text:
How to handle Rode VideoMic Pro during transport?
Unlike, for example, Zoom H5 which is shipped in a rock-solid plastic box, Rode VideoMic Pro is shipped in a cheap plastic piece which holds it in the box. The piece is much bigger than the microphone and is difficult to handle, since its only purpose is to be used during the original shipping.
Since I need to transport the microphone in my bag, one of the concerns is that I can't just put it directly in the bag together with lenses and camera, because it is too fragile for that.
What I have tried:

I went to nearly every supermarket in the town, searching for the box of appropriate size with no success.
I searched on Rode website; they doesn't sell any boxes for their microphones.
B&H accessories don't contain anything related to transport.
A search on Amazon was also unsuccessful.
Companies which make custom-sized boxes are mostly centered on large boxes for shipping or storage. There is MyCaseBuilder which is great, but I live in Europe, so $50 shipment plus taxes is too expensive.

I hardly doubt I'm the first one encountering this issue. How other people solved it?
The original packaging of Rode VideoMic Pro looks like this:

By comparison, here's a box for Zoom H5:

I am owner of Rode VideoMic Pro and have to say I just throw it in my bag together with dslr and lens. Wind cover gets a bit deformed sometimes, but it gets into original shape in five minutes after taking it out of the bag. I have one of the cheaper Lowepro bags and I can fit in my Nikon D5200 with one lens on, second lens and said microphone just fine. Mic fits vertically to the corner of the bag next to the second lens. I have been carrying it like this around for almost a year and I haven't encountered any issues.
I would therefore suggest to just throw it in the bag nicely, if it wont wiggle and bump around during carrying, it will be just fine without any dedicated case.

+1 thanks for confirming my suspicion that it is durable enough from personal experience.

I haven't worked with the VideoMic Pro, but I have worked with the RODE VideoMic, and I usually just put that straight into my camera bag with everything else, unprotected, and never had any issues. If you're bent on buying a case for it though, I would look at a Pelican case (the Pelican 1060 might be big enough: http://www.pelican.com/cases_detail.php?Case=1060). I use a Pelican 1040 to house my TASCAM DR-40, and the case is super durable (and waterproof, too, I believe).

Vanguard also makes a nice cheaper version styled after Pelican.  They aren't as insanely durable or water-resistant, but they are also like 1/3 the price.

Why do you think that it isn't as durable as your camera or lens?  I don't have experience with that particular mic, but in general, professional quality mics are also built very solidly.  The wind cover might get a bit squished, but the microphone itself should be even more durable than your camera or optics are (since it should be able to resist damage from shakes that your camera won't survive).
If you are really concerned about it, any type of partitioned case should be sufficient.  Alternately, you can get a small road case for it.  But really, I'd probably just throw it in a heavy cloth bag and throw it in with the rest of your kit.

I think that it isn't durable for two reasons. First, the capsule and the mount are linked with rubber which can easily be damaged (and I nearly damaged it recently). Second, the audio cable cannot be unplugged from the microphone, and can be damaged as well in a bag. By comparison, a DSLR has only two fragile parts: the eyepiece made of rubber and the monitor (which, on my model, is protected by a piece of transparent plastic). As for the fragile part of the lens—the front glass element, it is protected by a cap.

A heavy cloth bag is a good suggestion. I'll wait for a few days and if there are no other answers, I'll accept yours for this suggestion.

@MainMa - note that you are somewhat over-estimating the durability of your gear.  The internal mechanisms of a camera can be damage from harsh drops, and a lens even more so.  The front element actually isn't all that fragile as it is hardened glass, but the internal mountings are high precision and easily knocked out.

I know. I've used my gear for years and damaged a non-weather-sealed lens with sand so that auto-focus is practically not working any longer. While I would avoid dropping my camera/lens from the third floor, I still hardly doubt it will be damaged when being inside the bag. The microphone—not so sure.

Here's what I use: an Amazon Basics case for a 5-inch satnav. It's semi-rigid, and just the right size for the Videomic Pro, although it's a tight fit with a fluffy windjammer on, and even has an internal pocket where I store two extension cables and spare rubber bands for the shock-mount. Here's the link on AmazonUK: Amazon Basics SatNav Case.

Here's a way you can build one for under 10$.

This is the best answer I have found so far.  Seems pretty amazing that Rode wouldn't sell a specific hard case for the VideoMic Pro


text:
How can I ensure the white balance is correct?
I've read in several places that when shooting a video, white balance should be set manually (just like nearly every other parameter) on a DSLR which doesn't record videos in a raw format.
While an histogram allows to determine with ease that exposure is set correctly, what about white balance? How can I be sure that it's correct?

Having a reference photo stored on a DSLR for comparison seems too overwhelming.
Relying on my eyes (and a very reliable screen of my Nikon D7000) doesn't seem the ideal way to do it.

So how should it be done correctly?

It depends on your camera.  Some cameras, like the Blackmagic cameras only let you guestimate.  In this case, you'll just have to know that the color temperature of an outdoor scene is closer to 5600K, warm tungsten light is closer to 3200K, etc.  Then, you'd adjust the image in post to make it more accurate.  Using an x-rite color chart with software like Davinci Resolve (free lite version) can speed, simplify, and improve your results.
Other Cameras, like the Canon 5D Mk II and III will let you place a white or grey card in front of the camera, snap a photo, and internally analyze the color.  I recommend consulting your camera's manual to see if it supports this functionality.
But if none of the above work for you, and you're looking for something like a histogram to analyze the color, you could look into vectorscopes and waveform monitors.  Hardware versions can be pricey, but cheap software versions are available.  Scopebox is a good one for mac.  Maybe someone can comment on a good PC one.  With this solution, you will need a hardware device to convert your video signal to something your computer can read (HDMI to Firewire, SDI to Thunderbolt, Composite to PCIe, for example).  To be clear, this is just a monitoring solution.  In other words, a vecrorscope/ waveform monitor won't change the color of the signal, but it will let you adjust it accurately at the camera, much like you would use your camera's histogram to set exposure.

I will often shoot some short footage with a white, gray, and black card for reference. I then use my editor's color correction tools (the Color Board in FCPX, for example), to move the color of those cards to neutral.

But if I understood correctly, the point of setting up white balance manually is specifically to reduce as much as possible post-processing changes (which may decrease the quality of the image), right?

@MainMa Modifying the color of your image in post does not lessen the quality.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it right time to buy 4K video camera?
I want to casual shooting (family, travels etc.), but I do not want to sacrifice the quality.
Should I buy a camera equipped with 4K shooting? Is it the right time to buy a 4K camera or should I buy a 1080p now and may be after 2-3 years I will buy 4K.
From my perspective, 4K is still not evolved, it will take another 3-4 years to reach its peak and that's when I think more and more cameras will be available with affordable price.

What's your budget for all the gear you need?

You will pay substantially more for a good 4k camera right now than you would for a good 1080p camera. Quality =/= resolution, there are phones that can shoot in 4k but the videos will look a lot worse than a 1080p video from a dedicated 1080p camcorder/dslr, the image quality depends on a lot of factors.
A bigger sensor for example has the ability to capture a lot more light and have much more accurate colors than a tiny sensor that only captures very few photons per pixel.
The video compression used by the camera is also a big factor, even with h264 there can be huge quality differences between cameras depending on the encoding settings of the camera.
The question you should also ask yourself, what do you get from a 4k resolution when you mostly shoot things that are meant to be memories that you don't already get with 1080p.
My advise would be to not think about 4k and look for a nice 1080p camera. Even in commercial video there is not that much to gain with 4k video right now and probably not even in the future, we are reaching resolutions that don't necessarily improve the image quality for every content. It really depends on what you shoot and most importantly how big your screen is and how far you sit away from it. Right now there are quite a few living room configurations where its already hard for a lot of people to tell the difference between 1080p and 720p.

I agree to your suggestions (and to @mc01's as well). I am looking to buy Panasonic HC-V750 or HC-X920 (still not able to decide which one). One confusion still lingers in my mind, should I look into smartphones like iPhone 6? I somehow feel smartphones do better because they are more handy. Although I understand they do not have better lenses and "may not" produce better result. What would you suggest?

I agree with your assessment that 4K isn't ready (or affordable) yet. Consider what you want to shoot, and what you're willing to carry around to do so. Then find a 1080P camera within your budget.
As already stated, the total resolution isn't as important as the sensor size/quality, lens quality, in-camera compression (the less the better), and stability/ease of use.
A benefit of 4K: you can zoom & crop a 4K wide shot to give you a close-up if you plan to output 1080p. Nice for commercial productions still outputting 1080p (capture establishing shot & zoomed shots simultaneously & blow things up w/o loss of quality)... But for family vacation movies & stuff it wouldn't serve much of a purpose unless you plan to edit the footage extensively.
Also as alluded to in an earlier comment - what are you watching the video on?
There are very few 4K screens out there at the moment. You'd have to edit & reduce the resolution anyway in order to view it ... Or also buy a 4K TV and computer monitor in addition to the 4K camera. For that, you could buy a nice 1080p camera plus your kid's 1st semester of college :)
Finally, capturing all the footage now & saving it until 4K is more widespread means having to store really large raw video files you can't watch at full-res in the meantime anyway. You'd also need to purchase more external hard drives, more memory cards, and probably a Blu-Ray burner with discs for backup. 3-4yrs from now that might not even be compatible technology.

4k downscaled to 1080p with a decent bitrate looks more "dense" and detailed than 1080p originally.

