text:
How to convert an MTS file without loosing quality?
I have shot some videos on a Panasonic v720 camcorder. The videos are huge. I used the internal feature of the camcorder to convert to MP4 and the quality was reduced very much.
What is the best practice to compress MTS videos?  What is the recommended output format (avi, mp4)?
My goal is just to consume less disk space and upload to Youtube (and have 1080p there) with the least quality loss.

What is your definition of huge and what is your definition of high quality?  Size is directly related to compression and compression is directly inversely related to quality for the most part.
Some amount of compression can be had for free using lossless compression or near free with more efficient pattern finding for lossy compression, but for the most part, there is a direct relationships between size and quality.
In fact, you generally have to actually increase the size to maintain the quality when re-encoding a lossy file as information that was already lost by the first can't be recovered, but other information may be lost due to the encoding process running again, so the combined error requires a higher data rate to avoid losing more.
MTS files are already generally based on H.264 (MPEG4) and are generally relatively small.  It should be possible to extract the MPEG4 from the container and repackage without any loss, but to reduce size would pretty much require a reduction in quality.

Thanks. my camera had written a few minutes of MTS file as 2 GB file. I know that this can be saved  to a much smaller file (with a tiny quality compensation) since I have a few MKVs videos that hold 2 hrs 1080p/60fps on 6 GB. Excellent quality (Bluray like). Now my camera writes 6 minutes to 2 GB...

The camera you have may not be capable of capturing high enough quality to notice, but I assure you there is a huge amount of quality loss between an H.264 feed at a rate of a few MB a second vs one that is using a few MB per minute.  There is even a substantial difference between a 1080p 60fps video at 2 hours in 6GB vs a bluray disk (which would take about 50 or more using the same compression).  The thing is that most of that loss is covered up because it isn't the same from frame to frame, so you don't notice as much when it is playing.

If you know what to look for though, you will see artifacts all over the place in such a lossy compression.  Bluray formats (at 10 to 25 GB per hour on average are already too low for doing post production work on and then re-encoding due to the second generation loss described previously.

If you are ok with the quality level, then the simple answer is to simply re-encode as H.264.  Use any decent trans-coding application.  If you are reasonably technical, you can try FFMPEG for free or you can buy a software package that will be more user friendly.  To get maximum quality for the data rate you select, always choose two pass variable bit rate (2-pass VBR).  This will generate the fewest artifacts and make the best use of the data rate you select, just be aware that you are in fact losing a lot shrinking it so severely.

Do make sure that if you want to do any editing with your videos, you do it before shrinking them as they are already pretty close to as small as you can reliably work with for video editing purposes without significant second generation loss (or third as the case would be).

Thanks AJ. I think I need to explain my needs better. I am not into video editing or video manipulating. I just got a v720 from a friend and I want to shoot some family videos and store them in my DropBox with fair quality (1080p). Basic home needs. the in-camera sw does crappy work and since most of my technical knowledge is gathered through SExchange I came here to look for a decoder. So you say FFMpeg suits my needs. Thanks.

Here is an explicit question :-) : Those fine MKVs at Bittorent, What are the most popular decoders they are created with? Thanks.

@rails - minor technical note, videos are compressed with encoders and viewed with decoders.  FFMPEG is the most popular free compression tool and is probably the most likely choice for most torrents.  Adobe Media Encoder is also very popular, but it isn't free, though that might not stop someone who is making torrents from using it.

For YouTube you should use H.264 video format (aka AVC) in MP4 container. Full YouTube specifications you can find here
p.s. there a lot of various video converters that can do the trick

Can you elaborate please. Do I need to convert to a *.avc file? to avi? mp4? Thanks.


text:
Using gopro hero 3 white/black with 3d- anything to watch out for?
I am looking at buying a pair of black edition go pros and a 3d kit (mount with sync cable)
I read elsewhere online about some issues with earlier models with the firmware etc.
Does anyone know if these issues have been addressed?
I'd like to hear if you have used the new hero 3 black edition models and any issues you may have had shooting 3d

Ensure that you purchase the 3D kit for the current generation of GoPro Black Edition.  There was a 3D kit for the older GoPro HD (and they have a terrible set of similar names for all their products).  I take it you are thinking of the Hero3 Black, Hero3 Silver or Hero3 White and not the Hero3+ Black or Silver?  These are different products and it looks like the (more recent) Dual Hero System is designed for the Hero3+ products and not the Hero3 ones.  You should be careful not to purchase the older 3D Hero System, which works with the HD HERO2 & the Original HD HERO, but not the newer cameras.
I have only read reviews on using the older 3D system.  They mostly concluded that the 3D software was good and produced reasonable results in a reliable way.  It was observed that the cameras seem to start with a small offset (1 frame I think) and the reviewer summarised that the software might be designed to deal with this difference.  If you choose not to use the bundled software, you might want to check the timing of the two video sources carefully as you might need to take steps to synch them.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How does one recover a multiplexed video stream with missing headers?
I have some video files which were stored with the format headers in separate files.  Unfortunately, the disk crashed, and the header information has been lost.  I still have large chunks of stream data though.  Before I start writing brute-force code to figure out the parameters, are there any tools available for recovering this sort of thing?
update:  Further research and analysis indicates that this is multiple video streams multiplexed into a single file, with codec data hard-coded into the recording software.  As such, repair is likely impossible.  Software capable of scrounging such a file and extracting likely video frames might have some success, but I do not find any such software available. If anyone knows of any I would be happy to test it out and review it.  If this moves the question beyond the scope of this site, feel free to close it.

Try to extract header from other file (e.g. create a new one with that recording software) and prepend it to your stream.
On Windows you can use that command to concatenate files:
copy /b header.hdr + stream.mov outputFile.mov

The problem in this case was that the recording software doesn't store the headers as part of the files. Parameters are hard-coded into the software.

Is it possible to reinstall that recording software? A few months has passed since the question was asked - have you found a solution?

Alas, it doesn't seem like there's going to be a solution.  The recording software in question is incapable of reading past the damaged bits in the files, and further study indicates that it may be multiplexing multiple video streams into a single file, which makes attempts to repair it pretty well futile. I'm afraid it's beyond my ability to recover, and I haven't found any software designed to extract video frames from such files.

There are no such tools to my knowledge. You will probably have to make these headers yourself. Usually you don't have all that much parameters to set in a format header. If all the streams have the same origin you will be able to use the same header for all streams.
Just look into the format specification and edit a sample header in a way it could fit your stream data.

Alas, that is the conclusion I was coming to myself.  Unfortunately, little details like what format the video is in are considered proprietary by the company that wrote the recording software.  Hence why I was looking for something capable of doing its own analysis.

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


text:
How to make a 3D animated video from video games as realistic as possible?
I am thinking about using The Sims game or any of the similar kind to capture video and then I would use the recording to add my own audio input. My friend and I are trying to make a kind of comedy show that would be using animated video sequence, which I would like to look as visually realistic as possible - in particular clothes and skin textures would be most important.
Creating and recording video from a game engine isn't a problem. Problem is the editing / processing of the recorded video.

@AJHenderson - That's right, but the part of using game engine to produce animation is not a problem. Problem would be video editing / processing to make the scenes appear more realistic. Is this kind of editing possible with a tool that would be mostly automated ? That was still part of the question that you have edited out by the way :)

use a better game engine is pretty much the only option, you could do things like increase the contrast to make it stronger darks and lights which would slightly improve the look of sims footage, but wouldn't do much.  The lighting and textures just aren't good enough, nor are the models smooth enough.

Also, feel free to edit the question again, I was trying to clarify the question, but if I missed something, feel free to edit it back in, though the answer may well be it isn't possible since I was refactoring the question with what could be done in mind, but it's still worth getting that in an answer if it is something you want to know.

I'd also like to comment that using footage from a videogame might lead to copyright issues. Some game companies allow their games to be used for videos like yours, but others don't.

@BrettFromLA - Thank you for letting me know about this, I never thought about it. However, it would most likely end up for personal entertainment purpose anyway. And since that's how games are used too, I don't think it is a problem.

@JamesC You're completely right! I was picturing that you'd put it on YouTube or something. And videos there get taken down or aren't allowed to make money if they include others' visuals & audio.

@JamesC - technically, they COULD still go after you for violating their copyright, but it would be a very hard case to make.  An argument could be made that the entire thing, even released on Youtube is fair use, but it hasn't been determined in a court yet as far as I know, so it's murky.  In general, personal use vs commercial use doesn't make a difference in copyright in many jurisdictions though, just in how much the damages are.  (Though if they don't know about it, they can't go after you for it either since it would be up to the content owner to pursue it.)

What you are talking about doing is an example of an art form known as Machinama.  It is where you use a video game engine to play out the actions of a script and voice over it to produce content.  One widely successful such project is Red vs Blue which is based around the game engines used in Halo.  There are also quite a few different examples of machinama based around the World of Warcraft engine.
For your particular objectives, you would want something that makes it easy to setup camera positions and position actors.  Gary's Mod, while a bit dated, is one option for such a sand box.  There is also the slightly more advanced Source Filmmaker which is based on the same engine (Source) which is what Half Life 2 was based on.  It's a bit dated by today's standards, but both are pretty easy to use and might make a good introduction.
Once you get comfortable with those, it would just be a matter of moving to a more up to date game engine that features realistic motion and rendering.  Crytek's engines are pretty well respected for their flexibility and I believe they have pretty good support for things like custom camera positions.
If these turn out to be too complicated, using something with multiplayer and an observer mode can work as a camera as long as you can remove the UI.
Video editing itself is unfortunately a crap in/crap out kind of process.  You can't magically enhance the footage you get from the game and make it look more realistic.  You can do color grading (adjusting white balance, contrast, color balance, etc) to try and make more realistic tones, but if the textures and lighting and motion are inherently unrealistic, you aren't going to make them look significantly more realistic after the fact in post.

Thank you for your answer. About the color grading procedure that you have mentioned. Can you give me a little push on how you would go after doing it ? What software and what functions ? I would like to give it a try.

