) Accurately ripped
Track 3 (22/120) Accurately ripped
Track 4 (22/120) Accurately ripped
Track 5 (22/120) Accurately ripped
Track 6 (22/120) Accurately ripped

What is the offset? are they both correct?

I'm quoting this from here:
Drive read offsets
Very few CD drives actually start reading data from audio CDs exactly at the sector requested by DAE software. There are drives that are off by over 1 sector (1/75th of a second), but most are off by much less (1/250 to 1/350 second). Most modern CD drives have "Accurate Stream" technology, so there's no "jitter", meaning in this case that the variance is consistent from read to read, and will tend to be the same for all drives of a certain make & model.
The AccurateRip database allows one to find out the read offset, which is normally constant for given make & model of CD drive. This number can then be used by DAE software to ensure that each track is ripped from its exact start to its exact finish.
The offset is given in samples. One "sample" on an audio CD is 4 bytes, consisting of a 2-byte left-channel value and a 2-byte right-channel value. There are 2352 bytes, or 588 samples, in each sector of an audio CD, corresponding to 1/75th of a second of sound. Therefore, an AccurateRip offset of +134 means the drive consistently delivers data from 536 bytes behind (earlier than) where it was asked to read from, so the DAE software needs to look that far ahead (hence the positive offset) in order to get the right data.
When offsets are taken into account, the DAE software might have to ask the drive to "overread" into the lead-in or lead-out portions of the disc, where there's no audio data. Some drives can't be asked to do it, some drives will try to do it and fail, and some will just return null samples (a stream of "0" bytes, a.k.a. digital silence).
If the drive can't overread, then there will be samples missing from the extracted track. The DAE software can correct for this by padding the track with digital silence so it's the correct length.
Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...
Basically both rips are accurate, since the DAE software should correct the situation


text:
Is it possible to hook up a Component video cable (like those from the Wii) to an old TV that only has classic RCA?
I already manage to hook the cables, but my video is black and white.
Is there any way to fix this?

You can get a component to composite video converter.  It takes in the 3 component video connectors and has both S-Video and RCA out.  It should work for your needs.


text:
Final Cut Pro 7: Zoom without using “scale”
Here's what I want to do:
I have footage witch I want to divide into several different squares at the same time (think "24"), while also cropping the footage so that I can show certain parts of the original material. All this I can do with the "crop" and "scale" functions under "motion". However, I would also like to zoom in, within one of these frames, during the video. If I use scale for this, the whole frame gets bigger. That's not what I want.
I've circumvented the problem by creating a white square, placed it on a video track higher in the hierarchy than the one I want to manipulate, then using color key to let the footage shine through the white parts. However, this isn't especially confortable to use, especially since I haven't found any good way to feather the edges of the box.

Have you tried using keyframes under the motion tab?

@Colum Yes, I do work with keyframes, but the question here is what parameters I should automate.

I do this all the time. It's super easy:

Set up the 'shape' of your frame with the crop tool.
Apply the effect 'Basic 3D' (Effects > Video Filters > Perspective > Basic 3D).
In the controls for that effect, use the 'Scale' parameter to zoom your image. It will not affect your crop marks!

Good luck!

duplicate the clip to be scaled, on top of the original clip. Use crop to crop out everything except the bit you want to scale up. If necessary move the anchor point for this layer so that it's in the centre of the part that gets blown up, then scale it up.

The scale attribute will only impact the items on a given layer. Of the box you want to scale I on it's on layer in the timeline, you should be able to accomplish what you want.

Sorry, I don't quite get this answer. Could you expand a little on it?

I think you can make the square feather on photoshop first, and then import the solid already with the feather. (less render time)
You can also render the video with the scale movement first, export, re-import this export, then crop exactly where u want with the scale zoom already made it.
Just my 2 bits. =) Hope it helps.
Also, probably in After Effects you get faster results on this type of composition.


text:
How to create film sounds like those booms?
I'm about to make a (feature) film. And I'm sure everyone have heard the deep booms for instance in the big films. Often movies play a build-up song, a viola plays higher and higher and then everything stops and you hear the low boom/rumble.
How do you create these sounds? Do you use custom VSTs, do you EQ normal drums, what do you do?
Thanks!

