text:
How can I color correct a footage from a 7D using the CineStyle Picture Style
I want to use the CineStyle color style for my 7D to get the most out of the dynamic range.  Saw some tutorials on how to use a LUT file to color correct in Final Cut Pro or Premiere, but only on the Mac version with the help of a plugin.  How can I do this on the PC?
Technicolor Cinestyle provide a .mga file to color correct the picture.  But I can't seem to find how to use that.

The CineStyle picture style provides you with a flat, desaturated image: providing the best dynamic range of any of the picture styles for Canon DSLRs. Technicolor provide you with a file that you can apparently import into your editing software to help you grade your footage. However, I never figured out how to use it and frankly, I don't think one needs to. I think your time would be better spent learning how to color grade rather than learning how to import an .mga file. You don't need the file to grade your footage. I think it is more of a preset kind of thing – used to return the flat, desaturated image into a contrasty, attractive one albeit with more detail in the shadows and highlights than if you'd used any of the inbuilt Canon picture styles. However, this is something you can do yourself, and if done right, you will achieve better results than any preset can give you.
Most editing programs will have a color correction filter. Some programs have better than others but most should satisfy your needs. However, I will recommend a good piece of free software called DaVinci Resolve Lite. Like I said, it's free, and it's awesome.
Sorry I couldn't give you any help with the .mga file.


text:
How do I record a computer monitor without banding/flickering with a Canon t2i/550D?
As you've probably guessed, when recording video with a computer monitor in frame I am getting banding. I'm aware that this has to do with refresh rates of the monitor vs the scan rate of the camera or something like that. I've read that most cameras have a feature to adjust for this - synchro scan, clear scan or variable scan is what I've seen it referred to as. However, I can't find anything on what or how to do this with my Canon t2i.
I've seen a number of videos where people do this with a t2i, so I'm sure it's possible, I'm just not sure how to set the camera up properly.
Here is a video using a t2i to record a computer screen without banding.
I've noticed that I can adjust f/stop and shutter speed to get varying results when put in to Tv mode. I'm having trouble getting to a setting that has minimal/no banding and isn't either under or over exposed.

Is there any reason you can't use video capture software on the computer itself?

I would suggest editing this question to have it apply to shooting still images without banding, as banding in consideration for videography is not about taking photos.

While reviewing the Instruction Manual for the Canon 2Ti EOS 550 on page 127 you will find information on how to manually set the shutter time. Here is the pdf download for the manual:
http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/9/0300003169/01/eosrt2i-eos550d-im-en.pdf
There is wide range of 1/4000 to 1/30 of a second to work with depending on your frame rate.
For 50 fps or 60 fps the range is 1/4000 to 1/60.
For 24, 25, & 30 fps the range is 1/4000 to 1/30.
I suggest that you try different shutter times at your preferred frame rate. I know this is not definitive, as I don't have this camera, nor have I tested this. However, the flicker you are referring to is as you suggest a synchronization issue; you are trying to have the camera capture at a rate that synchronizes with the display. Another thing you can try is change the display frame rate, if you have this option on your monitor.
Hope this helps,

This is basically what I've been playing with. I don't know if the monitors I'm testing on are weird or what, but sometimes I get it synched up (no bars) but when I move the camera (physically) the rolling bar comes back.

Are you sure we are talking about sync bars or Moiré patterns ?

From what I can tell I'm talking about sync bars. Continuous horizontal black bars that move up from the bottom of the screen. They are noticeable (although slight) even at 1/30 shutter speed which is the slowest I can go. I even tried changing the monitor's hz rate from 60hz to 59, to 30hz interlaced and 29hz interlaced (allt he options my monitor has).

Upon further experiment I believe my main monitors to be wonky. I can get it to work using different monitors. My monitors must run at some odd refresh rate or have some other issue with them.

Hello Ryan, are these CRT based vs. flat panel? MFG and Model? I might be able to dig a little deeper if I know the specific gear you are using for monitors.

These are both flat panel LCDs. The one I am having issues with is a Dell ST2420L both using DVI and VGA cables. The one it worked with was a Hanns·G HZ201DPB.

This is great +1, except that following the manual I cannot get the shutter speed to change. I'm sure I'll figure it out somehow...

Scratch that, just didn't know about all the dials on the camera. Two of them look quite similar :) Thanks for finding the page in the T2i manual!

The link on the video says they used magic lantern which is alternate firmware update that is open source for the t2i and other canon bodies. I can only say that canon will not support it, it can void your warrenty, and overheat and cause all sorts of shut down problems.  Having said that, this is how they were able to adjust the shutter setting slower. I have also seen some amazingly high speed slow mo stuff shot progressive speed ramped to look like arri alexa. Amazing.
Here is my take on it, I am a pro video with 18 years of broadcast.  Personally I would not try ML on my t2i until I get a better camera and this guy becomes no issue for me as a backup body.  The issue with these canon cameras as video cameras lies in the fact that the processor used to backhaul the data is not optimized for video, it is optimized for great stills, stunning in fact. Video processing although lower res even on 1080 i/p, uses a lot of processing, even more than just getting a 18mp still on raw with AA. Its not even in the same ball park. Processing is heat, and this camera and other canon bodies can overheat even on the regular f/w let alone some of the crazy thing ML will let you do. This is why video has lagged behind film in quality and why a C300 or C500 is thousands of dollars more for a dedicated canon video camera.
Personally I really give magic lantern a lot of credit, they essentially overhauled the system software to give you zebra bars, markers, better shutter, intervolometer etc.  I am just not about to try it on my cam since it is still my primary.
For people out there needing a low light solution, check out a EF 1.4 or 1.2 manual focus 50mm lens, it is some of the best glass canon ever made and edge to edge sharp.

just figured it out woth magic lantern. You wanna turn on frame rate override, and change thr timing clock from its perfect number to something slightly above or below the usual 4200 or whatever it is. I got a true frame rate of 26.007, and a flicker free video of a lcd screen. Bam!

Hey I know this is an old post, but I have been trying to figure this out definitively.
My situation is thus. I am using a T2i, except I am trying to record from my projector, an inFocus IN104 (it was basically the cheapest I could afford at the time).
I have tried a bunch of lenses (kit lens 18 - 55mm (3.5 - 5.6), Pentax 50mm (1.7), Pentax 135mm(3.5)) at all f stop values and on the camera all the ISO values, all the shutter speeds, all the frame rates. I have tried to adjust the projector "Phase" value which the manual is a bit unclear about...but doesn't seem to effect the bars.
The only thing that really seems to effect the rolling bars is the shutter speed on the camera. I turn the shutter speed all the way down to 30 (It will only go to 60 at 60fps), I know these aren't the "recommended" settings, but I only really notice different ISO settings when they are higher and it looks like a Jason Bourne fight scene (ie less natural motion blur).
This itself will NOT eliminate the bars. The next thing you will have to do, I find if I just turn the camera on and off a couple times it will magically "sync up" and there will be no bars and sometimes they will be slightly visible.
Also this will depend on the content you are recording. I am using the projector to project an animation I did which is largely solid colors on a black field and it is VERY noticable. If you had say, a bunch of people talking and moving around on a dark background it would be less noticable...though you'd probably just actually film that scene.
hope this helps.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
An easy way to create videos for YouTube from mp3 files
Is there an easy way to convert multiple mp3 files to video files at once? I could of course use a simple video editor, but I was thinking more of an app that would take multiple mp3 files, set the preferred album cover image as "video", and convert them one after another without having to do the same process for each mp3 file manually. I would like this to be an offline app (not a web app). Which video format should I use for this (I would like to keep as much sound quality as possible)?

This is a piece of cake for FFMPEG.

Thanks to Brads recommendation, I used ffmpeg for the job. Here is a small bash script that converts all the mp3 files to mpeg4 avi files (a jpg image must be included in the folder):
#!/bin/bash
# Requires: ffmpeg
# Usage: ./convert.sh

for file in *.mp3;
do
    ffmpeg -i *.jpg -i "${file}" "${file%.*}.avi"
done

Some more info here and here, but that didn't work for me.. All these options they used made it too complicated and it just didn't work - nothing would get converted (I would get files with audio but without the image in the video or videos with image but without audio, -loop option was unnecessary, -shortest option was unnecessary, works fine without it)..

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


text:
What is a circular motion around a object called when filming?
You know that camera technique when the camera operator usually have a steadicam and runs/walks around a person.
I'm trying to learn how to do that with my homemade glidecam but it is so hard. it would be nice to find a tutorial but I don't know what to search for.

That's a kind of tracking shot known as an orbit. Here is a product video for the Digital Juice Orbit Dolly, which is a piece of equipment that can be used to achieve this effect:

Thank you. Going to tell my friend Google about this. He will be excited :D

@PhilvanKleur It was a product video from a video equipment company. I've updated the link with one that is still available, and clarified the purpose of the link in my answer.

@NReilingh thanks very much. I'll take a look.

It is known as panning, from the word "panoramic" - googling will throw up many tutorials on this.
An example at the slrlounge.

I don't think that is what I mean. I mean when the camera circles around an object.