@JamesC - you should be able to do it with whatever editing or color grading software you prefer.  Personally, I'd probably attempt it in After Effects, but it could be done in an NLE (video editing software) just as easily if you don't have After Effects.  If you have a curves tool, that's a good place to start for trying to tweak it to a more lifelike contrast.

For a beginner the Source Filmmaker is an excellent option. While the Source engine might be old, it got updated over the years and todays Source engine has huge improvements over the one introduced with Half-Life 2.
You also have great flexibility with this tool and an easy to use interface.
The Cryengines Editor offers great felxibility and amazing graphics thanks to the CryEngine 3 but its very complicated compared to the Source Filmmaker.


text:
Orbits in After Effects
I'm new to After Effects and I might be asking about obvious stuff, but I searched this site and elsewhere and can't find an answer.
Basically I want to orbit some points in a setup similar to the Sun - Earth - Moon (Sun is static, Earth goes around the Sun, and the Moon goes around the Earth), and I need each moving point to have its position change over time so that I can parent other stuff to them.
I'm trying to animate this graphic:

I've got the epicycle (the small circle) to rotate around point T (Terre), while V (Venus) is rotating on the epicycle. I have a beam between T and the center of the epicycle (C), but I would also need to add a beam between C and Venus.
I can get Venus to rotate on the epicycle either by making it an ellipse on it's own layer and then parenting it to the epicycle; or I can add it as another ellipse on the same shape layer as the epicycle, making V rotate with the epicycle. But in both cases the position of Venus remains invariable, so the beam can't follow.
How do I make point V rotate on the epicycle such that its own position changes over time allowing me to add a beam between it and the center of the epicycle?
I'm confused by all the different Position parameters, if I create V as an ellipse on its own shape layer there'll be 3 different position parameters and none if them will change over time if V is parented to the epicycle. I've also tried alt-pick-whipping these 3 to the position of the epicycle with no luck.

Are all your elements based on shape layers or do you use masks aswell?
Specifically the epicycle, did you draw that or is it from the ellipse tool?

Hey, thanks for replying! All my elements are based on shape layers. However, I also tried making a solid (opacity 0) and then added a circular mask on it with the size of the epicycle (which is a shape layer). Then I parented this solid to the epicycle, so it would follow its position. Then I tried to copy the "mask path" keyframe from this solid to Venus - hoping that it would thus rotate according to the circular mask and also follow the epicycle that's rotating around T. But it doesn't work, everything goes nuts when I try this.

I'm sure I can help you with that, paths in After Effects can be a bit tedious sometimes.
Though the answer would take some time to write and its long past midnight here. I will write something up for you tomorrow if someone else hasn't already helped you.

Are you worried about the impact of the position in the orbit on the center of gravity of the objects going around the center?  If not, simple nested compositions could probably do it pretty easily.

Hi AJ, thanks for replying. I don't need to take into account the center of gravity, so I will try this. As I understand, you're suggesting that I create each movement in a separate composition? So I'll have one comp with Venus rotating on the epicycle, and then another comp with the epicycle rotating on its own orbit around T? Is that what you're recommending? Thanks!

Ok, it's relatively straightforward using some expressions. But then again isn't everything?
Assuming you've got your original rotating beam layer, your epicycle layer which is parented to the original beam, and your Venus layer parented to that. You need to find the co-ordinates of the center of the Venus layer, relative to the Composition, in order to draw a beam to it.
Well you could work it out trigonometrically I'm sure, but it's way too late and I've been into the Irish Single Malt, so I'm not going to go there. Luckily there's a handy expression that does the job: toComp(point). What it does is find the composition co-ordinates of a point on a layer.
First we apply a Point Control effect Effects>Expression Controls>Point Control to the Venus layer, we'll use the toComp expression to set its value. But before that, make sure the Anchor Point property of the Venus layer is showing – we'll need it in a second.
Now to apply an expression to the point control alt/opt-click the stopwatch on the Point property of that effect. In the expressions editor that opens up type toComp( and then drag the expression pick-whip to the Anchor Point property to fill in the value Transfrom.AnchorPoint. You can type it, but it's case sensitive and not at all forgiving of typos. Then close the brackets: ) it should now read toComp(transform.anchorPoint).

So now you have a point that tells you where exactly the Venus Layer's anchor point is in the comp. Using an expression you could plug this straight into the End Point property of the Beam effect, but I'm allergic to the beam effect, I prefer to use shape layers, because vectors.
So I make a new rectangular shape layer with the stroke I want, and no fill, and I set all the transforms to 0. The size of the rectangle path is going to be the length between the start of the original beam, and the value of the Point Control point, AKA the position of Venus. You can do this by getting the square root of the sum of the squares of the X and Y offsets, but that's a bit 6th century BC, instead we'll use the handy expression length(point1, point2). And we'll set the height to 0, so that it draws a line.
So on the rectangle shape layer, in the Contents>Rectangle 1>Rectangle Path 1 Property we'll use this expression:
origin=thisComp.layer("origin");
venus=thisComp.layer("venus")
beamlength=length(origin.transform.position, venus.effect("Point Control")("Point"));
[beamlength,0]

layer origin is the original beam. You could do it all on one line, but it would be hella ugly:
[length(thisComp.layer("origin").transform.position,thisComp.layer("venus").effect("Point Control")("Point")),0]

Beauty is truth.

Since by default the rectangle tool draws rectangles around a central point we need to offset it. In the Contents>Rectangle 1>Rectangle Path 1>Position Property (not the layer's position property, that should be the same as the original beam, or the shape's Contents>Rectangle 1>Transform: Rectangle 1>position property, that should be 0,0) we offset it by half the width, so that the rectangle's left edge is always at the origin, thus : content("Rectangle 1").content("Rectangle Path 1").size/2 (did you notice that we're dividing a vector by a scalar? 100 Nerd points to you if you did.)
Now we've got a beam that is the right length, but we need to rotate it. Thank you and good night Pythagoras, hello Mr Aryabhata. Since we know the rise and the run, we can find the angle using Atan(rise/run). But there's some problems: when the run is negative Atan will return a positive value, and whenever the run is 0 the expression will crash. And lastly Math.atan returns a result in Radians, so we need to convert it to degrees. So we have to turn a relatively simple expression into this monster, which goes on the Contents>Rectangle 1>Transform: Rectangle 1>Rotation Property:
s=thisComp.layer("venus").effect("Point Control")("Point");
o=thisComp.layer("origin").transform.position;
run=s[0]-o[0];
rise=s[1]-o[1];
if (run==0){
 if (rise>0) //pointing straight up
  {-90;}
 else //pointing straight down
  {90;}
} else{
 if (run>0){
    radiansToDegrees(Math.atan(rise/run));
  } else {
    180+radiansToDegrees(Math.atan(rise/run));
  }
}

this is how my beam layer looks:

and below is the whole comp. I've used shape layers for everything and driven them all by expressions as is my wont, if you want to have a look at it, it's here.

Stack Exchange suggest I shouldn't say thanks here, but I want to thank you very much for your thorough explanations and I hope you'll see my reply. I have already found a solution for my question thanks to the help of the other responders, but I have bookmarked your post and I will surely use it next time. Thank you very much once again for taking the time to this, I'm very impressed. You can take a look at what I've done here.

I would probably start from the smallest orbit and work my way out.  If you adjust the anchor point for each object that is rotating, a simple rotation keyframe should make it rotate around the center.
Once you have the smallest thing rotating, you include that composition in another composition and adjust the anchor point similarly to make it rotate around the center of the new composition.
If you need oblong orbits, you can also use a path instead and animate it along the path.
You can keep nesting them indefinitely for as many nestings as you need. It isn't a 100% accurate simulation since the actual orbital mechanics are a bit more complicated, but it gives a simple simulation of them and can easily support various periods for each part.

Thanks a lot AJ! I will try this tonite, I'm sure it will be helpful.

Thanks again AJ. I can use this trick to create a composition where the beam is static, and then rotate the composition; so I don't need to have the position of the ellipse Venus.

You probably want to work with Motion Paths here.
Though for those to work you need beziere based shapes and not parametric shapes like you have right now. The differences is that parametric shapes (coming from the shape tool (rectangle, ellipse etc.)) are defined by numeric parameters (the part with the first position value in your image). Bezier shapes have points with handles to define the shape, what you get when you draw with the pen tool.
You can use the shape tool to make bezier based shapes and I would recommend that you redo the few shapes you have and simply copy over the settings and keyframes from you existing shapes.
To make a bezier shape with the shape tool simply hold down the alt key while creating the shape.
Then simply click on the "Path" object in the "Path x" dropdown of your shape.

Then copy that with Ctrl+C and paste it onto the position of your Venus shape. Either the layers position (the one on the bottom of your screenshot) or the position of the shape itself (the middle one in your screenshot). That will create keyframes for the current outer path of your shape. Then parent the Venus shape to the epicycle shape and the Venus will rotate along the epicycle and move with it. If the Venus is a bit off you can offset the position with either the layer position or the shape position depending on which one you chose to paste the motion path on.
This will result in an animation like this:

I hope thats what you were after.
If you want to extend the length of the motion path animation just select all the keyframes and drag the last one with the alt key pressed.
To make a connection between Venus and the Epicycle center you have to work with an expression. The easiest way would be to create a null that you parent to Venus and then move the Nulls Anchor Point to the center of the Venus (work from the start frame of the animation to make your life easier). Then apply this expression to one end of the beam effect:
L = thisComp.layer("Null 1");
L.toWorld(L.anchorPoint)

"Null 1" being the name of you Null object. This expression gives you the actual global position of your null. If you just use the position value it wont move as these values aren't actually animated right now. We basically get what After Effects is doing in the background to the objects position when parenting an object to an animated layer.
Then simply parent the position of the other end of the beam effect to the position of Epicycle (given that the Epicycle has its Anchor Point centered).
Here is an After Effects example project to understand it more easily.
CS6: http://www1.zippyshare.com/v/84425880/file.html
CS5.5: http://www19.zippyshare.com/v/13633271/file.html

Hey, I really appreciate the detailed reply, thank you very much. I'll try this tonight and let you know!