I'd argue that for casual shooting (family, travels etc) you are not going to carry an expensive bulky camera, you are likely not going to carry anything on you… except maybe your mobile phone. So I would look into buying a cheap mobile 4k device. Two good looking recent mobile phones able to record 4k are the Samsung Galaxy Alpha and the Sony Xperia Z3. You can see a comparison video of both but due to youtube recompression I would recommend downloading the raw 4k footage from mediafire.
Compared to 1080p mobile cameras both of these 4k videos are great. But they are still far away from a good 1080p camera with nice optics. Still, for around 500$-700$ you get to experiment with a new resolution. It also allows you to prepare for a 4k video edition workflow. For instance, if you thought about using Apple's iMovie to edit the footage forget it, it's not supported. And you will need about four times the space to store and four times the time to edit/compress. It can be a good test to play with these mobile videos, maybe you find out that the real bottleneck is at your desktop in postproduction!
With regards to quality I'm sold on 4k. Youtube looks horrible on any resolution, but I've watched a few videos from cameramen posting torrents of their recordings and they are awesome. Unfortunately I agree with Professor Sparkles: for mass media 4k is still a long way. Heck, I still watch from time to time poorly compressed 1080p tv which looks worse than a DVD. And don't get me started on TV programs upscaling low resolution youtube videos… ugh, my eyes.

+1, solid argument that the best camera is the one you have with you and 4k on a mobile does give you more to work with than 1080p, even if you just end up downscaling it to get around the high levels of shoddy, real time compression most phones throw on 1080p.

I would recommend waiting at least a few years. 4K technology isn't very integrated into technology yet. Most people can't enjoy 4K quality unless they have a several thousand dollar screen. 4K cameras are still very expensive compared to 1080p cameras. Wait for the technology to become more common and the price of 4K cameras will drop.

Visio has a 50 inch HD TV for $999, that said, market penetration still isn't there.

There are actually quite a few TVs and PC screens that are far below 1000. But most of them are on the asian market right now, the EU and US market is slowly catching up.

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


text:
Are these beginner's paid-for programs comparable?
I've found these low-end but non-free programs and can't decide with which to go. They all seem to be around $50-$80 (One time. Not subscription). My question - are they all comparable, or are some very different than others (such as Adobe After Effects being different than Adobe Premiere Pro)?

Sony Movie Studio
Adobe Premiere Elements
Cyberlink PowerDirector Deluxe
Corel VideoStudio Pro
MAGIX Movie Edit Pro

Also, I'm assuming an amateur video can be created with all of these. If I'm wrong, or if there are any other serious drawback I should be aware of, I'd like to know. This is - other than being more limited than the more expensive version, of course. I mean something like not being able to export the finished video to h.264 for example. (As far as I know, this is not the case. I'm bringing this to show what I mean by a serious limitation.)

The ability to import/export XML may help. I've used it to move projects from FCPX to Premiere Pro CC. But even that was buggy and involved Adobe support.

With consumer targeted software, there is less of a standard of how to do things.  For professional software, there are pretty standardized workflows that editors follow and so tools are pretty similar.  For beginner software, while the basic concepts are still similar, the way in which they simplify them is not.  The end results that are possible are still pretty similar, but the way you get there is not necessarily.
The best bet when comparing entry level beginner video editing is to try trials of them and fine the one that relates best to the way you think about video editing.  Don't forget to look at some of the free options out there like Lightworks or Resolve too if you want something that is more professional oriented, but without the price tag.

Thanks for the quick response. I take it that besides the main answer (which is quite clear, thank you), there are no no-brainer deal-breakers in this level of applications. (About Lightworks - see their FAQ (under Can I use the videos created with Lightworks Free for commercial use?) that you must include their logo at the end of the movie. Not the end of the world. But still...)

I would like to add that trying programs is not a perfect solution. Serious limitations might pop-up months into using an application. Not arguing with you, since no better approach seems to exist. Just explaining one of my reasons for asking. Thanks again.

@ispiro - unfortunately, pretty much any of the entry level software has limitations and you will hit them eventually.  There isn't really any good way to tell which limitations you will hit first though.  They should all let you do basic work without any obvious gotchas if they are at all decent, so I wouldn't worry too much about the long time down the road gotchas.  The solution then will just be to upgrade to a more serious option after you have more experience under your belt.

I'm two years late to the party, but this is a useful question with a useful answer. I understand that it's inevitable that one will eventually hit hard limits with cheap (or free) software. Assuming one can define a "typical" film-maker, which low-cost products are best if one expects to upgrade to expensive software eventually, so that learned skills (and file archives) aren't wasted? For example, if I learn Premiere Elements I have an easy path to Premiere Pro, but not so much to Avid.

On the other hand, if I'm not planning to be an editor, I may not ever run into the limits of a good prosumer product; instead I'll work with a professional editor if my projects get that serious.


text:
free tool to do basic color correction?
I'm creating some basic advice videos, which are explicitly intended to be produced quickly.  I'm using a low-grade webcam to do video captures and don't have any special lighting.  I don't need my videos to be beautiful, and don't want to put too much effort into correcting them, however, I am annoyed by my 'digital jaundice'.
I'm looking for a simple and free tool which can help me remove the yellow shade.  I don't need power, I'm not willing to pay anything, and I'm not willing to put in too much effort into correcting the color before I give up and post videos as a lost Simpson character :).  It seems like there should exist a simple open source tool for exactly this use case.  Can anyone recommend a free tool?
I'm sorry if this is a repeat question.  I feel like I should be able to figure this out on my own without asking, but I've honestly spent time googling and looked through this site and haven't been able to find the information, perhaps because on this site everyone has way more domain knowledge, the one question i did find that seemed to address this question the answer went over my head lol.
Edit:  It turns out I didn't need any tool.  Youtube has built in an ability to adjust your lighting after uploading a video.  It's not very fancy, but it's enough for my needs, simple to use, and most of all it's fast because it utilizes 'the cloud'.  Still, thank you for your feedback

Blender's compositor will do exactly what you want, just enter the compositor (on the right of the help button on the menu, change default to compositor) check nodes and backdrop, add your video as input (press shift+A on the the compositing window) you can remove the render node since you are not using 3D, press shift+CTRL+left_mouse_button on the input node and your movie will be displayed as background, now you can add color nodes to correct the colors of your image. Link nodes and you will see the color correction in the background image. When you are happy match the number of frames to those of your video and render the whole thing.

It turned out that I didn't need either of these, but this was the most detailed.  I had already installed blender and couldn't figure out how to use it.

If you want to use 3D and all of its potencial then learning to use it could be difficult. But to do a simple color adjustment the compositor is not that difficult and you can get a pretty nice result.

@YoMismo - I think you underestimate how challenging a nodal compositing system actually is to a newcomer to the field.  For those of us who have worked with advanced 3d compositors before, it becomes a pretty natural process as we are used to thinking of things in those kinds of terms, but it is not always a particularly intuitive concept for newcomers.  This is also why I've sometimes been hesitant, in some cases, to upvote Blender as a cure all for every problem.  Yes, it is possible to accomplish the goal, but it is not nearly as user friendly as most other options for a newcomer.

@dsollen - out of curiosity, what did you end up using.  You are free (and even encouraged) to post your own answer as to what actually solved your problem and mark that as the answer.  If Blender was too hard for you to figure out how to use, chances are decent it will be too hard for others to figure out as well.  What you ended up using is probably the best answer to the question as it is the answer that actually helped you.

@AJHenderson you may be right, but to do a simple adjustment like the one he wanted to do with one or two nodes you can achive the desired result, and with the directions I posted I don't think it is that difficult, but you may be right, it may not seem too difficult for me but it may be for others. Thing is that I always tend to think that if it is not difficult for me it shouldn't be for anyone. else.

I can relate to that. Most people can't even understand what it is I do for a job in broad terms, let alone the actual specifics, so I've gotten more used to understanding the significance of prior experience on what we see as "easy". Easy and Familiar can seem very similar until you see someone else's reaction.

I actually got most of the way through blender before this answer was posted, through trial and error & youtube.  I was working on how to save the image after changing the color, but when I saved wrong and lost an hour and half to the bad save I got frustrated.  when trial and error is an hour+ lost time I'm done with it :)

I had already updated my question with the method I used, but since you asked I used youtube.  After you submit a video to youtube there is a  limited ability to adjust the color satuation.  It's not very powerful, but it's all I really needed.  The video's didn't come out quite as well as I liked (one ended up slightly too blue aqctually), but much better then they were, good enough for my minimal requierments of 'watchable'.  And I really liked that the rendering was done by youtube, I didn't have to sacrifice my laptop to the rendering gods for an hour each video.

Incidentally I'm a geek who is use to working with IDE's that have a somewhat similar 'feel' to the format of blender, and it still took me longer then I care to admit to get even part way to where I wanted with the help of google and youtube in blender.  I do not see most non-geeks making any headway at all, even most with my level of computer-expertise wouldn't be willing to waste as much time as I did playing around.  I don't think I would recommend blender to a laymen.

@dsollen, Ok I take note. Thing is that whenever I see "free" or "open source" Blender comes to my mind. It is an amazing piece of software that allows you to make complete movies with any kind of special effect you can think of. Does this mean it is easy? No way, I don't think there are many people out there that can say they know how to use Blender in its whole, but going with small steps you can get to achieve what you want and learn. In this special case (as I said) I don't think it was too complicated, but as it turned out it seems to be. Sorry for the answer if it didn't help.

