text:
How does graphics card's memory affect video rendering performance?
So, I'm asking that, since I've got a GTX650Ti 1 GB graphics, and it takes 5 minutes to render a simple 1 minute video with minimum effects. Is it normal? I've tried it both with Sony Vegas and Adobe Premiere
Will the 2 GB version of GTX650Ti increase performance?

What codec are you rendering to?  h.264, for example, is pretty computationally intense and takes longer to render than other codecs.

1) Everytime the GPU has to process something, it will load the necessary data (in that case your video frames) into the VRAM. Simple as that, the GPU cannot work with your system memory.
Though the GPU gets it's data from the system memory, so your system memory will act as a buffer and you don't need to load that much data at once into the VRAM.
Though programs which offer a real-time workflow will want to load as much data into the VRAM as possible. That's the reason why you can allocate a specific amount of VRAM in Adobe After Effects (not 100% sure if you can do the same in Premiere).
So every time you apply an effect in Premiere that is GPU accelerated, the GPU will have to request data into the VRAM to process the frames.
New versions of OpenCL and CUDA are improving the way of how the GPU will get its data and reducing the overhead caused by the CPU which will reduce the amount of VRAM needed at a time but VRAM will always be a very important factor with the current PC architecture.
Current GPUs use GDDR5 which is A LOT faster than DDR3 system memory. This is needed as the memory speed is a very important performance factor in GPU computing. Overclocking your VRAM can give you quite a performance boost in memory intensive 3D rendering applications (though probably not in Premiere).
Current GDDR5 based GPUs like the GTX 780 Ti are capable of more than 300 GB/s (336 GB/s in this case). DDR3-2133 is substantially slower with a peak bandwidth of 16,66 GB/s per module. Also 2133 is rather uncommon in OEM PCs, DDR3-1600 and 1300 is more common.
2) So you will benefit from a large amount of VRAM everytime you work with very high resolution images or many videos at once aswell as with high-frame rate footage. Premieres rendering engine is utilizing the GPU for both the preview aswell as the final rendering if you chose so.
In practice I'd say it's nonsense to have more than 2GB of VRAM for Premiere unless you work with other applications at the same time that utilize the GPU. Processing bitmaps doesn't require all that much data at once unless you work with crazy resolutions like 8k or 16k, the processing capability of your GPU will be the bottleneck before your VRAM.
Thats my opinion based on what I know about the Premiere video engine and GP-GPU. Premiere might do some other stuff in the background that requires more VRAM. So if you have a very specific use case I'd rather make a benchmark or search for one before making a purchase decision. If you just want to make a general guess this information should help you quite well to make a decision.

It is worth mentioning that it does depend on the architecture being used.  There have been numerous graphics cards over the years that worked closely with system ram and even a fair number that directly used system ram as their storage space.  Fundamentally, the proximity of the memory just involves how quickly the GPU can get data.  It can either request data be sent from RAM to itself or it can work directly from the local GPU memory, the only difference is that it doesn't have to talk to anything else to get access to GPU memory.

Ah, it does appear that your statement is true for NVidia GPUs though that will be changing with the Maxwell chips.

Well yes thats what I wrote. At the end the data still has to be in the VRAM though, even if its for a short amount of time.
Even the new CUDA versions aren't doing anything new in that regard, they just improve the way system and GPU memory is handled.
It's very important that the active workload is in the VRAM as its substantially faster than the system RAM. Maybe I should add that to the answer, thats an important factor to know.

Not likely.  Graphics card memory is more about loading information on to the card for textures and such for rendering.  It isn't really a key component of pushing information through the GPU itself.  When using a GPU for rendering, we are interested in the high level of parallel performance that a GPU can reach for relatively simple calculations.  The rate at which information can move in and out of the card as well as the rate at which the GPU can process matters, the memory on the GPU is not generally going to be a bottleneck.

Ok, what GPU do I use to achieve 1:1 rendering speed (realtime) for simple effects (pan. crop, titles)?

@user4551 - if you really want real time capability, your best bet is to get a real time video editing card.  Most of the good ones also would give you realtime or greatly accelerated H.264 encoding.  Matrox is personally one of my prefered vendors for such things, though many other companies make similar products.  Black Magic Design and RED also have similar types of cards and I'm sure other companies do as well.  Be aware that they are still limited to certain effects and resolutions though because the difficulty goes up with resolution.

I use Sony Vegas 12pro and it uses CPU rendering OR certain codecs can render to GPU. I have used GPU rendering and found that it is only slightly faster but way buggier. GPU rendering is a pretty new thing so I'd stay away from it and I wouldn't expect it to be good for a few more years.
So the faster your CPU the faster the video will render. The GPU is doing nothing with CPU rendering. Well it is doing basic windows OS stuff but not handling the rendering of the file.
I've been editing with Sony Vegas for 5 years and started with version 8.

I have read that the extra ram (4 gb vs 2 gb) might be utilized when you are working with 4k footage, but there are a lot of other factors at play here (cpu / data throughput etc). This is a good article about choosing the right components for your editing pc (including graphics card): http://ppbm7.com/index.php/tweakers-page/83-balanced-systems/94-balanced-systems

I haven't seen any difference between 2GB and 4GB. My GTX680 2GB is practically the same as a friend's GTX680 4GB in terms of PP performance.
I don't know if this is just on our systems, but even with a fast GPU PP just can't handle more than a couple of filters without dropping frames.
It's kind of infuriating, really. My GPU can create beautiful landscapes with hundreds of filters from nothing in realtime but something simple like a few layers of text is too much for PP to handle.
Hint: try DaVinci Resolve Lite. It's free and benefits immensely from a good GPU!

Note that your GPU doesn't fully render those landscapes and there aren't hundreds of filters.  Games pre-render most of the stuff and use lots of tricks to make it so that shaders operate at high efficiency rather than high accuracy.  They also operate on polygon models rather than raster data.  When using a GPU for video acceleration, it has to do all the calculations from scratch, without the advantage of pre-calculated optimizations, on raw raster data.  It is a far, far harder problem.

@AJHenderson Sure, PP rendering isn't at all similar to game graphics, but it could be way better. While PP starts dropping frames with only a few color correction filters, Resolve renders practically the same thing in 3x realtime.

What kind of footage are you working with?  Even on my system that doesn't have GPU acceleration, I can handle several color correction filters on 1080p footage in real time without dropped frames in PP.

@AJHenderson Usually h264 straight from the camera. I know it isn't the optimal format but again, Resolve handles it effortlessly. I may have exaggerated the problem a bit, but it really doesn't take much to make PP slow down.


text:
Record DVI Signal (SXGA)
I am trying to record a DVI Signal (SXGA) on a Mac (10.6.8). Do I need a scan converter for this ? If so, which hardware would be the best/easiest to use. Since it is 5:4, I also try to understand, if a scan converter is needed, to what resolution I can convert to, without loosing any information of the raw signal.
Thanks

Can you describe more about your situation?  There are a few possibilities here, including direct capture, frame grabbers and scan converters.

I have a computer that generates a DVI signal with the resolution 1280x1024 and I need to be able to record it on a Mac. Unfortunately this computer can only generate the 1280x1024 signal and I already own a digitizer (AJA IO HD), but that won't record signals that are non standard (e.g. 1080p, 720p etc). Therefore I could get yet another product (scan converter) or maybe there is some less complicated/easier way.

Is it DVI-D or DVI-A?  Is direct screen capture a possibility or does it have to be done off the output?  (There is software that can record the screen buffer directly on many systems, depending on what's available on the system.)

DVI-I and No direct capture unfortunately is not possible. That was my first thought as well. I am thinking about some HDMI interface that e.g. Gamers use to record their screens. I would also need ext. Audio in. So if you know of a solution that can do both (Video&Audio), that would be ideal. Thank you for your help.

It sounds like what you need is a better DVI scaler.  A good scaler should resize your video in-line to a supported resolution for your AJA IO HD.  One example I found of the kind of thing you are looking for is here.  I have no direct experience with that particular scaler, so double check that it will handle your exact needs, but the correct type of scaler will handle resizing your video feed to something that the AJA IO should be able to handle.
Also keep in mind if you are using DVI-A (analog) or DVI-D (digital) as it will impact both cost and quality of the scalers that are available as well as the type of input you use on the AJA IO.  I'd lean towards trying to keep a digital workflow, if you can, as it should preserve the highest overall quality.
As far as alternate capture devices, two of the main ones I normally consider (though I have no direct experience with the current generation) are the Black Magic Intensity and the Matrox MXO2.  I used to use Matrox capture stuff back in the day with great success, but have not used their newest stuff.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Overlay an image onto live video feed
I want to take a live video feed (say from a security camera) and overlay an image over the top of the live video. Is there hardware/software to do this realtime? I don't care about storing the data, and I can't store it to disk first, it needs to be live video in/out with overlay composited on top. Any suggestions?

Gstreamer offers the ability to overlay images on videos and has also excellent live streaming capabilities.
Some useful links:
https://coaxion.net/blog/2013/10/streaming-gstreamer-pipelines-via-http/
https://developer.ridgerun.com/wiki/index.php/Fast_GStreamer_overlay_element#Picture_overlay_examples

These look like just what I was looking for. Thanks!

If you are open to a hardware only solution (possibly cheaper than having a dedicated PC for the task and certainly far more reliable), then what you are looking for is a device called a logo generator/keyer.
Basically, the device constantly outputs a video of the logo you want to overlay and keys it on to the video stream being passed through.  The devices range in cost from around $800 to several grand, but the low end models should be cheaper than having a dedicated computer with sufficient power to do the processing all the time if this is for more than occasional use.

I like the idea of these, but they seem brutally overpriced, and some of them are exceptionally large. Seems like they could be done in a much smaller footprint with modern technology.

