text:
Handling Frame Rate for Movies with Slow Motion
I know that 24fps is the standard rate for movies.
Presumably, if I want to shoot for a movie I should shoot at 24fps, however if I want to add slow motion effects in the movie I know that I need to record at higher framerates(50-60 fps.) When I convert that in to 24fps I get slow motion but then I don't have 24 fps for the rest of the clip since I only need slow motion for a few seconds in the middle of the clip.
I don't know whether to record videos at 24fps for a movie look or at 60fps for  the slow motion look, or something else entirely.  I have to shoot one continuous shot so that I can have both normal and slow motion at different points without cutting.  What is the best way to accomplish this?

The reason we try to shoot at our target frame rate is because if we need to adjust the frame rate, the computer has to invent new frames to go in between our existing frames.  This can result in artifacts in the image and generally reduces the quality.
You are correct that 24fps is the standard for theater and also correct that you need to shoot a faster frame rate for slow motion.  In general, the best way to deal with a shot like the one you are talking about is to shoot at a multiple of the frame rate you want for normal action.  If you shoot at 48 or 72 fps, then the computer doesn't have to invent any new frames to reduce to 24fps, it can just drop every other or two out of every 3 frames.
This is why you see a lot of 240hz TVs these days.  There isn't actually any content that works at that refresh rate, but 240hz TVs can properly display either 24 frames per second, 30 frames per second or 60 frames per second since they all evenly divide.  The same thing applies when shooting video.
Unfortunately, most consumer cameras, and even some professional ones, don't support multiples of 24 for their high frame rate options.  There are some cameras, particularly some of those made by Lumix, that support 240 fps video, but the quality level is pretty highly reduced when shooting at that rate.  120 fps would also work.
Alternately, you could give up on the 24fps and shoot 30fps instead.  30fps isn't the end of the world and there are existing pulldown options for converting to 24fps.  30fps was (roughly) the NTSC video standard and still works just fine if your main target will be playback on computer screens or TVs that support multiples of 30fps playback.  This is a nice even multiple of 60fps.
One final option to consider is interpolated slow motion.  Since many cameras reduce the video quality available at high FPS, the best result may be to shoot at a lower frame rate and have the slow motion interpolated from the frames you capture.  The results for this technique also vary greatly based on how good your software is, but there are several very good tools out there.  Twixtor is generally the best, but it is also expensive.  After Effects also includes TimeWarp which does a decent job.  This may be the best option for maintaining both maximum quality and minimal cost unless you have a pretty significant budget to work with or have other reasons to need to limit yourself to 720p or lower quality.
The ideal is to shoot the frame rate you need for the shot. Do your homework, actually think through the flow of your film.  Shoot the slow motion shots by themselves and use the correct frame rate for each shot.  If you need to do slow motion mid-shot for some inexplicable reason, decide based on what will cause the least harm.  If most of the shot is slow motion, go with the higher frame rate and interpolate to 24, if most of the shot is normal speed, shoot 24 and interpolate for the slow motion.  This should only be a last resort though! Shoot distinct shots at distinct speeds and use editing to blend them together properly.  That's the entire point of editing.

Thank You for the Answer. Finally I want to ask one thing more.
If I can convert 60fps video to movie look(24fps standard) not the slow motion effect, because when i play 60fps video without any conversion it looks like fast forward effect which i don't want. Or while recording do I have to record the video separate for movie look(in 24fps) and Slow motion effect(in 60fps).
I am asking all this because suppose i Do not know that i need slowmo at a point but after shooting and while editing i feel like to add slowmo - so which frame rate to prefer while shooting.

@Pankaj - there isn't a "right" answer.  Personally, I'd shoot 24 fps if you want the finished video to be 24fps and then interpolate the extra frames if needed, but really, good video requires careful planning and you should know where you want to use slow motion before you shoot if you want a quality result.

So can't I convert 60fps video into real time or film look.

@Pankaj - you can, but you would a) have to store extra frames which is more data and b) would have to interpolate for your normal footage instead of interpolating for your slow motion footage since 24 doesn't go evenly in to 60.

You only need to overcrank the scenes you want to slow down in post. Editing and effects software make it easy to decimate from 60 (or higher) to 24 fps. You'll get better flexibility if you shoot your slomo scenes at a the highest exact multiple of the base rate that still gives acceptable exposure etc. So 96, 120 or 240 fps would be preferable if they work in your tests (and you must test), and if your camera supports the rate.


text:
How can I convert frame rates without changing speed?
I have a video with 60fps and I know that if I keep all the frames and play it at 24fps, then I get a slow motion effect. I want to know how to make it play at 24fps while still showing things in real time.
Would it be better if I record that video again in 24 fps?

In order to convert frame rates without impacting the speed of playback, you have to remove frames to decrease the frame rate or create new frames to speed it up.  If the frame rate is an even multiple, then this process can be done losslessly for reduction in frame rate since you simply drop every unneeded frame.
If they are not multiples or you are increasing the frame rate, then it is necessary to interpolate new frames.  Interpolation is a process by which the computer looks at the next and previous frames and invents one that looks like it would fit between them.
If you shoot at 60fps and drop it to 24fps, it is not an even multiple and frames have to be interpolated or taken at the wrong time in order to make up for the difference.  This results in a lower quality of video than shooting in 24fps to start.

How do you do this (remove frames / create new frames) natively in Premiere Pro  or After Effects (CC2104) ?

@Oliver it does this automatically. By "you" I only mean that the application must invent frames.

I really meant you, within the application, as the application do not know what you want to do when giving him a video to eat.

Yes it does, that's what interpolation is. You tell it you want a given frame rate and it invents frames as needed.  There may be settings to adjust the pull down as well, though it has been a while since I did frame rate conversion.

If you can easily record the video again natively in 24fps, that would be your best solution. However, you may also want to investigate a tool like Twixtor, which is built to interpolate frames for jobs exactly like this one.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Preventing letters from going to next line as title expands in iMovie
I have a title at the end of the movie with my website's URL.  I was using the expand Title effect on this title. As of the most recent update, when the text expands too much, the last letters go to the next line, e.g. video.stackexchange.com: as it grew a little, the m would go to next line, then the 'o', then the 'c', etc.
How do I disable that? I actually want the bounds of the text to go out of the screen. I had no problem doing that before this update.

I don't have iMovie, but if you see any settings referring to word wrap, that's what this kind of behavior is traditionally called.  Hopefully someone with iMovie can chime in with a more solid answer.

I do use iMovie, but I haven't used that feature. For control over this kind of effect, you could create a transparent PNG image (using Photoshop or free software like GIMP) with the title, drag it into the timeline, and do a Ken Burns effect on it to zoom in.  It WILL go off the sides of the frame without wrapping.

Good Idea!! It worked

the easiest thing to do is to manually adjust the font size, use spaces to break up the text into several lines so that it starts out small enough and finishes expanding without jumping to other lines. Took me forever to figure out. Apple really needs to do an update that prevents this.

Just found an apparent solution to this: if you type option-return you can insert a hard line break in the text. Combined with a manual font size and a little effort, you can get your lines to be short enough that they don't re-wrap. This works better than adding padding spaces as that still causes strange wrapping in some cases.

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

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


text:
Reduce quality percentage wise
I have several movie files in a mkv container.
ffmpeg -i filename gives me the following output:
Stream #0.0(eng): Video: h264 (High), yuv420p, 1280x720, PAR 1:1 DAR 16:9, 23.98 fps, 23.98 tbr, 1k tbn, 47.95 tbc (default)
Stream #0.1(eng): Audio: dca (DTS), 48000 Hz, 5.1, s16, 1536 kb/s (default)
Stream #0.2(eng): Subtitle: [0][0][0][0] / 0x0000 (default) (forced)

Unfortunately the file size is pretty big. I was wondering, if there is a way to reduce the file size percentage-wise? Something like: "Reduce file size by 10%"?
I would prefer command line tools, such as ffmpeg/avconv or similar?

Well, I'd prefer reducing file size.

Do you want to achieve a specific file size, or do you just want it measurably smaller? Do you want to keep the 5.1 channels or make it stereo? Do you want to change 1280x720 to something smaller?

There is no switch to set a file size in percentage but there is the -fs switch.
This switch can bet set to let ffmpeg try to get to a specific target file size set in bytes (for example -fs 52428800 to get to 50MB).
You can write a script that takes the original file size and calculates your new desired file size depending on your specified percentage value and passes that calculated value to the -fs switch.
The resulting file wont be exactly at that file size though, ffmpeg will try its best but depending on the source file and your desired file size it wont be possible to reach that file size.
Even with the worst possible bit rate you can't produce a 20byte sized 720p mkv with 1 hour runtime. You get the idea, there will always be a certain error margin with the resulting file size.
If you simply want to reduce the file size by a good portion I recommend just using presets. Generally using the normal preset for x264 will give you a lot smaller video with no or very little quality reduction.
Remuxed or encoded Blu-rays or camera recordings usually have a crazy bitrate which results in these huge file sizes.
In your case if you are not interested in 5.1 sound you could also convert the 5.1 DTS sound into stero AAC or MP3 sound which will reduce the file size quite a bit aswell without hearable quality loss (for most human beings) in the sound.


text:
Graphic music visualizer without after effects?
I would like to make a YouTube video that has a music visualizer on it (like in Monstercat videos), but I don't want to have to pay for After Effects. Is there a free way to do it? I know I can get the trial, but I want to be able to use it more than 30 days from now. Also, I'm using OS X, so whatever it is can't be Windows only.

I've done some research, but haven't found a program that does this, free or not, other than After Effects. Other programs have visualizations reminiscent of Milkdrop, and simply save those to video. The closet thing I managed to find is http://www.zgameeditor.org/
If you want videos like Monstercat and most other music-based YouTube channels, I'm afraid you'll need After Effects.

I was afraid of that... Oh well. :/ Thanks for the help.

Related... http://video.stackexchange.com/questions/9644/how-do-i-turn-audio-into-video-that-is-show-the-waveforms-in-a-video/9645#9645

Quartz Composer is free part of the apple developer kit. this can allow you to create music visualizers. In fact, the music visualizers that are defaulted in itunes are quartz composer files.