The cheapest tool is to use a desk lamp and light the scene better to begin with and use the white balance setting in the webcam software itself.  It's a lot harder after the fact (if sufficient detail is even saved in the video to fix it at all).
You could also try DaVinci Resolve Lite, it's a professional color grading and correction package that also happens to be completely free, but the much better solution is to light and shoot correctly rather than trying to fix crappy footage in post.


text:
Video Camera with Detachable Viewfinder and Remote Control
I am wondering if there is a camcorder/video camera out there with a touchscreen viewfinder that is detachable and can be used remotely via a cable.
I want to be able to control all features of the camera by this screen (zoom, focus, start recording, etc). Additionally a live view of what the camera is recording is needed.
I know that many DSLRs/Video can be controlled by smartphone/tablet but the features are limited and lag is a problem. I do not want wireless for this reason.
Does anybody know a camera that does this?
I am not a professional so the price range has to be around £600-£1000 ($1019-$1700).
Thanks

It is probably pretty unlikely in your price range.  Remote monitors are a common feature on high end professional gear where different features of the camera are actually being controlled by multiple operators and reviewed by a director and cinematographer.  Having a removable, touch, control interface however, is an exceedingly rare need in the consumer market.  The closest you will likely come is a wireless, wifi based control that lets you control the camera and record to the camera itself (so minimal lag on the controls) even if there is slight lag in the video feed itself.
You could look for cameras with a firewire interface and remote control software for a tablet.  That would be lower latency than wireless, but I'm not sure that many new cameras include that kind of support.
You could also consider the more limited option of an HDMI or SDI field monitor and a basic LANC controller or similar.  This would allow you to have a super low latency monitor and super low latency controls, but the controls would be more limited.  It would probably still end up pushing the edge of your price range though.  The monitor itself is generally $100 or more alone and can easily go upwards of $200 for a marginal quality one.


text:
Key out everything but one color?
Ok I know this might be very basic for many of you, but I couldn't quite figure out how to do this ...
So, in case I want something like a reverse color keying where everything except one particular color is keyed out, what would be the easiest or, even better, most customizable way to do this in Premiere Pro?
I want to be able to manually set the tolerance level for similar colors as well as soft edges.
Thanks in advance!
No answers starting with "This is much easier with After Effects ..." please!

This is quite simple.  Use any keyer of your choice that can give you a good mask for the layer, then place an "Alpha Adjust" layer below it in the Effects control and click the "Invert Alpha" checkbox.  This will invert the alpha channel produced by the keyer and reverse the effect the way you are looking for.

If your image is RGBA composed of image that have R/G/B mask and Alpha transparency, you can't as invert alpha will also invert the alpha and not only the R or G or B mask.

@softyodayoann I specified to create an alpha mask and then invert it to swap which side is transparent and which is not.  Invert alpha will only invert the alpha channel.

Not specific to Premiere, but the general technique is: Set up the key to drop out the color of choice, then invert the key.

Would have done that, but the ultra key didn't seem to have a invert option. Or maybe I overlooked it?

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


text:
How to deal with this heavily underexposed footage
I recently was at friends birthday with a few musical performances and this friend asked me to film the event. Unfortunately, it was really badly lit (I did notice it, but I couldn't do anything about it). So I had a bad feeling, but I shot as much footage as I could anyway. So, this is how it turned out:

With a luma curve adjustment, raised saturation and an orange-ish color-grading, it looks like this:

If I lighten it up even more, it becomes even more grainy. Also, the missing color informations become more obvious:

So, my question; should I rather sacrifice some visibility so that it looks not totally grainy (2nd picture) or lighten it up even more at the cost of strange-looking colors and very grainy scenes (3rd picture)? And, using either variant as a starting point, how could I further increase the quality of the result? Especially bring more color into it while maintaining a natural look and reduce the noise. I'm working with Premiere Pro CC. I've tried the remove grain effect in After Effects, but that didn't yield great results (I'm not sure if I got the settings right though, I'll try it again later). I also found the Neat Video Plugin for PP and AE, but I'm not making any money from this, so I'm not so keen on spending money on it ...
Edit: As requested, here are some uncompressed stills (directly exported frames from Premiere). I've decided to go with the 'middle ground' option (uncompressed_graded.bmp).

Honestly, when it comes to indoor musical performances, grain is the norm. Any performance shot in a bar or club tends to be grainy, which gives it that rock and roll look! :-)

Could you please add an uncrompressed image (maybe with a link) to your question? I would like to give you a preview...

That would be great! I'll upload some once I get to my Computer ... @user111 well, yeah ... I hope my friend shares this view °v°

@poor I added the uncompressed stills!

I'm not sure tbh ... a CyberShot something, maybe? It wasn't my camera, but that of a friend of my friend ... the recording was pretty spontaneous too ... sorry I know this sounds awful, but it was a birthday party, not a recording session after all ... It was a photo camera with a video recording mode ... not top notch, that's for sure.

Just an idea if you're getting  too much trouble with the colors: What about complete black and white? From my expierience noise on  black and white images looks better...

@Stoyno I've already suggested to desaturate in my answer.

@poor I marked your answer as accepted. I guess there's really not much I can do about this footage ... so from your last question I gather that even the Neat Video plugin wouldn't be of much help for this footage?

@Gin-San Thanks - there is no other method. Yesterday i've tried 1 hour to repair it and couldn't finish my tests. At the moment I don't have access to a workstation, will continue testing as soon as I can. BUT as I said the footage is not only noisy, it contains a lot of compression errors and bad pixels, this often results in big pink squares or random withe pixels, which are probably will floating over the whole video, especially the black areas, will flicker. In general Denoising works, when you denoise first, but there is no opportunity to make it brighter, without getting erros.

Hm ok, thanks. Don't put too much work into that - I'll try to repair it as good as possible and take it as another reminder of how important a good lightning setup is °ω°

If this is no raw material, there is no additional pixel information to balance your colors and achieve a natural look. Only chance you have is to denoise your video and desaturate the colors. Try to find a good relationship between brightness and noise to get an acceptable result.
Unfortunately there is no good, free, build-in or open source solution at the moment. Denoising a video requires very complex algorithms, not only because every camera produces different noise types. Currently best approach are wavelet algorithms, but there are only 2 tools which use it:

Neat Video
Nuke's Denoiser

Note: In my experience Neat Video does a very good job and in some cases you are able to denoise the video twice without getting an over blurred image.


text:
Producing Video Lectures
What are all the software and hardware needed to produce a video of this kind?

This looks like she used a graphics drawing pen tablet (e.g. a Wacom Pen Tablet) and recorded her screen with a screencapture software such as Fraps. To have the person appear in the lower right like this, you will need a well-lit greenscreen to key out the background. To produce the video from your recordings, you will need NLE software. Since there aren't any special effects in this video, you don't need a professional program; the only requirement would be the greenscreen processing capability.
Alternatively, you could also create the screen writing effects completely digitally with an animation/SFX program like After Effects. However, this is pretty difficult and it will certainly take some time to learn the required skills to produce a video like this.


text:
Project Organization, searchable keywords and tags in Adobe Premiere
In Final Cut Pro X you are able to add "tags" or "keywords" as a form of labeling clips. This way when you are editing you can search to bring up all the clips relating to those tags or keywords.
//////////////////////////////////////////
Example:
Name --- Tags
Clip1: profile, interview
Clip2: audio, interview
Clip3: B-roll
Clip4: B-roll

Search = "interview"
Results = Clip1, Clip2
//////////////////////////////////////////

Adobe Premiere uses "bins" "metadata" and "labels" to organize media. Labels however are limited to about 6 I believe. Sure you can create a bunch of bins and copy and paste clips to use bins like keywords in a sense, however one of the great features of editing software is that clips show which parts of them are used in a sequence, when you copy and paste clips in the project panel you now have two separate entities, so if you where to use one and not the other, even though they are the same clip premiere will only show the one you used was used in a sequence. (Which kinda defeats the purpose).
How do you use keywords and or tags just like you can in Final Cut Pro X?

Keywords are an optional field of the project panel. In order to view or add keywords, you need to set the project panel to List View (you can switch between List View and Icon View with the buttons in the lower left corner).
In the flyout menu of the project panel, select Metadata Display… to customize the columns of the list view to show whatever information you want it to. You will find the keywords in the category Dublin Core. Check keywords and click ok. You might have to resize the project panel (or remove the columns you don't need from the Metadata Display menu) in order to see the keyword column. You can rearrange the columns using drag-and-drop. Once you have added some tags to your clips, you can search for clips with specific tags using the search function of the project panel.
There's also some more useful metadata columns hidden in that menu that are not shown by default that you might find useful. For example, the category Premiere Pro Project Metadata has the entries Video Usage and Audio Usage that show you how many instances of a clip exist in your sequences in your current project. There are also fields for Comment, Description, Scene, Shot and much more. Using the Metadata Display menu, you can customize the metadata columns to only show those that you need for your workflow.

I scoured the internet and never found this, I don't understand why it isn't more publicized. I can't thank you enough!

@Rext You're welcome :) Yeah, some functions are hidden pretty well ... in general, the cool stuff is hidden behind the flyout menu (the little burger menu icon next to the panel name). Whenever I forget how to get to a specific submenu or setting, it's usually in one of the flyout menues ...

I've found keywords and entered a few, I have two questions. One I used comma as a separator and I think it auto changed to a semicolon so I'm assuming the separator is a semicolon. Second, When I type in the search field it doesn't seem to pull up any of the keywords I've used.

Is there search option for the bar at the top? It seems that the search icon at the bottom that allows you to search using certain parameters is necessary to be able to search for keywords. Otherwise the search bar at the top doesn't even look for keywords.

@Rext I'm not sure as I don't usually use keywords ... the mouseovertext says 'an unordered array of descriptive phrases or keywords', so I would assume you can just seperate keywords with a blank space? What version of Premiere are you using? With the current version of Premiere CC that I have installed, both the search bar at the top as well as the search function at the bottom find all the keywords I have added, regardless of what I used as a seperator ...

I use premiere pro CC 2015, the separator is ; I learned. The search function at the bottom works but you have to specify two search criteria. The search box doesn't seem to search any metadata.

@Rext well that is inconvenient ... but with the current version that doesn't seem to case. Maybe you can update your version? Shouldn't be a problem if you have CC anyway ...

yeah haha seems like it. I'll look into it, thanks again!


text:
Unhappy with wedding video production - what to do next?
I recently got married in the UK and paid a company to film our wedding (and pre-wedding celebrations), they have completed the highlights trailer & full wedding video but it isn't of the quality I would expect...
They have used the wrong songs, missed key parts of speeches etc... Their contract states any problems with the final edit should be notified within 7 days of receiving the completed video otherwise they presume that client is happy with the final edit.
I have contacted them within the 7 days via email and facebook but received no responses so far - I have given them ample time to respond (almost a week) yet still no received a response and have now gone past their '7 day deadline'.
What should be my next steps, I do not mind going to court but that seems like a very long winded and possibly expensive route.
I am considering asking them for their original source footage and asking another company to complete the final edit for me - what are you thoughts on this, what would be the best approach with all of this?