@JasonMalcolm - as opposed to requiring a full blown computer costing over $1000 to do the same thing with less reliability and more complexity?  The devices don't have to be particularly large, and often do more than just the one thing you are looking for.  Mostly, they are the size they are to fit a standard production rack or to use higher durability components.  They aren't cheap, but when you compare the cost of other devices used for handling video, they aren't particularly expensive either.  Video just isn't cheap to work with in real time.

there is an other nice on-the-fly video overlay software called Clamp, which is a commercial add-on for Wowza Streaming Engine. This can read overlay instructions during a live event from a text file or from database and apply them on the live stream at specified times.

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


text:
A way to create a moving graphic annotation
Imagine I have a video of a car moving from right to left, and that I want to add a graphic annotation in a specific frame at a certain time.
I would like that this graphic annotation, after I have inserted it, move itself automatically along the timeline using only pixel analysis, looking for pixels similarity frame after frame.
Is there some tool or software library that do it?

After Effects does this pretty easily. It's the "Tracker" tool, and there are tons of tutorials online.

That is usually called "tracking" and there are several tools available to do that.
Many that are stand alone and export the data to be used in other software aswell as complete editing suites that enable you to do everything from the tracking of the video footage to the animation of the graphic.
Popular examples are Adobe After Effects, Apple Motion and Nuke.
The most popular being Adobe After Effects. It offers a fairly easy to use 2D tracker and is a very powerful animation tool.
Though if you want to analyze the global position of the car on the racing track over the course of several different scene you wont be able to achieve that completely automated. Those tools will only analyze the motion for a particular scene and wont make any sense out of the "global picture". While you can certainly track the position of a car in different scenes you will have to manually do that and tell the tracker in every scene what exactly you want to track.


text:
Which sensor is better for video, cropped or full frame?
I was watching a you tube video on cropped sensor and they the author mentioned that for video it does not really matter whether you use cropped sensor or full frame?
Does the sensor size matter for videography? What could be the physics behind this?
Thanks,
NN

The video you were watching is simply wrong.  The size of the sensor makes every bit as much difference in video as it does in still photography.  Your depth of field and your light sensitivity are still largely determined by your sensor size.
The only thing that really doesn't apply for video is that diffraction limiting isn't a concern since video is so much lower resolution.  (1080p video is only around a 2MP image.)  This one thing makes crop bodies slightly closer to full frames for video, but still does nothing towards the other advantages that full frame has.

Thank you very much AJ. Both you and Michael mentioned about same points. Now, I am getting a better clarity on these.

It depends.
All of the questions at http://photo.stackexchange.com regarding the relationship between sensor size and Depth of Field (DoF) apply to video as well. (See, for example: https://photo.stackexchange.com/q/12098/15871, https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7904/how-does-background-blur-bokeh-relate-to-sensor-size, and especially https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3986/when-do-the-differences-between-aps-c-and-full-frame-sensors-matter-and-why)   If you want very shallow depth of field a FF will give you shallower DoF for the same subject distance, field of view (FoV), and aperture than a  cropped sensor will. This is because the FF camera must use a longer focal length than the crop sensor to achieve the same FoV from the same subject distance. If you want very large depth of field the cropped sensor will have the advantage over the FF camera with the same distance/FoV/aperture.
I think what the comment you heard might have been addressing was the difference in resolution that once existed between most cropped sensor cameras and most full frame cameras. Just a few years ago most APS-C cameras ranged from about 10-12MP while FF cameras where at around 18-20MP. This is not so much the case any more as improvements in sensor technology have allowed APS-C cameras in the 18-20MP range. Since 1920X1080 HD video is only about 2MP per frame, any camera in the 10MP+ range is going to downsize the output of the sensor to 1920X1080 so there is not much difference between a 12MP APS-C camera and a 20MP full frame camera in that regard.

Thanks Michael for the information. I was not aware of these factors.

One difference that wasn’t mentioned in other answers is frame downsampling. With a large sensor you have to downsample the image data read from the sensor to the final frame size – for example 1920✕1080 is just around 2 megapixels, whereas the full sensor output is easily ten times as much with recent full-frame cameras.
The problem with downsampling is that the camera is usually not able to do it fast enough while keeping the quality high, it needs to cut corners. As an example, this is a quote from a review of Sony RX-10, a camera with a small 1" sensor:

One of the big selling points on the Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 is its movie
  mode. You wouldn't know it from looking at the already impressive spec
  sheet, but the way the RX10 creates its videos allows for much greater
  quality than most other cameras.
The reason for the higher quality is how video is sampled. Since the
  sensors on the vast majority of cameras cannot be 'read out' quickly
  enough, they don't read the whole sensor when recording video. Instead
  they skip lines of pixels, which means that the amount of data used to
  generate is frame is reduced. The gaps between these lines reduce the
  resolution they can capture, and can introduce moiré.
The RX10, on the other hand, samples the entire 1"-type sensor, so no
  lines are skipped. The results are noticeable both in our test scene
  and real world samples.

In other words, smaller sensor can under some circumstances mean less downsampling artifacts and higher image quality.

Frame downsampling is huge, my Sony A7RII is incredibly noisy in full frame mode at higher ISOs that look great in APSC / cropped mode.

@stickwithjosh I think I heard about this in a video once too.  What exactly is causing the noise?  Is it purely downsampling? as zoul mentioned, while skipping lines of pixels reducing data?

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


text:
Can I get Handbrake to apply additional filters such as brightness/contrast?
I have some scripts which pass video into Handbrake to transcode it for the web.
What's the easiest way to apply additional filters for things like brightness/contrast?  (ie. things not covered by the 5-6 built-in filters.) I'd prefer to avoid creating an intermediate file if possible.
So... should I look at:

Frameserving from VirtualDub or something?
AviSynth scripts, which apparently are a little tricky to get working with Handbrake
Replacing Handbrake with other tools - perhaps FFmpeg or AviDemux or something?

Like you suggested yourself you might want to use FFmpeg instead. It can utilize x264 as well which is the library that Handbrake is using for encoding. While x264 itself can do some very limited color correction via color space conversion (which can be used in the Handbrake CLI) I wouldn't recommend it if you want advanced manipulation of the video look.
FFmpeg isn't hard to use and not all too different from the Handbrake CLI.
The advantage you have with FFmpeg is a lot more formats you can output to and read from and you have the option to use many advanced filters on your video aswell as audio:
http://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-filters.html#Video-Filters
It's a very powerful tool for automated video editing and conversion.
The downside to FFmpeg is that you don't have all that many excellent presets but you should be able to use the x264 presets from Handbrake aswell.
https://sites.google.com/site/linuxencoding/x264-ffmpeg-mapping


text:
Playing back 1080p and 720p videos (same bitrate) on a 720p display
Suppose a high quality, uncompressed video is re-encoded twice, with almost identical encoding settings at a relatively low bitrate of 4mbps, but at different resolutions, first at 1080p, and then at 720p.
So we now have two videos: One is 1080p and the other one is 720p. Both have identical bitrates.
I know that 4mbps is considered a low bitrate for 1080p, and the video will look bad on a full-HD display due to the compression artifacts.
However, during playback on a 720p display, the 1080p video will obviously be downscaled to 720p.
My question is: On the 720p display, will the 1080p video (which is being downscaled to 720p in real time during playback) look as good as the 720p video (which has the same bitrate)? Or will the 720p video (which was downscaled from 1080p to 720p by the encoder) look better? Or will both of them look the same?
I would run some tests to see this for myself, but my system isn't powerful enough for 1080p encoding. I'm looking for some expert views on this.

Great question  by the way, and Jim's answer is spot on.

When you ask how something will 'look' you're in the realm of the subjective. Things 'look' different to experienced professionals than they might to the average viewer.
But still, the 1080p video will not be as good no matter what you view it on. When you encode at a low bit rate you aren't removing pixels, you're mostly removing high frequencies. Doing either will reduce the amount of information, but in different ways and with different visible effects and artifacts.
The information you lose with very lossy encoding doesn't lie in the spaces that inevitably are discarded when you downscale. You'd lose in both domains. But how that 'looks' depends to some degree on who's looking.


text:
Camera features useful when recording a live high school basketball game?
What features should I be looking for in a camera (typically found in cameras less than $1000) for shooting a high school basketball game?  The intent is to use the video for "Game Film" type analysis (so picture quality for rebroadcasting purposes is not as important).
Some things I have noticed already (borrowing cameras from friends)

Tripod is very helpful
Most cameras wont cover the whole court (from top bleacher position) in a single shot. (Is there a feature of the camera or tripod that would make this less painful, wide angle?)
Long battery life (1.5 hours)

which solution did you end up using?

@Crashalot went with the camcorder and the tripod.  Not the best solution for basketball since you constantly have to swing the camcorder on the tripod from one end of the court to the other.  But we have been making it work for a few years now.

So someone has to manually control the camera? Or is this automated? Where do you position the camera -- sounds like midcourt? Looking into a solution for you, though have you tried a GoPro?

We position the Camera at midcourt and somebody has to manually move it from side to side.  We setup stops before the game on the tripod to make this easier.  I have a GoPro and it also does not have enough field of view to see the whole court, when placed at midcourt.

Hi Matt was having some email issues recently so not sure if you saw the last message sent last week? Thanks again for your help!

Checking email now.