Can quartz composer be used to make a video file?  This question is more concerned with software that can make a video file that visualizes music than making a software product.

I have not used it much, but I think you could record the output of a composition which you could then sync to the audio track

It's possible create using blender, watch this:

A free alternative for After Effects is Jashaka. It runs on every plattform and has some decent features. While it wont have the comfort of after effects for creating such an effect its certainly possible.
If you just don't want to spend all that much but still willing to pay a small price you can go for Apple Motion which costs 50$ and is a fairly powerful tool for animation and motion graphics for the price.
https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/motion/
Also here a tutorial on how make something react to music in Apple Motion: http://www.larryjordan.biz/motion-5-make-audio-move-video/
I personally have not worked in detail with both software so I can not give you guidance for actually creating the animation, expect for this tutorial.

While these may both answer the question, it isn't currently clear if/how those tools can be used to produce a music visualizer.  It's probably ok as is, but if you can add any more detail on what effects can produce visual output from audio input, it would greatly improve the utility of this answer.

Also worth pointing out that Jashaka may possibly be a good answer for http://video.stackexchange.com/questions/7047/after-effects-alternative-for-windows.

True, I read it more as a question asking for an alternative tool. Not how exactly to do it.

@AJHenderson Jahshaka seems to be a bit of a dead project.

Jahshaka looked good but it seems impossible to install on Linux. The installer is insanely buggy.

You can add a music visualizer to videos for free online using VEED. (Disclaimer, I am the developer of this software)

Another idea would be to use something like Fraps or some other screen capture or screen casting utility to capture the playback of a visualizer in a music player of your choice.  The exact combinations of software to use would likely depend on your choices in music player though.
I know Fraps will only work with ones that are DirectX based.

According to the this article, iTunes has a music visualizer. You would still need to get screen recording software (unless you want to point a camera at your monitor!). I'm sure that someone has asked about free screen recording software on this forum somewhere.

I know it does, but I was looking for a way to add a bar visualizer over a video. Sorry.

Processing can do it, if you're not afraid of Java. There's a demonstration processing sketch that comes included with the application that does a frequency spectrum bar graph. It's relatively easy to save the output of a processing sketch to a video file. And it's free.

For simple music visualization videos for YouTube, you could check out https://www.musicvideodispenser.com.
It automatically generates a finished video based on an mp3 file you provide.
Disclaimer: I'm one of the creators of the service.

Link is broken.

A free Alternative for After effects(for audio spectrum like in Monstercat)

http://soniccandle.sourceforge.net

would be Sonic Candle.Its an open source project.You will need Java version 8 or higher in order to run.Best feature is the customizable bar visualizers.
Best alternative recommended is Rainmeter .You can add the Monstercat Visualizer by Marco Pixel Downloading from here.Just add it and customize to the way you want.
Pros:

Customizable
Quick & Easy

Cons:

No export option
You will need an extra monitor or you will have to hide all the icons when streaming or monitor capturing(The only choice)

Recommended: You can Screen capture the rainmeter(Saves time than rendering time in AE).

It's possible to screen record on macs for free using the program quick time. All you need to do is select File -> New Screen Recording and then you're good.
You can use this with any normal full screen visualizer of your choice.

foobar2k themes and some video tricks is something that I've used for streams. It in involves using a foobar theme with a distinct background color like this:  2 important things though:

You have a foobar window design with a visualizer on the bottom.

The gradient on the bars is black to white.

Afterwards in editing you change the Hue and Saturation of the visualizer and trim out what you don't need. If you want something really small, you can also use the visualizer at the very top the foobar window.


text:
Recording Audio for Stand-Up Comedy
I have recently come into producing professional recording of stand-up comedy.
When it comes to capturing audio, I use two sources.
1) a line directly off the mic to get the performer
2) a mic in the room to get the audience
The problem is that the source capturing the audience gets a lot of the performer as well which sounds bad.
The performer's audio should be from the microphone line only.
How would one capture the audience without getting the sound of the performer from that source?
How is the sound captured on professional stand-up comedy shows?

This question might be better on the Sound Design SE. Also, the answers on this question might help.

It depends on the environment, but generally, you want directional microphones that you can point at the audience from in front of the speakers.  In an auditorium designed to spread sound around though, you are always going to get some of the speaker in the sound.  Directional mics will focus the direction of sound they pick up towards the crowd, but some sound still bounces back.
Another possibility, since crowd noise is generally fairly similar and non-distinct, it is entirely possible that they aren't using the crowd's actual sound.  They may just be using laugh tracks to emulate the audience.  This can get clean sound since there wasn't anything else going on when it was recorded.


text:
Is there any similar function of photoshop " Actions .atn" in adobe after effect?
I specifically looking for a plugin or function in After effect that is similar to photoshop actions " .atn" that allow me to record and play sequence of editing i recorded to apply with a one click play like button in Photoshop.

You might want to check out Get-Sh*t-Done: http://aescripts.com/get-sh-t-done/

There is no Action function in Adobe After Effects. You would have to write a script to do the sequence for you.
I'm not versed enough to tell you if there's a Plugin or not.


text:
How do I create a lower third for a music video in After Effects?
How can I create a song information lower third title like those displayed on mtv videos?
I want to present the singer,album etc with a nice background and animation.
Are there presets of it available? How do I create them in After Effects?

What it is called... http://video.stackexchange.com/questions/9827/what-is-a-description-along-the-bottom-of-a-video-generally-called

This is really just a typical title.  You can prepare it either in Photoshop, Illustrator or After Effects directly.  It can also be created in Premiere with a little work.
At their most basic, an MTV style song information could just be text that you put in a layer that you fade in and fade out of the video.  Alternately, if you want a more complex one, you can use vector objects and animate them using keyframes in After Effects.
You would want to start with a vector graphic from Illustrator or a raster image with a transparent background from Photoshop.  Each keyframe will store the position and rotation of the image you want and the underlying video will be visible wherever it is transparent.
The exact way to animate it depends on what kind of animation you want it to have, however there are a number of keyframe animation questions relating to After Effects that you can take a look at for some general ideas.


text:
Visual equivalent of VST
What would be most similar in concept to VST effects but for visuals?  In other words, is there a standardized interface for running VisFX on a video in the same way that one can run VST realtime effects on audio?

It really depends on how much you care about realtime operation.  VSTs tend to be used both for production and performance, but with video, because there's so much more processing involved, things tend to be split between production and performance.  That being said, for production, After Effects plugins are probably the closest analogy.  For performance, probably Freeframe.
Freeframe is a format that's specifically tailored to be cross-application, but on the production side of things, I don't know of anything that transcends applications the way that VSTs do.  Each video production app tends to have its own format.  The main reason I say AE plugins are the closest analogy to VSTs is because AE itself is almost as ubiquitous in the same application price range/platform.
So there's not really an exact analogy (if you consider all the various factors), but there are similar things out there.

In addition to the AfterEffects plug-in API, there's also FxPlug, OpenFX, and AVX plug-ins.
FxPlugs often work in real-time because they tend to utilize the GPU. They work in FCPX and Motion.
OpenFX plug-ins can work in a variety of hosts (sometimes requiring an adaptor), but as far as I know, they aren't real-time usually. They work in Sony Vegas and I think Nuke. There was an adaptor for After Effects at one time, but I don't know if it's still maintained.
AVX plug-ins are used by Avid systems. Again, I don't know if they meet your realtime requirements.


text:
Lighting for shooting a presentation
I need to record a presentation at a conference.
I did it last year and the lighting was so low it was unusable.
i want to come prepared this year, so i need advice on proper lighting.
The subject is more or less static and elaborating on their powerpoint.
I can get them in front of a wall or screen for better background.
Can you recommend and lighting products that would be suitable for this scenario?
Also if anyone knows any good products so i can get good audio, it would be appreciated.
Just to clarify, it's a video.

Keep in mind that powerpoints are sometimes held in darker rooms as that enhances the image beamd on the screen or wall. If you would add a light source for video, this would decline the contrast of the beamed image.

While I can't recommend any particular products and generally stack exchange communities are hesitant about product recommendations, what I can recommend is that at a minimum you should use two light sources offset to the left and right of the camera and if budget allows, put an additional light behind them facing up.  Ideally, one of the lights behind the camera should be slightly less intense and/or further away than the other.
This is the concept of three point lighting.  The lights in front are called the key and fill light.  The purpose is that with only a key light, you will get unacceptably dark shadows where the camera may have a hard time getting a good image.  The fill light fills in the shadows without making them completely washed out so that the shot still looks natural.
The light behind and below them is called the backlight and will illuminate their edges to make them stand out from the backdrop a bit more, but it isn't strictly necessary if you can't afford three good lights.  The image will just seem flatter.
My recommendation for finding suitable lights is to visit the site for a popular online A/V retailer and look at the reviews of specific lighting products.  I personally use B&H for a lot of my needs and I know lots of people also like Adorama.
It is also worth noting that in a jamb, you could use just about any lights that have the same color temperature (the tint of the light) but in general, the made for the purpose lights you would get from an A/V store will be the most durable, easiest to set up, and likely give a better result if you aren't experienced with lighting for video.

Video cameras love "daylight" bulbs if you can get them. For my YouTube videos, I use fluorescent tubes - two just to the left of the camera, and one next to the subject on the opposite side (right of the camera). Tubes soften shadows, whereas bulbs often intensify shadows. Plus fluorescent tubes are pretty cheap! You can see the results on my channels, http://youtube.com/BrettFromLA or http://youtube.com/CreatedByBrett. (Plug!!) To soften light from bulbs, you can aim them at a WHITE wall, if it's close enough to your subject.


text:
Any way to fix a corrupt Custom Keyboard Settings file in Final Cut Pro v7?
I've been building up my custom keyboard layout for literally years; but it seems to be corrupt. Very often, when I try to add a key, Final Cut crashes (version 7.0.3)
Recreating it would take hours and hours.
If I start with a "fresh" keyboard map, FCP works fine. The "corrupt" file works until I try to add a new mapping. Then it crashes 80% of the time.
Is there any way to fix my keyboard file? Or isolate what is causing the issue?
Or does anyone know the syntax/format of the .fcmap file? Any way to open/edit it?