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


text:
Can I charge to view videos of other people performing?
I want to start out by saying I am not doing this now or in the very near future. however, it is something I would like to do and wish to do.
I tried google but found nothing.
Can I video record other people performing musical sets at competitions and charge to let people stream those videos online?
The subject are Pipe Band competitions. The BBC records & shows the World championships every year, however this is in corrolation with the RSPBA (Royal Scottish Pipe Band Assosciation) who organise and run these events. The RSPBA also make a yearly DVD of the "Worlds" which they sell.
However, the "Worlds" is one of 5 yearly major championships and (bad quality) videos from those other 4 (and the worlds) get good views. I thought about perhaps videoing the bands perform and charging for a pass to a website where people can watch the videos.
Although I think that it may be illegal to sell videos of other people performing? Especially if the event is organised by the RSPBA who may own rights by default?
Lastly, I'd like to add that I am in the UK.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, just my understanding of common application of copyright law. Copyright law varies between countries and even within countries, so you should consult a lawyer who is familiar with the copyright law in any relevant jurisdictions before proceeding.
You would need permission from the performers and may also need to pay a fee for reproduction of the music or any other copyright aspects of the performance (this can include lighting effects, dance moves, or any other creative aspects of the performance).
The performance itself would be copyright by the performing group, whoever is paying them to perform, or whoever organised the event, so you would first need their permission to reproduce the performance. This of course may involve a licensing agreement.
The music they are playing might also be subject to copyright, depending on how old it is, so you may need to pay the owner of said rights to reproduce it (yes, even though its someone else performing).
Other aspects of a performance can also be copyright; things like dance moves, lighting effects, any other video/music playing that might be visible, costumes, props, any artworks or even advertisements visible in the video. That said, may all be owned by the event organiser/producer so that may simplify things. But it can be harder in a public space to get permission from all relevant parties.

Quite simply, anything is possible pending a licensing agreement with the content owners and the event organisers.
You could not do this legally without coming to a deal with those two bodies.


text:
What is the most effective way of slowing down footage?
I want to experiment with slowed down footage and I see several ways in doing that with my current set-up.
I have the following hardware/software at my disposal:
After Effects CS5.5,
 Twixtor Pro,
Canon 550D (capable of shooting 50fps 1280x720 footage)
I can think of several ways to slow-down my 50fps footage, I'm interested to hear what the most effective way to go is in terms of quality and what the best way is to slow my footage down as much as possible.
The methods I could think of are written down below.

Interpret the footage in CS5.5 as 25fps or lower. 18fps being the minimum, stutter is noticeable below that.
Interpret as 50fps and then do a time-remapping to slow down the footage. Add frame blending to compensate for any stutter.
Interpret as 50fps and use Twixtor Pro to slow down the footage.

Depending on how much you are looking to slow down.  Interpret as 50fps, and then once in your timeline, say it is a 25fps timeline.  Then you can stretch the footage using time remapping, then you can turn on frame blending to the solid line...this will be good in most instances up to about 25% speed of original...
Less than that the same, 25fps timeline, interpret footage at 50fps, then use twixter to get that super slomo feel.  Not that twixter does not always work and is going to give varying results based on the footage.

So the best in quality is interpreting as 50fps and then time-stretching (option 2.)? And what method is the way to go if I want to slow footage down as much as possible?

Twixter will give you comparable results but your best bet is going to be option 2

Well the best method quality wise is using The Foundrys "Kronos" ( http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/kronos/ ).
Its a similar tool like twixtor but delivers the better results (in my opinion).
If you dont want to use that/spend money then use twixtor OR the built-in time remapping functions, you get the best results by letting either one of them do its job on its own. Otherwise its like using sharpening on a layer, then render that out/precompose it and then use another third-party sharpening effect ontop of the old one. The result will be messy and anything but nice looking. All you get is a weird look and not a sharper image. There is no good reason to interprete the footage not natively before using Twixtor.


text:
Create a Time Lapse Video with Adobe Premiere
I have a video clip that is one hour long and I would like to compress it down to 60 seconds. Anyone know the easiest way to do this with Premiere?

Just to be clear: do you want to play back your footage at 60x the original speed such that one hour fits in one minute?

Depending on your version of Premiere, there should actually be a speed adjustment from the context menu when you right click on the clip.  It may be under a sub-menu depending on version, but it will give you the option of either a % to increase/decrease the speed by or a new time that you want the clip to take.


text:
Ideal projection solution for Kinect hack performance
I've been learning about how the Kinect is being hacked by
artists and multi-media nuts to make some incredible interactive
systems. The examples up at www.kinecthacks.com and many other
similar sites.
I'd like to experiment with the kinect for a solo dance performance
piece, where the dancers movements are the input to create live
projections and sound design.
My question is what kind of projector will I need to be
suitable for a live performance in a theatre with 100-300 seat
capacity. The projector must be compatible with the Kinect
motion detector technology, and have sufficient lumens for an
effective live performance, where lighting conditions may vary
slightly.
Any suggestions on how to get a great result out of this
complex A/V setup would be appreciated. If you know of specific
models (with price) that you've evaluated in a similar context,
that would be great.
Thanks

This question is the same, even with Kinect removed from the equation.  The easiest way to work with a Kinect for custom work is to use it with a PC, so choose the appropriate projector for the room and lighting and then get the hardware to hook the PC up to it.
Specific projector recommendations is likely too specific to the current time and is going to change over time, but you will need a pretty high lumen count if you want to be able to use it in a lit auditorium or at a large projection size (greater than 15 feet or so diagonal).

As AJ Henderson mentioned, you program the Kinect with a PC using various software packages, either ones that support Kinect natively, or by using the Kinect SDK. One that we use often is Derivative TouchDesigner. There is a free educational version you can download and use for non-commercial work.
Projector wise, I'd recommend something of at least 10,000 lumens. Depends where you set up the projector, and how much throw you need. You can use this handy calculator to help you get closer to what you need.
http://www.projectorcentral.com/projection-calculator-pro.cfm


text:
Why does my Class 10 memory card run in to buffering problems?
My Canon EOS 600D's class 10 SD card does not write out data very quickly and this results in buffering issues which can be seen when shooting 1080p@30fps video.  Why can't the card keep up and what can I do to fix the problem?

Probably another 'Class 10' card that actually performs to 'Class 10' standards instead of a phony 'Class 10' card.

@Russell But I've bought this card from amazon and I'm absolutely sure it was no third party seller since it came in the "frustration free packaging" which is not used by third party sellers, I don't think amazon sells clones?

@Andalur - oops, sorry about the edit reversion mixup.  I was trying to revert it to your original question as well and didn't see that you had the same idea, so I accidentally reverted it to the wrong thing.  I've switched it back to where it originally was.

The class of a memory card often deals with the reading speed of the card, even if it should deal with the write speed.  It is relatively common for a card to have much quicker read times than write times, but since the read time is fast enough, they slap a faster class label on it than it can actually write.
You will need to get a class 10 card that actually has high speed writing in addition to high read speeds.  The best bet for checking this kind of thing is to read reviews of the cards and buy from reliable manufacturers that put the write speed in their spec.  The spec can be important since SD card makers will often change the actual storage chips used without changing the part number of the card.

According to sdcard.org the speed class refers to minimum write speeds.

@tenmiles - that may be the standard, but in the real world, read performance far exceeds write performance on most cards and they regularly only make their class on read performance.

You don't mention which Transcend card you bought but the benchmarks here indicate that the write throughput performance of Transcend cards are a little under 10 Mbps (naively I assume this is true for their brand of SD cards but I could be wrong). Strictly speaking the SD Card class rating seems to imply 10 Mbps minimum for 1080p recording so that may partially explain why you are seeing that behavior with your camera.
If you can try other manufacturers, look at their benchmarks from them as well as reviews to see how it goes.

I use an app called "Black Magic Disk Speed Test" to determine the read/write speeds of my various cards and disks which has the added benefit of also giving a go/no go status on the various standards (such as 1080p@30fps). Also, most of the time you can find user submitted images on Amazon that are screenshots of this (or similar) apps and see how users are actually reporting their speeds.

It really is important that it be part of the spec the manufacturer shows too.  SD card makers (even the big ones) will routinely change the actual flash memory in use on each card based on what supplies of flash memory are cheap at the time.

@Andalur - it would be good to use a separate reader to rule out the card reader in the camera as a bottleneck.

You should mention that this app is mac only...

If you have success some times, and then not others, one source can be spikes in the time to write.
Some solutions are to make sure the card is recently formatted, thus all ready to write to, and no way near full, so there is plenty of space to lay down large chunks of data.
If you do the above and never have success, it could be too low a class card, and/or a fake card. I've seen reports of people buying 'fake' SD cards, that are just long end cards re-stickered. To test that a tool like the others mentions would be the trick.


text:
How to Setup Resolution and Frame Rate Between Two Cameras for Premiere Editting and YouTube
I have a Canon Vixia HF G10 and a Canon 70D. I need to do an interview requiring two camera angles. I need to figure out what the best way to ensure both cameras record video at the highest frame rate, resolution etc but match so that I don't have a post production nightmare on my hands.
Canon Vixia HF G10 does 60i, PF30 and PF24 (recorded as 60i) and 24P. It appears the resolution is determined by video quality (either 1920x1080 or 1440x1080). I have been using MXP mode (1920x1080 - 24MBits) on PF30 for the past year with decent results.
Canon 70D does either 1920x1080 @ 30 or 24 or 1280x720 @ 60 (I am guessing progressive, but the manual does not confirm this). I will of course record in their better compression method ALL-I. I currently am testing the 70D @ 1920x1080 24 ALL-I and it appears to be ok.
All post is preferred to rely on stock Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 if possible and the final result will be published on YouTube for sure and may be played off a Windows PC inside the client's office. I am not really picky about 30p or 24p.
I would appreciate an expert's opinion on the best way to set this up so I don't end up with two different frame rates, crappy results or wasting time in post editing because I screwed it up.