A boom could be done a zillion ways. If you have a composer and a full orchestra: Timpani coupled with several double basses playing a quick bowed low note or longer depending on how long you want the boom. A "boom" could be interpreted many ways including collecting real sounds and in post production lower the pitch and cut the sound envelope to make a fast attack. For example, you record a washing machine just before it finishes the spin cycle take the track and cut it right before the final thud, drop the pitch to make it deeper.
The key here is to get a low percussive sound which has the following characteristics: loud, very low pitches, fast attack, and a natural release, even adding a bit of Hall reverb or delay or both will help sweeten up a bit.
Natural boom sounds might be found in thunder, earthquakes, landslides, rock slides, a large tree falling over, etc.
Man made boom sounds can be found in jets breaking the sound barrier, cannons, fireworks, a large truck in a collision, a train wreck, etc.
Alternately, if you have a friend with a synthesizer you might explore some of the pre-programmed samples such as timpani, orchestra hit, Taiko drums, etc.
What I have mentioned are the basic ingredients, stir well, and season to taste. In other words you will likely want to mix a number of sounds to get it just the way you want it.

So if I record a drum and change its pitch I can get a sound somewhat like this: http://www.soundsnap.com/node/58707 and http://www.soundsnap.com/node/103520 ? I think these sounds are close, but not exactly what I'm looking for..

Yes, although the example is a bit more hollow than what I think of as a boom. If you do record a drum, try different ones to get a variety of timbres, more choices is better. You can also combine them.


text:
Is firewire better than USB for live webcasting - Video
I am building a 2 camera, 4 mic webcasting setup.
Using firewire to connect the 2 cameras to a laptop is more involved as it requires 2 analog to digital converts and 2 firewire ports, whereas most laptops usually have at least 2 usb ports.
I need the video quality to be good (possibly HD), stable and reliable.
Which route should i take?

For the best quality and/or High Definition you want to use the fastest computer input you have that your streaming app will accept. That would normally be Firewire. Most online streaming sites will accept both USB or Firewire.
Take a look at http://www.youtube.com/user/TEDxTalks/search?query=tedxsanantonio+2011. These are TEDx Talks we shot using a SONY PMW-EX1 with HD/SDI out and a few other SONY HDV cameras with SDI adapters ($200 each I think) into a Newtek Tricaster that was streaming and recording 1080i. The HD files were uploaded to YouTube.
Hope that helps

The speed doesn't make any difference, because you will NEVER even START TO REACH that ceiling with HD... (That's just 2 megapixels..)

Unfortunately it does make a difference in practice - I have only ever had problems with HD video through USB. I agree that you shouldn't saturate a USB 2 link, so it may be down to the way USB and Firewire drivers differ, but across 8 different PCs and various different video hardware, firewire is the only one which has worked 100% for me.

Isn't Thunderbolt now replacing Firewire? If so, what Thunderbolt capacity devices are essential for video creators?

Firewire is better for video, because firewire is a more sophisticated interface. Firewire provides for device to device communication, DMA transfers and other performance features that USB does not. Therefore Firewire does not rely on the host computer's CPU. USB does not provide DMA transfers. All data on the USB bus must be managed by the CPU loading it down and potentially slowing the databus if the CPU is busy with other tasks. Since Firewire can keep transferring data without assistance from the CPU, it's better suited for continuous data streams, such as video.
Firewire does have a downside. Firewire interfaces are more sophisticated and therefore more costly. Firewire devices cost more. Firewire computer interfaces cost more. USB trades off performance and flexibility for low cost.


text:
About projector (beamers) usage
Can i slowly move a projector while projecting a movie or should I keep it immobile?
Also, is it true that i shouldnt turn it on and off too many times ?
thanks

To the first question yes, you can, but try not to do it- the filament of the lamp is very delicate.
Respect to your second question, that's true! Turning your projector on and off decreases the life of the lamp, and that's true with most lamps. It also probably reduces the life of the components inside the projector, but that's not something we can go into detail here.
Good luck!


text:
When making an animation how can I get a zooming effect?
I want to add a transition to one of my animations that gives the impression of the camera rushing/zooming towards the animation. Is there a better means of doing this in After Effects than scaling all of the elements onscreen up until they screen is filled?
It's an effect you see in a ton of animated infographic-style videos at the moment, but I am new to After Effects and am not sure about the best way to replicate it.

Drag your composition (in the project window) onto the Make new Composition button, everything inside that first composition will be added as one layer in the new composition. Now you can just zoom this one layer!
(Say your original comp. is called 1. You drag 1 onto the button. Now there will be a New Composition comp. with one layer inside. This layer is called 1.)