Just ask if you have further questions.

Hello Proffesor FartSparkle! Thanks again for your reply, I used your instructions and you can indeed get a shape to rotate on a circle which is rotating on a circle this way. However, as I see now, there's no way to describe such a path for a shape while using a single position parameter (or how it's called). Our shape will rotate on the circle, and the circle will rotate on another circle, so it's total movement is described by two different layers. If you want to add a beam between the center of the epicycle and Venus, the starting or ending point will only follow one of the two movements.

You can see this illustrated here

If you look at the movement of the beams end on the left (the "crosshair" not the visual end of the beam) you see that its going along the epicycle shape but with an offset. I would try to just offset the keyframe animation until it matches the actual position of the epicycle.

Though to make it even easier, just parent that end to the position of the Venus and move the Anchor Point of Venus Shape layer to the center of the shape with the "Pan Behind" tool (right to the camera tool).

Ooh wait, I misunderstood the issue a bit. Let me update the answer with an example project. You have to use an expression here.

Hello Professor FartSparkle! Thank you very much, it would've been a lot harder without your help, hats off to you! I finished it, you can view it here: https://www.behance.net/gallery/17149469/After-Effects?share=1#=

That expression does the job indeed, but I didn't need it for the beam. The small beams, from C to Venus and from C to Mars are static, while the epicycles are moving, so it wasn't needed. However! I used your expression for the text "Venus" which is following the point Venus. Previously, I parented it to the point Venus and then I had to manually set keyframes so that the text stays upright. Your expression made this automatic, which is much more fluid and nice! Thank you very much again! Although it's weird that I could not do the same for the "Mars" text, but it's not a big problem.

You will probably have to alter the expression a bit for another object

Nice animation you made there!


text:
My converted videos look bad... what am I doing wrong?
I am a software developer. I understand the video concepts, but I am no expert.
I have a Sony Action Cam AS-15. It records ate 1080/60fps/25Kbitrate. The 60FPS videos just dont; play smooth maxemised on my pc, xbox, ps etc.
I am looking for the best way to drop some bitrate, but keep decent video quality.
I have tried numerous converters/settings, but I just cant get a decent quality video going... I can, for instance, in no way, get videos to look as good as the uploaded videos for the Action Cam, on the Sony action cam youtube channel, for instance. Not even to mention nearing in any way the gopro uploaded video quality.
Sony Youtube Video:

My Youtube Videos:

This Last upload was: 13 minutes, 1GB, 720p, 30fps, 9259kbps, MP4 (Windows Movie Maker), Gopro Black, Sony Action Cam, Fuji xp-100 cameras
The little AS-15 is not as good as the gopro, but the "professional" post videos uploaded to Sony's channel, look damn good. I am not talking about saturation, effects etc. I am talking purely about (pixelation/artefacts)
The original 1080/60 videos look pretty good, but I cant keep them looking good in a more usable format... I would like to keep 60fps, but just lower the bitrate.
I have tried:

Any Video Converter Software, convert to 30fps/24kbitrate
GoPro Studio (Best quality)
Keep high original bitrate, converted to 720p
.h264
.mp4
I don't really want to buy Vegas Pro, or Adobe premier, as this is a small hobby.

I see decent quality movie (feature films) encodes, running at 1080p, with only 2K bit-rate...? Which makes for a decent file size of 1.5gb/90 minutes. My encodes are 1GB for 15 minutes, and look just terrible.
What am I missing?
P.S. I know from research, and observation, that the Sony AS-15 totally messes up with video compression. There are quite a lot of artefacts on very detailed scenes... Can this be the problem, that the source just isn't good enough to convert / work with?
If this is the case, are there any software to keep the original file bit-rate and FPS, but just scale down to 720p, in order to keep the initial quality as it was recorded, but make it a bit more usable..

let us continue this discussion in chat

Thanks for details but still...
After a good grading, I still see a loss of global quality after uploading to Youtube. I think it's their compression method that needs some precise curves, colors and constrastm maybe some surface denoising, suiting their need.
Inside Youtube Studio, they have tools to enhance ("fill light", contrast, stabilization), but I never tried.

https://www.wikihow.com/Enhance-Video-Quality-on-YouTube Google tells us this:

Video codec: H.264 - Progressive scan (no interlacing) - High Profile - 2 consecutive B frames - Closed GOP. GOP of half the frame rate.

Taking a closer look at the footage now that I'm at home, it's mostly the level of activity and motion in the shots.  Even in the Sony video, the quality absolutely falls apart any time that there is high motion and unstable video.
The way video compression works, it depends on predictable and smooth motion to achieve good compression results, especially for on the fly recording like a camera has to do since it can't look forward in time and see how things are going to move any further than it can buffer, which is generally not going to be very far (probably sub-second).
There are two places you could get quality loss.  The first is in the recording itself.  If you aren't recording at sufficient data rates, then if there is too much motion, fine detail is going to get lost.  Uncompressed video is absolutely massive and even most video cameras record with moderate to heavy compression already applied.  If your source footage lacks detail (and isn't out of focus) then you need to work on stabilizing the camera to ensure it can better compress the video.  There are a number of different ways you can shock mount a camera to help provide some stabilization, though they also generally add weight.
If the source footage is ok, then the problem lies in the final compression for web/end-user consumption.  The fundamental problem is still the same, but we now have the option of using digital video stabilization to help make movement less random.  We also can use VBR 2-pass compression since we can now look ahead and see how thing move in the future as well as the past, which allows for far more accurate compression and more efficient use of bandwidth.
Additionally, some of the footage could use color grading to enhance the contrast.  Ideally footage should make full range of luminosity (brightness).  Your blacks should be dark black, but without obscuring detail in the shadows.  Your whites should be bright, but without fine detail bleeding in to pure white.  You can start with a white point and black point, but really, using something like curves is the best way to tweak the video to make the most use of the available range of luminosity.  This can also be quickly, but sloppily accomplished by increasing the contrast, but results often look far more artificial that way.  Color grading is best learned by doing it and it can vary throughout a clip.  It takes time and practice to get good at it.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I am happy with the source video, and am looking at the best way to get that into a more usable format, looking good, at 60fps. I did a encode using handbrake last night, and it came out pretty good...at 1080/59fps/9889kbps,h.264. From 263MB -> 105MB (original was 25k kbps)

@LouisvanTonder - cool, glad it came out better.  I would recommend using software stabilization as well as it will give the encoder a far easier time with your video if it is at all shaky.

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


text:
Tracked Text Title renders "strange"
I am tracking a text object and sticking it to a certain point in my clip. This all work as expected, and looks good inside the fusion tab.
But... when I view this in the "edit" tab... the text becomes "blurred" when the clip plays. Almost like motion blur. All techniques and settings are used to get a basic text track working. Nothing else was fiddled with.
I have also tried to render out this section to file, and the blurred text renders to output file, yet is perfectly fine inside fusion.
Any ideas?
Resolve 16.2.5
EDIT TAB

FUSION TAB

FUSION PAGE

The comb-like pattern on the text makes me suspect an interlacing issue.  There's a mismatch somewhere in the image pipeline regarding whether Resolve/Fusion is expecting interlaced or progressive footage, and whether or not it's actually getting interlaced or progressive footage.  It's hard to diagnose without knowing your settings, but look for options related to "fields" and make sure you haven't changed any from their defaults.  If your footage actually IS interlaced (unlikely if it's from a camera built in the last 15-ish years), then you would need to change these settings from their defaults.
Assuming progressive footage, in the Resolve Project settings, make sure that under "Master Settings,"  the "Enable video field Processing" box is unchecked.  In all Fusion Nodes, in each "Image" tab, make sure "Process Mode" is set to "Full Frames."
Another possibility is that the viewer is showing you an inaccurate preview.  On the Edit page, the viewer takes certain shortcuts to speed playback.  Exactly what Resolve does isn't documented, but it's likely to affect scaling, which might cause display artifacts.  For a more accurate (but slower) preview, you can disable "Performance Mode" under the "User" tab of the System settings, in the "Playback Settings" category.  If your rendered output doesn't display the same artefacts as the edit page, this is likely the culprit.  Setting the viewer scale to 100% would also show an un-scaled image.  Alternatively, viewing the image on the Color page will prioritize image quality over playback speed.

Thanks for the comment. The clip is HDR 30fps from a DJI Osmo Action cam, so it may very well be interlaced... It definitely looked interlaced to me, splitting between frames.. but as to why the fusion page would render it correctly, but the edit page AND output render shows it, baffles me. I have moved on for now, so cant really test further solutions. I need to try this text tracking again in other projects and will pick up from there if it happens again. Thanks for your input.

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


text:
Can video frame size be increased?
I have two videos that need to fit these specs:
"The minimum frame size is 1280w X 720h pixels (either progressive or interlaced is acceptable)."
Video A is: 480 × 640 [.mov]
&
Video B is: 476 × 360 [.mp4]
Is this possible? & If so what program do I need to do it? Can this be done in Handbrake? (I use an iMac but have access to a PC at work)
full specs required:
RECOMMENDED QUALITY:
We recommend uploading HD quality video so it is easy for us to review. The preferred bit rate for your videos is 3000-5000kbps at a frame rate of 24 or 30 frames per second depending on how the material was shot. The minimum frame size is 1280w X 720h pixels (either progressive or interlaced is acceptable).
WHAT ENCODING MODE SHOULD I USE WHEN I SAVE AND UPLOAD MY VIDEOS?
We recommend you use the Best/Multi-pass/2-pass encoding mode optimized for "download."
RECOMMENDED FILE SIZE:
Both videos should be under 3GB in size.
RECOMMENDED AUDIO FORMAT:
We would recommend encoding audio in the AAC format with a bit rate of between 128-256kbps. Alternatively, you can use 256kbps Video A and 96kbps for Video B.
-
FURTHER INFORMATION: [Mistakenly first added in a reply rather than an edit]
These videos are for a tv show idea submission.
'video B' is my example of previous work so i cant just recreate it. it was originally shot on tape & i only have is this digital version. i was hoping to find a way to work with it.
'video A' is the show pitch & was shot recently w/an ipad & can be reshot. In the comments, AJ pointed out how it is 'portrait orientation' -oops.
Also to AJ's point, it does say 'RECOMMENDED QUALITY' but it also says 'minimum frame size' & I read 'minimum' as a requirement vs a recommendation. It should be ok to submit 'Video B' w/out being HD, but i dont think i can submit it with less than the minimum frame size.
If the frame size cant be increased, is it possible to add some black filler to the sides somehow to force 'Video B' to fit the specs like you can with a jpeg in photoshop?
Also, I will have access to Sony Vegas Pro next week, can I use that?