1080P/24 seems to be the way to go in this case.  It's generally considered to have a more cinematic look and both cameras appear to support that resolution and framerate.  Youtube has a 24 fps setting and should handle 1080P video fine.  As you already said, use All I on your 70D to ensure highest quality.


text:
Why is there a “2D” disc in every Blu-Ray 3D package?
Wikipedia says:

MPEG4-MVC compresses both left and right eye views with a typical 50% overhead compared to equivalent 2D content, and can provide full 1080p resolution backward compatibility with current 2D Blu-ray Disc players.

So if a Blu-Ray 3D is completely backwards compatible to a regular Blu-Ray, why do all consumer Blu-Ray-3D packages contain a 2D as well as a 3D disc? Is that just marketing (so people will even buy it if they don’t yet have a 3D-capable setup) or is there some technical reason behind this?

Disk allocation and production is part of A/V production, so I think this is safely on topic, particularly since there is a real production reason why this is.

Disk space.  The 3d content takes more space so there is generally not enough room for special features.  The 2d special features are only on the 2d disk.  They take up the room that the second eye takes on the 3d disk.  They could make a special features only disk, but this is generally more expensive since it requires another master and another production line.  It's more cost effective and better marketing to just include the 2D copy.

Why does making a special-features-only disc require a new master while a 2D disc does not? Doesn’t every version with different content require a new master?

@RaphaelSchweikert - yes, but most often the 2D disc is the same as the non-3d retail version, so they would make that disk anyway.  They don't just sell all 3d versions because it doesn't make sense to include the 3D disk when someone doesn't want it (extra cost) and because the convention is to charge extra for the 3d version.  If they ever stop charging extra, we may see them just release the 3d version and not bother with a 2d, but currently that isn't the market direction.

One aspect that I hadn’t considered when posting the question: For this to work, the 2D version would have to be somehow be “contained” in the 3D version. I wasn’t considering that this might not be true at all.
What 3D-MVC being backwards-compatible to 2D-AVC actually means is that a non-3D-capable decoder will “see” either the left or right eye track of the 3D version.
It’s possible that a proper 2D version doesn’t match either of those.
That is especially true for movies not initially produced in 3D and not captured with stereo cameras. 3D conversion is often easier to do by slightly modifying the perspective of the 2D version for both the left and the right eye. The end result being that neither side exactly matches the original 2D version.

My guess is that because you spent a lot of money for the 3d equipment, they know you ARE going to buy 3d products no matter what the cost. The companies include the 2d versions to lessen the pain of the cost giving you the illusion they are not screwing you. It is about how much money goes into their pockets, not about how much content goes in the packaging.

Except that doesn't hold up.  Lots of people buy 2d stuff even for their 3d player and either way, if they "knew we would buy 3d" then they don't need to include a 2d disk.  The fact is that there isn't space for content on the 3d disk (because of the extra size) that can fit on the 2d disk and it isn't economical to make a special disk for special features when it is already on a 2d disk.  Mastering is the expensive part of a production disk run.  The disks themselves are simply stamped from the master.  Fewer production lines = better bottom line.


text:
Why does variable bitrate still have a bitrate specified?
My understanding is that the vorbis algorithm uses a variable rate of encoding.
So, when encoding videos with audio in vorbis format, why does Handbrake ask me for a bitrate? What does Handbrake do when I choose a bitrate of 160, say, in the audio section?

I posted this question in the Super User SE, but no one answered me: [link] http://superuser.com/questions/729591/encoding-audio-in-vorbis-with-handbrake.

I can't speak about vorbis, but in general "variable" rate doesn't mean "unlimited". In all cases I'm aware of, VR encoding uses a target bit rate which is the rate which, if averaged over the total length, would be equivalent to a fixed bit rate over the same duration.

You can see the bitrate in this case as a quality target. It will not encode the audio strictly at that bit-rate but try to encode the audio in a way that it will always be "near" your specified bit-rate.
Usually you can translate certain bit-rates to a specific quality level which can be compared to lames "V0", "V2" etc. VBR settings, these presets don't define a specific bit-rate but files encoded with these settings will always end up at certain "bit-rate range". The encoder will encode the audio around a specific bit-rate but will go higher or lower within a certain threshold.
It doesn't make all that much sense to have bit-rats present instead of the Vorbis quality targets but I assume handbrake does this because all other codecs it offers use bit-rates. Most users are used to bit-rates and can associate it to a rough quality level. Unlike Vorbis own "q5" or "q9" which you can only translate to a relative quality difference between the different levels (if you are not used to using this codec) but you wont know what you actually end up with.
Wikipedia has a nice table for Vorbis quality levels/settings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis#Technical_details
(on the right)

Quality   Nominal Bitrate     Official Xiph.Org Foundation Vorbis     aoTuV
  beta 3 and later

-q-2   not available   32 kbit/s
-q-1   45 kbit/s   48 kbit/s
-q0    64 kbit/s
-q1    80 kbit/s
-q2   96 kbit/s
-q3   112 kbit/s
-q4   128 kbit/s
-q5   160 kbit/s
-q6    192 kbit/s
-q7   224 kbit/s
-q8   256 kbit/s
-q9   320 kbit/s
-q10  500 kbit/s

For CBR encodings, the bitrate is always kept at the bitrate specified regardless of if it is needed.  For VBR encoding, the bitrate is an average target, however the media stream will use more or less data rate when it needs to but will try to average to the target.
This is why you see 1 pass and 2 pass VBR.  2 pass VBR first makes a pass to estimate where more or less data will be needed and then makes a second pass to make best use of the available data rate.  1 pass does a lot more guessing.
For an example of how this works, lets say we had a video that had 10 seconds of rapid action followed by 10 seconds of a still image.
With CBR, the same data rate would be used the entire time, the 10 seconds of still image would be crazy high quality since nothing is changing, but the action would then fall apart because it is changing too much.
With 1 pass VBR, the algorithm would adjust to use more data for the high level of action, but it might limit itself since the entire video might be like that.  Then, when it got to the still shot, it would use almost nothing, but wouldn't hit the average rate because it didn't need the storage space.
With 2 pass VBR, the first pass would discover that there is no movement at the end, so then during the second pass, a lot of data rate would be used to handle the motion really well and then very little would be used for the still image, the average data rate would be hit and the high movement portion of the video would have the highest quality of any of the encodings while the still portion wouldn't really suffer.


text:
Does Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 have a fullscreen mode?
Essentially what I'm looking for is a way to make Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 go fullscreen. I do not mean the fullscreen preview of the video or fullscreen on a specific panel (like the timeline).
I want to get rid of the Windows taskbar and the window border. The same way that you would go fullscreen with a browser by pressing F11.
I'm surprised I haven't found any shortcut or any discussion online. I'm working on a 15" laptop monitor and would like to maximize my workspace. I've tried to press F11, searched for it in the menus and the keyboard shortcut list but haven't found anything.
As clarified in the comments on AJ's answer below, I am looking for something like pushing F in Photoshop or Lightroom, where the workspace is otherwise the same.  For example, this is how it looks in Lightroom.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

You said you are trying to maximize your workspace, did you try CTRL + tilde ('~') while hovering the mouse over the panel that you are interested in. (The CTRL option removes the menu bars) To get rid of the taskbars on the operating system, you would need to set it to hide via the operating system in question.

@eLouai Hello! Which language had you set on your keyboard when you tried that? I tried that command with English keyboard but with no luck. In After Effects, tilde maximises the panel I hover over whilst ' on a English keyboard does that in Premiere. But yep, I'll have to stick with the hide taskbar option:P Thanks.

I'm fairly certain there is no such mode.  It doesn't have the same kind of feature that lightroom does as the full screen video preview is really the closest in terms of being related functionality.
The full screen mode is helpful in Lightroom because it allows focusing on the photo with only basic controls.  Premiere is much more complex than LR and a significant portion of screen real-estate is taken up by those controls.  If you aren't purely focusing on the video, then the amount of lost and distracting space really isn't a big issue.
Note that if you really need every last scrap of screen real estate though, you can adjust the task bar so that you can make it only a small line on the bottom of the screen though.  You really are not practically losing any meaningful amount of screen real-estate.
The only functionality is the functionality that maximizes a particular panel or full screens the preview, but you already mentioned those are not what you are looking for.  That's the closest you are going to get though.

Alright. It's not just that I want more space, but want it to be more immerse. And the border and the taskbar takes up approximately 13% of my screen, which I think could show one more track of videos.
Photoshop has the fullscreen mode I'm refering to(shortcut: F on Swedish keyboard), which has a quite complex UI as well. Don't see why Premiere wouldn't have a similar feature.
I didn't think of the hide taskbar setting, though. Thanks for letting me know!

@Thelemic - if your task bar and borders are taking up 13% of your screen, you may seriously want to consider getting a higher resolution display if possible.  It will make a huge difference in usability for something like Premiere.  I would also suggest setting the task bar to hide so that you can have it go away when you aren't using it.

Haha, yeah.:D I'm going to buy a new laptop in the near future and I'm going for a 1920x1080 screen then. In also considering a 17" screen:P. And yes, I set my taskbar to hide, now that you mentioned it. Had completely forgot about that feature.

Another option is to press Ctrl+ to get full screen preview.

This is full screen preview, which is specifically NOT what the OP was asking about.  This answer is simply wrong.

@AJHenderson Why not deleting this answer?

Unfortunately being wrong isn't grounds for deleting an answer. It lacks explanation, but if it was correct it would still be enough explanation. The reasoning behind this is that we could all be the ones wrong. Maybe we misunderstood the op. In this case I know that isn't the case but where is the line of being sure enough and how do I know I'm not wrong despite being "certain"?


text:
Mac Pro audio for FCPX
I have been using an elderly iMac for FCPX and finally made the move to the new Mac Pro. However, the Mac Pro has pretty lame audio output, so I'm looking for a relatively inexpensive solution that can give me equal or better audio compared to the iMac.
I have two fairly decent unpowered 8ohm speakers that I could add a subwoofer to for 2.1 audio monitoring.  Does anyone have suggestions for an amplifier that might take mini toslink jack input? I would like to keep the budget as low as possible.