Generally I see four options:

DSLR / system cam (e.g. Canon EOS, Sony Alpha)
Compact camera (e.g. Fuji Film)
Action cam (e.g. GoPro)
Camcorder (e.g. Samsung HMX or Sony HDR)

Before talking about solutions I would propose to think about the requirements. The following topics come to my mind:

Field of view - Do you want to cover the whole field only, or do you also want to zoom in on single players? Camcorders and compact cams may be limited in wide angle but often offer great zoom. Action cams normally don't zoom at all. DSLR is most flexible with the right objectives, but zooming may not be as easy to operate as with camcorders. Some compact cams stop sound recording while zooming, if that's an issue.
Light - I suspect it may be a little dark in the gym? So high ISO values and good quality at high ISO values may be important, especially when zooming in.
Unattended operation - Do you need to leave the cam unattended? You'd probably wouldn't want to leave a DSLR unattended.
Recording time - battery life time is helpfull, the option to record with power supply may be even better. Also some cams stop recording after some minutes (e.g. EOS 600D after 12 mins HD recording).
Focus - Many cameras focus on the nearest objects in their field of view. This could be the spectators, not the players. So the camera should offer a deep depth of focus, or the option to manually set the focus.
Quality - Do you need still images? Which would require you to set a short shutter time. High ISO values would be even more important then.
Display - Where do you want to watch the recordings? If directly from the camera, you'll need an HDMI output or something similiar. Some Camcorder even offer an integrated beamer, so you could watch the recording directly in the fitting room without any further equipment. And you'll probably don't want to show the whole game, just parts of it? So you might want convenient fast-forward/rewind features. Some cams even offer very limited postprocessing capabilities, so you could cut away the uninteresting parts of the game.

Accessories:

A tripod may definitely be a good idea, but it needs its space. A smaller device to fix your camera to e.g. a fence may be even more appropriate (e.g. Gorilla pod). If you go for a tripod make sure it's high enough and strong enough to hold the weight of your cam.
Memory Card - it must be fast enough. If it's not, it may stop the recording in the middle of the game. How fast? Depends on the video format of your recording.
Replacement batteries

Summary:
Assuming you don't want to zoom in and you want to leave the camera unattended somewhere, I tend to agree with AJ Henderson: An action cam might be the best way to go. Add a gorilla pod to fix the camera somewhere, get a big and fast memeory card and make sure the recording/battery life time fits your needs.
For more sophisticated use cases a Camcorder with integrated beamer, power supply, strong wide angle, high ISO plus a tripod may the right choice.

Welcome to Video Production.SE. Great detailed answer that covers all the bases well.

You may want to look at an action camera like the GoPro.  They are extremely limited in terms of versatility, but they are small, cheap (relatively speaking) and capture a wide field of view.  They wouldn't be suitable for broadcast use or making videos for fans, but they would be terrific at unattended capturing all the action from multiple angles to be able to review after the game to see what happened.

I have used the GoPro Hero+ LCD for basketball Games and even edited them in the GoPro Editor and they are just fine.
https://youtu.be/XJgiQzz3mmI
I would like to know how to make it not as blurry though. Not too bad

Any "action cam" like a gopro, works in a fully automatic exposure mode. This means that in a dark stadium for a basketball game, the camera will make each frame expose to light for a bit longer. This results in a brighter image but also streaking or smearing of movement.


text:
Is it possible to install the Quicktime backend without getting the frontend?
Let's say, hypothetically, you really dislike Quicktime player and would rather not have it on your computer.  However, for a little project you decide you want to use Lightworks.  Upon installation, Lightworks says it needs QT7.7.  I'm assuming some thing here based on prior experience with video types and it is my guess that the Quicktime player is not what Lightworks needs, but rather some codecs that are included when you install QT.  Please forgive me if my wording is wrong, totally new to most of this.
The actual question: Can I make Lightworks work with some kind of alternative install and not have Quicktime player on my computer?

Sadly there isn't really an alternative, many dll's coming with QuickTime are needed by programs like LightWorks or Premiere and After Effects.
You can probably delete a portion of the QuickTime installation but in the end why bother?
Just don't let it take over any of the file associations and disable the auto-updater so it doesn't nag you whenever there is an update to QuickTime or any other Apple product. Then it wont bother you in any way. You can also delete any icons and start menu entries if you dislike those aswell.
Though generally its advised to have QuickTime installed when working with video even if your tools don't need it. Its a widely used player in the Apple Ecosystem and the .mov format is still very popular in video production even on Windows. While you don't need quicktime to check .mov files it's the most reliable solution there is.

I don't know the Lightworks software, but it is possible to install just part of the QT software distro without the player, I've done this a couple months ago because I wanted the QT AAC encoder without the rest. IIRC, you download the EXE file, then you open it with 7zip, look at the contents, and extract just the library, a separate MSI, and install that. Done.
Just checked, it should still work this way:
D:\>7z l MiluReloc\Spezialordner\Neu\QuickTimeInstaller.exe

7-Zip [64] 9.20  Copyright (c) 1999-2010 Igor Pavlov  2010-11-18
…
   Date      Time    Attr         Size   Compressed  Name
------------------- ----- ------------ ------------  ------------------------
2014-02-07 02:47:08 ....A     28416000               QuickTime.msi
2014-01-17 19:23:26 ....A      2323456               AppleSoftwareUpdate.msi
2014-02-07 02:47:10 ....A        80216               QuickTimeInstallerAdmin.exe
2014-01-17 17:37:52 ....A     21402624               AppleApplicationSupport.msi
------------------- ----- ------------ ------------  ------------------------
                              52222296     41945432  4 files, 0 folders

I installed just the AppleApplicationSupport.msi for AAC. Don't know whether that gives you the right codecs for Lightworks, though.

The actual installer gives you three checkbox options as well, so I just unchecked a couple of them.  The person doing the editing found the learning curve of Lightworks to be too high, so we didn't really end up seeing if it worked or not. Maybe someone else who is Googling through will find this page helpful though.  Thanks.

authors: อดิศร ภู่ฉัตร


text:
H264 framerate information?
Does raw H264 data (stripped from an RTP stream) contain information about the framerate?
Or is the framerate derived either from RTP timestamps for stream reproduction or written the container files (avi, mkv...) when playing a video from a file?

I guess you'll find an answer here: how-to-get-the-frame-rate-from-h-264-video-stream

RTP is just a protocol for data transfer, it doesn't contain any specific information about the internals of the data transmitted.
The information should be contained in the .h264 stream. The SPS (Sequence Parameter Set) is what you want to look at, it should contain all the meta information you need. Here is a very nice detailed look at how the SPS is set up: https://www.cardinalpeak.com/the-h-264-sequence-parameter-set/
Though in theory you should be able to just mux this into a mp4 and it should play fine.

The motivation for the question was reading somewhere on the web (can't locate the references) that the playback of raw h264 data requires a value for the frame rate to be specified. Example. mplayer H264-media-1.264 -fps 24

Like it says in the article, the framerate can somtimes not be present in the SPS. I do not know the reason for that but in that case you will have to specify the framerate.


text:
How to create simple animation with transparent background?
I'd like to create basically a HUD (head up display) using simple animations.  The following are three different videos:

animated checkmark
animated circle
animated underline

Each video just draws out the symbol.  I'd like transparent backgrounds so these small videos can be used in other videos for effects.
As an example, in some video, I can introduce the animated checkmark.  You'll see the checkmark next to something I want to emphasize but everything under the checkmark (in the host video) is still visible (because of transparency in the checkmark video).
How can this be done in AE?  I'm not sure how to create a checkmark that basically draws itself out.  Are there any tutorials (youtube) that show something like this?

All of the animations you want to do there are achievable with masks and the Stroke effect.
I suggest you start to generally learn to use After Effects, these are very simple things you want to do there and you shouldn't need any tutorial once you understand the very basics of After Effects.

I understand how to create the object.  I'm not sure how to create the animation.  For example, a left to right sweep that displays a checkmark, which makes it look as though it is been drawn.

Yes, you do that with the Stroke effect, it animates a stroke along your shape. If you don't know how to animate at all in After Effects I'd suggest watching Andrew Kramers tutorials on the Basics of After Effects: http://www.videocopilot.net/basic/

You can also just use a pre drawn shape and "reveal" them along a desired path with a mask instead of drawing a mask in the desired shape and using the stroke effect.

This seems to be exactly what I'm looking for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td3vIz_YExg.

Ah yes thats exactly what I meant.
Still, if you plan on doing more with After Effects I highly recommend the basic tutorials on videocopilot.net


text:
How can I convert large jpgs (15000 x 10840px) to video?
Whenever I try the command
ffmpeg -y -r 1 -i File01.jpg -c:v libx264 -tune stillimage -pix_fmt yuv420p out.mp4

I get the failing result:
[swcaler @ 000000000347fe0] deprecated pixel format used, make sure you did set range correctly
[libx264 @ 0000000002da3c0] using SAR=1/1
[libx264 @ 0000000002da3c0] frame MP size (938x678) > level limit (36864)

and a corrupt file which cant be read.
Is there a maximum size of the resolution that can be created?

That's way more than h.264 can handle. The maximum resolution for h.264 is 4096×2304 with Level 5.1 or 5.2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264#Levels
There are lossless codecs who can theoretically handle this video resolution but it would make no sense to do this. There is no hardware capable of playing videos in this resolution at any acceptable frame rate.
Atleast none that is in any way affordable by a normal human being.

Thanks for the info, I see it was a bad choice using h.264 codec. I have tried again now with the mjpeg codec and now I'm at least one step further from where I was before. That is, ffmpeg now encodes the files without error messages to something that looks legit and identifies itself as a 15000x10840px video but fails to play in VLC, Mplayer, Windows Media Player.
ffmpeg -r 10 -i File01.jpg -c:v mjpeg out.mp4

It would be helpful to know WHY you want to do this. Again it makes no sense.
You might also want to ditch the mp4 container, its only really suited for h264. AVI or MKV are more suitable for generic codecs.

I have also just realised that there is a tool for Mac that lets me encode the jpegs to videos of up to 10.000px. That's at least something, but I would hope to get the last 5000px in there as well somehow. http://www.dayofthenewdan.com/projects/time-lapse-assembler-1/

Ahh yes, it is an idea for an effect in a music video. We borrowed a 80Mpix camera an have shot timelapse with it. By having the large raw video file we hope that Final Cut Pro X will accept it, downsize it to fit 1080p, but because the original is so much larger it will allow us to zoom very far into the image for effect.