What is this for?  They mention that it is recommended quality rather than required.  Note that the first video is portrait orientation which is generally considered very bad.

Thanks AJ - Its for a tv show idea submission. they want examples of previous work. thats what 'video B' is & so i cant just recreate it. it was shot on tape which is long lost & all i have is this digital version. i was hoping to find a way to work with it. 'video A' is the show pitch shot recently w/an ipad. 'portrait orientation'? thank you!! - we can reshoot that.  RE: 'recommended quality rather than required' so should be ok to submit w/out being HD but the 'minimum frame size' is a requirement not a 'recommendation'

Regarding black filler, you are looking for padding. ffmpeg can do this quickly. See https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/17698/add-black-background-to-a-vertical-video/17699#17699

There are a few problems here that need to be addressed.
First, the pitch shot is vertically oriented or "portrait" (vs landscape).  This is considered very, very bad practice.  This is a huge and constant amateur mistake because many amateurs now shoot video with their tablets and smartphones and hold the device the way they normally do, vertically, but this doesn't match up with the target format, which is generally either TV or even web video, which is generally displayed horizontally to make the most use of the space.
You should always shoot your video "landscape" or horizontal, just like you would see it on a TV so that it makes full use of the screen when being played back.  This orientation stems from the fact that we have a wider field of vision than we have tall, so a wide angle shot fill more of field of view and is more immersive.  A vertical or portrait shot does the opposite and doesn't fill well on a TV and barely scratches our field of view making it feel much less immersive.
The second major issue is that of video quality.  You can technically increase the number of pixels stored in the video by a process called upsampling or upscaling, but that doesn't increase the quality of your video (in fact, it generally decreases it further).  The easiest way to think about it is think about if you had 4 pixel image that had black square a white square and then on the next line a white square and a black square.
XO
OX

You can increase the number of pixels by duplicating what is there, but it doesn't invent more resolution (actual meaningful detail).  Say we scale it up to 9 by 9, you end up with this.
XXXXYOOOO
XXXXYOOOO
XXXXYOOOO
XXXXYOOOO
YYYYYYYYY
OOOOYXXXX
OOOOYXXXX
OOOOYXXXX
OOOOYXXXX

Note that there isn't any more detail than there was before, and we actually lost some detail because the new image had to invent pixels to fill where there are Ys because the original didn't evenly break up in to the new size, so it had to average the pixels that should have been there and made new grey Y pixels.  This means the image is now even less clear than it was before, when we had sharply defined squares because now we have fuzzy ones.
You could technically upscale to an exact multiple of your original to avoid interpolating, such as scaling up to 1428 by 1080 which will make the format meet the file format requirement technically, but it still won't meet it in spirit because the image will still be a 360p image (substantially lower than SD), rather than the requested 720P HD image requested.  Additionally, it would still be another encoding and thus another generation of compression loss to re-encode to the upscaled video, which would further sacrifice quality on your already abysmally low resolution video.
Third issue, though this one less major is that your aspect ratio is wrong.  This isn't necessarily a problem, but the formats they are recommending are widescreen formats.  Your current file is 4:3 rather than 16:9.  This may or may not be a problem for them.  Normally, if you have sufficient resolution and shot planning to do 16:9 it's pretty easy to crop down the video to a 16:9 form factor, but if you made full use of the vertical space in a way that you can't crop the top and/or bottom, then you are pretty much stuck at 4:3.  You also don't have enough resolution to start with to be able to sacrifice anything, which makes this a bigger concern.
Overall, my recommendation would be to re-shoot the pitch/interview portion using high resolution and proper orientation and aspect ratio.  For the existing video sample that you can't reshoot.  Submit it as is and hope for the best.  You can't meaningfully enhance it in a way that they are not going to see right through and probably dock you for trying to sneak around it.  Just explain the situation and why a higher quality version isn't available.  Either they'll go for it or they won't.  Nothing you artificially do is going to change that.


text:
How can I combine whiteboard animation, stop motion and live video without massive import/export and adjustments?
I have watched videos from AsapSCIENCE. These videos combine stop motion, whiteboard board animation (drawing effects) and real life scenes.
I found a whiteboard animation software, VideoScribe, that lets me achieve drawing like effects without any drawing knowledge, however it does not let me add any video or edit the video track.
Suppose I

draw a man -> drag him -> walking animation -> draw a girl -> drag and
  animate again -> draw a dog jumping towards them -> erase dog -> drag
  both to come close -> draw rain -> raining -> draw umbrella -> ...

I'll prefer to use videoscribe for drawing effect and flash for rest. But I need to adjust frames everytime. And if I later on realize that dog should look more cute. I would have to rework since It may again require adjusting scenes, platform and position of other elements.
I was wondering if Flash has some actionscript which can put sketch/drawing/painting effect to a SVG image then we at least combine video scribing with Flash only. It'll save a lot of time in importing/exporting and editing. Especially when we commit a mistake in past work.
Is there any software or Action Script to achieve this without needing advanced knowledge?
Any end-to-end tutorial which can teach me how to make videos like this may also help me.

Perfect software for this need should have VideoScribe + Flash + Screen Doodling + Video clipiper & Joiner

That update hasn't much to do with you initial question. Please stick to a specific question and don't make your question too broad.

After Effects is probably the easiest all inclusive solution that could handle everything they do in those videos, but they are doing multiple things and there isn't really a good way to give a tutorial for all of them.
You would need to shoot the video on a green screen so that it can be extracted and layered in.  You can then animate the layer than those green screened clips and animate them with keyframe animation to make them move as needed on top of the white board.
The whiteboard itself can also be made using Write On effects or path animation.
Similar things can also be done with other decent NLEs like Premiere, Final Cut Pro, Vegas, Media Composer or Lightworks, but path animation and motion graphics (which this is a class of) are most easily done in After Effects.
After Effects is to video what Flash is to Internet games and basic scripted animation.  It is primarily done without programing and through more traditional vector animation workflows.  It is probably the closest to what you are looking for if you like the behavior of flash but want it to support more video stuff and require less scripting.

VideoScriber raised my expectation bar. However even I believe nothing can beat manual shooting. But changes in digital media is easier than actual non-digital work. I'll surely try and see capabilities of After effects. Thanks.

After googling some tutorials of after effects I think it may fulfill my need. However I would have to learn its basic and video editing.

@articlestack - yeah, it doesn't require programing, but it isn't completely trivial either.  That's kind of a necessary part though since you are wanting to do something that is by nature non-trivial.

Well in that case you would export the video from VideoScribe and then edit it together with your other video material in an video editing program (also referred to as NLE).
Quite straight forward process, how you do this step by step depends on the video editing software you want to use.
There is the free Lightworks and commercial solutions like Adobe Premiere, Sony Vegas or Apple Final Cut and Apple iMovie.
I'd suggest you look into a solution that looks like it appeals to you and then watch a tutorial on the basics of that program.

Well!! it needs a lot of imagination and a lot of import/export and editing work. And if something goes wrong I would have to repeat all everytime.

@articlestack - huh? why would you have to repeat stuff every time if something went wrong?

updated my question and added an example in last.

If you do everything in After Effects, you just bulk select the keyframes and drag them up or down the timeline as needed.  You might have to fine tune any tweens that were in progress at the time you adjusted, but you shouldn't have to completely re-do anything if you are using a proper workflow.  That's a large portion of the point to keyframe animation.


text:
How can I add animated text to a video programmatically (from a script) for use as quality video introductions?
I have an educational video product. We currently have over 2000, available in different sizes, so roughly 6000 and counting.
The video introductions (title, description, instructors) were made by hand in video editors but this proves time-consuming and error-prone.
I want to be able to create interesting text animations suitable for video introductions programmatically. All of the data (text) I need is in a local database.
I looked into this problem 2 years ago and solved it by using ffmpeg, and the ASS subtitle system filter. This got the job done, but the animations were limited to simple movement and fades and the process is quite clunky.
Recently looking at iMovie's "title" animations I felt inspired by the quality, and wanted our introductions to be much better. I'm not sure it's worth the effort to re-do them all by hand in something like a manual video editor.
So what techniques are out there that I might consider?

After effects is scriptable and can be used programmatically to create pretty much any video effect. The learning curve is fairly steep for doing this, you'd probably be better off hiring an AE scripter.

I'm a software engineer, so I'm pretty comfortable around programming and scripting. Does that count?

If you're happy working with javascript then the documentation for scripting AE is here: http://adobe.ly/2cwcEoh yes, it says CS6, they haven't updated the documentation. If you want to build a GUI for it the docs for the UI API is here: http://adobe.ly/2cwbFVn More info at http://adobe.ly/2cwdaCJ

One caveat is that you need to understand how AE works before you can automate it.