Just turn on the 3D switch for all layers, add a camera and a light, and ACTION, baby! -)
You should gladly turn on Motion Blur to get the effect you are talking about it too...

ACTION = animate the camera

Add your text layer, and design it as you wish.
Click the 3D icon on the text layer to make it 3D.
Add a camera to the scene.
Open the cameras "transform" settings, and from there, open the "position" settings.
There are three coordinates, corresponding to X,Y, and Z.
Pull the Z coordinate back a lot.
You will see the text get smaller.
Enable key frames by clicking the stopwatch.
Move forward a couple of seconds on the time line.
Pull the Z coordinate forward a lot, until the text is very close.
Add a second key frame, by clicking the diamond icon.
Make sure motion blur is enabled on the text.
Change the two key frames to "easy ease" mode to make the movement start and end gently, but get faster in the middle.

If AE or Premiere has a crop/pan feature for each shot with keyframes? or Track motion control for each track with keyframes? Then you could learn to use this and zoom away.


text:
Environments in which to stage an animated scene
I'm looking to shoot a short computer-based set of scenes, however I'm not sure what suitable (3D) engines/environments would be available to facilitate this.
I'm aware of the Source engine, in which I can place models and script the movement of characters - this engine also includes a number of existing character models, however my fear is that going down this route would result in the scenes having a "Clear Skies" feel about it.
So, what options should I be considering?
(I am happy to create my own models from scratch using Blender or any other tools associated with the environment. I could also program the necessary scenes in software myself, however I'd rather not go down this route as it's likely to be much more time consuming than this project would already be!)
Also, the options do not need to be free or open source, as I am willing to purchase software if it looks worthwhile (but free is good too!) :)
One final note - while my main machine is a Mac, I also have windows an Linux based machines at my disposal, so recommendations can be for any of these platforms.
Thanks

Have you looked at Maya?
Lovely showreel here.
It's an excellent platform for animation, rendering and development.

Hmmm, I hadn't considered doing the whole thing inside Maya (or Blender, depending on what I use). Thanks.

Alright, have got myself a licensed copy of Maya, let's see what the baby can do! Thanks again.

@Crollster Iron Sky -team here mentions Maya as their tool.


text:
How can I add a transition between two cuts of the same clip in Premiere Pro CS5?
I've run into what I think is a bug in Premiere Pro CS5.  I've got one large clip that was pulled from an analog camera, and I'm cutting it into scenes.  When I try to add a transition between two such scenes, it just doesn't work.  If I do a two second clock wipe, for instance, I can see the hand of the clock rotating, but I just see the left image for one second, then a sudden cut to the right image for one second, with no transition.  Can anyone confirm that this is a bug, and is there a workaround?  Thanks.

Have you made sure that the two clips are completely next to each other with no blank space in between?

Yes.  If they're not, you can't add a transition at all.  In my case, I can add it, but it doesn't work.

You can add a transition, it will only be to black.. I use to edit my videos in Premiere Pro CS5.5, and they are pulled of an analog camera.. It works for me.

How old and how pricy is our computer?

Probably fade to black and back would work, but that's kind of annoying.  I want a real transition.  This doesn't seem too much to ask.  The computer is a dual core Intel i5 with 4GB of RAM.  Not huge, not terrible.  Why?

Ok, I made videos on a terrible computer in Premiere once, and I had strange problems like you have too.. Oh, I mean, if you don't make sure they are lined up correctly they would transition into black and then the next clip will just pop up, because the transition will be at the end of the clip. If you save with transparency you can see that the black is actually transparent..

Well, I never got this to work, but for some reason, Premiere did allow the fade to black transition, so I used that one.  Not ideal, but it sufficed for this project.

If I understand your setup correctly, then this is not exactly a bug. Let's say you have two media files A and B. Let the frames constituting media A be A1-A100 and the frames of B be B1-B100. Let's say A is trimmed to A1-A75 on the timeline and right next to it is B trimmed to B26-B100. Now, if you add a 50 frame transition centered at the A-B interface, the editing software will use B1-B25 as the target video counterpart to A51-A75 on the timeline and A76-A100 as the source video counterpart to B26-B50. So when you do a 50 frame dissolve from A to B, B1-B25 will start fading in as A51-A75 starts fading out. In your case, you seem to be transitioning between contiguous scenes, so they are IDENTICAL. So an additive dissolve, for example, will almost flash to double luminance before settling into the new clip. A borderless linear wipe shouldn't register and so forth.


text:
Simulating a camera flash
Can anyone give me some tips on simulating a camera flash in After Effects. I am trying to make it keyframing the scale and opacity of a white shape layer but I can't get it to look right.