If you can get source files, always get source files.

You might get better answers on a legal forum. try http://law.stackexchange.com/

As a wedding videographer myself AND having someone film my own wedding (which didnt match the style from their portfolio) I can see both sides of the story here. 1: they should have given you some type of response within a few days to acknowledge they have received your mail and will look into it. 2: you should have watched many of their videos to get a sense of their style and be happy with what they produce. 3: Suing should be the utter last thing to try. 4: I myself wouldnt hand over source files with payment for releasing the copyright as I would want someone else claiming it as their own

It all depends on your contract. Unless you have specifically requested it for the contract, you probably don't have any rights to the original footage (artist/creative workers generally don't like to give out raw footage, unedited photos et c.). Because of this, you will in general have to trust the artist/editor to do a good job for the final product. This is why you should always check their creative portfolio before you hire them to see if you like their style, especially if it's about something important that can't be repeated (like your wedding).

They have used the wrong songs, missed key parts of speeches etc... Their contract states any problems with the final edit should be notified within 7 days of receiving the completed video otherwise they presume that client is happy with the final edit.

If this is the case, you have fulfilled your part of the contract and can refer to it if they later refuse to do the requested edits. But just because you are contractually obliged to inform them about any changes you would like them to make, it doesn't mean they have to answer within the same timeframe. Again, check your contract for what it says regarding their response time. If it specifies a timeframe for their response/delivery of the requested edits, wait at least until that deadline has passed before you contact them again. If it doesn't, maybe try some other means of communication (email/call/personal visit).

What should be my next steps, I do not mind going to court but that seems like a very long winded and possibly expensive route.

Suing should be your last, last resort. If you still want this company to edit your movie (with the changes you requested), it won't do you a whole lot of good to drag them to court. You have hired them to do creative work, after all, and I don't believe they will be very passionate about getting you the movie you wanted after you sued them. I would only consider suing if they straight out refuse to comply by their contractual obligations. Keep in mind that you can only sue them for what was agreed upon in the contract. Getting the source files might not have been part of that, so your legal footing in this case will be shaky at best.

I am considering asking them for their original source footage and asking another company to complete the final edit for me - what are you thoughts on this, what would be the best approach with all of this?

This again depends on your contract, specifically the scope/amount of changes that you can request. Based on your question, it sounds like rather then having some minor issues with the movie (e.g. wrong format, some uncomely shots, bad audio mix or something like that), you don't like the style of the overall movie, which means they would basically have to redo the entire movie. Again I can only guess, but this is probably not covered by your contract. In this case, it might be easier to have them give you the source footage so you can hire someone else to cut your movie for you, since even if they do the requested changes, it still won't be 'your' perfect movie. If you wanna go down this route, your best shot is to be honest and try to have them see your site of the problem. It's a win-win after all (you get the source footage, they don't have to put any more work into the movie).
If they refuse to hand out the source footage or you want to hold them up to their contractual obligations (i.e. doing the edits you want), be polite, give them time to answer, and only threaten them with a lawsuit after you've really exhausted all other options. A lawsuit may get you what you want, but it will cost you way more money and time.
If they refuse to do the requested edits or can't do it to the extent/in the way you want it, you can maybe strike a deal (instead of having them go over several improvement cycles, they can just give you the source footage and be done with it). You can try to get that deal in the courtroom, but it will be easier, less time- and money-consuming for both parties to do it extrajudicial.

@AdamMannPro I think your reply was meant as a comment to the question, not my answer

@motitzLost pretty much sums it up perfectly. They could also be very busy depending on country and time of year, in the UK it is a quite time now so they should be communicating

@mortitzLost, Yes, got carried away in the wrong box lol


text:
What is the best way to convert .vob files copied directly from a DVD into a format usable by Premiere Pro?
I need to import some video material that was copied directly from a DVD into Premiere Pro. (Disclaimer: This is for educational purposes, in that context it is lawful to use excerpts of commercial films in Germany).
They were directly copied, meaning I don't have an image of the DVD, but the original file structure from the DVD including the folders VIDEO_TS and AUDIO_TS, containing .VOB files. Premiere Pro can't import them.
What is the best way to convert/copy those files to get them into a format that Premiere Pro can use? By 'best' I mean with the least quality loss possible and in a way that will produce either one file that has the entire movie in them or an array of sorted files that will be easy to look through. No I don't have the original DVD. Thanks!

Using ffmpeg, cat and remux all the VOBs together to a MPEG program stream.
ffmpeg -i "concat:vts01_1.vob|vts01_2.vob|vts01_3.vob" -c copy -f dvd dvd.mpg

(You may have to escape the | character i.e. vts01_1.vob\|vts01_2.vob\|vts01_3.vob)

Thanks, this seems to work for the video. However there's no sound in either VLC player or Premiere Pro (after import). Any idea how I get the sound too?
This was the query:
ffmpeg -i "concat:VTS_01_1.VOB|VTS_01_1.VOB|VTS_01_2.VOB|VTS_01_3.VOB|VTS_01_4.VOB|VTS_01_5.VOB|VTS_01_6.VOB" -c copy AZZURRO_01.mpg
And this is the Mediainfo of the resulting file:
https://gist.github.com/MoritzLost/491b7a79be3602e447a84971d4ae8057

Ok, ffmpeg muxes to MPEG-1 system by default for .mpg and AC-3 is not supported by most players in such a stream. Modified command.

Thanks, I'm trying that now. Does the force dvd parameter make it use MPEG-2 or what does it do?

Yes, an MPEG-2 PS.


text:
Minimum equipment for shooting an event in a dimly lit environment
I have a potential shooting gig where I would be shooting a promotional/documentary video at a marketing event (i.e. there are no staged scenes, I'd just be shooting during the event and try to get some good shots that can be used for a promotional video). I don't know the details yet, but this event will probably take place indoors in the evening with not much light, comparable to a club I guess. The catch is I'd have to use my own equipment and I'm not sure my current gear is up to the task.
I have a Canon EOS 80D (APS-C, 1.6x CF). For lenses I have my trusted Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ART (48mm FF equivalent) and a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (27-80mm FF equivalent). I also have a Pentax-F 50mm f/1.7, but since I can only use manual focus with that one I guess it's out of the question (though given the poor light situation, I will probably have to focus manually anyway? In this case, the additional 1.5 stops of light might give this lens an edge over the Tamron). By the time of the event I will probably also have a Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 (16-32mm FF equivalent), but I'm not sure that focal length range will be very appropriate here (also it's rather slow, so probably a bad choice for this situation).
So I have a couple of questions about this, I'd be very grateful if someone with experience with this kind of shooting could give their opinion.

Are those lenses appropriate for the job in terms of speed and focal lengths? Maybe a combination of the two Sigma lenses?
At what apertures should I be shooting? Obviously for the best low-light performance the largest aperture (f/1.4 for the Sigma 30mm) would be best, but I'm worried that the autofocus won't be accurate under those conditions and that I won't hit the manual focus if the DoF is so small.
If I could rent/borrow a lens (not sure if I have a budget/source for this yet), can you recommend one?
What do I need in terms of stabilization? I could bring a tripod, but I don't think that's flexible enough. I don't have a dolly/gimbal or anything like that, and I'm not sure if I can procure one. Of course I can stabilize in post, but my Sigma 30mm for example doesn't have any image stabilization, so if I shoot at lower framerates the frames themselves could become too blurry … is it too bold to try and shoot completely handheld?

I guess my overarching question is if this kind of shooting gig is at all possible given the gear I have (or with cheap additions) or if I should turn it down because I simply won't get any usable material this way.

A tough one. Certainly might be worth wording the client up that it's going to be dark. I'd try and do a test if possible to see exactly how dark it's going to be.
I don't think you're going to get a much faster lens than ƒ/1.4 without dropping a truckload of money. There's a Canon 24-70 ƒ/2.8, it's AU$1750 so it's not small change, but would probably be reasonable to rent if you want fast + zoom + autofocus.
I'd definitely look at a good monitor, if you're having to judge focus off the camera's screen you're going to struggle.
You could look at hiring a Sony α7, they have better low-light performance. You'd need Sony glass to go with it.
Would an on-camera light be possible? A bit more obtrusive, but you can at least do vox-pops or whatever and see what you're looking at.

Thanks for your input! Yeah, I can't afford L lenses or any high-quality zoom lens for that matter, I'm glad I even have a fast prime lens ... I can look into borrowing the 24-70, but isn't f/2.8 a bit slow for this kind of shoot? Also given the crop factor of my camera, don't you think the zoom range will be too tight? // What kind of monitor are you talking about, something portable that I can attach to my camera?  I never heard of something like that to be honest, care to point me in the right direction? ^^

I don't think on-camera lighting will be possible. Would be too obstrusive, also there's again the problem that I don't own any ...

Look at smallHD or Atomos for monitors, there are cheaper ones as well, basically something with enough pixels to be able to judge focus - so you want 1080p if you can afford it. The viewfinders on the back of DSLRs generally don't have the resolution, even with a loupe.


text:
Functioning of battery banks for GoPro 4 Silver
I was disappointed with the short duration of the standard battery in my GoPro.
I would like to be able to shoot for a full day, without interruption. I researched external battery power banks, but I am confused. Does the powerbank 'override' the battery, allowing for continuous shooting, or does it only re-charge the battery, then switch off? (which seems to be implied in some posts)
Is there an alternative to the power bank?
Appreciate any advice.


text:
Is Adobe Premiere Elements good enough for video editing?
I'm looking for an affordable tool to edit video on Windows with the following features:

sharpness adjustment
color correction
noise reduction
stabilization
matching color and brightness between different clips

I saw lots of people recommending Adobe Premiere Elements as a general video editing tool. Is it good enough for my purpose? If not, do you have any recommendation?