If you has access to Adobe After Effects and Premier, you can create templates in After Effects with the Live Text tool and easily modify them inside Premier. More about this topic on the following link:
https://helpx.adobe.com/premiere-pro/how-to/animated-text-titles-live-text.html

Get TypeMonkey for AfterEffects. Other than templates, it's the easiest way to generate text animations from scratch.
http://aescripts.com/typemonkey/

I'll look into this, but I'm not interested in making the animations from scratch. I just want to be able to overlay/add text animation to a video from the command line. I'd prefer to choose from a (large) number of possible pre-made animations effects.


text:
How should I light two people teaching a dance video tutorial?
I want to film dance instructors teaching about 10 - 20 feet from my camera.
Since I am an amateur I have no idea how to light this. I would try to make sure the room has plenty of light from "standard" sources (ie, ones tha that come with the building). But I imagine I need some lights in front of the dancers too, ideally on the cheap side and portable.
From my research it seems that perhaps LED light panels may be a good option? I don't know how many to use, or if they should be in the front or at diagonals.
I don't know if I need some kind of hair light, or how to acheive that if I do. I don't know if I should light the background behind the dancers.
Thanks for any suggestions, and if this is a common problem / technique perhaps you can tell me what the "name" of it is and point me to any reading/viewing material?
Below are some common rooms and setups where dance might be taught (these are not me by the way. I'm just trying to understand how lighting might be set up in these contexts.
Thanks

I've been in similar situations/venues in the past. It reads to me like you have little to no budget and no crew to speak of, since you are asking the question yourself which suggests that you are going to do the lighting yourself.
So, unless you have the budget to rent a proper yet smallish dance venue with already set up ceiling lights, with enough money left over to hire the services of a professional lighting technician to make those ceiling lights work for you on the day or of the shoot, I would suggest you don't really bother with getting lots of unwieldy lights, as (1) you're going to need a lot of them (or powerful ones) to do it properly/evenly, (2) you're going to be working in dance studios with probably low ceilings (not good for good lighting), and (3) you'll have little man-power to adjust the lights as you shoot, set up the gear, etc. (try not to over-extend yourself).
Still, here's what you should consider:

Make sure you get a space that's already well lit by nice-looking natural light. The light in your screen grabs looks fine to me, although I would draw the curtains seen in the background of the middle venue (too distracting because bright/overblown).
Start your shoot early to get as much natural light as possible over a long period.
Restrict the space that your dancers can cover: you're not going to bring huge lights but smallish ones, like three or four 650s. Whatever you bring (no kinos 'cause they're no good for large spaces), your lights won't probably be quite powerful enough to give your the output you need to light the dance space evenly (with bounce/diffusion, etc). So, again, restrict the space your dancers can cover to help you light a smaller area of the stage/space as evenly as you can ("evenly" doesn't mean flat).
Since you're not going to be able to bring a lot of lights nor be able to raise them high-enough to get a proper look, concentrate mainly on increasing the overall brightness levels of the room by bouncing light of off the ceiling/upper corners. Venue One, as seen in your screen grabs, looks good to me, thanks to its white ceiling. Avoid the space with yellow walls as your subjects will look like they have a jaundis!
If you still have time and energy to spare, give your subject some back rim light by blasting them from 3/4 back, either from one side of the stage or two sides. Use light or heavy diffusion, etc. to control it as you wish.
Make sure to keep your subjects far enough from these light sources (which blast them directly) to avoid their getting super hot as they get closer to the lights as they dance around.
Keep an eye on your lighting scheme color temp if you're mixing light sources (natural and artificial, etc): play with CTOs or CTBs until you get a proper look.
More importantly, AUDIO! I would actually make sure that your subjects are properly miked and recorded: bad audio will make your video(s) really feel amateurish. You can get away with quite a bit when it comes to lighting, not so much with bad audio.
So, hire the services of a good production audio person, or do it yourself by putting lavs on your two subjects and getting good levels throughout.
Note: dance studios with lots of heavy curtains covering the walls sound better: less audio reverb/bounce! Box-like rooms will sound like shit.
Also, I suggest putting tape over the soles of your dancers' shoes (or whatever you can do) to muffle their tap-tap sounds as much as possible.
Clothing: your subjects' outfits work well generally. Avoid white ('cause it's white!), and avoid black tops (if the background in black, of course).

Good luck.

Learn a bit about Lighting and Light: http://lowel.tiffen.com/edu/color_temperature_and_rendering_demystified.html
To get some ideas try searching YouTube for "Dance Scenes" unfortunately a lot of Tango comes up but the lighting is 'Movie Quality'.
Look where the shadows are, and the color.
The first photo was probably lit by room lighting and overhead lights, possibly on poles.
The second photo was probably lit by the windows, room lighting and some lights on the floor.
The third photo was probably lit by room lighting alone, if there's more light it's weak.
Cheap and portable lights are available at the Hardware Store. Ugly yellow or orange Work Lights for less than U$20 each. Buy a few different wattages and a couple of each.
The Color Rendering Index (CRI) of Halogen Lights is 100, LEDs are less than a 100; except for the price which starts at U$1K for bottom end.
LEDs will save electricity and won't be as hot in a tiny windowless room. Whichever lights big ones in the far corners out of the way and if you're feeling energetic hang a tiny left or right overhead of the Camera (opposite the side where you stand so it doesn't fall).
You can light the background, even in color, if the room is wide enough; or you want to hang even more lights, or lug poles around.
YouTube or other Video oriented Website is likely to be a source of ideas. I wouldn't worry about it too much if low cost is your aim - just light the Dancers evenly and let their dancing light up the room.
Sometimes less is more, especially on a Budget - were you planning on renting a fancy Hotel Room (or do you have a friend with a great view for a background). Do it in the Park, with Sunlight.
Did I miss a question, that seems to be all of them.


text:
How can I fix a resolution discrepancy between nested sequences?
I am very new to Premiere (CSD 5) and have put myself in a bit of a bind. I have four clips of footage I edited into one multicam clip. The clips are 720p; however, the sequence where I synced them up was 480p. I didn't notice this and so I nested that sequence inside another sequence so I could do the multicam editing.
The footage shows at the correct resolution in the multi-camera monitor, interestingly enough, but it's masked by black bars everywhere else (including when I try to export). Is there any way I can fix this without having to re-edit my entire 25 minute clip? Perhaps I could somehow make it so that all the references to the bad sequence are replaced with references to the same timestamp in a good sequence?

It's a bit hacky, but I found a solution that did the trick. I opened my .prproj file with a text editor and made these find-replace all changes:
<MZ.Sequence.PreviewFrameSizeHeight>480
changed to
<MZ.Sequence.PreviewFrameSizeHeight>720

<MZ.Sequence.PreviewFrameSizeWidth>720
changed to
<MZ.Sequence.PreviewFrameSizeWidth>1280

<FrameRect>0,0,720,480</FrameRect>
changed to
<FrameRect>0,0,1280,720</FrameRect>

If anyone else has this problem and is desperate for a fix, this should do it, although I recommend making a backup first.

Welcome to Video Production.  Glad you got it worked out and thanks for posting how you got it.


text:
What software to use for lighting and rendering 3d animation shorts?
I am new to 3d animation. I have always wanted to make 3d animation shorts (cartoons) and have now made the plunge. Over the past few months I have learnt to model, rig and animate characters (Maya/zbrush). I want to take it a step further and learn lighting and rendering. After doing research for the past week, I have realised I have no choice but to ask here as several forum posts just mention that big studios use their own proprietary pipelines and softwares, while many indie-animators use all kinds of softwares from NUKE to after effects, V-ray to mental-ray. The thing is that people are using such software for all kind of VFX (like NUKE for live-action and v-ray for photo-realism). Can someone please guide me on the following questions:
For 3d/CGI animation shorts, what it the right lighting and rendering software to learn?
Do you recommend any tutorials out there that I can look at for those specific softwares? I do not want to be looking at a 10 hours video tutorial series on v-ray if they are teaching interior design lighting examples instead of how to light up a cartoon cgi animation. So unfortunately google has been unable to help me find specific tutorials on this.
I do not want to compromise on the quality so difficulty level and price of the software doesnt matter (not yet anyways).

Why don't you use Maya to light and render?

@JasonConrad Maya does a lot of things. If only I knew of all the things it does. As someone who's just starting out, I needed someone to show me the way.

There seem to be a few basic misconceptions here.  For cartoons you don't need anything fancy as long as cell-shading is supported, which is typically a camera filter.
Lighting is actually done in your 3d animation software.  The job of a render engine like Mental Ray or V-ray is simply to process the scene you build to generate the final image, but it takes the geometry, light sources, materials, and cameras that you have defined in your animation software.
I'm personally a big fan of Mental Ray in general, but that's just because of the fact it is included with my 3d animation package of choice (SoftImage).  I thought it was included in most editions of Maya as well, but it might not still be.  I don't remember which render engines are included with Maya, but they should be more than sufficient for your purposes.  For cartoon rendering, you really don't need a hyper-accurate ray tracing engine that can do good physical simulation (which is the point of most of the third party render engines).
Lighting and rendering is also a complex and broad topic that can't really be covered in a couple of simple tutorials.  The basics are very similar to building your model, you just choose the types of lights you want and place them throughout the scene and then place one or more cameras to allow you to render viewpoints.  Lights and cameras can also be animated, just like your characters and scene.
Do your lighting in Maya and try rendering it out in Maya.  If you run in to any specific issues while working on trying to get the look you are going for, you can always post a screen shot here with a specific question and we should be able to offer more directed feedback about how to accomplish what you are trying to do.


text:
Convert video to 10 bit images
I have a video with these info:
Format : MKV
Codec : HEVC (h.265)
Bit depth : 10 bits

How can I get 10-bit frame grabs from it using ffmpeg?

Which format..?

@Mulvya - He mentioned it's HEVC (ie, h.265)  I've not particularly worked with h.265 yet, but is more information needed about the h.265 settings to get a frame dump?

I'm not asking about the input codec, but which output image formats are acceptable? Not all have 10-bit support. And OP's workflow may not support some which do.

Thanks for all of your responses. The format of output image should be TIFF.