Since the speakers are un-powered you will certainly need either an amplifier or a receiver that can handle the Toslink.  Honestly, if you are trying to keep the cost as low as possible, you may have more luck buying new speakers that take digital input.
Toslink input on a receiver is a mid-range feature if not a high end one, so you probably aren't going to find a lot of cheap amps with it and depending on how good the speakers are, it might not cost that much to replace them with a purpose built system. (For example, Behringer makes this set.)
Alternately, you could go with a simple analog amp.  Toslink itself is more consumer targeted and probably isn't going to give you that huge of an advantage over an analog output unless the DAC in the MacPro is really poor, though even if it is, when you are working on a budget, you probably aren't going to get a substantially better DAC, so investing instead in a basic clean analog amp might get better overall results.

since our last round, i have been slowly coming to nearly the same conclusion. why bother with toslink for something like this. thank you for putting up with an off-topic discussion. i'll mark yours as the answer because it's unlikely there is currently a better solution.

I would go for the option of some dedicated mid range PC speakers and if you can spare a few bucks go for a USB/Fire-wire sound-card and some powered speakers.
I am using this setup to do my film work
either a MOTU 828 or a Edirol UA-25 with some M-Audio BX5 d2's
my previous setup was a set of mid ranged creative PC speakers which did a decent job
having good audio can make a difference between a average production or a great production specially if you have to do some  dialogue work


text:
Recording in a training room with upside camera mount from the top
I would like to setup a remote camera in a training room to do HD recording.
I already have a standard HD video camera and a Blackmagic Intensity Shuttle.
What I would like is a camera which I can mount from a ceiling bracket. The ceiling bracket I have seems to be designed for CCTV cameras, so will only really support cameras with a screw hole in the top. So to use a video camera, it would have to be upside down as the screw hole is on the bottom of the camera.
Can I use a standard video camera upside down and yet record the right way up, as it were?
Also, what are some options regarding remote HD recording cameras which can be controlled remotely? I have looked into HD CCTV cameras, but it seems that the color is not all that great.

You can record video upside down, and then flip it using PC software. Eg. Avidemux, which is freeware can flip videos.
For sports or action, GoPro Hero is very good camera. I can stream to PC or Mac. It also can record upside down. And there are a lot of accessories to mount it in many places.


text:
What is the easiest, no-frills way to produce a simple video on Windows 8?
My laptop has a camera. Since it can obviously take video of me (a la Skyping), it should be easy to create a video of myself (I am going to create a short video for a Kickstarter project).
My laptop runs Windows 7 and 8.
All I'm going to do is stand or sit in front of it and talk for a couple of minutes. What is the easiest way to accomplish that using apps that come with Windows or something free that I can download?

If you're looking for super simple and free. The Windows 8 Camera App will allow you to record video files which it then saves to the Pictures->Camera Roll folder.  It's no frills but will do the trick in a pinch.
When you open the Camera App there are two buttons one that looks like a video camera and one a still camera.  You click the video camera button and it starts recording immediately. When you're finished you click the button again and the video is saved to the location mentioned above.

Perfect, thanks - sounds like just what the non-doctor (me) ordered.

And you can use Windows Movie Maker to trim the start and the end, so there's not awkward silence or footage of you pressing keys and clicking around. Windows Movie Maker comes free with Windows.


text:
I want to add some audio to the end of a video
I have just created a simple AVI video that contains a small powerpoint slide as an opener, then it does into a timed installation of some software. I have managed to copy and paste the final frame so that once the software is installed, the stopwatch appears to stop showing the time it took to install.
I've recorded the video in AVI format using CamStudio, I'd like to be able to keep the audio track that exists and also add a final audio track or voiceover at the end of the video.
Anyone know any free software that will allow me to do this?
I suppose I could just leave it as it is, load it onto YouTube and annotate it on there, but I just wanted to do something a little more professional. Comments/suggestions welcome.

It sounds like you are looking to do what is traditionally handled by a Non-Linear Video Editing software, or just video editor for short.  There are a number of free and cheap options available.  They lack many of the bells and whistles of more advanced software, but are actually typically easier to use than the more advanced software targeted at professionals.
If you are on Windows, Windows Movie Maker will easily allow you to do what you are trying to do and has a nice, friendly user interface.  Due to stability issues and limited functionality, if you want to get more advanced than very basic stuff, it is worth purchasing a better option, such as Premiere Elements, Pinnacle Studio or something similar in the consumer targeted market though.
If you aren't on Windows, you could use OpenShot video editor which is available for Mac and Linux and should also be able to cover your needs.
As Julian was kind enough to point out in his answer, there is also a list of open source video editors listed on Wikipedia's List of Video Editors, though there is a very wide range in the usability of the products in that list, though most all of them should be able to address your fairly basic needs.
From your comment, I noticed that you were doing some powerpoint slide stuff.  You can actually take an image of that and use it directly in the video editor as well, rather than having to output the video through PowerPoint.

I upvoted because the answer was good. But i advise strongly not to use Windows Movie Maker as a editing tool. It's very unstable and can crash while you are busy editing. Hours of work could be lost.

@Julian - great point about the stability of WMM.  Updated my answer to include that it should only be used for minimal stuff.

Didn't find WMM that intitive to work, but it did the job.  Thanks AJ Henderson.  Much appreciated.

There are many good free open source video editing software available.
A couple of them are:
Pinnacle Videospin, downloadpage: http://videospin.en.softonic.com/
ZS4 Video Edit, official website: http://www.zs4.org/
LiVES, official website: http://lives.sourceforge.net/
Kdenlive, official website: http://www.kdenlive.org/
Avidemux,
official website:
http://avidemux.sourceforge.net/
Jahshaka, official website: http://www.jahshaka.com/
You could check on Wikipedia for a longer list. See link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_editing_software#Free_and_open-source
A good video editing software is "Sony Vegas". But its quite  expensive. A better video editing software is "Adobe Premiere Pro" but also more expensive. And If you don't care about money anymore I'd advise you to use a Mac and "Final Cut".

thanks for updating the answer to be more useful without depending on the links.

If you're on a Mac, iMovie is free.  I've been using it for years to do all my video editing (300+ YouTube videos and counting!).  It's got still frames, color correction, titles, voice-over, transitions, etc.
YouTube also has (or used to have) a built-in editor.  I believe you upload your footage and then YouTube allows you to edit it there.  That means you'd probably have to record and upload the voice over section separately, and then splice the two videos together within YouTube's editor.

This Youtube editor could be the futurue

@Julian I'm not sure if that's serious or tongue-in-cheek!  The reason I don't like the YouTube editor is that you have to upload all your raw footage, and that takes waaaaay too long. Right now I have 30 minutes of footage that I'm editing into a video that will be a little over one minute. Even with fast internet speeds, it still takes 20 minutes (maybe) to upload 1 minute of HD video.  30 minutes would take overnight!! Now if YouTube had an offline editor you could download, that might interest me!!


text:
What equipment should I get for starting out making professional quality films?
I want to start two short film projects but I don't know what equipment I need to get a good professional quality result. I've been saving some money so I hope budget is not a problem. Also, what's most commonly used to record audio in this kind of project? I want to get the sound from two people talking with the camera placed far away from them. I'm trying to make an independent production company so I'm seeing this as an investment. The cheaper the better though.

Hello AlanK, and welcome to AVP. I'd just like to suggest adding to your question, with some more specifics. For example, saying "I hope budget is not a problem" and later "The cheaper the better, though" can be very misguiding.
Also, budget gear is different to different people - DSLRs for some, but those working in film will tell you the C500 - at $19k, is a budget camera!

@nchpmn - that's more those in Hollywood.  It is quite typical for DSLRs to be used in independent film and even some commercial productions, though the actual way those DSLRs are typically kitted does bring them up near the $19k range.  There are cheaper options available though that meet the professional standards.  You can build a high quality rig around BlackMagic's cameras for around the 10 grand range for the camera itself.  Really hard to do anything truly considered professional for under 5 grand though since most professional lenses will run you 2 to 2 and a half grand alone.

Let alone cinema lenses that start around 20 grand.

@AJHenderson I asked for clarification because OP is asking for "professional quality", where "budget is not a problem". Hence, I'd recommend my 'daily' camera, the C100, as a starting point.

For videography, the best bang for your buck is, hands down, going to be an entry level DSLR and a decent lens.  For audio, if your budget can allow for it, I suggest getting a stand alone multi-track recorder.  The Zoom H4n is a particularly popular model with videographers for its low price and decent (though not superb) audio quality.  (Update: The H5 and H6 are now available offering significant upgrades over the H4n, but also at a slightly higher price point.)
There are far better options and values as you get more skill in the field, however for starting out, you probably don't want to invest too much until you get some experience under your belt.  It's easy to spend upwards of $10 to $15 grand on a nice videography setup as you get more and more professional, but a $1500-$1700 setup with something like a Canon T4i or Lumix G2 with a moderate level lens and an H4n or similar for recording audio (with some basic shotgun or lavaliere mics) is a decent start.
Also, be sure not to skimp on a tripod.  You'll want a solid, sturdy tripod (probably aluminum) with a good fluid tripod head to make sure you can get steady shots.  Just a solid tripod alone can run you in to the $350 to $500 range.
If you'll be shooting indoors, you may also need a light kit.  A cheap 3 point lighting kit can be had for a couple hundred dollars, though depending on what you intend to shoot, you may be able to get by without this initially.
So overall breakdown I'd recommend starting out is around $500 to $600 on an entry level DSLR, $150 to $300 on a lens (if your DSLR body supports video auto focus, such as the Canon T4i, a stepper motor lens is needed), about $280 for an audio recorder, about $100 to $200 on mics, about $400 on a tripod and optionally about $150-$250 on lights.  Altogether, that's about $1600 or $1850 and you should be able to make some pretty solid professional looking stuff.
It does add up quickly, but the good news is that you can improve on the gear incrementally over time once you have the basics.  If you do have more than 2 grand to start out with, I'd spend a little bit extra on the lens or the camera body to get better low light performance and better background blur.  Better mics or mic boom arms also couldn't hurt and if you do go with lights, light modifiers or more powerful lights is also never a bad investment, though the best place to spend any extra money is going to depend on the kind of shooting you are planning on doing.