You know, the full Adobe Premiere Creative Cloud is only $20 a month. That's what I've been using for a couple years now.

Is Adobe Premiere Elements good enough for video editing?

In general, yes. It is a watered down Version of Premiere Pro for people that would be overwhelmed  by a full-featured professional editing tool and just want to cut their video easily and quickly.
This means that a lot of the features of Premiere Pro will only be available in a simplified variation, for example in the form of presets or complex effects being boiled down to a couple of easy to understand sliders and checkboxes that do most of the work 'under the hood'. You basically exchange precision control for ease of use and simplicity.
Checking the software's feature range
Look through the software manufacturer's website and documentation/manual to find out if it has all the features you want.
For example:

color correction

From the Adobe Elements Features page:

Pop a color for instant wow
Get the effects you’re after with Guided Edits. Create visual drama by popping one or more colors in a scene and pushing everything else to black-and-white.
Show your true colors
Sliders let you adjust clip color as easily as adjusting the color in a photo.

The problem with this method is that Premiere Elements is a consumer-oriented product and not intended for professional video editing. So the marketing material is pretty inprecise as well. I have no idea what 'pop a color for instant wow' is supposed to mean. Ignore the marketing babble, use Google image search to find relevant screenshots or search for video tutorials to see the respective functions in action.
Looking for specific features
Google Search for [software name] + [feature designation].
For example, for video stabilization:
Google Search for 'Premiere Elements video stabilization'. The first result is this page which has a video that demonstrates the video stabilization feature in Premiere Elements. If you find no official links and instead get a couple of forum threads where people ask for that specific feature and get no useful answers, you can assume it isn't present in the software.
Also make sure that the results are up-to-date and apply to the current version of Premiere Elements. If you only get outdated search results, append the current version number/designation of the software to your search term or use advanced search to only find results that have been updated recently.


text:
Turbulence cpu video effect
I used to use the Turbulence CPU video effect in Pinnacle Studio 16.
Now I use FinalCutPro X and, till now, I was unable to find an equivalent effect.
To have an idea of the effect you may look to this video:

Is there anyone who can give me a suggestion?
Thank you!

You might be able to achieve such a look with the Clouds generator from Apple Motion. (This is different from the one that ships with FCPX.) But you can create a Final Cut Pro Generator from it using the settings below.
If you set the 1st, 2nd and 3rd layer strength to 0 and the 4th layer strength to 1.0 you'll get the right sort of frequencies. You'll then need to choose or create a gradient with different color bands in it.
It also looks like they're mixing several layers of it with similar settings. You could try different blend modes and opacity levels for different effects.


text:
What is the best way to learn VFX?
I am new to this field but I'm very interested in making VFX and I had done some VFX clips on my phone. But I want some software names which I can understand easily and also create visual effects.

I disagree that is a dupe. They are different questions. One is how to learn. Another is which tool to use.

VFX on a phone is much different than actually doing it on a computer. You might want to take stepping stones to VFX and start by editing videos with a NLE. One of my favorites is Premiere Pro (though, it's been buggy lately). Once you learn how to edit videos, you can then move onto VFX with Adobe After Effects, or Hitfilm for more simpler stuff.

You don't need to know editing to start making Vfx although it doesn't hurt to have some editing experience. It depends on what you are aiming for when learning Vfx. After effects is predominantly used in TV visual effects and motion graphics, while more complex visual effects tend to use software like fusion, nuke etc.pp.
How to start learning this? There is around 1 million tutorials on YouTube so why don't you just pick something you want to do and start following a tutorial about it. If you want to have an idea how things are done, watch some behind the scenes for Vfx heavy movies...

[I assume you have some experience in video editing, if you don't you MIGHT struggle with vfx]
Adobe After effects is probably the easiest yet very powerful vfx software. It is layer based as opposed to node base so it will be easier to learn and understand. It might not be as powerful and flexible but it will more than you need when starting out. One of the best tutorial site for After effects is www.videocopilot.net .
If you want some more recommendation of softwares, here is a short list:
Adobe After effects,
The Foundry Nuke(use commonly in the industry),
BlackMagic fusion(use commonly in the industry), Fitfilm(all in one solution, cheap, not used in the industry)


text:
overlap silent video with video and audio
I am new to video editing so excuse me if I am using wrong words to describe my question.
I am trying to make a video clip in adobe premier pro with two videos. First one  has no audio attached. Second video has. SO what I wanted to do is to make a small second video playing with background of first video(like 2 videos on the one screen but 1st on the background). But when I am doing:

place 1st video on V1
place 2nd video on V2 -- it places without audio

But when I am doing

place 2nd video on V1 -- it places with audio
move it to V2
place 1st video on V1.

Audio from 2nd video doesnt disappear....
And I can not understand how to avoid 2nd way of doing it and still keep audio from 2nd video.
I mean I can use this 2nd way but it is so uncomfortable if I will want to add more video in addition to 2nd one.

What MoritzLost said, but also you can alt/option click on either the sound or video of a linked clip and it will just select the sound or video, meaning you can move or delete it independently. Recommend you follow the link to the support pages and have a bit of a read.

What you want to use to control where clips are placed is Source Patching and Track Targeting. Those are two of the small indicators to the left of the timeline tracks. Track Targeting has a couple of functions, in general it controls which tracks varied editing operations can affect. For example, if you paste clips from the clipboard, the pasted video and audio will be placed on the lowest active (targeted) audio and video track respectively.
If you want to control where the clips from your Project Panel go, you can use Source Patching instead. Only one audio and video track respectively can be the activated at a time in the Source Patching column, and those will be the tracks that new material is placed into by default.
You can find more info on that on the Adobe support pages.


text:
can't import AVI type 1 to premiere CS6
Bs''d
Hi!
I used to work with premiere pro CS4.1 now I'm working with CS6, I moved to project folder to        my new computer, but when open it I get an error "damaged or un-supported file"
The AVI file works fine in CS4(at the old computer) and in media player in my new computer.
Thanks you all for your answering :)
My old system works poorly so it not good idea to export in it. I'm not sure I want to use AME because I need a very good output and if I will do so I will lose generation and/or quality
here is some details:
the file codec is dvsd (DVC/DV Video)
Complete name                            : D:\Natural Health B 2 B.avi
Format                                   : AVI
Format/Info                              : Audio Video Interleave
Commercial name                          : DV
Format profile                           : OpenDML
File size                                : 12.4 GiB
Duration                                 : 1h 1mn
Overall bit rate mode                    : Constant
Overall bit rate                         : 28.9 Mbps
Recorded date                            : 2011-06-21 17:57:45.000
ID                                       : 0
Format                                   : DV
Duration                                 : 1h 1mn
Bit rate mode                            : Constant
Bit rate                                 : 24.4 Mbps
Encoded bit rate                         : 28.8 Mbps
Width                                    : 720 pixels
Height                                   : 576 pixels
Display aspect ratio                     : 16:9
Frame rate mode                          : Constant
Frame rate                               : 25.000 fps
Standard                                 : PAL
Chroma subsampling                       : 4:2:0
Bit depth                                : 8 bits
Scan type                                : Interlaced
Scan order                               : Bottom Field First
Compression mode                         : Lossy
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)                       : 2.357
Time code of first frame                 : 00:59:16:07
Time code source                         : Subcode time code
Stream size                              : 12.4 GiB (100%)
Encoding settings                        : ae mode=manual / wb mode=automatic / white balance= / fcm=manual focus

A MediaInfo (http://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo) output of the file would be very helpful.

As Professor Sparkle pointed out, we really need more information about the file.  Most likely it sounds like a codec issue.  There are multiple types of codecs that can be used by different programs, most likely the type that supports the file is not the same type that is used by Premiere.

Thank you for answering as you can see above I've added some details

the file codec is dvsd (DVC/DV Video)

Usually DirectX comes with a DirectShow DVSD decoder. But maybe this decoder has some issue with your file(s).
Could it be you've had at some time software by Pinnacle, Sony, MainConcept, etc on your old system installed, whose DVSD decoder could have been used by Premiere Pro instead?

Without knowinf more about the specific codec used on the file we can't say much.

One thing you can try is transcoding it with Adobe Media Encoder to another format that you know will work in CS6

It is worth noting that you would likely have to export on the old system though.  If Premiere can't handle the file, there is a relatively good chance Media Encoder will also fail to handle it.

That is likely, although I've run into  this similar issue and AME transcoded it and it worked fine in PP afterward.

yeah, that's why I said relatively good chance and didn't down vote. ;)  I was more just commenting for the OP's sake to let them know if it doesn't work, it probably isn't that they are doing something wrong, just that there are a limited number of cases where AME transcoding will make a difference.


text:
GoPro Dual HERO 3D stereo system only compatible with HERO3+ Black Edition units?
I need to shoot stereo video in perfect sync. I realized that GoPro offers Dual HERO System but they only list compatibility for HERO3+ Black Edition units. So I assume the currently selling cheaper HERO3 White Edition and HERO3+ Silver Edition models are not able to do frame synchronization for 3D even though they might have the same HW sync connector/socket as Black Edition on their bodies?
I do not need the waterproof dual enclosure, I can connect bare camera units just with cable (because I need wider lens baseline). My main goal is to get stereo video in perfect synchronization only.

I probably could have done a quick google search before asking. HERO3+ Black Edition may be the only currently selling supported unit, but I found that following historical products are compatible with a "3D HERO System" (which may be different from "Dual HERO System"):

HD HERO Original camera
HD HERO2 camera

Dont know whether "3D HERO System" has different sync cable than current DUAL System. Also, a guy called "linuxluver" said on this page that he is using his "Hero3 Silver cams for 3D content". I am not sure if he uses the sync cable or not.
Still, they list the HERO3+ BE as the only compatible with "Dual HERO System".