To preserve as much detail as possible, convert it to a 16-bit TIFF, eg:
ffmpeg -i "DF HDR Sampler.mp4" -pix_fmt rgb48 _Frames/out%05d.tiff
Example from Digital Foundry's GT Sport HEVC 10-bit H.265 video at https://www.digitalfoundry.net/2017-10-17-free-download-gran-turismo-sport-hdr-sampler
Before (16-bit TIFF framedump, untouched, to 8-bit ProPhoto RGB)

After (16-bit TIFF framedump, HDR to SDR in Photoshop(eg. Curves and Vibrance adjustments), 8-bit ProPhoto RGB)

I tried this, but it seems that it creates washed out colors for certain codecs.  Even though the output png file is indeed 16 bpc, the colors do not seem to align with the original video.  See my question here: https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/27991/export-frames-of-10-bpc-video-file-with-ffmpeg


text:
Unintended change in AdWords Flash to HTML5 conversion
my company wants to run some advertisements on Google AdWords. We made some animated Flash ads, however AdWords automatically converts the ads from Flash to HTML5 with some unintended changes. See below the difference between the two. It seems that when moving an image it's a lower quality than when it's finished moving.
Flash:

HTML5: (pay attention to when the images stop moving)

Anyone have an idea how to prevent that from happening? Made the individual vector images in Illustrator and imported them in Flash to make the animation. Only used a simple motion tween to move the image inside the screen.

I'm not sure that this qualifies as Video Production.  They may be animated ads, but it really doesn't seem like it is video.  I'll hold off on closing until the community has a chance to voice if they think it is video or not though.

I have created a question on Meta to discuss if this kind of question is on topic.

Asked it here since I was working with a timeline similar to other video software. The Anti Aliasing mentioned by FartSparkle is definitely something I'l take a look at.

yeah, it's really borderline territory.  I know Flash, but have always characterized it as a more programmatic scripting and animation package.  It's a very odd product in terms of where it fits between animation and game/software development.  It's roots are very much in simplifying the use of animation in programs, but it made major efforts to expand in to doing animations and video playback since they did such a good job with the vector animation parts.  So far nobody has spoken up either way though, so I'll leave it unless some kind of consensus emerges.

I would recommend to export as HTML5 from Flash directly instead of relying on Googles conversion.
This has to do with how the Google conversion is animating this. It's probably based on an HTML5 canvas which can have Anti Aliasing disabled in certain events to improve performance.
Google maybe also enforce this to have a pleasant web performance for users. Flash has generally very poor performance because of things like that.
You might want to ask this on Stackoverflow instead, this is more a web programming question.

Unfortunately, you can't choose whether or not you want an HTML5 version. The only option is to enable mobile ads (which is required if you want ads to show on tablets for example). And at that moment they automatically use the HTML5 version. Thanks for the insight though!

In the newer version of Flash (I believe CS5.5+) you can choose to export to HTML5 instead of an .swf

Yes, but AdWords themselves do not accept HTML5 ads, only .swf files. They convert it to HTML5 for you. Doubleclick Rich Media ads are supposed to support HTML5 ads though.

Ah I see. Well, like I said, you should ask this question on http://stackoverflow.com/. You will get more and better answers there.


text:
Help with a Video streaming a Meeting and archiving it in HD using 1 camera
The Setup
Sony Camcorder connected to IMAC via firewire And a PC via Component cable to HDMI on the PC
Imac records Hd video using IMovie and a 2TB Harddrive
Pc Streams using DaCast to Flash encoder to the Genesis website
Audio coming from the Analog Sound board to the camera for the HDVideo on Imovie and to the PC for the stream.
WHat we do. We Record a conference in Hd Video using IMAC and I movie, at the sametime a Diff Pc connected to the Same camera we stream a conference in English and in Spanish to our website.
We use Dacast to broadcast.
The question is.
Can someone please give me some advise on how to improve this set up with the newest tech available?

What are you asking?  You have a bunch of objectives listed, but no clear single question.

ok sorry about that. I can see your point. Thanks.

This is still way, way too broad.  Try asking a single, answerable question per post.  Currently, someone can't give a full answer without knowing the answer to every question and someone having a portion of your problems will have a hard time finding an answer.  Additionally, some of these questions may possibly be considered off topic (they are borderline), while others are firmly on-topic.  Also, be sure to double check the site for existing answers to some of these questions.  They may not match exactly, but we have had some similar questions to a few of these in the past.

ok i hope that will work. sorry this is my 1st post I have alot to ask so ill take it slow.

it's still a bit broad, but I think it is answerable now.  No worries about the difficulty.  Writing really useful questions takes a bit of effort and that's why we have comments to be able to discuss the question. :)

It sounds like you need a video conferencing platform.  Platforms like WebEx, GoToMeeting, Microsoft Lync or Adobe Connect.  All these platforms are designed for handling video feeds from multiple locations along with screen sharing and most of them support reasonable to high quality recordings of the meetings as well.
Several of these platforms also support larger scale conference modes where you have a small number of presenters (that can be at remote locations) but a large number of spectators.


text:
Adobe Premiere - how do I find a clip using a removed plugin?
Adobe Premiere: 5.5

I had a plugin, then I removed it
Now my project complains about not having it
I think this is from a clip or sequence using the plugin

Questions:

How do I find the clip or sequence to take out the plugin and remove this error?
Could this error be caused by something else?

EDIT: more complications:

it is a feature length project, with 20+ long sequences
I only see the warning when I open the project, and it takes 5+ minutes to load

I don't have the reputation here to comment, but there's a refinement to CyanideBaby's iterative solution for longer projects. Inspired by the binary search.
For big projects, instead of doing it a minute at a time, select the first half of your project. Then remove all effects. See if you still get the message. If not, Undo (put effects back) and try the second half.
Now you know which half has the clip with the missing plugin. Do the same - try the first half of that half (so a quarter of the project). If not, then the second half of that half. And so on.
6 iterations of this will get you down to a 3 minute section on a 200 minute project.
For me, Jim Hoyle's solution was the fastest. However, it took me a while to track down the clip as the sequence it was in was nested and no longer used in the main timeline.

This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review

In premiere Pro CC 2015, you can use the find on timeline command by pressing (Cntrol+F) for windows and for mac (Command+F) the dialog box that opens up will help you find the clip.
Chose from the dropdown "effects" the chose "contains" and type "name_of_plugin".
replace the name_of_plugin with the name of the plugin you used and gave you errors. Mostly it should find it.

I tested this with an inbuilt plugin of premiere called "Calculations" within channel in video effects and it does find the clip. The only difference is that I did not delete the plugin itself while testing as its in built. You should give this method a try and hope that the metadata needed for the same will be there.
P.S.: you could also try starts with instead of contains in the second drop down for better results.
Good luck.

For me, this was the solution (with newer Premiere CC version it's gzip, for older just zip):

Copy myproject.prproj to myproject.gz
Use program like 7zip to unzip that
The result is myproject.xml which you can view on a text editor
Now you can find whatever you want (such as instances of files, plugins, effects with cryptic codes instead of proper names etc.)

How to find where all "Filter offline ()" instances are located in the .prproj? In the .xml, search for the FilterMatchName which is the code that appears when .prproj is loaded in Premiere (the error message complaining that a filter wasn't found). So search for something like "3:5653545a 6e4f5269 5a6f746f 7065204f". When you find it, go a bit up and there is <DisplayName>. The content of that is the name of the missing filter. You can also directly search for the filter name if it happens to appear in the .xml by its human-readable name. Go even higher and there is <AudioFilterComponent ObjectID="69760" ..> or something like that. This ObjectID is the code for the file which the filter has been attached to. Search for e.g. "69760" (with parenthesis). The other instance of this tells the filename (e.g. myclip.wav), just go a few rows down from the instance you just found and see <Name>.
When you are in Premiere and you want to delete that "Filter offline ()", you may want to delete it from all clips in a sequence at once. To do this, select all clips you want in the sequence (as suggested by Ben Jones here also), right click on one of the clips, Remove Attributes. Make sure you have a tick only on [x] Effects and on the effects you want to delete (empty name = a Filter offline filter).

If you have After Effects, you can import the Premiere .prproj into AE via File > Import > Premiere Pro Project
Once imported, After Effects should throw up a warning for the missing effect. The manual has this to say, about isolating the missing effect clips:

If you open a project that uses an effect for which After Effects has
  not loaded the plug-in, a warning dialog box  appears, and instances
  of the effect have Missing:  at the beginning of its name in the
  Timeline panel and Effect Controls  panel. To show all instances of
  missing effects in the Timeline panel for the active composition,
  press FF.

Select the first minute of your timeline. Remove all effects. See if you still get the message. If not, Undo (put effects back).
Select minute 2 of your timeline, do the same thing (remove effects, etc). That way you should be able to narrow down where in your timeline you used the plug-in.
Once you've found the minute where you initially used the plug-in, go clip after clip until you find the one that has it. Remove it, and you should be home free.

What if it's a feature length project? That could necessitate potentially dozens of iterations using your method. If you are going to suggest ID by elimination, at least triangulate. Remove all effects from 2nd half of project and check. If no warning, then roughly bisect the 1st half and repeat and so on. Convergence will be faster, assuming the editor can't narrow the candidates based on identity of the missing plugin.

I think we can work with this.  Here's some more details which I'll add above as well:

it is a feature length project, with 20+ long sequences
I only see the warning when I open the project, and it takes 5+ minutes to load
can we think of refinements to this technique?

select all clips.  Right click "remove attributes".
Now be careful for this next bit:
uncheck all the effects you want to keep (leave the one you want to delete).
the go ok.
do it again to see if they effect you wanted is still there or gone.
that's about it.


text:
How do I create a video of typing math symbols
I am creating a training video on Calculus using my Mac, and I need to enter mathematical symbols such as integration and summation signs on my video. (The video is just a screen capture of me writing equations in sequence on the screen, until the solution is derived)
I bought a Wacom tablet thinking I would just hand-write everything on a graphics app and capture it in Camtasia. However it is difficult to draw a good looking symbol by hand using these devices
So now I am thinking to use type, but then how do you type an integral between limits without a lot of preparation for each equation, to produce things that look like this or this.
Does anyone know of a good way to type math symbols directly onto a screen in real time (or very near)?
MS Word has an equation editor,  but I would like to type character by character, and the equation editor forces you to set all of the characters and then renders them into a single image.