Thanks a bunch! Just one thing, I was checking out the camcorders and they aren't as expensive as i thought they were. What do you thing of those? Again, thank you very much, it's really helpful.

@AlanK - what kind of camcorders do you mean?  Your average consumer targeted camcorder in the sub $600 range is going to have a small sensor and a small lens and will likely have a fairly limited dynamic range.  These all make them less than ideal for a professional quality end product.  Things like nice background blurs would be near impossible and low light performance will be substandard compared to larger sensor DSLRs with faster lenses.

Oh, one other caveat to that sub-$600 statement.  The GoPro is a major exception to that rule.  It has a really great image sensor for the price, but it accomplishes that by sacrificing pretty much any kind of flexibility at all.  It has a decent fixed lens, but no display (without an addon) and no ability to adjust from that one particular focal length.  If it happens to be usable for what you need, it is a lot of camera for a low, low price, but it is very limited in what it can be used for.  It also won't get background blur, but is much better than just about anything else in that space.

In defence of the Zoom H4n, and this is of course purely subjective, the audio quality is superb. It may not outperform a good shotgun mic in situation where you'll want to use a good shotgun mic, but as an all-round recording device, 'decent' is selling it short.

@marcks for the price I agree, however as digital recorders in general go it is still very noisy. It is the best value around, but it is only decent quality. I say that as a very satisfied h4n owner.

I should clarify that that is in comparison to professional digital recorders.  It's better than any consumer recorders for the line inputs (there is an Olympus model that beats it for the built in mics for a lower price).  However, compared to a higher end unit (with a higher end price to go with) the noise floor is very high in comparison.

Zoom H4n is a pretty good unit for audio
Clean up your recordings (if req'd) in Adobe Audition using the Noise Print feature and you can remove a lot of extraneous noise.

This is not really an answer to the question.  They are asking what equipment do they need for starting out making a professional quality film.  Just an audio recorder does not answer what equipment is needed (or answers it very, very poorly).

Thanks for your feedback. A discussion on equipment might include reference to useful applications and a recommendation on a particular piece of hardware; in this case the Zoom H4n and Adobe Audition.

True, and partial answers are ok, though with no further expansion as to why the H4n is a good choice this is still a rather low quality answer.  If you could expand on it some, that would help it be more useful, particularly since the h4n had already been mentioned.  Also, the noise print feature of Adobe Audition is more or less irrelevant to a question on equipment since it is software and a feature in software that would only be used if there were noise issues in the first place (which a professional quality project should seek to limit or eliminate to begin with.)

I only comment because I think with a little more effort it could be a more valuable answer to the question than it currently is.

I would suggest looking into the black magic pocket cinema camera (bmpcc). This camera has a very wide dynamic range which gives you the possibility to record footage that you can color grade. This is an important part of film making.
Also the bmpcc has a 16mm sensor, this will allow you to buy very reasonably priced and very "filmic" looking 16mm lenses from ebay (make sure to always check reviews of a certain type of lens, not all of them work).
If it is for hobby films look into DIY shoulder rigs sliders cranes and lighting, they will look crappy but will work, pvc is your friend!
For audio a zoom h1 will work (it is cheap and records nice stereo sound and clean mics via the input) h4n is the bigger better brother that allows you to record 4 channels instead of 2.

This depends on your budget. I'll assume you have an infinite budget and let you make decisions based on your actual budget.
The first thing you want is a quality camcorder. Some people will recommend a DSLR, but those have issues with color accuracy in film. Get a quality camcorder and make sure it has an external microphone and headphone jack.  You may also want something with a hot seat if you want a light or mounted microphone.
When it comes to audio, get a quality shotgun mic. They are very general purpose and work very well if you invest in quality one. The easiest way to record audio is through the microphone jack on the camcorder, but you can also use a separate audio reorder, but this means more work at editing. Some people will tell you to buy a clapboard, but just clapping has always worked fine for me.
Editing is a very important part of the video production process (but remember that doesn't substitute for skill.). Most problems created by cheaper equipment can be fixed more cheaply in editing than by upgrading equipment.  My personal favorite programs are Adobe Premiere, which can be expensive, and Lightworks which is slightly less expensive. I've also heard good things about Final Cut and Sony Vegas.

Here is a list of equipments my film-making friends consider very useful.(I  own few of them). Budget is  $1800, excluding a good computer and post production software.

A decent DSLR camera with kit lens. (eg: Canon t3i with 18-55mm lens - $500)
Prime lens for great image quality and shallow depth of field (Canon 50mm f1.8 - $100). Great for shooting interviews and close shots.
Wide angle lens to capture landscape and real estate (Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 - $500)
A good audio recorder (Zoom h4n - $200)
An image stabilisation device with a gimbal. These are extremely useful to get rid of shakes and obtain smooth, fluid video shots while moving your camera (Glidecam HD2000 is popular and costs $500).  A tripod is generally optional once you have this.

Is there a reason you think a kit lens is worth it?  The image quality from them is considered to not be worth it by most.


text:
Compressor 4.1: Why can't I select the group I made for distributed processing?
I'm currently trying to get distributed processing to work using two different computers on the same network running the same versions of osx, fcpx, and compressor. When I go to choose the group I made from the "process on:" dropdown, it will not let me choose the group that I made. I'm trying to export to compressor directly from FCPX, and that works, but it would be much faster if I could farm out the videos from this computer to my other mac. Does anyone have any idea why I can't select my group?

Compressor 4.1 does not support distributed renderings for other programs (such as FCPX).  This is documented on page 11 of the Transitioning To Compressor document.  You can only do distributed encoding for transcodes defined entirely within Compressor, not renders.

Okay, I missed that detail when reviewing the white paper; it makes more sense now. So the only way I can use the distributed processing function is to use compressor to transcode existing videos by building a batch from scratch within compressor then?

@Alex - right, and it would have to already have been rendered out of FCPX.  This makes sense when you think about it because Compressor knows how to distribute the load of its compression algorithms, but doesn't have any information on how to distribute FCPX rendering tasks.


text:
Reduce File Size of Dxtory Video Without Causing Lag
I'm making videos while playing on my computer. Everything is working well, however 15 minutes of video consumes 50GB, which is too much space. I use Dxtory with Lagarith Lossless Codec.  If I use the default Codecs I get lag.
How can I reduce this 50GB without causing lag?

The problem with compression is that it is a double edged sword. It can reduce the space required to store video, however it also takes processing time to perform the compression.
When you are running a game, however, the CPU and GPU are already busy keeping the game running smoothly. In order to shrink the file size, you must either reduce the quality or increase the compression. If you increase the compression, the computer has to take more away from the game and you start seeing lag.
The only ways around this are to:

a) reduce the resolution of the video you are recording.  Throwing
away information is free and will also make applying further
compression less processor intensive.
b) move the encoding to another system.  Some recorders can send the data to another computer and have that computer perform the encoding.  I am not sure if Dxtory supports this or not though.
c) Continue to use the uncompressed files and transcode the video after you record a clip.

Of these options, c is probably the easiest way to maintain maximum quality.  You can use a program like Handbrake to take the large file and compress it down to something of reasonable size, just so long as you don't have to record more than you have room for at a given time.  Note that this process can take quite some time depending on the quality level you choose and how fast your computer is.

Handbrake is very good, c of course is the best way for me!

@AlessioMTX - sounds good.  Thanks for the clean up on my answer too. In almost 2 years participating with SE, I think this is the first time I've seen a question revised by the answerer and the answer revised by the asker.


text:
Copying timeline to new sequence lowers resolution
Using Adobe Premiere CS6, when I copy my old timeline to new sequence all the .gif and .jpeg background images including titles lose a lot of a resolution... Both sequences have the same settings, I only increased fps on a new one.
Why?

Can you post samples?  Are you sure that the settings for both sequences are the same and that they didn't get altered when you first added content to the sequence?  There is no reason that I can think of for this behavior unless something is missing in the explanation of the problem.

Oh, one other thought, are you using the adaptive preview?  If you have a slower system, then the added frame rate may cause the preview to drop the resolution so it can keep up with the frame rate, but final output wouldn't be different then.

Problem isn't in preview, when I create video it is the same quality. Sequence is completely the same. I checked all the settings. Here is the link for before and after pic: link

now that I'm home and have a copy of Premiere in front of me, I see my theory about interpolation was wrong.  It appears that for images, it Interprets the footage as whatever the framerate of the sequence is.  That's why the options were greyed out.