As a photographer, a flash is simply a very short burst of white light (as you're no doubt aware). The maximum time at full power is usually around 1/250th of a second, which is equal to 1/10th of a frame. In that case, if you were to accurately represent a flash being fired, you would simply boost the exposure of a single frame by several stops (to make it almost completely white, whilst retaining a little bit of detail).
Something as simple as this would suffice.

For one frame.

If you really wanted to be technically accurate, you could simulate the CMOS flicker of a flash by only boosting the exposure on a horizontal portion of the frame, say the top 2/3rds or something.

So, we've given him two different answers. One that simulates a subject getting hit by a flash, and one that simulates a flash firing into the camera.

In After Effects, there is an effect Exposure that controls the exposure of the layer. You could probably use that instead of a white shape layer.

I suppose you mean that you've filmed a flash that you want to "fire" in After Effects.
If you buy the Video Copilot Optical Flares or Red Giant Knoll Light Factory you can simply put a lens flare on the flash and animate the strength.
Download a trial and see for yourself!


text:
Filming a football game from inside the goal. Which camera is best?
So the problem is simple, I'd like a video camera to just leave on record and i can just leave it in the goal mouth, or more preferably at the top of the goal.
I record all my games and then edit them, but having this angle would give a brilliantly close insight into things which we just don't get to see normally.
So any ideas?

uh, American football or soccer?

soccer :) my mistake. Also i looked for this site but couldn't find it at the bottom with the list, but i guess its beta

There are many variables here, depending on cost, what type of shot you want etc., but I would suggest you look at something like the GoPro HD Hero 2 because it is:

relatively cheap
takes HD video
has a range of wide to standard angle FOV
is waterproof
has useful mounting brackets
and is incredibly robust

humm thanks for the suggestion :) i fear though it might be a little big for the top of the goal. But at the same time this could be perfect for the bottom of the goal.

They are pretty small. They are designed to attach to a helmet, or bike handlebars, or a surfboard etc

I'll second the vote for the GoPro. I've worked on a number of reality shows that use these cameras for close up work in hazardous situations (like right next to the watermelon that's getting blasted with a shotgun...) because it's HD, it's compact and hide-able, and for the price, more 'expendable' than an XDCAM.
As for the top of the goal...the "naked" version is about the same size as a pack of cigarettes. A consideration might be one at each upper corner, trained on the center...two perspectives. Not sure if your budget allows. But, based on the goals I've seen, I think it'd be just fine on the upper crosspiece, small enough so that it's not distracting. I'd safety chain it so it doesn't bean the keeper if a ball hits it square on and knocks it off the goal. :)
I've had VERY good luck with these in terms of image quality, and the wide angle coverage is really spectacular. I prefer wide, though, YMMV.
Battery life...that's another issue you may have. I know that there's a battery pack that slaps onto the back, making it a bit thicker--maybe the thickness of TWO packs of cigarettes? I'd highly recommend that so you can ensure a full 90 min+ of coverage without having to worry.

heh i can't even vote up yet ;) A battery pack is a very good idea indeed. Budget is what i want to it to be really :) I will try the one i have bought and if its exciting then 2 is a defo. Maybe 4 is overkill. We shall see, but having both goals is something for me to think about. Means sundays will be interesting from now on


text:
What are some good accessories for a DSLR video recording setup?
I have a DSLR that I've started using for video recording and I'd like to buy some accessories for shooting video. I know this could be subjective, but it doesn't have to be. I am looking for accessories for a DSLR that help with video recording, such as a follow focus, or shotgun mic. What are some important accessories for recording with a DSLR?

I'm biased, but before anything else, invest in AUDIO GEAR. Far too often, filmmakers forget to keep audio on an equal par with picture. Invest in some good, quality mics. Shotgun? Meh...a good, all purpose cardioid like the reasonably-priced ElectroVoice RE-10 can hold you over for a while until you get some audio recording practice under your belt.
Essential to MY toolkit is an H4N...an excellent digital audio recorder. It's small enough to hide on set, and I'll be honest...I've used it hidden behind a centerpiece to record a conversation at a table with no problems. They're stupid cheap, too...like...um...$299? I forget offhand.
The microphones in DSLRs are pretty much all crap from my experience; I use them more as a reference track than anything else.
Good audio will make your images sparkle even more!