Are you looking for a quick fix for this particular issue or do you want to learn to produce videos with simple animations in general?

I have done some pretty fancy video editing in the past. I am not an expert, but with Camtasia, you really don't need to be. But since you asked, you got me curious, what are you offering?

Actually I would have suggested something very similar to Craig's answer. After Effects is great for any sort of typography animation.

You could be clearer about what 'on my video' means. Does that mean: composited with other moving pictures in your video; or does it mean: in a sequence all by itself that's edited into your video? Or something else? And what video tools can you use?
For compositing use a compositing tool like Adobe After Effects. After Effects would also be perfect for building the 'typing on' sequence of symbols that you want.
If you don't have access to After Effects, why not build your sequence as a set of Photoshop layers which you can then export as an image sequence. Import that sequence into Quicktime (Pro), then re-export as a .mov using a codec that makes sense for you project. If you don't have access to Photoshop you can still do this with any cheap graphics software. Just 'manually' output identically sized images and name your output files sequentially. Tell Quicktime Pro to import them as a sequence.
Another idea:

create a single good image (similar to the ones that you provided links for) of the complete expression or equation that you want to 'type on' the screen.
import into Adobe Illustrator or PhotoShop.
create a series of white 'masks' (just rectangles) to cover each term in the expression or equation) and put each one on it's own layer, in the sequence in which you'll want them revealed.
De-select the eyeball on each layer, in sequence, to hide the 'mask' for that layer and reveal each term in sequence. Run Camtasia as you do this and you'll have the 'typed-on' movie you're looking for. You could pre-record your audio so that you'd have a good sense of timing for the reveal of each term.

I modified the original question according to your suggestion. It is just a video of me solving an equation step by step, until the final step contains the solved equation. I am talking in the background explaining each step in the proof. Think of a math teacher writing his proof on a whiteboard, while he is talking through it. The whiteboard is my computer. I am using Camptasia to capture the screen, and will edit out any blips using Camtasia studio after the video is captured.

Since you already have a Wacom digitizer just work with software, like Adobe Illustrator, that lets you set the width of the stroke until you have something you like. With a little practice you can get a perfectly good 'white-board' simulation like that.

Another choice is to do as you suggest, directly in Camtasia. You can add a mask over parts of the video, and expose more over time until to look almost like typing.

My personal advice, stick with your original plan and keep practicing with the tablet.  It's a little more time and effort initially, but most technical measures to do it with text are going to be far more elaborate and technical.  It is perfectly possible to make good looking hand-writing with a tablet once you get used to it and it will probably require less overall effort unless you are pretty technically inclined to begin with.
A similar option is LiveScribe pencasts.  LiveScribe makes an actual pen that you use with special paper you buy or print out.  It captures what you write as you write it and certain models can even be used as a non-pressure sensitive tablet.  This lets you see what you are writing, which makes it a lot more natural feeling compared to a digitizer tablet, even if the digitizer does a better job after you get used to it.

I am pretty technical, no problem with markup languages or TeX. Your Livescribe solution sounds cool. I am not sure I can ever get my tablet to produce true handwriting like a pen. I have looked at some videos on YouTube, and the best ones are where they have a video camera pointing to a page. The ones that use a tablet never seem to come out as good.

@VictorGrazi - part of that is that people are a little disconcerted by text just appearing drawn.  We associate drawing with a hand being there because that's what it looks like to us when we do it.  With digitizers, brush selection and tweaking is also super important to achieve a natural look, but it takes a lot of practice.

you are exactly right, that is exactly why I want to type it character by character, and why I want it to be WYSIWYG. I will edit out any tweaks from the video

Whiteboards can record anything you put on them (including commentary). Play them back on your PC and record via Camtasia? No good if you want to do it at home though.
Camtasia has a plug-in for Powerpoint. Not sure if you'd get the symbols you need though.


text:
FFMPEG convert video with multiple audio streams?
Ok so I have a video made from dxtory. The video is using dxtory video codec and unknown audio codec. When I pop the file into avimux, I can clearly see two audio tracks/sources. I have successfully converted the video without loss of quality with the following.
ffmpeg -i "The Bunker.avi" -vcodec h264 TheBunkerMix.mp4

But, the resultant file only had one track/source. Basically I recorded game footage and the original file had both the in game sounds as well as the mic recording commentary on top. But, when I did the conversion my audio commentary track/source got lost in conversion. What other options can I include to get my audio tracks?
EDIT 2:
I've gotten close now, but still not right. I have used the following but again its seems to ignore the first -map option. If I flipped which map comes second, that is the stream that is audible in the output. How do I mux them together so they both play?
ffmpeg -i "The Bunker.avi" -map 0:0 -map 0:1 -map 0:2 -vcodec h264 -acodec:0 mp
 -acodec:1 mp3 TheBunkerNwMix.mp4

This is the stream mappings so I have no idea why it isn't mapping correctly?
Stream mapping:
  Stream #0:0 -> #0:0 (dxtory -> libx264)
  Stream #0:1 -> #0:1 (pcm_s16le -> libmp3lame)
  Stream #0:2 -> #0:2 (pcm_s16le -> libmp3lame)

Do you want to keep both audio tracks and just convert the file so it can be used in an editing program or do you want to mix both audio files into one?

Yes I basically want a small mp4 that I can edit with, without loss of audio.

If you copied your command there then your issue is probably -acodec:0 mp. That should be -acodec:0 mp3.
You can just use -c:a mp3 to apply the encoding options to all audio tracks at once, no need to apply them for each individually.
Other than that your mapping is correct and shouldn't be the issue.
Edit: To conclude the discussion in the comments regarding the actual reason behind the question: When it comes to editing it is no problem to just transcode the video stream if the source codec makes problems and import the audio from the source file by either muxing the audio into a new container with the transcoded video stream or just importing the transcoded video and audio streams separately (by demuxing the source) into your editing program and skip on the container format.

Is it possible that its a playback problem inside of wmp?

definitely, Windows Media Player is bad, really really bad when it comes to format compatibility.
Try VLC or Media Player Classic Home Cinema.

Ok I will give that a shot when I get home later. If it does work there, is it safe to assume it would import correctly into Premiere?

Not necessarily when it comes to codecs but in the case of several audio tracks, yes it should.
Though if you just want to edit it, you can just import the file like it is into Premiere, h264 is really not suitable for editing and degrades quality if you recorded with dxtory's lossless codec (h264 is highly lossy compressed). The codec should integrate into the Windows AVI codecs so Premiere would be able to use it.
Edit: It does, you can just import the recordings without transcoding.

Really? That is interesting. But, the file size is definitely a problem. 60 GB video file is not so easy to transfer, but I can probably give it a shot.

Then I recommend you just transcode the video to mjpeg, which is much more edit friendly and retains a lot of visual quality. Then mux the mjpeg only video file (without audio) into a new avi together with the original audio tracks. You can do this with Avi-Mux http://www.alexander-noe.com/video/amg/#download. Just import the transcoded video and the original file (then click the "generate.." button), untick the original video track and export a new avi.

Alternatively you can also just extract both audio tracks with ffmpeg transcode the video to a seperate file like I suggested above and just import all files individually into premiere, you don't need the container if you just going to edit the whole thing anyway.

Oh ok I see what you're saying there. Thanks I will give this a shot!

Your "mp" codec would be the reason why only one track may be in the output file; there's no "mp" codec (looks like a typo).
If stream mapping is showing both audio tracks are present in the output file, then you should be able to select which track to play in the video player. By default, the best or first supported audio will play.
If you want both audio tracks to play ("mux them together so they both play"), then mix the audio into one track.
Here's how -c (select codecs) & -map (select streams) options work:
-c:a -> select best supported audio (transcoded)
-c:a copy -> best supported audio (copied)
-map 0:a -> all audio from 1st input file (transcoded)
-map 0:0 -> 1st stream from 1st input file (transcoded)
-map 1:a:0 -> 1st audio stream from 2nd input file (transcoded)
-map 1:a:1 -c:a copy -> 2nd audio stream from 2nd input file (copied)


text:
10 bit 422 vs 8 bit 420
I have been looking around for commentary on this, but have not been successful. So, I hope you folks can point me in the right direction. Hopefully, this is the right forum for this kind of discussion, since there might not be 1 correct answer.
For a while now, I've been using my canon 1D4 for most video production. It's ok for what it does. At times, I supplement with other video sources for multi angle shoots.
This past summer, I did an interview on the back of a truck with a fixed-mount camera (7D w/ 15mm due to tight geometry). Basically it looks great. However, we were going in and out from under trees and the lighting switched from kinda dark to very bright. Since I was also working B camera angle and audio for the interview (very crowded, no room for others) I was distracted and there are some very blown out sections of the video.
I have seen reviews and samples on the bm(p)cc showing how blown out sections can be recovered using ProRes 422, much like raw photos can be recovered. Ditto for underexposed clips. Of course, my video was 420 and had no option to recover from either end of the histogram. What's done is done, much like a jpg image.
So: need to work on resolving this issue. For a single-person 'team', I need equipment that is forgiving. been reading about shooting directly to 422 and getting a very wide exposure latitude. The Black Magic cameras (especially pocket) seem to fit the requirements. However, everyone is raving over the GH4 which, tho it shoots 4k, is 8bit 420 unless you record to outboard via 1080, which seems to defeat the 4k benefits.
Any discussion on this topic would be most welcome.