Try to isolate the cause. First save the custom keyboard settings to a file. Here it is explained how: http://www.larryjordan.biz/transferring-keyboard-layouts-to-another-final-cut-pro-system/ Back the file up and delete all custom keyboard settings. Try to add a key. See if FCP crashes. Import the saved keyboard settings file, add a key, see if it crashes.

I tried that years ago; didn't help.

OK, sad to hear that didn't work. So did FCP crash with the empty custom keyboard file? Or did it only crash with your custom keyboard file? Could you maybe add all the things you have tried to the question? This would help the people here to answer your question.

question updated.


text:
ProRes in Premiere - no audio
I'm experimenting with switching from Final Cut to Premiere.
However, most of my source material is ProRes.
When I drag a ProRes Quicktime into Premiere (after setting up a new 'custom setting' to match), I do not get any audio playback!
Other formats work fine.
Is there a workaround for this?
(I have FCP installed on the same machine, so I have all the codecs; and the video plays back perfectly, actually more smoothly than in FCP. Just no audio!)
UPDATE: The ProRes I was trying to play had 4 audio tracks; 2 stereo and 2 mono. When I stripped out 3 of the tracks and left just 1 stereo track, it worked fine.
Is there any way around this? I need to work with 100-minute files of feature films that have separate tracks for Dialog, Music, Effects...
Thanks!


text:
What sequence presets I must use with a GoPro and Adobe Premiere Pro CS 5.5?
I use a GoPro which output is mp4 files.
I want to edit these movies into Adobe Premiere Pro CS 5.5. I'm a little lost about sequence presets to use.
I've got the choice between Digital SLR, AVCHD, XDCam, HDV... wow... I don't understand the differences between each other because when I use one or other, it seems to be the same. My gopro movie has a yellow bar at the top, saying that it needs rendering.
So, what's the difference with all of these formats and what's the best format to use with my GoPro ?

In Premiere, a possible, easy approach would be importing your footage to the library before creating any sequence, then right click a clip and choose 'New Sequence from Clip'. Premiere will automatically adjust the settings according to the clip's properties.
This is also recommended by Adobe (3rd paragraph).

A variation of this question has been answered on the Adobe Forums. Find it here.

Sequence Preset
Now that you have all your files converted, we need to pick the right
  project sequence preset  for the resolution you are working on, all of
  them based on AVCHD
For R2 choose AVCHD 720p30
For R3 use AVCHD 720p60
For R4 you will need to create a custom profile, because there is no built-in profile for this resolution: Select AVCHD 1080p30 and then
  go to the General tab. Change Editing Mode to Desktop, so  you will be
  able to modify the resolution. Change the resolution to 1280 x 960 and
  then press the Save Preset  button to save your newly created sequence
  profile for GoPro R4
For R5 use AVCHD 1080p30

thanks for that, but the provided thread explained how to use gopro movie on CS4. On CS4, you need to convert the video and use it in AVCHD. In CS5.5 you don't need to convert the video. Is it still AVCHD ?

Yeah, I noticed it was CS4. Was hoping it'd be the same. Give AVCHD a go and see if it works.

yes it works, like SLR or HDV. By the way, many format work but I don't know what's the differences between them and what's the best to choose ;)

GoPro video files are basically the old Cineform Neoscene. GoPro bought them out. Cineform files have always worked in Premiere. I use them right in Premiere without any conversion. It is batter than the DSLR format. I convert all my Canon footage to the GoPro code before editing.
Just make your own preset and save it.


text:
What are the options for manipulating video in live situation? Kinda like a VJ
I would like to experiment with live videos when I'm playing as a DJ. I'm a windows user but I can migrate to GNU/Linux and I have money to spend on software.
I remember trying Virtual DJ's video capabilities, but I wanted to know if there are alternatives.
Also, I also remember watching a presentation on QUARTZ which is a Macintosh exclusive software for manipulating video live with complete midi control - he even explained how to hook a WiiMote to the software
So my question is: What are the options for manipulating video live?

I'm making this a community wiki since there are going to be several legitimate answers. So: one solution per answer please, so they can be up- and down-voted individually, and anyone with insight can add to them.

The Max/MSP modular environment has a package called Jitter which is used for modifying videos in realtime. I've not had the chance to play with it myself, but I've seen it used in video art installations. Max supports several kinds of control such as MIDI and OSC, so I imagine all of these could be used to control video.
You'll have to make your own patches though - it's not an 'out of the box' solution so much as a realtime programming environment.

From Wikipedia
"
In addition, a number of Max-like programs exist which share the same concept of visual programming in realtime such as Quartz Composer (by Apple) and vvvv which are both focusing on realtime video synthesis and processing. Pure Data also remains in widespread use.

Besides Max/MSP or Pure Data, which have already been mentioned, you can look into software like Processing, which can also be used to generate visuals, I believe.
Pure Data supports OSC and MIDI I believe, which makes it easy to hook up the software to input devices which you can use in your DJ sets. So you can potentially control the visuals at the same time as controlling the music or sound from your input device.
If you are looking to be visible yourself as a DJ rather than having people watch the videos you mix up on the screen or projection, you might want to look into MIDI controllers or OSC devices that also offer visual feedback, like the audiocubes.

Are you affiliated with Percussa? If so, please disclose this in your answers. This is a good answer otherwise, though :)

Note: I am a fan and user of audiocubes myself.

To clarify, you don't need to say anything if you're just a fan. You only have to disclose affiliation if you're actually affiliated with the company/product. I asked because a few of your answers mentioned this specific product and it read a bit like advertising.

If you're looking for visual programming environments:
Max/MSP and Jitter by Cycling 74
http://cycling74.com/products/max/
VVVV:
http://vvvv.org/
Derivative TouchDesigner:
http://www.derivative.ca/
If you're looking for products oriented towards VJing and more general live video performance (and less programming):
Modul8:
http://www.modul8.ch/
Resolume Avenue:
http://resolume.com/
GrandMA:
http://www.malighting.com/en/products/control/control/ma-lighting/grandma2-onpc/gma2onpc-grandma2-onpc.html
Professionally, I use TouchDesigner, Max/MSP, and Resolume, but all of the above are excellent pieces of software.


text:
How can I find camcorders with high quality like Nikon D3100 but without its time limit?
I like the video clarity and quality of the Nikon D3100. However, it has a time limit on it, which I don't like.
How can I go about finding an HD camcorder with similar video clarity to this camera, but without such a limit?

The Nikon D3100 is not a camcorder. Are you looking for a camcorder, or any video camera, including another HD-capable DSLR, with no time limit?

Yes I am looking for best HD camcorder out there.

I edited the question pretty heavily to make it less subjective. Shopping recommendations don't really fit on sites like this, but asking how to educate yourself certainly does. Please do edit it further if you can make your question even more specific, as that usually results in better answers.

There is a non-nikon patch that moves the D3100 time limit from 10 minutes, to 17 minutes, if that helps more...

I am not certain I understand why you need to shoot a scene for longer than 10 minutes.
Most of the movies I make are under 4 minutes and include up to 30 or more shots some lasting less than a 1/4 second while others may last a minute. I only mention this to give you an idea what I am used to. I have both a camcorder that can shoot as long as there is memory--up to an hour possibly, and I have a pocket point and shoot that has time constraints based on format, not unlike the Nikon D3100.
Assuming you have a need to shoot a scene for longer than 10 minutes such as a traffic study or to document a school play I will proceed to address the issues.
Reviewing the tech specs of the Nikon D3100 I see the following HD movie settings:
HD 1,920×1,080 / 24 fps
HD 1,280×720 / 30 fps
HD 1,280×720 / 24 fps
Noting that these all have a 10 minute recording limit.
Many DSLR cameras are bound to a 10 minute recording limit due to the way the firmware/software is designed to handle memory storage. Many cinematographers and photographers alike are pushing to have this issue addressed as in allowing for
longer takes so you are not alone.
Choosing a camcorder is a reasonable alternative but there will be tradeoffs. Here are few that come to mind. YMMV (your mileage may very).
1) The "Glass": the Nikon D3100 has a removable lens so you can swap in other lenses of different focal lengths and quality while most camcorders have a non-removable zoom lens.
2) FOCUS: the Nikon D3100 will allow you to change focus while shooting video while most camcorders do not allow you to manual focus on the fly or make this difficult by not having a focus ring on the lens but an external wheel which generally causes camera shake.
3) Shutter Speed: I am uncertain if the Nikon D3100 allows for changing the shutter speed while shooting video, but more advanced DSLRs will, e.g. Canon 5D Mark II. This is a significant feature for cinematographers engaged in time-lapse movies, where 'drag the shutter' is very desirable.
(NOTE: one thing you will trade up to is that the Nikon D3100 only records in mono, while almost every camcorder records in stereo if not Dolby 5.1 Surround.)
Here is a criteria that might assist you in choosing a camcorder.
Since the price of D3100 is nearly $649 USD MSRP, then you might consider using this as a baseline for your search in that price range e.g. Sony HDR-CX260V/T about $549.
Alternately you might consider the clarity and quality of the lens on the Nikon D3100 so choosing a Panasonic TM900K that comes with a Leica 12x zoom should be a pretty good contender--about $900.
Or perhaps you favor a camcorder that allows you to use a variety of lenses such as the Sony NEX-VG10 or NEX-VG20H--nearly $2000.
You might want to review the specs of each of these camcorders and visit local stores to give them a test ride.
One very important point, be sure that the camcorder you choose has a video format that works well with your current video editing software, this can definitely be a show stopper.
Currently your Nikon D3100 uses .mov files while Sony uses AVCHD and Panasonic has their version of AVCHD. You might want to join .mov files to work with another format so you want to be sure that they all get along in the same video suite.