The Dual Hero System is their new product for the Hero3+ Black. The 3D Hero System was for their Hero and Hero 2 cameras, while they don't sell the Hero and Hero 2 anymore they still sell the 3D rig for them, very similar rig, probably different hardware to sync them and also a lot cheaper http://gopro.com/camera-accessories/3d-hero-system
Though you will find Hero 1+2 cameras mostly only used nowadays.


text:
What tools do you use for command line editing?
[edited to be more like a question.]
I have been producing video using a combination of ffmpeg, mencoder and graphicsmagick for several years. Mostly it is because of not only the sorry state of affairs of GUI editing tools on linux, but also since I prefer to use the command line and scripts more than clumsy crashy interfaces.
[/edit]
I investigated the MELT CLI after stumbling across a couple of youtube videos showing how it works.
As opposed to ffmpeg, it is FRAME-PERFECT, allows for simple concatenation of files or even clips within multiple files, transitions are incredibly easy and the usage of video and sound filters is intuitive (once you have wrapped your head around the syntax). In fact, you can even script effects with html5!
Here is an example that would provide both an audio and video transition between clip1 and clip2 and create an mp4.
$ melt clip1.dv clip2.dv -mix 25 -mixer luma -mixer mix:-1 \
  -consumer avformat:clip1and2_mixed.mp4

From their webpage regarding their system / plugins:
FFmpeg for audio/video decoding and encoding
swfdec Flash decoder
WebVfx for HTML5-based graphics/animation generation
GTK+ and Qt for image loading and text rendering
LADSPA audio plugins
SoX audio effects
libsamplerate audio resampler
JACK audio routing
frei0r video plugins
SDL for desktop audio/video output

Note:
I am not knocking ffmpeg and I am not affiliated with MLT or MELT.
http://www.mltframework.org/bin/view/MLT/Projects
http://www.mltframework.org/bin/view/MLT/MltMelt

This is not a question - it is very much an "I dislike ffmpeg and like these other tools - what do you use" post. Which is not helpful, and is entirely opinion based.

Of course it is a question. I am asking the community about other tools I may not know about. Why all the hate?

There is still not a question mark in the entire question body.  This still simply consists of a monolog on an option you like and is completely disjointed from the title.

Video editing is a very visual workflow, you need to see your result at all times, instantly, to be effective in your daily job.
Working with a CLI is rather counter intuitive and makes it hard to make creative decisions.
Frameworks like these are great to make programs on top of them and to automate video processing but are tedious to use in standard video production and animation workflows.
It's a matter of what you want to do, not whether its a powerful tool or not.

the MELT CLI does have visual feedback and interactive controls.

Sure but that is a very sluggish workflow compared to a modern NLE like Premiere where you can see changes even while playing back your footage.

I totally agree, but why then ffmpeg? Not only is that a "sluggish workflow" - but also an absolute nightmare for beginners.

Well no one uses ffmpeg for NLE work. You use it for encoding and automating things.
For transcoding its actually very easy to use.
The main reason why its popular though is that its pretty much the only widely known tool for these tasks. MELT isn't even close to that reputation.
Not that this would make MELT bad, its just not that well known yet.


text:
Compile ffmpeg 5.1 with libopenjpeg
I'm trying to enable libopenjpeg in ffmpeg 5.1. I have compiled openjpeg from OpenJPEG git repository, and it is installed in the system as per the instructions in Installation Guide. I can verify the installation with "pkg-config" using,
pkg-config --libs --cflags "libopenjp2 >= 2.1.0".

This outputs:
-I/ffmpeg_build/include/openjpeg-2.5 -L/ffmpeg_build/lib -lopenjp2

However, when trying to run ./configure to compile ffmpeg,I get the following error

ERROR: libopenjp2 >= 2.1.0 not found using pkg-config

The ./configure command I'm using is:
PATH="$HOME/bin:$PATH" PKG_CONFIG_PATH="$HOME/ffmpeg_build/lib/pkgconfig" ./configure     --prefix="$HOME/ffmpeg_build"   --pkg-config-flags="--static"      --extra-cflags="-I$HOME/ffmpeg_build/include"  --extra-ldflags="-L$HOME/ffmpeg_build/lib -L$HOME/ffmpeg_build/lib64" --extra-libs=-lpthread     --extra-libs=-lm --bindir="$HOME/bin" --enable-libfdk_aac  --enable-libfreetype  --enable-libmp3lame  --enable-libopus --enable-libvpx --enable-libx264 --enable-libx265  --enable-nonfree  --enable-openssl        --enable-demuxer=spdif        --enable-decoder=dolby_e        --enable-decoder=ac3     --enable-gpl     --enable-decoder=eac3     --enable-indev=alsa     --enable-outdev=alsa     --enable-libsrt     --enable-nonfree     --enable-openssl     --enable-shared  --enable-libopenjpeg

The ffbuild/config.log output which contain the error shows the following.

gcc -D_ISOC99_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112 -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600 -DPIC -I/home/ffmpeg_build/include -I/home/ffmpeg_build/include/openjpeg-2.5 -std=c11 -fomit-frame-pointer -fPIC -pthread -I/home/ffmpeg_build/include -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/libpng16 -I/usr/include/harfbuzz -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib64/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/sysprof-4 -pthread -I/home/ffmpeg_build/include/openjpeg-2.5 -DOPJ_STATIC -L/home/ffmpeg_build/lib -DOPJ_STATIC -c -o /tmp/ffconf.ZnMEl1ya/test.o /tmp/ffconf.ZnMEl1ya/test.c
gcc -L/home/ffmpeg_build/lib -L/home/ffmpeg_build/lib64 -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,noexecstack -I/home/ffmpeg_build/include/openjpeg-2.5 -DOPJ_STATIC -L/home/ffmpeg_build/lib -DOPJ_STATIC -o /tmp/ffconf.ZnMEl1ya/test /tmp/ffconf.ZnMEl1ya/test.o -lopenjp2 -lm -lm -lpthread
/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ffconf.ZnMEl1ya/test.o: in function check_opj_version': test.c:(.text+0x3): undefined reference to opj_version'
/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ffconf.ZnMEl1ya/test: hidden symbol `opj_version' isn't defined
/usr/bin/ld: final link failed: bad value
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
ERROR: libopenjp2 >= 2.1.0 not found using pkg-config

I'm on Fedora 38, with Linux kernel 6.8.9. How do I get pkg-config in ffmpeg's configure to see the existence of libopenjp2?

In case anyone runs into this issue again, I thought I'd post my solution here.

Compile openjpeg using following cmake settings.

cmake .. -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:bool=off -DBUILD_STATIC_LIBS:bool=on -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX="$HOME/ffmpeg_build" -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS=-DOPJ_STATIC -DBUILD_THIRDPARTY:BOOL=ON

Configure ffmpeg to statically link libopenjpeg. The configuration command I used is:

PATH="$HOME/bin:$PATH" PKG_CONFIG_PATH="$HOME/ffmpeg_build/lib/pkgconfig" ./configure     --prefix="$HOME/ffmpeg_build"   --pkg-config-flags="--static"      --extra-cflags="-I$HOME/ffmpeg_build/include" --extra-ldflags="-L$HOME/ffmpeg_build/lib"     --extra-libs=-lpthread     --extra-libs=-lm --bindir="$HOME/bin"     --enable-libfdk_aac        --enable-libfreetype        --enable-libmp3lame        --enable-libopus        --enable-libvpx       --enable-libx264   --enable-nonfree     --enable-openssl        --enable-demuxer=spdif        --enable-decoder=dolby_e        --enable-decoder=ac3     --enable-gpl     --enable-decoder=eac3     --enable-indev=alsa     --enable-outdev=alsa     --enable-libsrt     --enable-nonfree     --enable-openssl     --enable-static --disable-shared     --enable-libopenjpeg

Here is the command I used to encode a raw yuv file with openjpeg:

./ffmpeg -y -c:v rawvideo -s:v 1920x1080 -pix_fmt yuv422p -i ~/Documents/1080p50_video_raw.yuv -i ~/Documents/1080p50_2ch_audio.wav -map 0:0 -map 1:0 -c:v libopenjpeg -c:a libfdk_aac -ac 2 -ar 48000 -b:a 128k -async 1 ~/Documents/1080p50_2ch_jp2_aac.mp4

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


text:
Good Intro Editor that can Join Audio+Video, and Present Two Frames Simultaneously
I am just beginning to put together some YouTube videos on Algebra tutorials (so I'm in front of a whiteboard, recording audio separately onto a portable recorder, and using a pretty low budget video recorder).
I use a PC for editing (Windows 7, Intel Core i5 with 4 GB of RAM).
My question is regarding video editing software. Movie Maker is definitely not cutting it. The main problem is that I can't join a separate audio track with the video clip. So while editing, whatever small pieces I cut out (while I'm mumbling or drift off topic), I have to constantly re-sync the audio with the video - extremely tedious and error prone.
So what editing software do you recommend for a tight budget? I would like to have two features:

Ability to join audio and video (once you have it lined up, no lag between my lips moving and the audio track). Once joined, you can cut at will and not have to re-sync.
Ability to do a corner picture in picture to keep presenter visible while moving to diagrams or illustrations.

I'm sure this question has been asked many times, but since I'm limiting it to two specific features I thought it could stand on its own. I've heard Adobe Photoshop Elements 12 is a good starter-level program, but I haven't been able to tell if it has these two features.

As a note, 4GB of RAM is NOT high spec when dealing with video, even SD, but particularly HD.  If your needs are very basic, you may get by with 4GB, but there will be some possible slowness as stuff has to cache.  8GB I would consider moderate spec for an HD editing system, 12GB would start on the side of high spec.