420 vs 422 only really matters in terms of color accuracy.  The significant part is 8 bit vs 10 bit.  The reason RAW files give so much recover-ability is that they are typically 12, or in the case of your 1D mark 4, 14 bit files.  Every extra bit doubles the total number of possible values that can be stored.  Some of this goes in to having more detail within the typical 8 bit range, but some of this also goes in to holding additional headroom above white and below black for a typical 8 bit image.
Even better than shooting 10 bit is to try shooting pure RAW video.  You may be able to actually try this with your 1D by using high speed cards and the third party firmware hack Magic Lantern.  I've used it on my 5D Mark iii and the results are outstanding.  It can record full 1080p resolution with each frame being a 14 bit raw file that has full use of RAW image correction tools.
Alternately, you can help increase recover-ability in 8 bit video by keeping your image away from the black and white points by decreasing contrast.  This will result in a more subdued image without color correction after the fact and will result in fewer total colors after expansion, but it will buy you room to deal with blown highlights and shadows since they will still fall within the 8 bit range of values.  This technique is often referred to as recording a "flat" image.

interesting re: 422 vs 420. thanks for that. magic lantern only works on a few models, not 1d4. pity. are you saying that the 1d4 shoots 14 bit video?

If it worked with ml it would but not on its own


text:
AviSynth vs AviSynth+ vs VapourSynth: which one should I choose?
AviSynth is an old-but-still-useful tool for processing video via script, but I’ve noticed that there is a fork called AviSynth+ that appears to have some improvements. And then there’s VapourSynth rewritten to use Python.
What are the pros and cons of these versions?
For use-cases such as QTGMC deinterlacing and high-quality resizing, is one clearly better than the other?

Another thing is that VapourSynth also runs on Linux, which is useful when running on a server is a requirement

AviSynth+ is native too starting from version 3.5: https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=180436

As a summary of the differences:
AviSynth

Outdated and no longer recommended for use
Only available in 32bit – not able to use 64bit plugins/filters
No multi-threading (unless you install AviSynth-MT, another fork, which is prone to errors and issues and no updates over last 4+ years)
Older and only supports 8bit video
Lacks support for some color spaces (YV16, YV24 etc.)
Latest release over 4 years ago (May 2016)

AviSynth+

Has both a 32bit and 64bit version, although the 32bit version apparently has some issues
Supports multi-threading which can significantly improve rendering performance for some functions (similar to AviSynth-MT, another fork, but AviSynth+’s appears more stable)
Be aware that using the 64bit version will require all plugins and filters to also be 64bit – and not all of them have 64bit versions. There are some filters that are 64bit only, however, which means you’re able to use those.
QTGMC runs faster in multi-threaded mode, and also apparently in 64bit mode
AviSynth+ specific documentation is limited, but most of the great AviSynth wiki also applies to AviSynth+ and many pages now have notes mentioning any specific instructions for working with AviSynth+.
Also runs on Linux, which is useful when you need to run it on a server
Regularly updated, with latest release Jun 2020

Note: be sure to get a recent version of AviSynth+ from https://github.com/AviSynth/AviSynthPlus/releases. There was a pinterf fork and it has been merged back to upstream.
Or you can use the Universal AviSynth Installer which allows you to easily switch between the different versions of AviSynth, AviSynth-MT, and AviSynth+ (32bit and 64bit).
VapourSynth

Rewritten to use Python, a much more powerful and flexible scripting language
Multi-threaded
Supports generalized colorspaces whereby new or custom colorspaces can be specified at runtime
Also runs on Linux, which is useful when you need to run it on a server
Documentation isn't as detailed as AviSynth (it's not a community wiki)
Regularly updated, with latest release Aug 2020

Maybe add VapourSynth info as well.

Any reason we need a full programming language to configure video filter pipelines?  Was the prior method just missing some unnecessary complexity and bloat, from the perspective of the user?

There is no reason to use old, obsolete AviSynth — “old-but-still-useful” are almost all programs, but why to complicate your life with old, unsupported versions of them?
Every script for AviSynth works well in the AviSynth+, so even if you know AviSynth, there is nothing to relearn. The opposite is not true, however.
Use AviSynth+ (pros: all, cons: none), particularly pinterf/AviSynthPlus (forked from already dead AviSynth/AviSynthPlus).

Note:
The other situation is with GUI programs — if the old version satisfied you and the new one is too complicated, with changed menus, new icons, colors etc.
But it is not the case of AviSynth+ — you don't “see” the new commands, functions or parameters, so they don't disturb you.

Thanks for the answer. The net is full of old posts referring to AviSynth, and I initially wasn't sure if AviSynth+ was compatible or maintained, but as you've pointed out the pinterf version is both and the best modern version to use.

You're welcome.

AviSynth+ was never dead. There was a coordinated and hickup-free maintainer change to pinterf without development hiatus, and for some reason pinterf decided to use his own repo in the beginning. Now he even changed back to the original repo and so active development is again at its original place at AviSynth/AviSynthPlus on GitHub.


text:
Scaling "Stroke" Effect "Brush Size" while scaling composition?
I've got a 100x100px composition with a Mask containing a Stroke effect used to animate the drawing of a vector. The problem I'm having is when I drop this composition into a larger one and attempt to scale it up, the Brush Size in Stroke remains the same (e.g. the graphic is drawn with thin lines, instead of the thicker looking ones in the smaller comp).
I'm thinking some sort of expression magic might be the fix to this, but any input on how to maintain line thickness at any resolution/scale would be much appreciated. Thanks!
EDIT: I've attached a small demo project showing the issue I'm running into below:
http://hellocld.com/stuff/stroke-issue.aep

I can not reproduce that behavior. What version of After Effects are you using (always important to mention btw.)?

I'm currently using CS5

Ok so the problem is that the stroke effect isn't scaling when you scale the imported composition?

That's correct. As I scale the imported composition all the paths scale appropriately, but the "Brush Size" setting on the Stroke effect remains at it's initial setting, so the stroke it displays appears thinner.

Could you upload a simple demo file that shows the issue?
I kind of suspect that is might be a bug in CS5 as this doesn't seem to happen in CS6.

Can do! Just added a link to it in the question above.

Easy fix, you see the small sun icon on the imported comp layer? Disable that, that basically means that the comp should act like the layers within it should act like they are in the parent comp. It negates the transformation your are applying to it and the effect will just keep its pixel value its supposed to have, you are not "blowing it up" like you would expect.
If you disable it the imported comp will act like a rendered video.
If you have huge pixelation going on just go to full resolution in the preview and it will be fine, though the layer will not act like a vector, you will have a rasterized image so keep in mind to have a big enough resolution if you want to scale it up.
Better to have it bigger and scale it down than having not enough.

That sounds like it'd work alright. Reason I'm using 100x100 is because I'm creating a library of animated icons. Since they're all vector though, creating them at much higher resolutions (something like 2000x2000) won't affect filesize/performance, will it?

It won't effect the after effects project file size. If you render a video at that resolution it will certainly effect the file size of the video.
Performance shouldn't drop all that much as long as you don't do all too fancy stuff with your vector graphics. If you just do some animations you wont see all that much diffrence.

Right, right. I'm just concerned with the project file. Thanks!

I ran into this issue, and unfortunately my vector images didn't have the resolution I needed and everything was already animated. I needed to scale everything, including the brush size, while keeping the continuously rasterize option ON.
This is a workaround if you are in trouble. But of course the best solution is to start with the right resolution.
I created a Null named Scale_All and parented all the vector layers to it.
Leave the Null at 100% scale before applying the expression. you will be able to change it when the expression is applied.
I left the continuously rasterize option ON
On all the Stroke effects, I used this expression on the brush size:
value*thisComp.layer("Scale_All").transform.scale[0]/100
This expression links the brush size to the X Scale value of the null.
I saved 2 days of animation with this simple expression.
("Scale_All") should be the name of the null you use to scale everything.
Hope this helps others in the future.


text:
What are some tips on taking great videos with the iPhone 5s?
I've been taking photos for several years now, moving up from a point-and-shoot to a Sony NEX-5R and an iPhone 5s. I would like to branch out into making videos, but my photography skills exceed my videography skills.
I know only some basics of videography such as trying to tell a story by making a video that has a defined beginning, middle and end. Or to pan very slowly, especially at higher resolutions such as 1080p. Or to not take vertical videos, in most cases.
I'd like some tips on how to improve my videography. I'm looking for both creative and technical advice.

Creative advice such as: what makes a good subject, composition, pacing, how videography is different from photography, etc.
Technical advice such as: whether 720p at 120FPS results in better looking videos than 1080p at 30FPS.

Please keep in mind that I'll be using an iPhone 5s. I'm looking for tips that are specific to this camera, and also for tips that apply no matter what camera you're using.
Footnotes:

Note that I won't be carrying extra gear, such as a tripod, lighting and audio gear, and so on. I'll be using my iPhone and nothing else.
I also have a Sony NEX-5R, but in the interest of keeping this question focused, let's confine ourselves to the iPhone 5s. After all, the iPhone is the camera I have with me all the time.
I'm interested only in capturing video on the iPhone, not editing it. I'll edit it on a PC. This post is only about capturing video, not about editing it.

An iPhone is basically a small iPad, so all the answers for the iPad are the same for iPhone, or really just about any smartphone or tablet for that matter.

Then the answer is that you can't.  Shaky video is crappy video and shaky video is all you get without stabilization.  Without lighting, stabilization and good audio, there is no such thing as good video.

No, there really isn't.  There are apps that attempt to stabilize video, but they are basically ineffective cropping tools that result in lots of perspective artifacts.  They don't make good quality video, they make slightly less crappy video.  Either way, this question is also too broad as stated and significant parts of it are not mobile phone video dependent.

I created a chat: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/16970/room-for-kartick-vaddadi-and-aj-henderson

Your edits don't give the question more aspects that aren't covered by the answer provided in the question about iPad videos.
If you don't want extra gear there is nothing you can do, the hardware does what it does, there is no magical software trick. If you want to know if 720p60 trumps 1080p30 in certain situation that is a different question than you asked here.

Yes, thanks, AJ and I had a chat and decided that posting more specific questions is the way to go.