If you are a fan of DSLRs, Canon cameras have modified firmwares where you can automatically restart the recording on a new file once you reached the limit. Check for ML ;)
Obviously what you will do is concatenate the files in order to obtain a full lenght footage at the end.
Consider that this is something that you could use to run up to 3-4 times the normal recording limit mostly because of the temperature that sensor will reach during all the recording time.
Higher temperatures will also increase the noise.
Higher ISOs will trigger the reaching of high temperatures easily and a process like this will also draw more from the lythium battery, a workaround could be using the camera current adaptor provided by the manifacturer itself.
tl;dr: for a long run at 100 iso there should not be problems, for a very long run at 3200-12800 iso you will run in overheating problems and using a dedicated camcorder will be probably better.


text:
Nikon D3100 vs Canon EOS 600D
Which one is better? Please reply if you have used and seen images taken by both DSLR!

What do you mean by better?  Please clarify to make the question more objective.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-600d-vs-Nikon_D3100
only this will help you=) because you ask to compare EVERYTHING about them, too abstract question. better go that page and see for your self.


text:
Premiere Create custom frame size
I have downloaded a video from youtube to my laptop. It is 640x360px mp4 format.
I'd like to edit it a little bit with Premiere CS5. How do I create a new project with the same resolution of my video?
It looks like there are a lot of preset but not customizable.

What you want to do is make a sequence with the same frame size as your source file (in Premiere and other NLEs your project doesnt have a specific frame size, as you can have multiple sequences with different frame sizes in one project)

Open Premiere and Start a new Project (File > New > Project)
Give the project a name and click ok (dont worry about any of the options)
In the New Sequence window click Cancel - this will take you straight into the project without making a sequence
Import your footage (file > Import)
Create a new Sequence from clip by either:

Dragging the footage down to the New Sequence icon (in the project panel) OR

Right click on the footage and select New Sequence from Clip

This will create a sequence that matches the attributes of your footage (frame size, frame rate etc)

You have saved me three hours of endless frustration. I cannot thank you enough.

Go to the tab next to 'Load presets'. (Custom settings)
You can only change the frame size when you select editing mode: Desktop.
Now you can change the frame size/ratio to 640x360 or what ever size you want.


text:
convert live hls stream into rtmp stream
one of our partner is exposing a live HLS stream. I want to know if there is any tool that can take hls live stream as input and convert it to rtmp live stream and ideally push that output to some other server.
Basically we are using wowza server to serve live channels to our clients. As per my knowledge wowza is not taking video stream as input using http protocol. Thats why i am looking for a tool to convert hls stream to rtmp stream.
We are trying to do the following, but it fails:
ffmpeg -i http://bgsf.hls.iptvdc.com/islambox/732/play.m3u8 -re -acodec copy -vcodec copy rtmp://ib12.islambox.tv/live/najam83
C:\>ffmpeg -i http://bgsf.hls.iptvdc.com/islambox/709/play.m
3u8 -re -acodec copy -vcodec copy rtmp://ib12.islambox.tv/live/najam83

ffmpeg version N-76023-g0131636 Copyright (c) 2000-2015 the FFmpeg developers
  built with gcc 5.2.0 (GCC)
  configuration: --enable-gpl --enable-version3 --disable-w32threads --enable-av
isynth --enable-bzlib --enable-fontconfig --enable-frei0r --enable-gnutls --enab
le-iconv --enable-libass --enable-libbluray --enable-libbs2b --enable-libcaca --
enable-libdcadec --enable-libfreetype --enable-libgme --enable-libgsm --enable-l
ibilbc --enable-libmodplug --enable-libmp3lame --enable-libopencore-amrnb --enab
le-libopencore-amrwb --enable-libopenjpeg --enable-libopus --enable-librtmp --en
able-libschroedinger --enable-libsoxr --enable-libspeex --enable-libtheora --ena
ble-libtwolame --enable-libvidstab --enable-libvo-aacenc --enable-libvo-amrwbenc
 --enable-libvorbis --enable-libvpx --enable-libwavpack --enable-libwebp --enabl
e-libx264 --enable-libx265 --enable-libxavs --enable-libxvid --enable-lzma --ena
ble-decklink --enable-zlib
  libavutil      55.  4.100 / 55.  4.100
  libavcodec     57.  6.100 / 57.  6.100
  libavformat    57.  4.100 / 57.  4.100
  libavdevice    57.  0.100 / 57.  0.100
  libavfilter     6. 11.100 /  6. 11.100
  libswscale      4.  0.100 /  4.  0.100
  libswresample   2.  0.100 /  2.  0.100
  libpostproc    54.  0.100 / 54.  0.100
[aac @ 000000bd32533720] element type mismatch 1 != 0
[aac @ 000000bd325fe4e0] element type mismatch 1 != 0
Input #0, hls,applehttp, from 'http://bgsf.hls.iptvdc.com/islambox/709/play.m3u8
':
  Duration: N/A, start: 54791.428622, bitrate: N/A
  Program 0
    Metadata:
      variant_bitrate : 0
    Stream #0:0: Video: h264 (High) ([27][0][0][0] / 0x001B), yuv420p, 720x576 [
SAR 12:11 DAR 15:11], 25 fps, 25 tbr, 90k tbn, 50 tbc
    Stream #0:1: Audio: aac (HE-AAC) ([15][0][0][0] / 0x000F), 48000 Hz, stereo,
 fltp, 46 kb/s
Option re (read input at native frame rate) cannot be applied to output file rtm
p://ib12.islambox.tv/live/najam83 -- you are trying to apply an input option to
an output file or vice versa. Move this option before the file it belongs to.
Error parsing options for output file rtmp://ib12.islambox.tv/live/najam83.
Error opening output files: Invalid argument

ffmpeg -i http://example.com/test.m3u8 -re -acodec copy -vcodec copy rtmp://example.com/app/stream

@SlimSCSI please check my answer it gives error.

first, please don't use answers for comments. Second, put -re as the first option, before -i  that was my mistake.

Because -rf is a output option, I guess, you should put -re ahead like that:
ffmpeg -re -i http://example.com/test.m3u8 -acodec copy -vcodec copy rtmp://example.com/app/stream


text:
How can I get thumbnails from first frame of a set of videos?
How can I get thumbnails from first frame of each video in a set of videos?  I am using Windows.

Fastest way to generate video thumbnail of particulate size by FFMPEG

To the OP, if you're going to use the command in the link, omit the -ss 4 part, so you'll get the first frame.

@Mulvya could you exactly tell me where and how should I type the command?

The command to get a thumbnail from the first frame of a video is
ffmpeg -i test.mp4 -vframes 1 -vf "scale=360:-1" small_thumnail.png

The scale filter is set to resize the image to 360 px width and choose height so that image proportion is maintained.

where should I put the command? I've never work with FFmpeg yet!

If you've never used the command prompt before, see http://www.computerhope.com/issues/chusedos.htm


text:
Convert mp4 to webm without quality loss with ffmpeg
What is the best way to convert a mp4 file to webm without quality loss (using vp8 or vp9) with ffmpeg?
If I do ffmpeg -i in.mp4 out.webm the quality is very bad. I can specify a target bitrate via -b:v and constant quality mode via crf, i.e.
ffmpeg -i in.mp4 -crf 10 -b:v 1M out.webm
This gives better quality. However for this I have to lookup the bitrate of the input video (here 1M).
I also noticed that if you specify a much larger value for the target bitrate than the bitrate of the input (here for example -b:v 100M), ffmpeg just seems to use approximately the bitrate from the input video with vp9 or  slightly higher bitrate with vp8. However this solution doesn't seem to be the intended way to do this.
How would you choose the crf value and why?
Is there a parameter which automatically chooses the bitrate of the input file and a suitable crf value to get the same quality as the input file?

Set bitrate to 0. And experiment with crf. But your method of a high bitrate works too, since the value acts as a ceiling not a target

@Mulvya: Does bitrate 0 mean that there is no limit? I didn't find this in the man page.

With bitrate not set to zero, CRF is constrained by that value. With zero, it's not. It's a quirk of the VPn encoders.

Ok, but if I omit the bitrate parameter completely the quality gets very bad even thoug I didn't give an upper limit for the bitrate.

If you omit it, it defaults to 200k.

@Mulvya. Thanks for the Info. I also cannot find this one in the man page. Is there any other reference manual for ffmpeg which covers this default value?

Link for 200k (see first option). For WebM b:v 0, see this page.

Answer
Use two-pass Constant Quality mode:
ffmpeg  -i input.mp4  -b:v 0  -crf 30  -pass 1  -an -f webm -y /dev/null
ffmpeg  -i input.mp4  -b:v 0  -crf 30  -pass 2  output.webm

Notes

If you're using Microsoft Windows™ instead of UNIX, change /dev/null to NUL.

We discard the video using /dev/null because the first pass's only purpose is to generate a log file of statistics.

mp42webm shell script
To save typing in the future, this can be put in a UNIX shell script:
#!/bin/sh -xe
ffmpeg -i "$1" -b:v 0 -crf 30 -pass 1 -an -f webm -y /dev/null
ffmpeg -i "$1" -b:v 0 -crf 30 -pass 2 "${1%.mp4}.webm"

Usage: mp42webm filename.mp4.
Creates filename.webm.
Explanation:
Setting the video bitrate to zero while also specifying the CRF (Constant Rate Factor) enables Constant Quality mode which targets a certain perceptual quality level. For VP9, the CRF can range from 0 (best quality) to 63 (smallest file size).
It is important to set the video bitrate to zero. If you do not specify a video bitrate, it defaults to something low which gets you Constrained Quality mode, where each frame has a maximum bitrate. While that can be useful for streaming, it reduces quality significantly as frames with a lot of motion will not have the bandwidth needed to look good.
Another part of the reason you’re losing quality is that webm (VP9) prefers to encode in two passes for best results. The first pass compiles statistics about the video which is then used in the second pass to make a smaller and higher quality video.
Please see the ffmpeg VP9 documentation if you’d like to learn more.
A word about transcoding
By the way, in general, transcoding formats (taking a compressed video and recompressing it with a different codec) is a bad idea as you’ll not only add the normal errors from lossy video encoding, but you’ll waste bits in the new format trying to preserve the artifacts from the old.
If you mean “without quality loss” literally
The -lossless 1 option of ffmpeg’s VP9 encoder enables lossless quality mode, but with a potentially enormous increase in filesize.
All you need is this:
ffmpeg  -i input.mp4  -lossless 1  output.webm

When I tried -lossless 1 on a low-quality mp4, the resulting webm was 100× larger, which was not accceptable to me. However, if your mp4 files are already very high quality, I expect the size difference will not be so great.