In that case you don't want a video file that makes it even more difficult, you want an image sequence which you already have. Though Final Cut is unable to do this, it has a limit of 4000x4000px.
Only solution would be After Effects (or maybe Nuke), it can handle files of up to 30000x30000px and loves image sequences.
http://helpx.adobe.com/after-effects/using/preparing-importing-still-images.html

If you don't have After Effects but work non-commercially you can use the 30 day Adobe Creative Cloud trial, it offers a full version of all Adobe CC products.


text:
rendering with the video card in MeGUI
I do not know this is the right forum to ask for help.
I need help to speed up rendering with the software MeGUI 2500.
First I render to premiere with the help of CUDA.
CUDA makes the video card also yield, speeding too.
I put the second video has already ended in MeGUI 2500 with AVS scriptcreator decrease the size without affecting the quality too. Only in this software (MeGUI) did not find how to enable the video card to render.
If you have no way someone could tell me other compression software that helps with the video card? Why premiere is not very good at it.

If I understand you correctly, it sounds like you are trying to find a piece of software that can use hardware acceleration to encode video generated by AVISynth.  If that's the case, I'd suggest looking at Handbrake, which is capable of utilizing GPU acceleration and should handle AVISynth sources just fine.

Thank you for responding so fast. I will see this software.

Thank you. I'm going to warn you that Handbrake here helped a lot, but for that you need to limit kbps between 2000 and 3000 (I'm studying the best kbps) and enable the "2-pass encoding" and "turbo first pass."
Also found Freemake. :)
This software enables CUDA and DXVA your video card to render, speeding lot in compression.


text:
Microphone suggestions or software to avoid background noise in audio
I am afraid this is a bit off topic but I really need to find a microphone recommendation to record home videos without background noise. If this site is not the place and there is a site for searching these specific microphones, please let me know.
I have tried Microsoft LiveChat LX 3000 microphone but it is adding a wierd background noise into my video recording.
Also if there is a known software that reduces background noise, please share its name.

How to record audio for video without background noise is on topic here, however without an idea of budget and what you are trying to record audio to, our ability to help is a bit limited.

It seems I need a mic with noise-cancelling feature to eliminate background noises. I think it could between US$55 til US$150. How about this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?is=REG&sku=552791&Q=&O=&A=details

What are you recording audio with though?  Are you using a PC and webcam? A camcorder? A DSLR? An Action Cam?  Are you open to using a separate audio recorder and syncing video after?  Are you looking to spend under $80?  Under $500?  Don't care about cost?  These are all things that impact the answer to your question.

I will be recording a computer presentation. If I decide to buy Rode-NT1A mic, I will also need to buy an adapter to connect its XLR cable to my notebook usb port. Maybe Shure X2U XLR-to-USB Signal Adapter is the way to go. Less than $500 is just fine. The mic + adapter will cost $329!

@JuniorMayhé: that's not a noise-cancelling feature, it's just a cardioid pick-up pattern (so, it picks up more from the front, less from the sides, and almost none from behind). The "low noise" spec basically means that the electronics in the mic are good quality, and don't introduce much electrical interference. Noise cancelling doesn't make much sense in the context of a microphone, although there are some recorders (like the Zoom h4n) that include some digital filters that can help reduce the impact of background noise.

Your most critical need is going to be a professional low noise analog to digital converter and pre-amp with a decent quality microphone to go with it.  There are a few options you can pursue for this depending on your interests.
Since you are currently working with a computer directly, you could go for any of a number of professional audio capture devices with XLR and phantom power capabilities, such as the X2U adapter from Shure that you were talking about or a device like an MAudio audio interface unit.
Since these only provide inputs you would also need a microphone.  Depending on how close you mind the mic being, something as simple as an SM58 would produce nice clean audio for you, this has the added advantage of being usable really close to your mouth and focusing the pickup in a cardioid pattern that mostly picks up stuff in front of the microphone, thus it will pick up less background noise.
Alternately, you could use a condenser mic or shotgun mic that could be placed further away, however a condenser mic would pick up more of the room sound and a shotgun mic would require careful aiming in order to make sure it picks you up and not the room.  A Lapel mic or LAV is also an option.  A lapel mic is a type of condenser that can clip to your shirt and therefore pick up a little less noise, but will still be in the shot, though it is less obvious than a dynamic mic like an SM58.
Yet another option to get additional flexibility is to go with a device like an H4n recorder.  This is what I use for my video work.  It is a stand alone recorder which can also be used as an audio interface for the PC and also has built in stereo condenser mics.  The device runs a little bit more expensive than an audio interface, but is normally a bit cheaper than an interface and a condenser mic pair.  It also can be used away from a computer for any project.
Additionally, the H4n includes XLR and 1/4" inputs so that it can be used with any of the mics you could use with an audio interface if you later decide to upgrade or change to a different kind of microphone for a particular recording task.

It sounds like you need a shotgun mic
Also known as a zoom mic.
These microphones are designed to help isolate the sound you want originating from the subject while rejecting unwanted ambient noise. The pickup angle is slightly adjustable. To have a narrower cone, you need a longer mic. (see video below)
Also to reduce wind noise pickup, you usually cover the mic with something akin to a dust cover called a wind screen.
As far as software to reduce the noise, I normally use adobe audition. It's much harder to fix unclean sound than it is images, so I would make sure I invest in a good mic first.

Here is a good instructional video describing the uses of a shotgun mic

As far as affordability, portability, and quality audio I recommend the Zoom H1 because I own one. The H1 is the little brother to the H4n which is the industry standard in external audio recorders. It has high quality stereo mics on the front, an audio out so you can monitor while you're recording, and an audio in so you can plug in a lapel mic. Coming in at 99$ it's a solid bang for your buck.
As far as audio processing I have had success with Adobe Audition. There's some real nice tools in there to help you isolate the sound you want from the background noise. I recorded an interview on the street once and we used a shotgun mic but there was still tons of background noise. After spending some time with it in Audition, the background noise was very faint and the voice sounded much more full. Audition can't make miracles if you have poor audio, but it can clean up what you do have so the your end product sounds much more professional.

Calling the h4n the industry standard in recorders is a bit much.  It is the most popular budget option, but not a "standard".  There are substantially better (and more expensive) recorder options that would be much preferred over the h4n if available.  The h4n is just the cheapest thing with XLR jacks.  Note: I say this as an owner and very happy user of an h4n.

It's more or less the industry standard for journalists though.


text:
ffprobe - why total bitrate is greater than sum of video and audio bitrates?
I have been working on video conversion. So, to find out video parameters I used ffprobe. However, when I run the command on an mp4 video file, I observe this:

Total bitrate: 3547 Kb/s
Video bitrate: 3512 Kb/s
Audio bitrate: 32 Kb/s
Why total bitrate is 3 Kb/s more than the sum of audio and video bitrates?

There are a few possibilities.  MP4 is a container format and can contain more than just audio and video streams.  While not all necessarily supported by MP4 specifically, container formats can contain things like sub-titles, sync data, chapter markers, meta-data, etc.  They can also potentially contain more than one audio or video stream.
From the level of detail provided, it isn't really possible to tell exactly what is taking the extra space, it may just be overhead of the format itself or it could be some additional data stream that is stored within the container.

I don't know for sure, but the total bitrate may be calculated as size / duration, which would include the container overhead. IOW the actual bit rate would be the sum of the two stream rates, with the container overhead shown as distributed over the entire length.

Thanks! And is this container overhead same as metadata?

As AJ points out, the container may carry other information. Some of this can be considered metadata, and some of it is actual data other than video or audio. The MediaInfo app would likely expose more of that than ffprobe.

The MP4 container format is quite large in comparison to other container formats, it holds a lot of information which can sum up to quite a bit of data. You will probably see less of a difference in the total sum for longer videos.


text:
What are the outer dimensions of the GoPro 3+ lens holder?
I need to know the outer dimensions of the GoPro 3+ lens on the waterproof housing (The square black ring).
Does anyone know where I can find them or does anyone have the camera themselves that they can measure?

I don't have the Hero 3+ but you can measure it with the help of a front picture of the cam and the dimensions of the camera.
Taking the dimensions from here: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8137555963/hands-on-with-The-gopro-hero-3-black-edition
(5.8 x 3.9 x 2 cm)
And using this picture:

And measure how big the lens casing is compared to the size of the camera in pixels (for example with the Photoshop ruler tool)
We get 35.4 mm for the width for example. So I'd go with a solid 35mm (width).
I measured 537 for the camera and 327,5 for the black lens casing. So the Black Lens casing is 61% the size of the camera. 61% of 58mm is 35.38mm.
You can do the same with the other dimensions.

36,00mm Length
33,50mm Height
6,00mm Depth
GoPro Hero 3+


text:
Setup for Premiere Pro on Laptop with SSD/HDD
I am about to install Premiere Pro on a laptop with 500gb SSD and 750gb HDD, how can I optimise it in terms of where to install the OS, other apps and where to put the video files. I also have an external drive where I store footage, am not sure if that should come into the mix.
Thanks

Noticed from the response I should have added a few more details. Processor is 2.4gh , Graphics card is Nvidia GTX 770 3gb with 16gb RAM. I bought this to replace my ageing MacBook which is talking forever to render.

The question is whether disk performance is critical in your normal workflow, in which case you'd want to place the footage on the SSD.
I have a similiar setup with Sony Vegas and I observed that, disk performance is rather uncritical during rendering, because it's always the processor that's the bottle neck. But your situation may differ from that. Especially, if you have a very fast CPU and a very slow HDD.
Alternative 1:
The following configuration works well for me:

OS on SSD to have fast boot time
Vegas/Premiere on SSD to have fast startup time
Video footage on HDD to have all footage in a single location.
External drive for backuping your footage
All other stuff: where-ever there is room left. Just make sure there is enough storage for your videos on HDD. 750GB fill up very quickly with HD footage ;-)

Disadvantage: May be slow with fast CPU's and slow drives. Project opening times may be slow as well.
Advantage: Fast boot and programm start. All footage in one place.
Alternative 2:
Of course, if OS+Premiere+Video fits to the SSD, put it there. This will give you the fastest experience. Plus the option to have a very fast backup to the HDD and a second slower backup to the external drive.
Advantage: Fast. Double backup.
Disadvantage: Not much storage for footage.
Alternative 3:
Put OS+Premiere to SSD and video to HDD. Place the one project that you're currently working on to SSD. This configuration is also very fast, but I sometimes experience issues with moving projects across the drives, so I try to avoid that.
Advantage: Fast.
Disadvantage: Possibly issues with moving footage/projects around.