How do you insure on-camera voices to sync with an independent recorder? Are you using a gen-lock of some sort?

No genlock, I just use a slate. Hey, if it's good enough for hollywood... :)  Take a little more time in post, but that's what we're stuck with. Some DSLRs have headphone jack inputs...but no real way to control levels, so you may get crap audio even if you're using good mics. Double-system is the way to go for now...

Good advice in regards to sound from dwwilson66.
My favourite accessory for my camera is this shoulder rig. There are heaps of stores selling them on eBay for under $100. They're great for how much you pay.

My personal and very subjective recommendation list:

A sufficient number of SD cards, battery packs and backup drives
Editing software (consumer SW like Sony Movie Studio will probably do)
Tripod with fluid head to allow smooth tilts and pans
At least one affordable objective with at least 2.8 aperture. E.g. Canon EF 50mm 1:1.8, Canon EF 85mm f/1,8 or Tamron SP AF 17-50mm 2,8 Di  (this allows you to create the typical cinematic impression with shallow depth of focus).
Decent sound equipment (e.g. Zoom H4N). If you want, you can add a boom and an additional mic via XLR cable.
An additional making-of-camera (Normally I enjoy my own making-of's much more than the actual movie)
An extreme wide-angle objective, e.g. Tokina AF 11-16mm/2.8.
A Steadycam to get some action into the film (alternatively: camera crane or shoulder rig)
Lights. Professional ones may be insanely expensive, but you might DIY something from color proof fluorescent tubes (e.g. Philips TL-D Graphica 58 Watt 950)

I do love that you list the 24-70 f/2.8 as an "affordable" lens.  It's a great lens (the II variant is one of my favorites to shoot on), but "affordable" isn't the first thought that comes to mind on a $2000 lens. :)

:-D Sorry for that. My first idea was the Canon EF 50mm 1:1.8, which you can get for $100. The 24-70 was on my wishlist for $800, but I just realized that was second hand! OK, I edited the answer and replaced it by the sigma lens.

I vote for audio accessories first then the rigs and tripods. Just want to mention that you can make a lot cool tracking shot stuff very cheaply with PVC pipe and skate wheels.
Here's a good example:
http://www.diyphotography.net/diy-pvc-table/skater-dolly-for-video-photography
The key to making this work well is to be very precise with where you make holes,
and pay attention to the lengths of each item.
If you like this sort of thing but don't want to spend time building it, you might
want to become familiar with folks that specialize in dolly, cranes, and sliders.
Here are some examples:
under $300
http://cinetics.com/
way over $300
http://www.kesslercrane.com/

That looks awesome! Will keep it in mind. Thanks!!


text:
Broadcasting video and bandwidth issue
I need to broadcast on the Internet weekly live video events.
One attempt was made with Skype and it worked pretty well, but it was only with one user. We expect 50 users and we have a low bandwidth here so I guess Skype won't be a solution.
What do you recommend for broadcasting live video events to 50 people with low bandwidth from the video source ? Free solutions are preferable.
Thanks!

Broadcast and Media Technologies aims to capture more architectural and theoretical views around subjects like this. Join and invite others.

If you have at least 300-500kps of upload bandwith available you can push an rtmp stream of your live event to a CDN like youtube, dailymotion, livestream ...
In terms of software I already used:

Livestream, which provides among other things a tool called procaster with which you can broadcast your desktop, or a section of your desktop. You can even broadcast a capture of your skype window ! ( it will not be very beautiful, but it works ). Livestream also has many tools which allow to make a chat during your live event with the viewers of the event.
Flash Media Encoder (aka FME ), which is a free tool provided by Adobe, which will encode to rtmp any video camera connected to your computer. You can then push it to a CDN like YouTube or DailyMotion.

All of this is free of charge, with sometimes some limits on the number of simultaneous viewer, and/on an ad-supporting scheme which will play an advertisement before your live video.

We are inviting experts to Broadcast and Media Technologies which aims to capture more architectural and theoretical views around subjects like this. Join and invite others.

Another option may be a Google+ hangout.  Especially if you want some sort of user interaction with-in the program.