/dev/null? What does this mean? What would the equivalent be for windows users? Are you overwriting input.mp4 on the first pass? This answer needs more explanation on what exactly each component is doing. It doesn't offer intermediate users much explanation of how it works.

Hi Hatefriend: My answer already includes a long explanation section plus a link for more information, so I'd rather not make it longer. Did you see the footnote regarding Microsoft Windows which answers your specific question? Also, as mentioned above, the first pass compiles statistics about the input file. There is no need to fear that it might overwrite the input.

I tried convert .MTS file to .webm usig these two commands (Ubuntu 20.10, ffmpeg version 4.2.2). But I have got errors: "Invalid channel layout 5.1(side) for specified mapping family -1.
Error initializing output stream 0:1 -- Error while opening encoder for output stream #0:1 - maybe incorrect parameters such as bit_rate, rate, width or height"

thanks for the answer. if transcoding is generally a bad idea, what do you recommend instead if you need to convert mp4 videos to webm and webm videos to mp4?

Hmm. That didn't work. Second command failed: "Invalid channel layout 5.1(side) for specified mapping family -1.
Error initializing output stream 0:1 -- Error while opening encoder for output stream #0:1 - maybe incorrect parameters such as bit_rate, rate, width or height"

File '/dev/null' already exists. Overwrite ? [y/N] so I will switch it to /tmp/deleteme.webm

@reducingactivity Thanks for letting me know that ffmpeg changed the default behaviour. It is safe to answer 'y" when writing to /dev/null as it is a fake file that ignores anything written to it. I've updated my answer to include the -y flag so that people won't be asked "Overwrite?".

I think it is silly that 2 passes cannot be accomplished with one command. When I see two separate commands like this it makes me worry that the 2nd command will not even take into consideration what is accomplished by the first command.

Would this work going the other way? ffmpeg  -i input.webm  -lossless 1  output.mp4

Good question. The answer is no, lossless mode is a feature of webm.

On Linux I use optimizeVideo, which is a wrapper around ffmpeg that automatically detects those settings according to Google's recommendations.
The result is a video which quality difference you cannot tell, but usually orders of magnitude smaller.

mp4 and webm are container formats. think of them as boxes that contain within them various video, audio, subtitle, chapter info, etc files.
if all the streams within the source mp4 container file are compatible with webm container format then it can be losslessly converted to webm, this is called remuxing (aka stream copy). This process simply copies the individual streams from one container to another without changing them in any way.
which is an extremely quick process and also lossless, has a trivial effect on file size (from mp4 to webm you save a bit of space). There is no generational quality loss due to not modifying the video and audio streams.
https://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg.html#Stream-copy
ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -c copy output.webm

I have tested the above command myself and it works great. if the mp4 container is using streams that are NOT compatible with webm. (for example h264 video. or srt subtitles). Then you cannot remux / stream copy it.
If one of the streams you are trying to pass to webm is unsupported it will instead error out and inform you that:

Only VP8 or VP9 or AV1 video and Vorbis or Opus audio and WebVTT subtitles are supported for WebM.

you would have to resort to re-encoding the unsupported stream. if you are re-encoding the video it is a lengthy process that will cause a variable hit to the image quality
near negligible is possible with the right settings and quality input. although doing so might take a long time and a lot of space. depending on the exact details of input and output codec and configuration. furthermore each time you convert via re-encoding you suffer generational loss. so even negligible losses add up to serious losses if you do it over and over.
technically, you can re-encode it into a lossless format or lossless setting. But doing so will result in obscenely large files. Making them impractical for many uses. realistically you won't be wanting to do that.

Your post doesn't seem to answer the question

@Dr Mayhem please reread. it clearly answers the question. He wanted to losslessly convert mp4 to webm using ffmpeg. I gave him the command to do so, being ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -c copy output.webm with the caveat that it can only be losslessly converted if the source mp4 file contains codecs which are compatible with webm. otherwise he would need to perform a lossy reencode to codecs which are compatible with webm


text:
How can I reduce size of video files on a Sony XDCAM?
I bought a decent camera (Sony XDCAM) however I have a problem with the output file size.  The .MTS files it makes work fine in my editor, and they create the quality I need, but the 2 gig per 10 minute of footage file size is killing our transfer time.
The quality of my end product is nowhere near this so I know I am shooting way way over the top for what I need to achieve my desired end product.
I look at the settings and I see 1080/50p PS, FX and FH
or
/25p of the same as above FX and FH
or
720/50p FX, FS and HQ
I want to film seminars from the back of the room using the zoom ring on the lens.
All works ok, but the 2 gig per 10mins is killing us. How can I reduce the file sizes to a more workable size?

I tried to change the REC/OUT SET to 720/50p FX and it still is 2 gig per 10 mins or so.

What's the model #?

Also, 2 GB per 10 minutes is ~27Mbps. More or less DV-SD bitrates but for HD capture. I doubt a prosumer series camera will have much lower modes available. I would transcode the footage to, maybe, half the size using ffmpeg..etc

One thing I wasn't sure about from the question.  At what point is the size of the video a problem for you?  In general, you want source files to be much larger than your final output.  When you edit and then re-encode video for your final product, the quality will drop.  The higher quality the source footage, the less you lose in the render.  Can you clarify what you meant by "re transfer".  Were you talking about the size of the final video or the time it takes to get the files to someone during your editing process (or something else entirely)?

Fairly clear that the OP is talking about the source footage - "The quality of my end product is nowhere near this" and " 2 gig per 10 minute of footage file size is killing our transfer time"

For $495 you can cut things down to 500MB/10 minutes (or perhaps even less, depending on compression parameters): https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/h264prorecorder


text:
How to reduce the size of video to 700 mb
Please help me , I have copied some movies to laptop from dvd disk, but the size of movies are more than 2 gb. But the movies uploaded to torrents are only 700 mb with the same clarity. How to reduce the size of my videos with out affecting the quality. Which software I should use for this.

I've been using handbrake to convert my videos and have been very successful.

Ok one thing to note is the resolution of the video. Most 700mb torrents are not full HD. most are 720p or if they are 1080p they are in h.265
Assuming resolution is 1080p you can go from 2 gb to about 1gb without a huge drop in quality. The big issue becomes with the type of movie. Movies with a lower (smaller) color palette will degrade quicker because compression aims to make as many pixels nearby alike to lower the decoding time and storage space. It analyzes the video in varying block sizes and re-writes it.
H265 was made to take 40% less space as h.264 while keeping the same visual quality. The issue with h265 is the processing power required to encode it. I have a server I use to encode mine and it still takes a long time.
As for the way you would do it...
Use a video converter that allows you to control the bitrate. Adobe media encoder is a great option if you have it. For h264 you don't want to drop your bitrate below about 1-1.3gbps for the video. If you chose to go to h265 then you can drop the bitrate to about 600-700mbps and keep the same quality. all of this comes with trial and error.


text:
Can you render Adobe Premiere or After Effects projects on Linux using a render manager?
I'm looking for a way to render Premiere or Edius projects on linux via command line.
As you may know, there are a lot of render managers like Deadline, Render Pal or Smedge in order to build a custom render farm for all kind of creative applications or 3d renderers.
These render managers mostly support all of the major platforms (Windows, OSX and Linux), but film editing software like Adobe Premiere (along with After Effects) or Edius don't support linux OS at all.
Can I use a render manager to render a Premiere, After Effetcts or even a Edius project on Linux?

My answer adresses your render manager issue... it has nothing to do with your idea of using a frame server.

No. Unfortunately Adobe only supports win or osx. Official forum post about Deadline:

Deadline itself is a cross-platform application, but it can only render on  operating systems that the rendering software itself supports. So AE and  C4D will only work on Windows and OSX.

Also see the manual: http://docs.thinkboxsoftware.com/products/deadline/7.1/1_User%20Manual/

Thus it depends on the main application, if you are able to build a render farm on linux. In the case of adobe, the only remaining option is using a Virtual Machine for now.


text:
Are adapters that allowing lens change on cheap camcorders worth it?
I was told that adapters exist that allow you to mount an additional lens on a non-threaded camcorder.  Are these adapters worth it?  How common are they?

I altered your question pretty significantly.  Product recommendations and shopping for you are explicitly off-topic for this site, however there was other important related to the products you are looking for that I thought were worth communicating enough to edit the question a bit so it could still be touched on without directly closing the question.

Such devices do exist a reasonable amount of the time, but they rarely produce much in the way of quality.  There are exceptions, but they are fairly rare.  They do have their uses, but be aware that the results are most often marginal.  Your best bet to find them is generally looking around the various smaller NY/NJ photo/video shops that carry a variety of knock off products from around the world.
Make sure you are aware of what you are getting yourself in to with them.


text:
How can I determine the publishing point for streaming an HTTP stream to Adobe Media Server 5?
I would like to stream a HTTP stream from VLC direct to Adobe Media Server 5, however I am unsure of the URL I should stream to. How can I determine the URL of the publishing point?

From the documentation, it appears that you need to use an rtmp capable encoder to send the stream to Adobe Media Server and that Adobe Media Server then shares it out as an HTTP stream based on the configuration of the publishing point.
It appears that
rtmp://ams-ip-or-dns/livepkgr/livestream?adbe-live-event=liveEventName
is the URL to stream to for a constant bit rate, but there are other options if you are using VBR or multi-rate streams.  You can get more details under the URLs for publishing and playing live streams over HTTP section of the linked documentation.

authors: Вова Степанов


text:
Why does my still camera stop recording video on its own?
I have a Nikon s3300 and wish to take video at a concert however no matter what card I put in the available time says 8min and 11 seconds. Am I doing something wrong or is there a way to fix this.