It looks like this may require some more serious dialog to figure out what we are missing.  If you want to continue in chat I can grant you access to be able to talk despite not normally having high enough reputation yet.

sure if you still wish to help I can try this chat thing in the morning

It appears that your pixel aspect ratio and interlace/progressive choices differ between the two sequences.  What you are seeing is a combination of the interlacing and the change in pixel aspect ratio (which results in the image having to be scaled to a new set of pixels that aren't exactly like the original.
For playback on a TV that supports interlaced video, you won't notice a whole lot of difference, but on a computer or progressive display, it will look funny.  For best quality, you will want to use a progressive, square pixel sequence if you are outputting to PC or to a progressive display (such as 1080P or 720P TV).
The bad news is that it doesn't appear there is a good way to make any changes to the sequence that you need to make while there is content in it, but if you make a new sequence, you can go to the settings tab and specify everything the way that you need them specified.


text:
What are the key PC specs for best editing HD videos?
My wife bought a GoPro Hero3 for some simple home video: kids, holidays, etc.
The problem is that some videos are not playing very well on our old PCs.  We want to buy a new one for video editing. As far as I understood, such a computer should have as strong of a CPU as possible and plenty of RAM. It seems that the video card also has some role, but it's not as important as CPU/RAM in general. Is this assumption correct?

It depends on if the software you are planning to use for editing has gpu acceleration. The graphics card can be the most important part.  Have you decided on an editing software yet?

Oh, one other observation, while a GoPro is a great camera for the price, keep in mind that it is highly targeted at the action sports area and has no zoom so you may find it limiting for general home use since it is always wide angle.

@AJHenderson, we have samsung camera for 'real family things'. But we decided for GoPro as we, as our children like to do active things.

Dealing with HD video has two main components.  The first is the ability to decode the highly compressed video (which is computationally intensive) and then is the ability to deal with the large uncompressed data (which is bandwidth intensive).
The fastest encoders/decoders use the GPU on the graphics card to improve performance as a GPU is far more capable at attacking the problems related to rendering and compression than a traditional CPU is.  So if you have one of these, then the GPU is by far the most important piece.  If you don't however, then the CPU becomes by far the most important piece as encoding/decoding on a CPU is very, very intensive.
As far as dealing with the uncompressed data, the relatively small compressed files will be decompressed into memory and then played out of memory, so it is important to have high speed RAM, but not necessarily the need for a lot of it for play back.  For editing on the other hand, quantity becomes a bigger factor since the more video that can be stored in memory, the smoother your editing experience will be.
Finally, you have the hard drives.  It is very helpful if these are quick for loading videos (particularly for editing) and also for working as scratch disk (where editing stores temporary files that don't fit in memory), however it is probably the least critical part.  This can change though if you start working with higher quality, less compressed video where the file sizes start getting larger.
So, to summarize, GPU is highest priority if your software can use it, otherwise CPU and then speed of memory, quantity of memory and speed of hard drive in that order.  CPU is still second most important if you do have GPU processing support.  If you don't, then GPU is of almost no importance at all.

I would recommend making sure you get a solid cpu over a solid gpu. Gpus are much easier to upgrade later on than cpus.

With gpu acceleration there is generally minimal cpu load. Also a cpu replacement down the road is not hard or expensive. You just can't upgrade to anything that doesn't match the socket which limits options. Getting a motherboard that supports current top cpus is important. Not getting the top cpu.

If you run Windows you will need an install disk as well.  Windows only runs on the cpu it was installed on.

It's been a while since I did a cpu replacement, but last I did it, it was just a reactivation.

Reactivation on Windows 7 or later requires an install disk.  It doesn't have to be the original one, but a cpu isn't just plug and play.  You also may need to recompile ffmpeg and other programs.  Some cpu upgrades also require aftermarket cooling, particularly if you're upgrading a stock machine.

As you mentioned, there are three important components; ram, CPU, and GPU.  Another component worth considering is the hard drive.
RAM isn't incredibly important unless you intend to be doing intense visual effects.  In my opinion, 8 gigs is the sweet spot for cost right now.  If you want to do effects with something like After Effects, Smoke, or Nuke, 16 gigs is the sweet spot.  Video editing is largely a linear task so ram isn't as important as in other high performance tasks.
The CPU is very important, but the requirements are very different from something like gaming.  Video rendering uses essentially as many cores are available, so an 8 core i7 with a low clock speed would outperform a super speedy dual-core i5.  I would recommend either a quad or octo-core Core i7 or, if you have the budget, a Xeon.
The GPU is by far the most critical component, but only if your software can take advantage of it.  I always recommend Nvidia because most professional programs use CUDA which is exclusive to Nvidia GPUs.  Usually your best option is a GeForce GTX, I would recommend the 660 or 760.  At a higher price range you have something like the Titan Z or the GTX 970.  Quadros aren't worth the cost for personal use because reliability and uptime isn't a major issue.
In addition to the three previously mentioned components, I would also recommend a 512 gig Intel SSD.  They will significantly increase the speed of your computer, especially when rendering.  I have seen dozens of articles listing SSDs as the most cost-effective upgrade for a computer.
Another thing worth mentioning is that if you're looking to buy a machine out of the box, look for something marketed as a workstation.  Those will have the specs that you need.  The personal favorite manufacturers are Dell, HP, or Apple.

I'm using a GoPro Hero 3+ too
Even on my fast MacPro Westmere (mid-2012) setting your GoPro to resolutions above 1440 will slow playback and rendering. Going up to 2K and 4K might not even work at all.
Also, if using the ProTune setting on your GoPro, make sure you utilise the free GoPro Studio conversion tool to get vastly improved picture quality from the native MP4 files GoPro creates; otherwise the videos can look a bit flat.
Hope this helps

For playing and editing video I'd suggest the following criteria are the most important:

the graphics card is the single most important thing
then CPU, but any recent processor will be fine
then fast hard disks
then RAM

For particular needs you may vary this, but it's a pretty good list.

I have an old iMac that suffers badly with GoPro footage. I borrowed my wife's rMBP that has an i7 CPU, 16GB RAM, SSD, and a card reader.
This machine imported in an instant! Converting protune still took a little time, perhaps faster than 1:1 (meaning 10 minutes of footage was converted faster than 10 minutes) but you'll want to go eat a snack if you are working with an afternoon of GoPro footage. Editing (iMovie) was smooth and easy. No lag or stuttering at all. Exporting (rendering) was pretty quick. No snack needed.
The hardware accleration of the i7 was amazing. The rig I build will have the fastest i7 they make!! RAM is good but 16-32 should do it. SSD is expensive but essential!! A decent GPU is enough.


text:
How Does Remote Streaming Work?
I am thinking of developing a software solution to send images from digital cameras to a mobile phone.
I have seen DVRs with 4-8 channels selling as kits. They allow remote access viewing via a mobile device.
How are the images streamed from plugged in DVR to router to mobile?
Is this type of service reliable?  If we assume that the internet connection is OK are the images reliable to view in real-time on a mobile phone?
Is it possible for multiple users to access the same stream?

The part about IP resolution is certainly not on topic, so I've removed it.  The parts about how to stream video are possibly on-topic, so I'll leave it up to the community if they want to close or not.  It might help if you included more detail about what you are hoping to accomplish by streaming from a camera directly.  The workable solutions are very different depending on if it is needed for smooth video or security purposes and may also impact if it is on topic.

@AJHenderson Hi, thanks for that. I was struggling to find the right forum. The IP resolution was the most important part for me. I can delete this question myself in a minute.  Do you know of a correct forum here to post that type of question to? Thanks

The IP resolution would probably be good on super user.  There is no difference between IP resolution for video reasons than for say a chat program.

There are numerous different possible ways for a video stream to be done.  Generally video is streamed over a UDP streaming format such as RTMP or something similar.  It can also sometimes use a series of individual pictures (particularly common when refresh rate is not that high, such as IP security cameras.)
In the case of a home device acting as the source, a connection would have to be made between the client device and the home device, possibly using a third party server to help get across any firewalls or dynamic IPs.  The information would then be streamed the same way as any live stream technology.  The video would have to be encoded on the stream server and then passed to the client.
The reliability of the service would depend entirely on Internet connection speed of both the client and the server.  Streaming video at any kind of significant quality is a very bandwidth intensive activity and most residential connections are not capable of the necessary upload speeds for high quality video, though standard definition may be possible.  Higher end connections can cover HD speeds though.
As for multiple users, within a local network, multicast can be used to distribute UDP packets of a stream to multiple users, however, across the public Internet, multicast is not possible.  An individual connection has to be made to each client and the content must be sent once for each client.  (Two clients takes twice the bandwidth requirement of one.)  With sufficient bandwidth, there is no reason the packets can't be independently streamed to both, but that goes beyond the limits of just about all consumer Internet connections.

excellent.  It is what I wanted to know.


text:
How can I create the blurring effect in a video like this?
I am noticing more and more product videos being released using lots of blur and the focus shifting from one point to another.
This is an example of the technique I'm refering to:
http://vimeo.com/43763778
How is the shot accomplished?
I am noob when it comes to video editing, so I want to ask what are the producers of this video most likely using, and how are they doing it?
Sorry if this question seems a bit open ended, but I just want to ask, what techniques have been apparently used on this video to make it what it is.
Thank you.