Seems Alternative 2 makes will be the solution. Storage is not much of an issue for me as I always remove projects to a backup location once am done. Thanks

I personally run my OS off of my HDD (primarily from lack of room on my SSDs) and run my Adobe suite, temp files, swap files, project files and media files all off the SSD.
In order of importance, I would say swap files, temp files, media files, project files, Adobe software, OS.  Put as many as you can on the SSDs.
An SSD has no seek time, so multiple accesses from one don't really matter unless they are all accessing at the same time.  Super ideal would be to either link multiple SSDs in RAID0 to allow for higher throughput or simply split the files that will frequently be used at the same time across different SSDs.  For example, swap files on one and media files on another.  This split is only needed on relatively large files where lots of reads and writes will be preformed though since it only matters if you are able to max out the data rate of the drive.

Funny, the exact opposite to my answer. It seems to be a question of the technical details of the system, the projects, the workflow and of personal taste after all.

Not really, it is a question of how often things need to be accessed randomly.  You are correct that during rendering it doesn't matter much since files are accessed sequentially, but when editing, you are randomly accessing files and scrubbing, so the editor has to jump around in large files.  This makes fast random access for the media files highly critical.  The only reason media files weren't top of the list is that they tend to take a lot of room compared to swap and temp files and those are both often randomly accessed as well.

Having the OS on the SSD is nice for boot performance, but does fairly little once the kernel is loaded in to memory.  Same about Premiere, for the most part the program will be loaded in to memory and after that, you get the occasional access, but it's rare enough it is a fairly minor concern.

True, once the system is loaded there is no difference. But I just love the system to come up in ten seconds, and I would never want to get back to the old days. Whenever I experience performance issues during edit or rendering, it's always the CPU, never the HDD. Although my CPU is not too bad (Xeon@3.4GHz) and I don't have a RAID or anything. I assume what you'd have to do is to load  everything to the HDD, do your workflow and keep an eye on the task manager. If the HDD hits the ceiling, you know you better move something out to the SSD.

@nwsp - it will also depend on the file formats and bit rates you are working with.  If you are working with groups of pictures, then in addition to random data access in scrubing, it also has to decode most of the group of pictures, which makes it CPU intensive as well.  Moving to All I or non GOP based formats increases the storage load while decreasing CPU load.

I don't quite agree with the random access argument. Even when scrubbing you're accessing the files sequentially. Maybe backwards, and maybe faster than during rendering, but anyway, the HDD cache should do its job here. And if you jump randomly across your project, re-positioning will be a matter of less than 20ms, so this is nothing that I would worry about too much.

... and I fully agree with the file formats and bitrates point.


text:
What do you call it when the footage has a rippling effect?
I have some footage from an action camera that has been affected by vibrations. The footage seems to have an affect that looks a bit like jelly.
Is there a word for that effect and is there anything in after fx I can use to help improve it?

Could you post a frame from your footage or if its only visible in motion post a short snippet of the footage?

They call this the rolling shutter effect.
Also known as the jello or wobble effect and is caused by the side to side motion of cameras that have the CMOS sensor.
The rolling shutter effect can be caused by:
fast moving objects,
moving or panning the camera quickly, or
camera vibrations.
Why does this happen?
The CMOS sensor on the camera reads information a line at a time, from top to bottom. Thus different parts of the image is recorded at DIFFERENT times, thus creating the wobble effect.
Cameras with the CCD sensor do NOT have this problem. This sensor records the whole image at once. Thus avoiding the rolling shutter effect.
There are pros and cons for using different image sensors, however it looks like we are moving to a CMOS world.
This site below explains the differences between the sensors very nicely if you are curious.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Comparing-Image-Sensors.jsp
Hope that helps

@JasonConrad My mistake. I had seen those footage under rolling shutter, but its not. Was late last night and did not think it through.

This sounds like the end result of image stabilization on heavily moving footage.  There is nothing that can really be done for it.  The source of the problem is that you have motion blur on the original footage thanks to the movement of the camera.
Software can track how things are moving and adjust the position of the frame such that objects remain in constant position, but that doesn't change the fact that there is motion blur in the original frame as a result of the movement.  Thus, when the objects stay still, you still see the associated motion blur moving around the objects and this is what causes that "jelly" look you described.
The best way to avoid it is to use a stabilized camera or use a higher shutter speed when recording your video to limit the motion blur incurred by a moving camera.  If you still capture, say, 24 frames per second, but you capture each frame in 1/1000th of a second rather than 1/30th of a second, you end up with far less motion blur, but need far more light.

He didn't say that the footage got stabilized in software.
The effect that gets described could also be a rolling shutter effect.

@ProfessorFartSparkle - true, I took that from "affected by vibrations".  It's a typical action cam problem.  I'm making an assumption in my answer that it was being stabilized (either in software or in camera), but it seems to fit the description a lot more than rolling shutter since that would be "slugish" rather than "vibrations".

I just imagine a fast ride on a motorcycle or something similar where you can get high frequency vibrations together with a rolling shutter effect when shooting from the side of the moving object. Could be a mixture of both with a result of passing objects jiggling all over the place.

Hmm, good point.  Either way, physical stabilization and/or faster shutter speed is still the answer though.  Even with rolling shutter compounding it, the problem is lessened with reduced vibration.

I read that using an ND filter might help by causing a slower shutter speed. Do you agree with that @AJHenderson?

@connersz no that's the exact opposite of what you want. You need fast shutter, not slow.

Rolling shutter is independent of shutter speed. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-crop-sensor-hd/480720-rolling-shutter-high-shutter-speed.html  and from http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/  "Skew and other rolling shutter artifacts aren't affected by shutter speed, they're affected by the frame rate."

@JasonConrad - good point.  Updated my comment to be more clear.  Are you sure that frame rate actually impacts it though?  I'd expect that the maximum readout rate is always used, so I wouldn't expect frame rate to make a difference either.


text:
What is the name of a portion of video between camera changes?
Most movies consist of short portions, within which a picture is changing smoothly, but between which picture changes drastically. May be camera point of view changes or entire scene  is replaced.
What is the name of such portions and their margins?

It sounds like you are describing shots.  A scene is composed of one or more shots covering a consistent location and time.  Each separate clip within the scene is simply referred to as a shot.  The shot changes any time that the camera position is moved.  Technically, if you are on a close up shot and cut to a wide angle and then cut back to a close up, they would both be part of the same close up shot if they were from a continuous clip, but I've never heard any other term applied to the smallest unit of continuous video.
If the shots transition directly from one to the other without any interlude, this is referred to as a cut.  The term comes from the film days when one would cut the film and splice it together with the first frame of the next scene.

It's take or shot ("Einstellung" in German) and cut ("Schnitt")

Are you sure about the term take being applicable here?  I've only ever heard it applied to the actual filming, not the shot in the final edit.

I always took 'shot' and 'take' for being synonymous, but I'm not a native speaker, I may be wrong.

ok, as a native speaker doing moderate amounts of video production, I have never once heard of a shot referred to interchangeably.  Take is a particular filming (and multiple shots may be filmed in the same take) A shot is a particular angle of a scene.


text:
Codec genealogy / kinship: DivX, MPEG-4 Part 2, H.263
Yes, I know, H.264/AVC is here for everyone, and we're moving (slowly) towards H.265/HEVC, so why bother with these historic formats? Well, just because it's history. I admit my research has been limited to Google/forums/Wikipedia, but I haven't managed to get the relationship between these codecs straight.
Wikipedia DivX

There are two DivX codecs; the regular MPEG-4 Part 2 DivX codec and
  the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC DivX Plus HD codec.

Okay, the latter doesn't matter here, that's just their H.264 implementation. But this does seem to state that the first and famous DivX is an MPEG-4 Part 2 implementation.
Wikipedia MPEG-4 Part 2

Several popular codecs including DivX, Xvid and Nero Digital implement this standard.

Okay, but wasn't DivX some kind of rogue development, decompiled Microsoft code, then modified, and even the Microsoft code being a modification of MPEG-4 Part 2?
Wikipedia H.263

MPEG-4 Part 2 is H.263 compatible in the sense that a basic H.263
  bitstream is correctly decoded by an MPEG-4 Video decoder.

So there's overlap between the two, but one is for movies and such (MPEG), the other for teleconferencing and such (ITU), so their specced out for different contexts.
Sorry for the confused question … guess what I'm looking for is a mental map of these codecs with their relationships and how they came about and in how far they are the same and/or different.

This indeed a bit complicated topic, MPEG-4 has a weird history. I will try to answer this once I verified some of my "knowledge".