Possible duplicate of: What Beginner Video Editing Software Should I Use?
Though still valid on its own for requesting a specific feature set.
Even though pretty much any video editor will have your requested features.
I often recommend Lightworks (also available for Linux and Mac) as its free and soon to be open sourced.
Here a video tutorial on how to do a so called PIP (picture in picture) effect in Lightworks, he make a split-screen buts its essentially the same workflow, you just allign the videos differently.
Photoshop Elements has very limited video editing capabilities. Nice to have if you own it but if all you need is a video editor I recommend go with Lightworks.
A professional software that is affordable if you work on a project to project basis and not all year long is Adobe Premiere, Adobe has a subscription model where you can rent software for 20$ per month or 30-40$ for a whole suite.
If you don't plan to work on a semi-professional level at some point I recommend you go with the free Lightworks, it has more than enough features to make professional videos, it's just not at convinient and fast as Premiere.

For lightworks and the PiP keyword.

Another possibility if you don't want to learn a new work flow is to use a muxer/demuxer to split the video off of your camera stream and the audio out of your recorder, figure out the offset and then join them together in a lossless clip.
It is a bit more difficult to do this particular step than it would be in a good editor, but it also has the advantage of being lossless and allowing you to use the tool you are familiar with for the actual editing since your editing needs are relatively basic.
We have coverage of how to use a muxer in several different answers, but I'd recommend starting with this one.


text:
Why HD broadcast camcorder still pictures quality (still frame from video) beat out DSLR?
I've taken pictures with a HD broadcast camcorder and a DSLR at the same event. When I get the still pics from camcorder footage, the image appears to be more professional/outstanding feeling than the DSLR's. That makes me almost give up on shooting still pics with a DSLR.
Why does the picture quality from the HD broadcast camcorder beat out DSLR? Even if the total pixel count is less?
(notice: broadcast camcorder means XDCAM HD or better)

I don't think you've really given us enough information. What DSLR and what HD broadcasting camcorder are you referring to?

HD broadcasting camcorder: Sony XDCAM HD PDW-700 and DSLR: Nikon D300s

Can you show us the images. Also, what lens and settingd were you using. I can by a low quality $50 EF mounting lens, stick it on a RED epic and say, look! my camcorder looks sharper than that. furthermore, your DSLR image might have been damaged/compressed/shrunken somewhere in its life...

This could very much be considered a subjective question. Without being able to compare the images that you draw your conclusion from, there isn't really a way that we can help.

I agree with GiantCowFilms, the lens can honestly be a bigger factor than the body when it comes to image quality. I can get a "better" image with an entry-level DSLR and a high-end lens than a pro-level DSLR with a cheap, low-quality lens.

I took a stab at trying to answer as generically as possible, but this really needs sample images to be able to tell you exactly what components are a factor.

My guess, what you are seeing is most likely the result of the better color detection and processing with the sensor and image data and the better depth of field provided by a high quality professional lens.
There is far, FAR more to image quality than simple resolution.  The color accuracy of the sensor, the dynamic range, shadow detail, vibrancy and contrast of the processed image, the reduced amount of aberrations as a result of better optics, the better quality of out of focus parts of the image due to better aperture designs, the extra background blur as a result of wider open apertures, etc, etc, all impact the image quality substantially, especially for viewing on a screen.
Unless you are printing the image or zooming in on it, a 1080p HD camera has the same resolution as a DSLR when you are displaying it on a computer screen (since the computer screen itself likely doesn't display much more than 1080p, possibly even less).  So for looking on a screen, the other factors are the only thing that matter and any professional camera will far outweigh it.
Also note that a good DSLR will beat the pants off even a high end video camera in terms of image quality for still images, but you need to have a good quality DSLR and a good quality lens to beat a professional quality video camera (at the 1080p kind of resolution).
You shouldn't expect the image quality to be better on a camera which costs, in total, less than some of the batteries for the massively more expensive video camera, but I'd put the still image quality of my 5D Mark iii and 24-70 f/2.8 II optics ($6,000 total) up against any $100,000 camcorder you want to bring out.  Even for video, Arri cams will beat it, but shooting RAW footage, it's only a slightly noticeable difference to a professional eye between the RAW video that the 5D Mark iii ($3,500) can shoot versus footage from the $50,000 ARRI camera.

authors: صالون أية Salon aya


text:
How to mask everything except eyes?
I have a video containing a single person facing the camera. I would like to black-out everything in this video except for a small rectangular box around the person's eyes. I'm sure there are many approaches that might work for this, but I'm having trouble figuring out where to even begin. Preferably it can be done using free software for OS X.
Edit: To clarify, the person's head moves around significantly and unpredictably, so I'm asking how to do this with some sort of motion tracking.

I added some info regarding motion tracking.

Davinci Resolve lite is free, and it contains an excellent motion tracker.  By combining the motion tracker with a power window, and adding a color correction (to darken everything outside of the power window), you should be able to achieve the results you're after very quickly.  For tutorials on Davinci Resolve, search youtube for Alexis Van Hurkman.  He literally wrote the book on it (the instruction manual), and provides a generous amount of tutorials online for free.  Of course, he also has a complete course for sale through ripple training.  You can download Resolve lite here.

I really should sit down and play with my copy of Resolve at some point.  I had no idea it could do motion tracking.

Unfortunately, this requires motion tracking and there isn't much out there that can handle it for free.  (As Jason Conrad pointed out, DaVinci Resolve Lite can.)  Motion tracking is pretty elaborate because it has to use complex computer vision systems to identify objects within the image and track where they move from frame to frame.
After Effects is probably the cheapest option on the list of tools that are often used for motion tracking, but it is still either several hundred dollars for a stand alone copy of the slightly older CS6 version or $20 a month to rent the newest version from Adobe.
With such a motion tracking capable tool, you can track the motion of the scene and then either stabilize it such that the eyes remain stationary or you can use the tracking data to have a rectangular mask follow the eyes and only reveal the contents of the mask.  After Effects (or really any other program that supports this kind of tracking) is pretty advanced and gives lots of options for how to accomplish your goal, though you should also be aware that they are pretty advanced packages and there is a potentially significant learning curve.

I agree with the two previous answers:  You'll need paid motion-tracking software such as After Effects.
I wanted to add that in addition to tracking the X-Y position in the frame, you will most likely need to track the "rotation" of the 2 eyes as well.  That is, a horizontal rectangular mask will work for the eyes of a person facing forward with his/her head upright, but if he/she tips his/her head to the left or right, the rectangle will have to similarly tip to the left or the right in order to expose both eyes (since one will be "above" the other in the frame at that point).

You can use Lightworks (multi-plattform) for that or alternatively iMovie. Both offer either masking and or cropping.
One of the most basic features in a video editor. Just watch one of the dozens of beginner tutorials for the tool that fits you the most.
When you go with the cropping approach you just duplicate the video layer and crop each layer down to one of the eyes.
Edit: With motion tracking it gets much more complicated (in the sense of software complexity, motion tracking is super easy nowadays). You will have to reside to a paid tool in that case. I can't think of freeware that integrates all that in to a free package.
The go to tools for motion tracking and masking work are After Effects, Nuke and Apple Motion (not that much actually but just to name an prominent Apple tool). With After Effects being the most prominent one out there and with a shitload of tutorials available to get going.


text:
Working with Frame Rates & Slow Motion in Adobe Premiere
I'm a very new beginner to video editing, but I am trying to do the best job I can.  I saw this tutorial about "slow-motion basic techniques":

I learned the technique about "changing the frame rate of your video in order to make a good basic slowmotion."  This tutorial was made using After Effects and I have some related questions:

How can I see the framerate of the clip or sequence in Premiere? In After Effects it is sufficient to click on it and on the top left corner (near to the preview image) the info that you need is displayed (included the framerate).
Usually, I use my GoPro in order to make videos. I use 60fps at 720p in order to make "sufficiently good" slow motion, but then I don't know what is the right "Sequence Presets" to choose (I usually use HDV 1080p30, but I don't know if it's the best/right choice) when I create a new sequence, so when I use a GoPro clip in some sequence it appears the message "Clips Mismatch Warning" and I have to choose the "Change sequence settings" option, but then I don't know what are the NEW sequence settings! I want to know what the NEW sequence settings are?
Here the most important question: I saw from the above tutorial that the a basic technique for slow motion is to change directly the frame rate of the clip from (for example) 59.94 to 29.97 (as in my case). But then I thought: how can I apply this technique "locally" on the clip? Or better gradually (so starting from 59.94 at a point of the clip and gradually decrease it until it reaches 29.97)? Is that possible in some way? I know that you can right click on the original clip->modify->interprete footage and change the frame rate, but that is for the WHOLE clips, not locally as I need!
Then, I had an idea: why they use "change frame rate" and Twixtor SEPERATELY? Why not first change frame rate AND THEN apply the Twxitor effects? I had this idea because I tried to obtain an extreme slow motion using only Twixtor, but the result was really bad! However when I combined the two techniques the results were pretty good.  What do you think about it? It is only an illusion (so I don't get something in the process, and there isn't any real improvement), or is it a good solution?

UPDATE: I uploaded this video on YouTube in order to proove that there is a quite difference between applying Twixtor without changing the frame rate and with it. On the left side video you can see the result applying the Twixtor effects, with a speed at 25%. On the right side video you can see the result after changing the fps from 60 to 30 and then applying Twixtor with a speed of 50%. As you can see, the right side video is really better then the left one: it is more "smooth", don't you think?

To answer your Questions in order:

You can see the framerate of a clip or sequence by navigating to the metadata panel. It's usually one of the tabs in the upper left on the standard layout. If you don't see it, select Window -> Metadata.
Generally, you should set sequences to match you source material. So if your camera records 720p @ 60 fps, stick to that. You can review and change the sequence settings under Sequence -> Sequence settings. Some settings can't be changed later on though.
The best way to create a slowmotion effect is to use "time remapping". You will find that under the effect settings that every clip has by default. There you will see that your clip has a standard speed of 100%. You can change the speed of the entire clip by altering that value. If you want the clip to gradually slow down over time, you'll have to use keyframes. You can set a keyframe by clicking on the square symbol in the effects panel next to the time remapping line.
In this case, you'll need to create two keyframes, one at the beginning and one at the end of the transition from fast to slow. Let the first keyframe at 100 % speed and set the second to your desired target value, for example 50 % and that's it.
I hope this was somewhat understandable. If not, it's futher detailed at the adobe help site: http://helpx.adobe.com/premiere-pro/using/duration-speed.html
Can't really help you with that. If you're going for real slow slowmotion, you can always right-click on the clip and activate frame blending, which might result in a smoother video.