There are no filters applied there.  It's pretty much basic shots, probably from a DSLR based on the feel of the video.  The shots with the one guy were shot with things overexposed and then they upped the contrast to try and do recovery, but it results in large overblown highlights where there was too much light to fit in the dynamic range (the amount of variation between brightest and darkest spot) that the camera could capture.  It otherwise all looks like standard footage though, nothing special done other than basic color grading.
Note that if you are talking about the shifting blur effect, that's called rack focus and is so apparent because of the use of a fast lens with a short depth of field.  It looks remarkably similar to footage I get with my 5D Mark iii and 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens.
Rack Focus can either be from out of focus completely to focus on a particular subject or from one subject to another. It generally uses a narrow depth of field and a follow focus may be used to help reach the focus points exactly and in a controlled manner.
The technique is often used either to introduce a subject from a dream or stunned like state (for example, if someone is waking up or in an accident, their pov might start out with a rack focus from being completely out of focus). It is also very frequently used to shift the viewer's focus from one subject to another in a dramatic way. In the more artistic sense, it can also be used to simply explore the depth of the scene by moving the viewer through the space.

yes, I was talking about the shifting blur effect! great explenation thank you

@user1721135 - ah, excellent.  Glad I thought to update the answer with that info.  I honestly didn't even think about that being a special thing they were doing the first time through, but only noticed it when I was watching again to see if I might have missed what you were talking about.  It's actually a fairly basic technique so I didn't pay it much attention at first, but then realized with how much they were using it it could be what you were talking about.  Follow Focus is another thing you might be interested in.  It's a device used for achieve a rack focus from one point to another.

@user1721135 Added more detail about rack focus for you and also updated your question to be a little more directed towards what you were looking for so that it will be easier for other's looking for the same info.


text:
Film vs digital - telling the difference
There is an ongoing movement for movies to be recorded in digital instead of film.  If I'm watching a movie at home on a 1080p HDTV and a bluray player, could I see the difference between something originally recorded on film vs digital?  Are those differences erased in the conversion to the home viewing format?  Would I have I go to a theater that showed analog films to see the movie as the director intended?

The final presentation has been digitally altered and compressed.  Even if it was full quality, you'd likely be unable to tell as film grain can artificially be added (or removed) and color grading can adjust for much of the differences in the way color is captured.  If no editing had been done to the source, it would be pretty clear even on your home set if you knew what to look for, but after post production is done, you can make one look like the other so that it's pretty hard to tell the difference.
As far as how you are more likely to see it the way the director intended, a high quality digital theater is the best bet.  While films may be shot on film some of the time and digital other times, they never go through the entire process of editing in analog (at least not for any hollywood film and not for most artsy films either.)
The first step after shooting a film reel is going to be to scan it to a digital format so that it can be used in the NLE (non-linear editing) software and whatever compositing software is being used for effects work.  Since all films go through a digital process, the process of converting back to film is more a matter of convenience for theaters that lack high quality digital projection that can match the quality of the actual digital files.
It's also worth noting that theaters that do use film projection have to worry about degradation of the film which happens rapidly and results in imperfections in the playback.  Digital cinema projectors have no such drawback.
The debate in the film world about digital vs cinema cameras is rather about how the light is captured.  The primary difference between film and digital sensors is not how the final product looks so much as how it captures light.  A digital camera is exceedingly high quality and very precise, but similar to a keyboard that can play an exact frequency of a note, it lacks the "warmth" of film.  This is similar to the CD vs Vinyl debate.  The film camera captures the light differently and as an analog medium has a softer and "warmer" feel that some people prefer to the "cold" and exacting nature of digital sensors.
This is only a factor for the initial capture of the image however and after that, it doesn't matter and all parties agree that having the most accurate and exact capture in the conversion to the digital world is important, just the film buffs want it to be in a high quality scan while the digital camera guys see no reason not to shoot directly to a hard drive.

For something shot in a controlled setting, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between top-end digital cameras and 35mm film. The usual tells would be grain vs noise and highlight handling. Resolution is not really an issue, because even the finest film negative is reduced to (at best) 4K digital as the first step in post.
Aside from the taking medium, everything you see in a movie released on blu-ray is 'digital' from that point on (Digital Intermediate (DI) is the general term). Working in digital allows easy integration of CGI and application of other effects. Film grain is removed from the camera originals on scanning, and perhaps added to generated elements to match. Also, by the time it gets to BVD it's highly compressed, which can further mask any source differences.
Even movies released on film for theaters have almost certainly been through the DI process, and printed to film only as the last step. There is nothing I'm aware of in taking or grading that can be accomplished only in film any more.
I look forward to other opinions. (-:


text:
Software to edit .mov files from a Canon 7D
I have some video files I recorded using a Canon 7D (.mov encased H.264). The recording is full HD resolution at 30fps. I need to...

Adjust the white balance and saturation
Combine several short clips into one longer clip, and
Export to a format that will allow smaller file sizes.

Anything that would be ready to upload to Vimeo would be a plus. Due to budget constraints I need to do this as inexpensively as possible. Is there an open source, free, or inexpensive program out there that can do what I need?
I use a Windows 7 (64) system.

Could you please add your OS in the question? This increases the chances of a useful answer.

VirtualDub is a very powerful video editor. However, it's not very intuitive to use it and it has a steep learning curve. On the plus side, there's a large internet community that supports it, so lots of online resources are available.
For your specific problem I've made a short tutorial below. I've done all steps in Windows XP with two .mov files from a Canon 550D. Unfortunately I failed to find an easy way of adjusting white balance with VirtualDub.
I've used various on-line resources to compile this tutorial. There might be a more optimal way of doing this, but I found this the most straight forward.
Installing VirtualDub + plugins

Download the VirtualDub 1.10.3.
Download ffinputdriver to enable loading .mov files.
Drag the VirtualDub folder to a convenient location. You don't need to install the program, it's click and run.
Place the contents of the plugin folder of ffinputdriver in the plugin folder found in the VirtualDub folder.
Start VirtualDub
First you'll need to convert your video to AVI. That's what VirtualDub works with natively. A warning: my 1280x720 .mov file of 25MB became a 600MB .avi file.
The transcoding speed is dependent on your machine.

Transcoding .mov to .avi

File -> Open video file
File -> Save segmented AVI
Repeat for all your files.

Adjust Saturation

File -> Open video file. Choose one of the AVI files you generated in the previous step.
The video file opens in two screens. The left is the original, the right one is the processed video. At first they should be identical. You can scale the video views by right-clicking on them and choosing an appropriate zoom percentage.
Go to Video and check if Full processing mode is on.
Go to Video -> Filters -> Add -> HSV Adjust.
Adjust the saturation to your liking and hit OK. Hit OK again in the filter window.
Click File -> Save segmented AVI... and save the edited file somewhere.
Repeat the process for all your videos in need of saturation adjustments.

Combine clips into one longer clip

File -> Open video file. Choose the first file of your sequence.
File -> Append AVI segment. The selected video file will be appended to the end of the open file.
Repeat this with all the video files.

Export to smaller file

Follow the steps outlined here.
From a 25MB .mov file I got a 600MB .avi file, which got transformed to a 2.7MB .mp4 file with the steps given in the linked tutorial.

The Youtube Video Editor does the things you list.
Here's a screenshot of the editor in action.

As you can see you can adjust the color balance and the saturation and, not shown here, it is also possible to combine several clips into one.
When you're done editing go to your Video Dashboard, click on the arrow next to Edit on your video and click Download MP4. See the screenshot below:

This will download your video to your computer with the edits applied.

Do the original uncompressed files have to be uploaded before I can work on them or is the editing done locally? Is there a way to locally save the result?

The original files have to be uploaded and processed by Youtube. When they're edited you can download the results. I've updated my answer.

Thanks. Unfortunately I live in a rural area where the only broadband available is ADSL. I get 6Mbit speed down, but only about 500Kbit up. These files are 335MB per minute. :-(

I tried it with a sample clip. 6 minutes of video took 12+ hours to upload. Once edited, the sharp focus of the original looked like mush.

I don't get the download option when I click the "edit" dropdown menu, either.

I can imagine the sharpness reduction, Youtube probably encodes it with its own settings, but I don't understand why the download option is not available. Ah well, I guess it doesn't really matter if your upload took 12+ hours. Another option: take a look at [VirtualDub], the mov plugin, several available here and the white balance plugin. In theory it should do what you want, but the learning curve is steep.

A possible reason for the download issue. Shortly after I uploaded the clip, it was showing a status containing possible copyrighted material. The clip was from a piano recital, and the piece was properly identified as one written over 100 years ago and in the public domain. Apparently the student played it so well that it was identified as a recent recording covered by copyright. I disputed the status and now it is no longer showing as possible copyrighted content and I am able to download it.

For whatever reason, the focus is much better now also. Other than tying up my DSL for a number of hours, this does seem to work for the basic things I need. Since the DSL bottleneck is only in terms of upload speed, I can still use the internet while it is uploading, It just takes longer for my requests for pages to get through. Pages load down to me at close to regular speed.

AviDemux seems to do what you need.  The UI is not very friendly at all, but you can open the first file and then append additional files to it.
You can also apply filters to adjust saturation, hue and color gammas.  There is also an auto-white point tool that may or may not get the white point you want (no way to manually select a white point unfortunately.)
You can then export in any supported format which should allow much smaller file sizes.  This includes what appears to be pretty elaborate H.264 options.
Through all my searching, that was the best free utility I could find that allowed applications of filters.  There really isn't much out there unless you go in to commercial offerings.  Commercial offerings start around $60 from what I can gather.  My brother in law has had decent luck with Cyberlink's editing software, though I have not personally tried it.

I have not personally used it, but Lightworks might be an option.  It looks fairly interesting and comprehensive for a product with a free version.  It also has a professional version that unlocks more features for $60 a year.  I think the free version would probably handle your needs though from what I could gather.  I might even check it out as a post Adobe era option.
Update: This might or might not work.  It doesn't work with mov encased H.264 apparently (well not without paying the $60.)


text:
Shutter speed when recording with DSLR
I know that the shutter speed should be approximatively as twice as much the fps. However, I know people who tune the shutter speed to any value they need it to achieve the correct exposure. They say that, except for a few cases, using a shutter speed bigger than the recommended value (2X the fps) is not noticeable.
I would like to hear your opinion about this. It is quite important to me, because if this is true, I would avoid using ND filters, as they reduce image quality.