H.263 was a sole development of the ITU but I wouldn't bother all too much with the specified use case of video conferencing. It's a codec with the main purpose of improving the compression compared to older codecs which of course is beneficial for video conferencing where bandwidth is a very limiting factor, especially at the time the codec got developed.
The MPEG then developed MPEG4-Part 2 which is based upon H.263 and offers bit-stream compatibility to the base-line level of h.263, meaning there is a h.263 compatible bit-stream in an MPEG4-Part 2 encoded video that you could call the basis for the actual MPEG4-Part 2 video stream that extended the h.263 compatible stream. So MPEG4-Part 2 offers a few more features than h.263 but essentially they are very closely related.
With MPEG4-Part 2 started this weird age of many companies making their own implementation of these two codecs resulting in a few new container formats that were only used by these specific implementations f.e. RealMedia's .rmf/.rmvb or DivX's altered version of AVI, .divx.
RealMedia even made their own codec again based on h.263. A horrible age of a ton of different formats that needed their own browser plugins and players because they weren't fully compatible to each other, either because of their container or slight alterations to either h263 or MPEG-4 Part 2.
Which made this codec generation a bit special, while .MP4 was already present at the time in an early form it was barley used as the container format for MPEG4-Part 2. So h.263 and MPEG-4 Part 2 was found in a ton of different container formats unlike h.264 which has is also found in several container formats but with the intended container format MP4 being the defacto standard that is found everywhere. The most popular alternative being the open source Matroska container format (.mkv/.mka). Apple's QuickTime .mov also supports h.264 but even in the Apple Ecosystem MP4 is dominating. In my opinion the biggest reason why h.264 is such a huge success today.
DivX began as a reversed engineered version of Microsoft's MPEG4-Part 2 implementation. At that point there was no company behind DivX, it gained popularity because of its good compression at that time and also being free to use.
After DivX made it into a company they revamped the code for the codec as it was still based on some Microsoft code.
Though it still was an MPEG4-Part 2 implementation after the rewrite and became a pretty popular codec that was supported by a lot of DVD players at the time. Some developers of DivX went on and made the open source version called Xivd (that used AVI instead of .divx) that gained a lot of popularity in the movie "pirating" scene and was their standard for encoding videos for several years until h.264 came along. Though even after h.264 was readily in use by consumers Xvid was still used for a few years because of it's good understanding in the scene. It became somewhat of an art to encode movies in Xvid because of all those sophisticated encoding options available in the Xvid encoder.
Xvid had a few advanced features that weren't implemented in DivX which made videos encoded with those feature in-compatible with DivX certified devices.
Since MPEG4-Part 2 the MPEG and ITU-T are jointly developing codecs, H.264 being their first co-operation. This is the reason why the codec is often referred to as h.264/MPEG4-4 AVC. MPEG-4 AVC being the MPEG's/ISO name for the standard and h.264 that of the ITU-T. Different names but identical standards. The same goes for h.265/HEVC.
I hope that helped a bit clearing things up, though a lot of this is also knowledge taken from Wikipedia, so it might not be new to you but I tried to put it an order that made sense.

I would like to thank you very much for this detailed and interesting answer!


text:
Is automatic switching of audio stereo balance while cutting between camera angles possible?
I'm about to introduce video in my podcast. There will be one main camera angle that show all the hosts as well as one angle for each of us. We are using individual microphones to be able to stereo separate us according to we're seated in the different angles.
All in all we will have three audio tracks (one for each of us) and four camera angles available in Adobe Premiere Pro 6. We would like to define a separate stereo balance between the three tracks to each of the different angles and have it automatically switching when we change the camera angle.

Is it possible?  Sure, just setup each source clip as a sequence that has the audio feed you want for that shot and leave the tracks linked so that you cut between both video and audio.
Is it advisable?  Probably not.  People are far less used to changing of the audio scene they are watching.  Video creates kind of a disconnect between the scene we are seeing and the audio we are hearing and it may be a bit jarring and break continuity to try radically changing the audio image every time you make a cut.
Go ahead and try it, I may be incorrect on how it will come off since I have not personally tried it, but in my experience with both video and audio, it doesn't seem like it will work well.


text:
FCPX => DaVinci Resolve => FCPX color grading round trip
I'm trying to get my (non-graded) video from Final Cut Pro X through DaVinci Resolve 10.1 Lite, and back into FCPX for the last bits (audio, logos etc). The first part wasn't that hard, just export the FCPX project as XML, and load that from DaVinci Resolve. The color grading itself was a bit harder but still very doable.
The hardest part is getting the graded clips from DaVinci Resolve back into FCPX. I went to the Deliver page, set the Easy setup to Final Cut Pro XML Round-Trip, selected all the clips and selected a destination. After adding the job and running the job, I looked in the directory that was just created and saw a bunch of videos there and a fcpxml file. But importing that fcpxml file into FCPX just loads the clips from their original location...
So, how is this round trip supposed to work between Final Cut Pro X and DaVinci Resolve Lite?
I've spend the better part of today trying to figure that out, but all I can find are YouTube clips explaining how to do it with Premiere Pro or other video editors. And when I do manage to find something about Final Cut Pro X, it says I should just go to File=>Export AAF, XML. Unfortunately that option is greyed out for me. And all the other docs are either refering to Resolve 8 or 9. Even the official documentation still refers to a Conform page which is long gone in Resolve 10, and replaced by the Color page. Too bad I can't find a way to export from there either :(

A kludgy workaround would be to open the XML file in a text editor and do a find-n-replace on the file path of the original clips, replacing it with the path to the graded clips. Eg if your ungraded clips are like /mediaDrive/rushes/clip1.mov and your graded clips are like /MediaDrive2/graded_clips/clip1.mov, replace mediaDrive/rushes with MediaDrive2/graded_clips, save (as a copy, need I say) and import into FCPX.

Apparently, the real "solution" to this would be to import all the media into Resolve from the get go and optionally do some initial grading. Then export that stuff to Final Cut Pro for editing, then back to Resolve for final grading and after that's done it can be exported. That can be the end of the line (if done through Resolve) or you can go back to FCPX again and do some final stuff.

makes sense. I've been introduced to DaVinci since getting a BMCC and to edit the footage you need to do a one-light grade before going to FCP.

I am used to import from HDV into FCPX and edit it there. So guess I'll redo the color grading from this in FCPX. Good lesson for the next time. Luckily this was just a personal project...

Are the video files that accompany the fcpxml file the original clips or the graded clips?  Is it possible to post the XML file somewhere?  It sounds almost like FCPX might not be able to find the new files or something, but I'm only able to guess since I have neither a Mac, nor FCPX, nor a setup that can run Resolve, even on Windows.

The files linked in the FCPXML are the original clips, and yes I could edit the FCPXML file. But I'm not bored enough to go and edit the shit. Maybe I should though, but a bit more experience with the FCPX included color grading would be nice too :) If you want to look at the XML, I uploaded it @ http://pastebin.com/g2tc2xr9

Hmm, yeah, I've got nothing since the XMl itself is still referring to the original paths.  Clearly you need some other kind of export from Resolve, but I don't know enough about Resolve to be of any help there sadly.  Good luck.

Did you render with unique file names in Resolve?  It's also important to be careful if you are using the XML Round Trip settings or the Export to FCP settings.

Xudonax,
The preset Final Cut Pro XML Round-Trip renders the graded files in ProRes 422, but it uses an old XML file, not supported in FCPX. You need to go to the Edit (important!) section of DaVinci after rendering the project. Then you will be need to make File – Export AAF, XML... command and check the fcpxml version 1.3 type of file. It will be comfortable to save this five in the same folder used for rendered files in Deliver section.
After that you can do simple import of this FCPXML file in Final Cut Pro X, it will create new Event and Project in your current library with all your graded files.
Be sure to make render before XML-export. If you will export FCPXML ver. 1.3 without delivering, you will make the FCPX-project with original (non-graded) files.
Good luck!

I have another big event coming up, so I'll try this in a few days. Thanks!

This works great! Thank you soo much! Now I can finally start doing some real color grading. ~100 hours of footage to go, so that should be enough to get a basic grip on it ;)

authors: Мари Семенковская


text:
Are there any red filters that fit an SJ4000
Are there any red filters to fit the SJ4000 camera? Is is possible to use one compatible with a gopro hero 3?

Out of curiosity, what are you trying to accomplish with a red filter?  There may be a better way.

I want to use it for underwater video in blue waters. I have seen the difference it can make by reducing some of the bluey haze and adding more colour and depth to everything else.

ah, yeah, it will make it a lot darker overall since so little red light gets down that far and you'll be re-balancing light to that low level, but should help with the color imbalance.  It is probably worth adding the fact it needs to work underwater to the question too since it rules out some more hacky solutions.

While I can't confirm it.  It appears that people online have had success with using GoPro filters of the type that just slide between the case and the lens.  You could also probably just order some appropriately shaded lighting gel or optical filter material and cut it to size yourself.

Good point, I didn't think about that.

@connersz - also, good luck.  Let me know how it turns out.  My wife and I are divers, so I'm always interested in how people are doing underwater shooting.  I've not messed with filters personally because my camera has built in white balance modes for adjusting for the color shift. (I use a Sealife DC1400.)

I will do. I am also wondering if it would just be easier to do it in post or not and I'm not sure how the camera would cope with the reduced light levels from using the gel.

@connersz well the problem you run in to with underwater footage is that there is so little of the red channel that it is effectively always zero, so correction after the fact isn't really possible below somewhere around 20 to 40 feet (depends on how clear the water is).  The filter adjusts for this, but it does it by matching green and blue light to the low level of the blue.   It's a trade off between color accuracy and noise. The ideal is to use a light and no filter.

there is a german speaking website that sells sj4000 fitting red and magenta filters if you are still searching:
http://www.magic-filter.de/artikelliste/gruppe/id-004-produkte-fuer-qumox-sj4000.html


text:
Black and white DSLR video quality
I'm trying to achieve this kind of look on a video I'm shooting

In particular the black and white shots. So far my results have been radically different; my video is way too crispy and does not have "that" look at all.
I've made some observations on the video so far (always talking about the black and white shots):

Either static (very stable) or on a slider, but not "hand-held" looking.
Blacks and whites are blown out a lot of the times except on her face.
The main light seems to be coming from a circular diffused source with small accents here and there.

Other than that I can't think of anything else. And of course there's the always sought after grainy look which I tried to achieve with different kinds of plugins to no avail.
By the way, I'm shooting with a Canon 7D with a shoulder stabilizer and prime lenses. I'm also using a variable ND filter. The lenes are professional photography lenses. I'm shooting HD at 30fps always taking care of using the lowest possible ISO and the same shutter speed of 1/60. Of course I understand this might be somewhat irrelevant if I don't post my results as a way of comparison (which unfortunately I can't) so I understand if answers are not very precise.
What things should I consider/do to get a result similar to that of the video?