There are three main reasons that still cameras with video functionality have restrictions on the length of video they will shoot.
The first and most common, as tomh pointed out is tax purposes.  The European Union charges a 5% tax on any video recording device and sets the limit at any device capable of recording 30 minutes or more of video.  To avoid this 5% additional fee in the EU, the camera manufacturers limit recording length to 29 minutes and 59 seconds.  Most manufacturers don't bother making a non-EU model, so the rest of the world gets hit with the same limitation.  This reason, however, only applies to cameras with a 29 minute 59 second limit.
The second most common reason is that of file size.  The Fat32 system used by many cameras for the memory card (due to its simplicity and lack of patent encumbrance at this point) is limited to 4GB per single file.  While many cameras are capable of splitting across multiple files, it does involve a few challenges that not all camera manufacturers bother to deal with.  When they don't, it means that the video recording must end when the 4GB file size limit is reached.  This results in a fixed length limit for each quality level, but it will differ based on quality level, with lower video qualities being able to record longer.  You can easily verify if this is the reason by checking the file size of the videos.  Some cameras have third party firmwares and hacks to bypass this limitation, however I'm not aware of any for the Nikon S3300 specifically.
The final reason, which used to be the most common, but is substantially less common with modern cameras, is that of heat.  When CMOS imaging sensors (found in most all modern still cameras) are used, they produce heat.  If the heat can not dissipate fast enough, it eventually results in the sensor overheating, which causes additional noise and eventually sensor damage.  To protect against this, one of two methods can be used.  The oldest is to simply put an arbitrary length limit on recordings that is considered a safe amount of time for the sensor to operate.  Many later systems monitor the temperature of the sensor and only shut down recording when they detect that the sensor is becoming too warm.  It is hard to tell for certain if this is the reason for the recording to be stopping, but in the later case, the time when the recording stops will not be exactly the same between instances, particular when light levels and ambient temperature differ significantly.

While this answer is factual, it's completely unrelated to his problem

@traviso the second reason I gave is the most likely cause of this specific problem.  I included the other cases for people with similar but different scenarios.

Why would a fat32 system not just start a new file? I've never run into video record length limits because of system file size limits. Every cam I've used just rolls frames into a new file. Why wouldn't any other?

Though, I did give an up for an otherwise good answer.

@DigiVisionMedia I have before and 8 minutes 11 seconds is an oddly specific time that is around the time that I'd expect the 4GB limit to get hit.  Yes, most camera's, especially newer ones, will auto-continue, but not all do.  That's why I led with an answer about the 30 minute limit which made TravisO think my answer was irrelevant, because that's way WAY more likely to be the cause of the limit for most people, but the OP almost certainly is a 4gb file limitation.

If you say you've seen it, I believe you. I guess it would just be due to lazy programming? Does your experience correlate this with cheaper cams?

It's always been on cheaper cameras.  My best guess is that they didn't include a large enough buffer or fast enough processor to manage to close out the headers of the initial file and start the new file without dropping frames, so they just didn't bother to try.  The camera in question is a point and shoot from 2012 or earlier.  I haven't seen it on newer cameras as the ability to process quickly enough is not really an issue anymore, even on the low end.  (Granted, I also don't follow the low end anymore.)

Some cameras had an arbitrary recording time limit in order to avoid being classified as video cameras for tax purposes.

This reason only applies for 29 minute 59 second limits, it does not apply for anything shorter than that.  There are other reasons for shorter limits.


text:
Opaque overlay becomes transparent when fading out both video tracks in Sony Vegas
The original problem I had was to put an overlay (static image) on a video track. All guides/tutorials I found does this by putting the image into a separate video track. I would prefer attaching the image to the actually video clip instead, but fair enough, it works.
However, when I try to fade out the video + overlay, they do this at different "pace". The video is recorded from gameplay, and I want to cover the chatbox with a black image. It works fine, and I can't see through the image at all. But when I fade out the video track and the image, I can pause in the fading and actually see the chat box. This is extremely frustrating, and not at all what I want of course.
I have tried different things, fading out by dragging the right corner, and a composite level envelope, but it doesn't help. It doesn't matter if it transitions into another video clip or to black, same problem occurs anyway.
Here is an example of how it looks:

This is the expected behavior for fading two video tracks.  Video tracks are blended in order to build up what you see as an end result.  When you make the image mask (the overlay) for the chat pain start fading to transparent, it allows the images underneath to be seen.  So if it is at 70% transparent, it lets through 30% of the underlying layers, which in turn is letting through 30% of the layer under it.
To get around this, you need to fade the combined video rather than the individual videos.  The easiest way to do this in your case is going to be to use parent/child compositing relationships.  By telling Vegas that the two clips are related and should have effects applied to both, it should allow you to have an effect applied to the sum total of both tracks instead of needing to apply it to both individually.
Sony actually already has a pretty nice write up on the feature available here.

Thank you for you answer, I really appreciate it. However, I can't get it to work anyway. Even though I make it a Compositing Child, it still creates the fade for the individual clips in the tracks. Doesn't matter if I select track 1, track 2, or the side of track 1 which then selects the parent and all the childs. I guess the whole idea with creating parent/child is that it can be treated as "one clip", which would solve my problem. But I can't created the fade for the united tracks.

What I want is the effect to be the same as if I did a workaround and created new projects for each clip with overlay and rendered it. Of course, I don't want to create projects just to merge the overlay into a clip and then import the re-encoded file into my "real" project file.

Yeah, that kind of sub clip thing can be done in most professional editors but I was surprised that Vegas limits you to a single timeline.  I'll try giving the compositing thing a try and see if I can get it to work later, but I've been in prep mode for a conference this weekend so time has been limited.

The way I do this is by creating a solid colour (black) clip, placing it above the two clips and fading it in. Remove the fades from the other two clips when you do this.

I was having this same problem and finally figured out a solution.
My project consists of one main video track with several tracks of generated media above it (to obscure aspects of the video track that I don't want to see with colored boxes).
Then above all of that I have a secondary video track to which I occasionally want to fade in and out of from the main video track.
The problem is that when I set the fades, the generated media fades out too and what it's obscuring is briefly visible during the transition.  Or if I don't use a fade on the generated media, the bars are visible and then abruptly disappear during the transition.
The solution was to add a new video track with a generated media object black background beneath the secondary video track.  Then whenever I fade in to or out of the secondary video, I also add the same fade to the black object, and the primary video and all of its generated media fade in/out evenly with each other (i.e., the obscured content is not visible during the transition).
Thanks,
Steven


text:
How do I build a circle which serves as a particle attracter using After Effects Trapcode Particular?
I want all particles that I emitted to settle down on a circle shape after animating them in space. What would be perfect is to be able to draw a circle shape which works as a particle attractor after a certain time.

I would recommend you use a different plugin, use the shatter plugin.
Follow the steps in this tutorial
http://www.macprovideo.com/hub/after-effects/after-effects-text-that-blows-away-like-sand
This will let you break apart your circle into particles. Then when done the composition, simply pre-comp the layer and use the time/time-reverse layer to let the particles come into a circle.
While it seems a little backwards(literally) to do it this way, I think this is the best way to accomplish what you are trying to do.
You won't be able to get a particle attractor or other advanced functions like that unless you are working in cinema 4d or other 3 rendering software.

Thanks I ended up doing this with particle flow in 3ds max. My project was probably too complex for after effects as it also included some other effects.


text:
Why are some of my videos I just uploaded to Youtube in HD and some aren't?
I recorded two tutorial videos using Hypercam, and then edited them with Windows Live Movie Maker, both of which exported "For High Definition Display"(or something like that), but when I uploaded them to YouTube, for some reason, one of them has HD up to 1080p, but one of them has no HD and only goes up to 360p, why is that?
NOTE: The video file itself, the one I uploaded to youtube, is in HD, so why isn't in HD on YouTube?

Apparently Youtube took some extra time to process the HD. Both are showing in HD now.


text:
CHDK on Canon Powershot S100: Is there a Video Bitrate sweet spot?
I'm using a Powershot S100 with CHDK.
The default video bitrate of the S100 is around 4 MByte/sec at the highest quality.
Using CHDK and the options "Mode=Quality" and "Quality=99", you can get 14MByte/sec video.
I just did a quick test with a low-light scene.
The noise leads to blocking in the 4MByte/sec version. In the 14MByte/sec version, the noise is much crisper, and the blocking is gone.
I wonder is there a sweet spot here? 14MByte/sec is clearly too much to store, but looks better than 4MByte. Is there a particular quality level I should choose?

More likely too broad.  I have edited to hopefully prevent it from being too broad.

do you actually mean MBps and not mbps?  Codec data rates are almost exclusively given in mbps normally, which is bits, not bytes.

Yes, it's actually megabyte, these are values I calculated from the filesize. 14 MByte per Second is therefore 112 MBit.

No, there is no sweet spot for compression, whether it is on a camera or in encoding after the fact.  The needed data rate depends heavily on the content being recorded and is a complex field, though the best bet to handle it simply is to try adjusting it and decide when it works for your needs.  You can eventually get an idea of the quality from each bitrate for your camera, but we can't really give you guidelines as both noise level and the particular encoder used by your camera will also impact the way things turn out.
One important caveat to keep in mind when dealing with compression on a camera is that if you are going to edit the footage, you want to make sure you use a high enough quality that re-compressing after editing does not result in quality loss either.  With lossy compression, each additional compression results in further quality loss and a video that looks fine initially may fall apart when compressed for final output.  The larger your source videos are, the smaller you are likely to be able to compress your final video to.  You may also want to shoot All-I if it is an option because this format is far more efficient in editing software than compressions that are group of picture based (IPB), though they also take far more space to get good quality.
Also, you say that 14MBps is obviously too high, but I would challenge you that it is not obviously too high.  Uncompressed, 1080p video at 24fps would still take 150MBps or 1194mbps.  You are still compressing over 90% at 14MBps.  Bluray will often use in the neighborhood of 35 to 50mbps which is still up to almost half of the 112mbps data rate you quoted as the max.  Particularly if that is All-I, 112mbps is not an unexpectedly high value at all.