"I would avoid using ND filters, as they reduce image quality." How is that? ND adds stops without affecting focal depth. If you open the iris full and put on ND filters, that's better than closing the iris more. You're question though is about using increased shutter speed, instead of iris or ND.

On DSLRs, a fast shutter can actually be better.  DSLRs scan the image to sample rather than capturing the whole frame at once.  This is why you get a distortion when you do a rapid pan.  A faster shutter will result in stopping motion more clearly (less motion blur), which can seem a little harsher than the softness of film, but a sharper image may be preferable.  That said, a good ND shouldn't have a significant impact on image quality.
So, my final advice is, if you want crisp frames with little motion blur, use high shutter speed, if you need smooth motion for things moving around a static scene, a high quality ND is probably better.  If you simply have a fairly static shot, then shutter is probably the way to go again.

I disagree with the above answers.
Our visual culture and the century of cinema has dictated that we evaluate a 180 degree shutter as "normal", because that is how film cameras have worked almost forever, and that is how most scenes in every movie are shot.
180 degree shutter is the same as 1 over twice the frame rate, or 1/48 for 24fps.
If there is little to no movement in frame, it is true that shutter speed will not create any visible effect, but with fast character movement or almost any but the slowest camera movement a different shutter speed will be noticeable.
It is valid to say that for storytelling reasons you need the shutter to be closed down, but if its just for technical reasons, it will be noticed, and will come through as amateurish. Use ND filters for exteriores, for sure. If you are afraid of quality loss, test them, but every major production uses ND filters, so unless you use cheap plastic ones, you will be fine. Be more wary of color cast than of resolution loss though. Some digital sensors need extra IR filtration on hot day exteriors to maintain color consistency.
Regarding timelapses, the same rule applies. Use 180 degree shutter unless the story calls for something different. This presents an extra challenge. If you need one frame every 10 seconds, it means that each frame must be exposed for 5 seconds, which is a lot for day exteriores, and you will need a lot of ND filtration. I am sure there are many great timelapses that do not follow this rule, but I suggest looking at Kooyanisqatsi, the feature film that made nature timelapses famous. Every shot uses a 180 degree shutter, and it looks gorgeous, cinematic, epic.

In almost all digital video cameras there's no physical shutter, just a circuit that limits the exposure time. As long as that time allows the entire sensor to be illuminated and scanned, you should see no degradation of any individual frame. In this sense, as long as the minimum is met, there should be no visible difference between a fast shutter and an ND. But then there's motion.
With limited motion, fast shutter times and NDs are pretty much equivalent, and trade off against aperture. A significant difference is that closing the aperture increases depth of field, where increasing shutter speed (or using NDs) does not. So aperture and ND have different visual effects, but only you can decide which is better for your shot.
With more rapid motion the difference is more obvious. With fast shutter times motion will seem less fluid, with each frame being crisper, more frozen in time, which is not true for NDs. With normal shuttering, motion tends to blur within the frame, since different positions of a moving object are integrated during the exposure. This is usually more pleasing to my eye, but  your aesthetic, or your situation, should be what matters.

would you suggest to use higher shutter speed for a time lapse (no pictures, just speeding up the video)? IMO, it wouldn't be noticeable in that situation

If there will be motion during the time that the sensor is exposed, and you want to minimize motion blur, then a fast shutter would be better than an ND. If there will be no motion, or if you don't care about motion blur, then it doesn't matter. Whichever is more convenient will be fine.

Also, DSLRs do have physical shutters.  They just don't use them when they're recording video (at least none that I know of).  So for recording time lapse, some cameras can be set to take 1 still per second, e.g., using the physical shutter.


text:
Converting videos taken by D5100 for a Youtube upload
What is the best way to compress a video shot by my Nikon D5100 so it can be easily uploaded to Youtube?
I have a video of around 600MB, I tried converting using Xilisoft video converter but without any success.

What went wrong with the Xilisoft converter?

Relevant: http://avp.stackexchange.com/questions/5318/what-codec-will-my-youtube-uploads-be-output-in-and-what-codec-should-i-use-to-u/5715#5715

Amazingly, the best place to start with a question like this is Youtube. Believe it or not they have help file that explain the process with quite a bit of detail:
https://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1722171&topic=2888648&ctx=topic
On Youtube itself many others have offered up video tutorials on how to do it:
Youtube.com search
I would take the recommendations that YouTube has on the help pages, and simply apply those settings to your favorite video software, it could be something like Adobe Premiere Elements which is a very common video editor, but many others exist.

As dpolitt mentioned, Premiere should be able to do this, but when trying for a number of videos taken at a recent conference it failed badly when trying to optimise for YouTube- it either came out with files that were far to big, or when compressed down their quality was terrible.
The solution was to run Handbrake on the output from Premiere - this comes with very simple profiles (Selecting High Profile works well for YouTube) and it runs incredibly quickly, reducing file sizes down from around 2Gb to a couple of hundred Mb per video for my 1hr videos, with no appreciable loss of quality.

authors: Константин Ван


text:
Glidecam focus control
Is there puller for controlling the lens focus when using a glidecam? Is there also something similar for the zoom, in case it's a zoom lens?
I have not found anything off the shelf that I can buy online.

Have you tried a search on google, vimeo, and youtube for DIY lens puller or follow focus?

I don't think there is anything specifically made for use with a glidecam.  My impression of most stabilization systems is that you still operate the camera directly, you just are not supporting it without the stabilization.  I'm not aware of any follow focus/pull systems that are designed specifically for use with a gimble or gimble and spring-arm stabilization system.


text:
What is the correct setting in Adobe Premiere CS6 for Nikon Video?
I have a Nikon D600 and when I set up a new project in Adobe Premiere CS6 there are many options available for Sequence Presets. I suppose this could be a subjective question, but what is the best preset for Nikon DSLR video? ARRI? Digital SLR, etc.?
Thank you.

The easiest way to set up a sequence with the right settings for your footage is to first import the video footage into your Premiere Pro project. Then right click on the clip in the media bin, and select "new sequence from clip." That will create a new sequence with settings that match your footage.

The best option is going to be a format which matches the resolution, pixel pitch, frame rate and color format/color space of your original footage.  These settings can typically be changed based on the shooting mode you used on your camera, so there is not enough detail in your question to give a specific setting.  If you actually open up the footage file, it should show these details in the properties for the clip and you can choose a sequence preset accordingly.

Hi AJ, how do I view those properties before I import it into Premiere?

@fmz - I normally import it in to Premiere or After Effects and then adjust my settings accordingly.  Depending on the format, simply right clicking the file and going to properties may give you the details you need, but it's usually a lot easier to just import it first and get to the details that way.


text:
how to improve quality while editing video captured through CamStudio?
I used CamStudio Ver. 2.00 to create a recording of a region of my screen. I want to add annotations to it, but when I import it in Movie Maker, the quality is significantly degraded. I tried importing it in Adobe Premier Pro CS, but the quality is still slightly degraded and the video is very jerky. Why is this happening? I have left all the setting of CamStudio to default values before creating the screen capture video.

The default settings may not be ideal for your system - be aware that recording and encoding video is quite a CPU (and possibly I/O) intensive task, so the jerky video may be caused by hard drive contention or a heavily loaded CPU.

The avi file saved by cam studio looks good, almost as good as the original; it;s after I import it in the video editing software that the degradation happens

Most likely, the jerkiness is just your system being overloaded.  Many screen capture programs record relatively large files to avoid loading the CPU while capturing, but this means that the data rates needed for playback can be very high and thus can result in problems with reading the data fast enough to keep up with playback.
As far as the degradation, without a sample of what the degradation looks like, it's hard to tell.  The preview may simply be reduced quality to help with the load.  Also, a final output is going to be slightly lower quality as more thorough compression is probably applied by default and any lossy recompression is going to result in further quality loss, though choosing good compression options should minimize the level of loss.
You can try re-compressing the video from the screen capture and it will likely improve performance, but it will also degrade the quality of the final output.  Alternately, you could use a better NLE (non-linear editor) that might handle it more smoothly through better buffering or graphics card acceleration, but most likely you'll want faster hard drives or more memory to work from if you want to maintain the best quality and smoothest editing experience.

The avi file saved by cam studio looks good, almost as good as the original; it;s after I import it in the video editing software that the degradation happens

@user17915 - yes, that is consistent with my answer.  The playback is the problem.  When recording, it can buffer through memory, but when trying to read back, particularly for random access, it doesn't have a chance to do the buffering to memory, so read speeds have to be sufficient to keep up.

I'm sorry if it should be obvious by now, but I still don't get why a highquality video recorded from camera can be edited just fine, while a relatively low quality screen grabs require more processing power. What are the approaches for me to overcome the degradation and jerkiness after importing it in the editing software? Is the only solution getting a computer with higher hardware specs?

It has to do with compression levels and data rates.  When you are recording a video with a dedicated camera, you have much better encoding capability.  When you are trying to render something on a computer and record it at the same time, it has to split it's attention between recording and doing what it is doing.  Because of this, shortcuts have to be taken that make the files bigger and harder to work with after the fact.  Also, what resolution are the screen grabs?  Many if not most screens now adays are 1080p or higher quality.

@user17915 - I'm also still not sure what you mean by degradation.  Are you able to describe it, or better yet, post a screen shot of what it looks like?  That would be very helpful in identifying if there is something you can fix.  Also, how long and big are the files?