I can't help you with the set lighting but the look of the video is definitely achievable in post and in case of a modern camera you definitely have to do a lot in post to get a believable "retro" look. After Effects is recommendable due to many great plugins that help achieving specific looks but any editor that has good color tools on-board, a blur filter and a good grain filter will do the job to get the desired effect.
Punch the highlights, deepen the blacks, you generally want high contrast but don't just use a contrast effect in your editor, that won't get you very far. Level Curves are always a nice utility for these kind of things. Play around a bit.
Add a very slight blur, 0.5-2 pixel blur should be enough. Try different blurring algorithms if more than one is available to you.
The shots are also out of focus a little in almost all scenes. If you can re-create that during the shoot you could possible spare the blur in post all-together and get an even more convincing look.
Use a tool like Filmconvert to add a subtle grain to the video. You can also use onboard tools in your editor though most plugins offer a more realistic film grain than the average simple noise generator.
Filmconvert offers also to match the colors to the colors of a certain "old" film camera, which might help you. An example of a B&W movie that used the plugin: http://www.filmconvert.com/Videos/Video.aspx?id=224&order_by=staff_picks&page=6
Keep in mind to not over do it, the border is thin between unrealistic and believable "retro look".
If After Effects is available to you I can recommend the RedGiant Color Suite (many of these products also work in Premiere and other tools). Though you can also use Premiere with Speedgrade (which nicely integrates into Premiere now) which will bring you similar results with similar ease of use as with After Effects if After Effects isn't your thing. Though After Effects offers a huge amount of editing capabilities which help greatly creating very specific effects.


text:
Can i record continuously, keeping just the last N minutes?
I'd like to use a GoPro Hero2 or 3+ black to record video continuously, but want it to store only the last N minutes (or megabytes).
Is this possible?
From the manual, I believe no, but I probably am not the first user thinking about such a feature?

Short answer: no.
Long answer, maybe. You have very limited scripting ability via the auto update function of the camera. You simply drop a text file called "autoexec.sh" on the SD card before turning the camera on and the camera will execute the script. Though I haven't seen a script that would do something like infinite recording by erasing the oldest part of the recording.
Maybe you are able to delete certain files from the SD card via the scripting interface, in that case you wouldn't be able to do seamless infinite recordings but you could record in N minute intervals and delete the oldest file after x recordings when you know that you probably have nearly used up the sdcard space.
You might also be able to do this by doing said interval recordings and have the GoPro's wifi webserver monitored by a computer that deletes the oldest file on the camera once you reach critical storage space.
In case deleting via the camera script interface isn't doable.
All needed info about this hack can be found here (horrible site but lots of information) and some existing scripts here.

After yearlong hesitation, I come to the conclusion: This is the right answer


text:
Are Mini DV and Digital 8 considered film?
MiniDV is using magnectic tape as storage and use the discrete cosine transformation compression technology. Does the use of magnectic digital tapes no more film?

As soon as its has >= 1 FPS it is :P

Film is specifically a medium in which each frame is photographically exposed to capture the image.  It comes in a variety of formats, but the key property is that it must photographically capture the image through photosensitive film.
Magnetic media, regardless of being analog or digital, such as that used in MiniDV, Digital8, Hi-8 and even VHS tapes is not film.  It is tape.
Similarly, modern cameras now often go direct to disk, using either memory cards, hard drives or in rare cases, optical media to record to, thus avoiding the need for tapes which require running it from beginning to end.
The term filming is still often used when capturing video with these latter formats, however it does not make them film.  It just means that we reuse the common term even though the underlying technology has been replaced.  Technically it is video.

To answer the headline question, specifically about the medium: No. Tape is not film. It may substitute for or be notionally equivalent to film in a more general sense.
But the body of your question makes it unclear exactly what you're asking. Could you edit it to make it more coherent?


text:
How to convert HDV to dvd full resolution 640 x 480?
I have some content recorded in hdv, which is anamorphic. I only recently came to understand what that means exactly. Concerning the video size, it is 1440 x 1080, but the pixels are not square; they are wide. The effect is that the video displays the same as full HD 1920 x 1080.
I currently don't have a need for these particular videos to be in HD. Standard DVD definition is suitable. I also prefer that they are cropped to full size frame, instead of widescreen. So I would like to convert them to 640 x 480.
I have used handbrake to try and accomplish this but I am not sure how to make the best settings for this. Here's what I have come up with, but I am not sure what exactly I am getting out of it:

I don't necessarily mind if the video is anamorphic or not as long as it consistently displays 640 x 480. I don't know if it makes a difference, but this will be web videos in an HTML5 player. Currently, the player is designed to declare only the video width, so the height is whatever the ratio-correct number should be. I honestly don't know if this works for anamorphic videos.
All I really want here is the best settings to convert this HDV to an Mp4 that will be shown in an HTML5 player with the full screen aspect ratio at a maximum resolution of 640 x 480.

Whenever you publish something to end-users you ALWAYS want square pixels, everything else WILL make problems.
So just convert your anamorphic video to a square pixel aspect ratio. Handbrake should automatically handle that, the settings you have right now should output a video with square pixel aspect ratio. Just add the vertical resolution.
Is there any reason why you would want to crop your video to 4:3? A down-scaled 16:9 square pixel resolution would equal to 640x360 for a "SD" resolution (bare in mind there are several different DVD standards) and I would suggest you to use that resolution and don't just crop your video unless you have an artistic reason for that.
If handbrake is unable to handle the non-square pixels you will have to reside to use either a full fledged video editor or alternatively FFmpeg.

I can't seem to enter a value in the vertical pixel box. Don't know why. Yes, the reason for cropping is functional/artistic. They are lectures given mostly from a podium, so there is a lot of unused space on either side which can be better used in the player for functions, slides content, etc.

Unless you want to automate the cropping and conversion I'd recommend using a video editor so you can choose where to crop the video, an even crop on both sides isn't always the best solution, sometimes the action isn't fully centerd and you might end up cropping something useful.
Nearly all decent NLE's will also correct the pixel aspect ratio for you.

I put in height 480 and crop on either side at 180 and it works great. Thanks for the help. You've helped me understand anamorphic video a bit more.


text:
Premiere Pro sequence adds black stripes on both sides of the video
I'm trying to edit a footage video with Premiere Pro CS6. The raw file is 1920x1080 HD shot with a wide lens camera. So I created a new project in Premiere Pro and I made a custom sequence using exactly the same numbers: 1920x1080
However, the result is not what one would expect. The resultant sequence has two black stripes on both sides of the video. I verified both the properties of the video file and the sequence and they both say 1920x1080 but you can see the result on the screen shot. The sequence is on the right with the black stripes on both sides. On the left, you can see the preview raw footage window that looks just fine... Obviously if I render out the video, what goes out is the one on the right and I do not want to have the black stripes on both sides but I can't get rid of them.
So my question is why is this happening and how can I fix it?

What is the pixel aspect ratio of each video?  Perhaps this is off.  Pixels are not always square, though for 1080 video, they should be.

I feel like an idiot for taking so long to notice, but my problem ended up being that I was using VLC to watch the video, and a Video > Always Fit Window setting was enabled, so whenever VLC controls were taking up some space on the bottom of the screen (i.e. in normal mode rather than full-screen mode), VLC shrunk the video and added black bars on the sides. It seems that Premiere did not have a problem and had exported my video (with square pixels) perfectly.

I feel a little less like an idiot now because I see why I'd been confused. YouTube also arbitrarily adds black bars on the sides to my video when in Theater Mode rather than Default View... even when my browser window is large enough to fit this video. It's weird. Then in YouTube's "Full screen" mode, the aspect ratio looks perfect again (no black bars on the sides).

Aj Henderson is right.
Your pixel aspect ratio is different in each video.
You can see that from the pool table, the one on the left is stretched out, while the one on the right is squished, it almost almost like you have 16% black bars on either end of the video on the right. Pixel aspect ratio, anamorphic 1.333.
2 ways to fix it:
1) Square pixels
If you wish to keep the pixels square
Crop the video (scale in) until the crop lines disappear, but of course you will also crop out some content on the top and bottom of the video
2) Create new sequence
Create a new sequence, I am assuming AVCHD, select 1080p folder and then select the item AVCHD 1080p24 Anamorphic (or the 25 frame one, dont know what video setting your source is at). Also note there is a little tab at the top called settings when creating a new sequence, you can click that to view your pixel aspect ratio.
That should fix the issue.

I've created the new sequence as you indicated and I got prompted to change the sequence settings to match those of the video on the start up - something that didn't happen before. When I click on the Sequence Settings now, the editing mode says 'ARRI Cinema' and the ration is square pixels 1920x1080. Any idea how to find out which should be editing mode for each file without hoping for the program to ask me to change the sequence settings to match those of hte video? Other than that, big thanks, it works as intended now!

Good expansion on my comment about pixel aspect ratio, also grats on hitting 200 rep.

I don't know enough to advise more than I did. My workflow only touches either sequence of a DSLR or AVCHD, I don't use the other settings since my sources are just my video camera. I suggest you play around with the settings and google stuff or look it up on the adobe site. @AJ Henderson, thanks!

@mmvsbg - Premiere should always ask you about changing the sequence settings if there is nothing in it yet and you are adding a media file that does not match up with the settings of the sequence.  You can also look at the media info (I believe it is under properties of the clip in Premiere) that will show information like fps, image dimensions and pixel ratio.

Just want to point out that the front and right edges of the 2 pool tables are identical lengths, if you count pixels (and extend the "top" edge of the table on the right to estimate the "upper right" corner).

@BrettFromLA Surprised you thought so. Visually the left looks longer. To confirm I took it into photoshop, interpolated the lines and I got: left pool table 435 pixels wide, the right pool table 420 pixels wide.