Wow, I wasn't aware how large uncompressed 1080p actually is. My camera is encoding H264, but I'm pretty sure, since it runs onboard a tiny consumer camera, that the compression level is much lower than H264 encoded on a Desktop PC with lots of CPU power. Therefore, it might well be that 112mbps from my camera looks equal to a proper 50mbps encode.

@LTR - exactly, single pass encoding on a camera in real-time isn't going to be as good at compressing as something like a 2 pass encoder that can run sub-realtime in order to maximize quality.


text:
How to create light wall of letters?
I want to create the typical light wall effect, that is often seen in music videos.
But not only the wall. I want to display text letters using those flash lights.
Probably I'm missing the right keywords as I did not find a tutorial on this yet.
I'm aiming for something similar to this template:
http://videohive.net/item/lights-flashing-3/5882600?WT.ac=item_more_thumb&WT.z_author=HK_graphic
Of course I could just buy it, but I especially want to learn while creating.
So, should I create a layer mask from text, and let eg a flashlight wall footage shine through? Or could I as well create a single flashlight (or take footage), and arrange it in a way that it will form letters?
How can this be done?

Do you mean light wall?  I'm not sure what a lightening (the thing that has bolts in the sky in a thunderstorm) wall would be.

sorry, yes I mean a wall of lights, not a thunderstorm.

I think Trapcode Form or Particular is probably the best way to do this.  It allows you to easily set up a grid of objects (in 2D or 3D).  In this case you'd make a 2D set of objects, then mask them with your text within the plugin settings.


text:
How to distribute layers along a path?
Is it possible to "distribute" layers along a path?
I want to create lights along a text stroke path. I could of course align like 200 light layer elements on the path of the text letters manually. But maybe there are better ways to somehow automate this? Like stroking or filling the text letters/mask with the contents of another layer?


text:
Who should buy a Weighted Gimbal Stabilizer
Who can make the best use of a weighted gimbal stabilizer such as a Glidecam HD2000? What are the pros and cons of using one?

Related, but probably not a dupe... https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/4370/how-can-i-smoothly-move-a-camera-without-a-dolly

The only real reason to get the Glidecam is if you don't have the budget for a proper Steadicam.
With any type of camera, the weight from holding it in front of you (the gimbal prevents you holding it close) is incredibly tiring and after a very short space of time you will find it impossible to stabilise properly.
A Steadicam takes the weight and distributes it through a body harness so your hands and arms are just used for guiding the camera, not supporting it.
The bottom end Steadicam rigs are only a couple of thousand pounds, so if you need a gimballed camera device, get one of these.

Actually, there are some even cheaper than that.  I've seen kits as cheap as $850 for a 30 pound weight limit on the low end that achieve fine results as long as you don't need to use it all the time.

The Glidecam HD2000 is a weighted gimbal stabilizer.  It uses inertia of a counter weight and a balanced gimbal to prevent rapid changes in orientation and to an extent position of a camera.  They are used for stabilizing footage when you need more stabilization than optical image stabilization can provide but less than a steadicam or gyroscope rig provides (or the cost or size of a steadicam or gyroscope unit is prohibitive).
Unlike optical image stabilization, a weighted gimbal rig requires a fair bit of practice to master the use of as well as careful configuration and balancing to prevent the system from drifting.  A handle is attached to a near frictionless gimbal at the center of gravity so that the handle can move without the camera moving significantly.  It requires careful handling and manipulation to control the camera's angle while also requiring quite a bit of strength to hold the handle at the appropriate angle.
The main pro is that it provides far more stabilization than optical image stabilization, is relatively compact, light (roughly 50% heavier, though if you use monitors and such that can be used as counterweight ) and low cost (compared to more advanced stabilization systems.)
The main con is that it still adds quite a bit of weight to the camera rig.  They are difficult to use well and require careful movement and handling to get good results.  They also require far more physical exertion because of how you have to hold them (hard on your wrists.)  They also do not provide nearly the stabilization of more advanced systems such as a steadicam rig (chest support plus weighted gimbal) or a gyro-stabilized system (with high speed gyroscopes actually actively countering changes in orientation).


text:
What is the technical advantage of celluloid film over digital?
I know that digital is used more than celluloid now. Still, I would like to know why celluloid film is still favored by some film makers. Only a few years ago celluloid was the standard.
What was/is the technical advantage of celluloid film over digital that kept this technique to be the standard for so long?

Just FYI, celluloid is not what films are made of today. Celluloid or nitrocelulose is HIGHLY flammable, to the point of being explosive. Since the 50's celluloid was phased out, replaced by acetate base, AKA safety film, which isn't flammable, but is subject to a chemical degradation known as Vinegar Syndrome. Modern motion picture film (post 1990) is made with polyester, and is very chemically stable.

The quality of the image is a big part of why film has been preferred for so long.  This Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography) really outlines well the technical advantages.
However, you asked about favoritism between the two formats. I think another consideration is cost, familiarity, and accessibility. When I got my bachelor's in film/video in the late 1990s, I focused on learning how to shoot video, rather than 16mm, because I knew eventually, digital video would supplant film. I thought something like this was going to happen: that digital imaging would make filmmaking far more accessible to everyone.  Since I was also a computer nerd and more of an early adopter than I then realized, I overestimated how quickly this transition would take place, both at my school (where only a favored few were given access to computers with the horsepower to render Adobe Premiere, or allowed to use our singular Avid editor) and in the world at large. Meanwhile, my classmates who were shooting traditional film were already able to produce a much, much better looking product, and over time some of them stuck with film, because that's simply how they were trained and most comfortable.
By the same token, the time I've spent producing corporate video, taught me about the inertia that can crop up, when standardization of equipment plays a role. For instance, my former workplace only switched from SD to HD cameras about two years ago, and absolutely, we had the budget to make that change a lot earlier. Upgrading was a difficult decision that had to be planned out over years. Consider that it's one thing to pick a tool that allows you to edit either digitized film or digital video (FCP, Premiere, Avid), and invest in it; it's another thing to decide you're going to switch from traditional film cameras to digital film cameras. What will it cost you in terms of a learning curve for your production personnel? What other equipment might you have to replace? How will it change your workflow?
Now, I learned a ton from a former colleague that recently retired, in his mid-60s; he was a consumate cameraman who had been working in film and TV longer than I've been alive. He could and did handle change, and move from film to SD, to HD, but still, there were areas relating to digital video he just didn't care to delve into if he didn't have to. That doesn't make him an old fogey, but someone who carefully considered the payoff of investing his time in learning new things. Because he had so many years of experience, the vice-president of our organization considered him to be the most important decision-maker about the direction of our equipment; he was very conservative. Now transfer that to thousands of other workplaces where there's not a lot of discretionary cash to gamble on the next big thing.
And, as late as 7 years ago, copies of "Film School Confidential" were available, a book that outlined the atmosphere and equipment at the major film schools offering MFAs. Many schools were described as having a limited amount of film equipment that students would compete over; at some top schools, only a handful of students would create "calling card" films in the second or third years, with others relegated to crewing. I can't be sure, but I believe these schools had similar attitudes to the new technology, as my alma mater did: rather than burning the budget yearly or every other year on the newest digital cameras which would become obsolete rapidly, or didn't quite have the dynamic range users were wanting, many of these schools continued to stick with traditional film equipment - cameras, Moviolas, etc - for the vast majority of their students. Just as my former employers hung on with standard definition cameras as long as they could.
And inertia also plays a role when you consider the people who are training young filmmakers in more formal, traditional programs. I actually went to a less traditional program that emphasized documentary and experimental filmmaking, but some of my former professors apparently still prefer film, or only moved over to digital a few years ago, and that's not a surprise to me. Some folks decide they want to stick with what they know, and use that tool or format to refine their art. One of my old professors was at one time known for her "cutting edge" video art, but by the time I met her, I felt she was not at all open to new technology; the last I heard she was working on a documentary shot in the far more expensive, traditional film format, and she still has an AOL email address, for cripes' sake.

Film may have better long-term archival stability.
For theatrical exhibition, 35mm film still has a more uniform distribution and exhibition system outside the US and Europe.
People like Chris Nolan prefer to use film because there aren't any widely-available digital processess that can do an IMAX-style presentation, with a huge negative area and screen.  Digital solutions for these exist, but the exhibition systems for these are ad hoc; IMAX on the other hand is a really well-established brand and IMAX screens are everywhere and are a reliable, known quantity.
Digital cinema cameras still have some funny motion artifacts (ahem, Alexa and Panavision) and funny black levels (ahem, RED) that some filmmakers don't like.
Film still has a different look.
Once you're at the highest levels of production, and making studio features, the price difference is really a wash, particularly if you're shooting 3-perf 35mm and doing a DI.

IMAX use digital projectors now I believe. But +1 for the archival point. Long term storage of digital moving images is a thorny question for archives around the world: how do you come up with a file format that will be readable in 100 years' time, even without a zombie invasion in the interim? Film, you can take out of the can and look at with the naked eye, even if the zombies have smashed all the projectors.

The biggest ding against digital IMAX is that it's only half the resolution of film IMAX, and probably even worse.  This isn't much of a point, though, considering most features you'll see in IMAX are just blowups.

2017 note- 35mm probably is no longer desirable for exhibition outside the US and Europe. China is now the largest non-US film exhibition market (this is something that's happened literally in the last 18 months) and it's all DCP all the way.