I hope i could help :)

Thanks to you and to @AJ Handerson for your help! However I will post as soon as possible two videos where I will demonstrate that if you force the fps to a lower value and then apply twxitor is better than simply use twixtor :D Stay tuned ;)

1) In addition to the meta-data panel that Gin-San mentions, you can also right click on a clip in the project explorer and hit properties to get details about the file, which I believe includes the frame rate.
2) The new sequence settings are the settings that match your input video.  So if the video is a 60fps video, it will end up making the output of the sequence match the resolution and frame rate of the input.  In this particular case, you may very well not want to accept the alterations to the sequence settings.  You may actually want to use 30fps (or 29.97 if you are recording at 59.94) so that when you drop the frame rate in half, every frame of video still gets its own frame.  It is really up to you though, there isn't a right or wrong answer, though I do recommend evenly divisible intervals for best quality slow motion.
3) Gin-San's answer for this is 100% correct.  You need to use keyframes and adjust the playback speed via keyframe animation.  Keyframes will instruct the video editing software to make sure that the value of the parameter you are keyframing (playback speed in this case) is at the given value on the frame where you set the keyframe.  To get it there, it will start making adjustments right after the previous keyframe in order to make a smooth transition between the values of the neighboring key frames.  With advanced keyframing, you can also adjust the type of curve used to move between keyframes, making it either linear, logarithmic(changing fast at first but then slowing towards the keyframe) or exponential (starting slow, but changing faster and faster as it approaches the keyframe.)
4) There is no particular reason that changing the frame rate should be needed when using Twixtor.  Changing the frame rate doesn't alter the real frame data that is available to Twixtor, so I'm not sure why it should have made any difference.  I would guess more likely there was some subtle mistake in the way you used Twixtor that you corrected for in the other test without realizing.  Twixtor and changing the framerate to a non-evenly divisible multiple both require the invention of new frames and Twixtor is generally far better at motion estimation, so it should generally be best to use it alone.

Thanks to you and to @Gin-San for your help! However I will post as soon as possible two videos where I will demonstrate that if you force the fps to a lower value and then apply twxitor is better than simply use twixtor :D Stay tuned ;)


text:
How to make a whiteboard/flanelboard style promotional video for a mobile app?
I want to make an animated video which shows what my mobile app can be used for. What are the most economically-conservative resources I can use?

You may also find this question relevant.

I don't know exactly what kind of animations you're looking for, but Adobe After Effects is very popular for animation. You can even get a free 30-day trial of the software. That being said, if you're not familiar with After Effects, there is quite a bit of a learning curve, but the good news is that there are a ton of online resources (videos/tutorials/etc.) to show you what you need to do to get great results.

Actually I want to make videos which are very similar to video on this page http://www.refiral.com/


text:
Create quickly alternating clips in Premiere Pro
I'm putting together a scene with music that has a steady beat, and then the tempo increases to the point where the beat is far more rapid.
I'd like to alternate between video clips on every beat. I can do this by slicing up one clip and have it on a higher track than the other, but that becomes tedious with the amount of times it need to be done and how small some clips need to be because of the tempo increase.
Here's an example from around 2:40 here

So my question is, is there any way to accomplish this in a simple fashion? I'm not sure if I can do this in After Effects, but if I can, I'm willing to.
Thanks

I would imagine that the music video you posted used manual edits to achieve that effect. However, there are a few automated beat detection utilities out there which you might like. One After Effects / Premiere plugin specifically dedicated to beat detection and music is Mamoworld's Beat Assistant. I haven't used the plugin (cost ~$40), but it should work with Premiere or After Effects. You can see a video tutorial and overview here.
For other ideas, Premiere Elements (but not Pro) does have a built-in beat detection feature. You could also investigate Trapcode's Sound Keys plugin, which might help you  more quickly place markers on beats by hand. If you can make cuts based on loudness of the music (as opposed to beats), you may be able to use the "Convert audio to keyframes" keyframe assistant.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure if beat detection tools will be able to easily / perfectly recognize an accelerando or tempo increase like you describe. You may be stuck doing some manual editing to at least identify the beats. Using Premiere's "Add clips to a sequence automatically" could speed up your workflow when it comes time to assemble the clips in place.

Here are some more relevant links:
Keyframe assistant > convert audio to keyframes: http://www.motionscript.com/design-guide/basic-audio.html
Sound Keys plugin: http://www.redgiant.com/products/all/trapcode-sound-keys/

An incredibly easy way to cut this "by hand" would be to nest your alternating clips and turn that nested sequence into a multicam sequence by right-clicking the nested sequence and hitting "Multicam > Enable". Then, by going into the Multicam Editor (Open this in your "Windows" or "View" menu), you can press play and hit "1" and "2" on your keyboard to cut between the clips in real time (supports up to 4 clips).

I have used a number of pro NLE editors and I have not heard of this kind of automation.
It might be possible via a script, but that is not my area, I am a nuts and bolts editor.
However, I think that your video will be much better to have it cut by hand instead of letting a program decide where to cut it. Yes, it will be an enormous chore to get your video to checkerboard or cross cut back and forth so many times so quickly, but if you really dig editing here's your chance to shine besides if you plan to master editing, this is an opportunity to accelerate the learning curve.
Also the speed increase, or accelerating the tempo is another step that makes this even more demanding, and really should be thought out carefully and done by hand.


text:
Editing movies with FFMPEG in command line
Is there any crazy guy out there who has tried to mount an entire movie (short or not) using the army knife ffmpeg command line tool?

Certainly not anyone sane. Do you plan to try?

If nobody do it I think about it ;-)

There is currently no true operating free open source editing software, this would be a good starting point no?

https://www.shotcut.org/

@MartinDelille https://kdenlive.org/ also ...

Also, MLT Multimedia Framework which is used by several desktop video editors and can be used via command line with melt.

Yes you're right, there is. I also hear about one from the team of VLC.

While travelling with my 10-year-old Linux laptop I produced an application video for an acrobatics teacher training.  Nothing fancy, but it turned out decent.  I'm not sure if this qualifies as a "movie" since it's just a series of unrelated clips accompanied by music. The video is about 10 minutes long.  It's also up on youtube but I think not playable in some countries due to use of copyrighted music.
I was working on another one, an acroyoga flow performance shot on a couple of phones, but there didn't seem to be a way to get ffmpeg to do a Ken Burns zoom over multiple frames of video without a weird stuttery effect.  So I decided to wait until I got home to finish that one in FCP.
I found it was a pretty straightforward approach.  I like that the parameters are all explicitly stated and you don't have to go digging into settings in the hope that you might figure out how to, for example, replicate the scaling that you used on a particular clip.  Perhaps that speaks to my lack of experience with video editing.  Also if you're not a relatively advanced command line user it would be more complicated for you.  I probably spent most of my time Googling how to perform particular manipulations with ffmpeg. I think the whole editing process took about the equivalent of a work day.

Nice sound track btw


text:
Reducing the size of content within a composition in After Effects
I'm having playback issues with a video I've rendered in After Effects. I need to adjust the composition and all the content to a smaller size. However, when I adjust the comp size the footage stays the same. Is there a way to reduce the whole lot together?
Thanks

It might be a good idea to look inside to see why you're having a playback issue in the first place. Have you scaled the footage? Are you using Audio ?

You can scale down everything in your composition by pre-comping everything and then shrinking the size of that pre-comp. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "when I adjust the comp size the footage stays the same". If you mean that when you change the composition size, the footage extends beyond the new border of the comp, then pre-comping and scaling down the pre-comp should fix this.

perfect! Didn't think to pre-compise it. thanks!

You can do it without the added complexity of precomposing. Look in the File> Scripts> menu, there's a script there called scale Composition.jsx. Run it, type in the new width, height or percentage and hit the button. Done.
Scripts are a useful, but rather neglected part of the AE tool set.

Would you really consider that less "complex" than simply precomping?

Well maybe not less complex, but pre-comping has other side-effects. This script just changes the size of your comp without changing the comp's structure or any relationship between layers. Other than that it's pretty much the same amount of work. AFAIK it actually does it by creating a null, parenting everything to that null, scaling the null and then unparenting.

Using the scale comp thing doesn't work if you are using different comp sizes within another. when scaled down position and scale gets knocked.


text:
Converting 1080i5994 DNxHD HQ to 1080p
I recorded some long format talks in 1080i5994 DNxHD via my atomos recorder. I do this all the time and never have any issues. I record in that format because thats what my switcher puts out and it always just works. This time though, I recorded some screens from the presenters laptop which look fine on the recording. The recordings are all 100gb or larger so I can't upload that directly to vimeo or youtube. So I edited them and rendered them them to h.264 10mb but the smaller text on the screen is now blocky and unreadable. Larger text is fine though. What's a better way to do this in the future and is there a way to convert these so that the smaller text is still sharp?
I'm using Adobe Media Encoder with the vimeo preset. I've tried a variety of different settings and can't seem to get better results on the smaller text.
Here is the captured image.

Here is the rerendered image quality. This is still a 6gb file for 1 hour.

Which encoder? Deinterlacer? Settings?

@ahackney can you share a frame grab of the output file that has the issue?

@MichaelLiebman Added images as requested.

That almost looks like a scan converter doing some poor down-sampling, except for it not being present on the source. It won't get you to a good size for uploading, but have you tried an MPEG2 to rule things out?