@eLouai is right - one of the pictures on the screenshot is squished a bit and this is exactly the problem I was facing. As I'm new to Premiere as well, AJ Henderson's suggestion is a good tip to follow - having an empty sequence will prompt you to change/adjust settings appropriately if you don't know what to do.


text:
Differences Tamron f/2.8 28-75 / 24-70
I'd like to buy one of those two lenses for filming with a EOS 600D:

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical [IF] MACRO
Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD

I am aware of the following differencies of the two lenses.
Advantages 28-75mm:

Some websites claim this lense to be parfocal, which might be interesting for filming.
It's lighter (510g vs 825g)
Slightly lower minimum object distance (33 vs 38cm)
It costs less than half of the 24-70

Advantages 24-70mm:

Vibration compensation (which I always switch off during filming)
USD motor (which doesn't seem to be important for filming)

From that the 28-75 clearly seems to be the better choice.
Is there anything I am missing? Are there any other points to consider?

Yes, there is a lot you are missing.
The 24-70 has substantially better transmittance (more light makes it through the lens), slightly better sharpness, significantly less chromatic aberration, 2 more diaphragm blades (better, more round bokeh), full time manual focus (can auto-focus at the start of a shot but still adjust after starting shooting).
Also, image stabilization can be very helpful when shooting video.  If you are on a tripod you shouldn't, but if you are shooting free-hand, it is a good thing unless you need quick, lag free panning (which would be a problem due to your rolling shutter on a 600d anyway).
While I don't recommend putting too much stock in the overall score that DXoMark produces, there individual discreet stat comparisons are generally reasonably good.  You can find the comparison for these two lenses on the 700D listed here.  (Sadly, they did not have data for the 600D specifically.)

That's a great site I wasn't aware of until now. Thanks!

@nwsp - do keep in careful mind the limitations of that site that I mentioned.  The general scores they give and even the megapixel sharpness aren't that particularly useful.  The sharpness graphs and stuff like CA and other measurable, direct stats are useful though.


text:
FCP software development.
I heard that FCP (final cut pro - editing software by Apple) has stopped developing. Any editing software if not updated will become useless in short while. So FCP will not be of much help if they are not going to develop it. Is it true that they have stopped the development?
I have heard this especially from people who are working on Adobe.

There's a big difference between FCP and FCPX.  If you're sure you are talking about FCP, then yes, support disappeared a long time ago.  FCPX, however received an update last weekend.  In either case, I don't really think this question is appropriate for this forum in its current state.  This is not a rumor site.  It's not a place for idle speculation or open ended questions.

You might want to reword your question a bit, at it's current state its rather confusing to read.

@ProfessorSparkles Sparkles I agree with you. Even I wanted to delete the whole question itself! Now it is not making much sense to me! I am myself wondering why I have asked this question when FCP has launched FCP 10 (version - .2) quite recently! but still I have not thinking that it will be an insult of the person who has answered it.

Your question is simply mistaken on multiple levels.  To the best of my knowledge, there has been no announcement about an end of development of Final Cut Pro.  FCPX is the current version and still gets updates and it is still a very popular piece of software.
Additionally, even if they stopped development today, your premise that editing software rapidly becomes obsolete without constant updates is also 100% incorrect.  Video formats change at a near glacial pace for the tech world.  Almost decade old software can still be used comfortably today and often is.  Outdated software results on missing out on some interesting new features like hardware acceleration and 64 bit support, but it still gets the job done just fine.
In fact, part of the reason that Adobe switched to their subscription model is because many users would make a habit of only upgrading every 2 to 5 versions of the software.  It is commonplace to use software that is 3 to 5 years old or more.
All in all, it sounds like you are probably confused about what you are hearing and even if you are not, there is no reason to worry for some time yet.


text:
Recommendation for a flying camera device
Does anyone have any experience using flying devices that you can mount a camera to? I would like to try this just as a side hobby and there are a lot of links and information that come up once you do a search on the Internet.
As I'm really beginner in the area, the concerns that I have right now are battery life and amount of time that it could spend in the air. The other interesting question is whether it would be better to buy a full equipped devices that comes with a camera or just a flying widget that you can use with your own camera. However, any information on the matter would be useful at this point.
Price range - as I said, hobby and I don't want to spend a lot of money on it but I don't want to make a compromise with quality either so just looking for the best available offer.

There are existing sites covering recommendations for mobile camera platforms such as quad rotors. Recommendations aren't really that suitable on SE.

All due respect sir or madam but there are plenty of similar posts over here. I'm looking for someone with first hand experience who used such device that I could communicate with instead of just looking at pre-written reviews and recommendations. In this industry everything tends to become obsolete quickly but if you still believe that this is not the place for such a question, please direct me to a place where I could obtain the information that I need.

Sorry - we do have a software recommendation site, but not a hardware one. A quick Google shows a couple of user review sites.

I still insist that half of the questions here are hardware related and a good part of them is "I have XXX budget to buy XXX, please help" so I'm not sure why you're picking on this question particularly. And if there's no hardware related recommendation site may be one should be created since this is a niche :)

@mmvsbg - I think there are elements of your question that could be answered here, but Dr. Mayhem is probably right about specific products.  We handle a lot of answers about product A vs product B for a given situation, but there is a lot less value in selecting a product out of all possibilities.  That said, parts of your question, such as the bit about buying fully equipped vs building part of it yourself is probably a good question that is answerable.

In general, asking questions about how to help make a decision are far better than questions that ask someone to make a decision for you, as the method of making the decision generally isn't impacted as much by new product offerings unless they fundamentally change the market.

I have some experience with camera drones, and work with experienced pilots.  I voted to re-open this question because I think I could provide some insight into the realities of aerial camera work, without discussing specific models/brands.

@JasonConrad - sounds good.  I have re-opened it.  If you think you are able, it would also be great if you could take a pass at fixing up the question to be more answerable as well.  I would have given it a shot, but I don't know that particular subject matter well enough to do a good job at it.

I was going to restate the question so it could be reopened but I'll leave that to @JasonConrad instead as he will be able to provide more insights.

The on board cameras you ask about I have found to be sub-par in resolution, so I would focus on models you can attach a camera to.
One of mine - the Parrot AR Drone 2 - I simply gaffer tape a gopro to - the obvious problem is any movement of the drone to cope with flight results in a camera shift - the onboard cameras have this issue too of course.  This can be stabilized out with good post-processing tools, but it's worth, budget allowing, to have a Gimbal for the camera.
Having used a Phantom 2 Vision system with a remote control for the Gimbal with video feedback, this was absolutely a winner for a film production, as the director I could watch each run, in high winds which occupied the pilot.  This requires quite a bit of gear - the camera signal broadcast to a monitor (for us over wifi), the control of the gimbal, and the control of the drone.  The positive of this system was the Gimbal and Drone control was centralised, so each didn't need their own battery, broadcast, and control systems.
So if you want smooth shots that don't "give away" it's taken by a flying machine and have a smooth flight quality, it really is worth having the camera separate on a Gimbal of some sort.  The advantage of the prebuilt systems for this (We take XYZ camera) is they've 1. worked in the weight of the camera for that drone, and 2. figured out it's best positioning in terms of a balanced flight and drag, and tested it for that.  Eg. If I gaffer tape my gopro in the wrong place, the drone stabilisation software fights it and the footage ends up shakey.
Good luck, it's all very very fun!

Also an interesting product, though not releases yet: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/airdog/airdog-worlds-first-auto-follow-action-sports-dron

Interesting indeed but it would have been times better if there was an option to manually control it like a drone if you wish to.

For a different sort of flying device to lift a camera, consider a kite.
A suitable kite is probably much cheaper than a drone. Plus it doesn't require batteries, so can stay up in the air much longer.
A range of cameras can be lifted with a kite. With a big enough kite, it is possible to lift a DSLR. Or a point and shoot or action camera can be lifted with a smaller kite.
Though a kite does need suitable wind conditions. Most lifting kites have a fairly narrow range they will fly in, some are designed for light winds, some for stronger. And it takes a bit of practice and skills to get it flying nicely.
For a general guide, the KAP Wiki is a good place to start.


text:
How to time-remap with Twixtor in Adobe Premiere?
I have problem to understand, how Twixtor works.
I want to use Twixtor plugin with my Adobe Premiere Pro. I can only change speed for whole sequence. Adobe has its own filter called "Time remapping", but that does not change speed so smoothly, as I saw in some videos.
Does Twixtor have keyframes? Where I can set start and end of slow down effect?

Just like with any effect property you can animate it by clicking on the little stop watch on the left of the effect property name (see below).
You can apply the effect to just a single clip, you don't have to use it on the entire sequence, just drag and drop the effect from the effect list onto the desired clip and then animate the speed of the video via keyframes.
A screenshot from the "Effects Control" panel:


text:
How can I update instances of a text template after changing the master template?
I've got 20 or so text items in my timeline, all using a text template called Bookmark that I created in Motion. I want to modify the text template in Motion and have the changes propagate through to each of the text items that are already in the timeline. Is that possible?
I'm using Final Cut Pro 10.1.2 and Motion 5.1.1.

I found documentation that shows how to make this work in FCP v.7, but FCP v.10 doesn't work the same way: https://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/usermanual/index.html#chapter=77%26section=3%26tasks=true

I found this page discussing the problem you're having, and a potential workaround, but I couldn't get it to work in 10.1.2  http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/344/16556

Unfortunately, that isn't currently supported. Your text items will preserve the state from when they were first added. So you're stuck doing it manually. It's number 4 on the list of top requested features for the next update though and Apple seems to be aware of this site, or they've just been reading minds the last few updates- http://fcpx.tv/top.html
One thing that has helped me though is that you can drag your new Motion titles on top of the old ones already on your timeline, hit "replace", and it should retain the original text of the old title.

As well as the drag, drop, and replace workflow that you described, I found that it's also possible to click an existing title in the timeline, then double click the corresponding template in the browser to replace the old styles with the new ones while preserving text.