The digital chain has so many advantages unrelated to quality that as soon as it reached a 'good enough' level for capture the playing field tilted for good in its favor. And of course it didn't stop improving at 'good enough'.
As a taking medium, celluloid film still has the sort of hard-to-define characteristics that make some pine for vinyl music. But when everything else in the chain is digital, it becomes harder and harder to justify it, if only on pure economics.
Of course this is an opinion, not a definitive answer. (-:

Quite simply, the quality of digital only recently overtook film.  Film is capable of capturing both high resolution (due to it's large size) and high dynamic range (due to it's chemistry).  It allowed for very high quality images captured very quickly which was ideal for the film industry.
Early in the development of high end digital cameras, the primary reasons to shoot digital were cost and efficiency.  Filming on cellulose is expensive and logistically complex.  You need large quantities of film which must be developed before you can see if your shots came out the way you wanted.  This required either beam splitting to be able to use a lower quality video camera in conjunction with the film camera (which reduced light sensitivity), shooting with something that wasn't an exact duplicate of the shot footage or simply shooting from the hip and hoping you didn't have to reshoot.
Digital didn't have either of these limitations.  It could be monitored in real time and while there were large data storage requirements for it, it was far, far cheaper than the cost of film.  In many cases, the cameras themselves could also be produced more cheaply as they involved fewer complex moving parts.  It also required less man power to operate as you didn't need as many people to load and process film.
Eventually, as digital continued to develop, the technical disadvantages diminished while the cost savings stayed the same or even increased.  This increasingly made digital a strong draw for projects.  Now, in current day, digital sensors pretty much meet or exceed film's quality, range and sensitivity.  Digital is now arguably a technically superior choice in many situations now, however artistic reasons still end up factoring in, such as the desire for film grain or a particular film tint.  These can be applied as digital simulations, but some directors and cinematographers still prefer the natural grain and tint of film (and are willing to pay the premium to work with it.)
As others have mentioned, the archival quality of film is also worth considering, though that can be used regardless of original shooting method as it is still quite common for cellulose prints to be made for films that are shot digitally so that they can be distributed to theaters that lack digital projection.  The same technique can be used for high quality archival film copies.

Didn't get the chance to read all of the above, but the answer for shooting film instead of digital is very simple. The risks for archiving source material digitally overtime seem to increase by day, as it-companies products' and services come and go whenever they please. Even law can't keep up.
Computers are being written off in 3 to 5 years, while a good securely archived film sustains over decades. Are you shooting something professionally, well researched and is your companies paperwork legally checked and balanced: then shoot film and keep it to the ones that can actually care for reasonable costs. (I sound so old fashioned..you should have a look at my work today!)

Gerry, this might be the start to a good answer, but it is not yet there.  A good answer should be written with an authoritative voice, not a tentative or self-questioning one.  If you are confident of one dimension of the answer, then give that answer, definitively.

This is a semi-decent argument for film based archives, but you don't have to shoot on film to archive on film.  Even modern film based movies scan the negatives, edit non-linearly and then print to film.  The archival advantage is also diminishing.  The quality of archival formats is increasing and it's much easier to maintain digital archives in the super long term as film necessarily involves generational loss where as digital data can be translated and duplicated losslessly.  It is currently more expensive and difficult, but also arguably much more secure and future proof.


text:
How can a beginner remove an actor from footage?
I want to edit this montage of James Bond Intros. What I want is remove the real james bond, as a beginner what will you suggest a good video editor for this kind of situation?

Okay, so what is it that you would like to achieve, would you like to replace the subject, or do you simply just want to omit him from the shot?

All of these seem to be simple circle mattes, you just need an editing system that allows you to generate a circle mask that has an animatable position.
You will need 3 pieces of media:
1- the original footage
2- the new actor to go in the circle (or a neutral shot)
3- the moving circle mask
You will need to animate the circle to follow the original circle, then use the circle mask to reveal the new footage in the hole.
I can recommend using the Open Software "Blender", it has a Video editor called the VSE and a system of user defined masks that you can animate with.

Imageneer systems,  Mocha Pro is about as easy as it gets.
See this example/tutorial
But it is far from simple!
There are versions of Mocha available for After Effects and Hitfilm as well. I'm not sure If they are capable of doing this.


text:
Who owns the rights to video footage?
I recently filmed some hunting footage of a hunter on a preserve hunt. I did not own the camera it was owned by the hunter. I did not get paid nor was there a contract drawn up between myself the hunter or myself and the preserve owner. This footage is now to air on a hunting show without any consent from myself. Do I have any right to this footage?

IANAL, however, if there is no contract and no employee relationship, the artist producing the work most likely owns the copyright, not the owner of the equipment that was used to make it, at least in the US.  See the question this is a dupe of for more general detail.

Ask a lawyer. It will depend on the jurisdiction. But my distinctly non-lawyerly opinion? You have no rights in the footage.

My understanding is that for this to be the case, the hunter would have to argue that the OP was an employee (at least in the US).  That's going to be a hard argument when he wasn't paid.


text:
Overlay a photo in Windows Movie Maker
How do you add a picture on top of a video in Windows Movie Maker? I only know how to add text on top of the video.
I want to use an image to block a person's face in the video. How can I do that?
If that isn't possible, how can I blur the face out?

As Windows Movie Maker don't support multi track editing, I don't think it is possible to overlay images onto the main video. Similarly, I don't think it has the required features to blur a specific area.
If you are looking for a software recommendation, Sony Movie Studio can do both of these things (£60), and so can Blender (free, but very hard to learn)
Sorry not to have been more helpful.

See this question if you want more free video editor recomendations: http://video.stackexchange.com/questions/2274/good-open-source-video-editors


text:
Adobe Premiere Exports only video
I combined video and audio from different sources. I intentionally slowed the audio down, but when I export it, I get only video.
Also, the audio I'm using is a mono. I tried to save it with both mono and stereo settings in the export and both didn't work.

Any ideas?

Welcome! We'll need a lot more information to help you. What are your project settings? What were your output settings? You said you get only video but then you say the audio is slowed down. Which problem is it? Video with no audio or a video with audio that is slowed down from the original? What player are you using that you have the problem?

The audio that I added to the video inside the project was slowed down (intentionally), and after the export did not work in all the players I tried (BSplayer, Media Player, VLC)
I exported it in format H.264 with a Match Source preset.
The project settings are default, I guess. I am really new to this, so I did not change anything.

Can you post screen shots of the export settings window?

Hi, I added it in an answer

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


text:
How can I create an intro animation in Final Cut Pro X or Motion, with or without plugins?
How can I create a similar intro to the one in the video below using Final Cut Pro X or Motion and possibly a plugin? Or is it only possible with After Effects?

You could easily create that in FCPX, no plug-in necessary. The various circles can just be still images that you apply rotation and scaling to. (I'd make them large and then scale them down rather than making them small and scaling up.) I'm not sure if there's a title that exactly matches what they do, but it wouldn't be too hard to do that sort of titling. Worst case, you can pick up Motion for < $50 and use the text sequencer to do it.

You can try to mimic that by importing your alpha keyed assets and apply scaling and rotation but you won't be able to get that motion blur without a software like After Effects or Motion.


text:
How to emphasize a faint white line among a yellow background?
I'm a total beginner at video editing and I filmed a video of a particle detector that I made. The particle made a very faint white line in the yellow background. I would like to post the screenshot, but it would be very hard to see in this state.
How would I emphasize the faint white line in a yellow background?
I'm borrowing my friend's Steam account to use his Sony Vegas Pro.

I'd suggest posting a screenshot anyway. It will help people understand what you are working with and get you better suggestions.

I'm posting this as a comment because it is not complete enough for an answer - You might try a false color filter. A quick google search shows many false color filters for Vegas.

White and yellow are very close so you're not going to be able to do much in post.
Re-shoot and attempt to separate the faint white line from the bright yellow background. To do so, the general idea is to plunge the room in darkness to isolate the faint white line.

Change the yellow background to a black or dark grey background. Either repaint or replace the background, or, if you can't, flag it in such a way as to darken it, i.e. plunge it in a shadow.
If the faint white line is traveling through empty space, like a laser beam at a music show, try and sprinkle some fine corn starch flour over it to see how the light beam interacts with the particles of corn starch. Experiment with other material to find what looks good to you.

A screenshot is a still image, so you would need to use image-editing software like Photoshop to enhance the image. I recommend messing around in the "Edit > Adjust" menu.  You may be able to show off your effect by increasing the Contrast of the image, or by changing the Hue of the image.  You could probably also replace the yellow color with a different color (though Hue would produce a similar effect).


text:
What options are there for cloud based FFMPEG processing?
Just like Imgix and Cloudinary are image editing as a service platforms, are there any online platforms that provide ffmpeg as a service so we can run ffmpeg commands on their server?
At the moment I'm running my FFMPEG commands on AWS Lambda but we are hitting a dead-end because of it's limitation of 1.5GB RAM and 300 seconds duration.
Some of our video processing take upto 1.5GB RAM and it shuts down the server.

This is pretty broad and open to opinion. Can you rephrase your question to be more concrete and likely to get answers based in facts?

We are working on a video app where we do some video processing, cropping video, doing the perspective transformation, rotating, overlaying text etc. Rather than doing this on our server, we would like to use some third party service like there is imgix for images. This way services who are best at these can do that for us we wont have to scale and maintain our server.

Actually you can use Cloudinary for video processing as well.
Cloudinary's API allows you to build manipulation URLs and embed a HTML5 video player with all the video sources and settings.
Original videos are stored in the cloud and you can then dynamically create multiple resized, cropped and manipulated videos on-the-fly and deliver them via dynamic URLs or use code to either add video tags or build the URLs.
For example if  you want to resize a video to a width of 150 pixels and a height of 100 pixels, the dynamic URL will look like this:
 http://res.cloudinary.com/demo/video/upload/w_150,h_100/dog.mp4

You can also rotate the video by any arbitrary angle in degrees with the angle parameter (a in URLs). For example rotating a video by 90 degrees:
 http://res.cloudinary.com/demo/video/upload/a_90/dog.mp4

If you want to add text overlays, use the text: property of the overlay parameter ( l_text: in URLs), followed by the font name and size (separated with an underscore), a colon, and then the text string to display.
For example, to overlay the text string "Sample Video" in the Arial font with a size of 40 pixels:
l_text:arial_40:Sample Video.

I'd say the best way is to get a cloud service that runs a VM for you, such as Amazon EC2, DigitalOcean, Google Compute Engine, IBM Cloud Servers, or Rackspace.  That'll also give you more flexibility to choose the resources you need, such as more CPU power and disk space.