|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 31st, 2010, 04:30 AM | #1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ravenna, OH
Posts: 198
|
Is this jerky 2
If you can stand to watch it again :)
pw = rendertest Seems better for me this time - still some macroblocking but not as bad or noticeable. |
January 31st, 2010, 11:29 AM | #2 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,420
|
To me it looks about the same as the first version. Perhaps slightly less macroblocking on the water shots, but still some frame drops on the zoom-out.
Maybe you're dealing with vimeo limitations, not issues with the encoding of your intermediate file. The final test would be to assemble the problem clips into a short, encode your intermediate at a much higher bitrate, then see if vimeo does better with it. (what are the specs of the intermediate file you're shipping to vimeo?) If you are pushing the abilities of Vimeo's encoding, and you find the current results unacceptable (although it looks darn good), or, just want to experiment: Picture complexity is usually the issue. Ways to deal with this: 1) More bitrate. In this situation, Vimeo is in control of this, not you. (But, it is also possible to bitrate-starve your intermediate file.) 2) Less complexity. 2a) Less resolution (smaller pixel dimensions, eg. give them a 720p instead of 1080i/p) 2b) Crush blacks slightly (dark greys that may already be visually black become black) 2c) Crush whites slightly (similar, but probably not good for your content, very un-filmic) 2d) Apply a slight horizontal gaussian blur (not so much that you can see the difference, but that it will make a difference to the encoder). All these can be seen as compromises of one thing in favor of another. There are no rules, other than if it looks good, it is good!
__________________
30 years of pro media production. Vegas user since 1.0. Webcaster since 1997. Freelancer since 2000. College instructor since 2001. |
January 31st, 2010, 01:29 PM | #3 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ravenna, OH
Posts: 198
|
Video
ID : 201 Format : AVC Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec Format profile : High@L4.1 Format settings, CABAC : Yes Format settings, ReFrames : 1 frame Codec ID : avc1 Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding Duration : 3mn 37s Bit rate mode : Variable Bit rate : 10.6 Mbps Maximum bit rate : 45.6 Mbps Width : 1 920 pixels Height : 1 080 pixels Display aspect ratio : 16:9 Frame rate mode : Constant Frame rate : 29.970 fps Resolution : 8 bits Colorimetry : 4:2:0 Scan type : Progressive Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.171 Stream size : 275 MiB (98%) Encoded date : UTC 2010-01-31 00:12:45 Tagged date : UTC 2010-01-30 00:33:19 Audio ID : 101 Format : AAC Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec Format version : Version 4 Format profile : LC Format settings, SBR : No Codec ID : 40 Duration : 3mn 37s Bit rate mode : Variable Bit rate : 165 Kbps Maximum bit rate : 186 Kbps Channel(s) : 2 channels Channel positions : L R Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz Above are the specs, I agree this one looks pretty good it's just the stutter/jitter I don't like. The first one was 720 I decided to try this one at full size and bumped up the bit rate - first was only 5088 per Vimeo's recommended settings with Super. For me the only spot this version seems to falter is at the Geese and that of course ruins the whole effect I'm going for :( I'll probably try some of your suggestions thanks for watching again. |
January 31st, 2010, 02:40 PM | #4 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,420
|
Quote:
Certainly a compromise, but may look better than other compromises! I'll be interested to know what you arrive at as the best approach.
__________________
30 years of pro media production. Vegas user since 1.0. Webcaster since 1997. Freelancer since 2000. College instructor since 2001. |
|
| ||||||
|
|