Motion "Strobing"

Jeff Harper · November 4th, 2010, 08:50 AM

I would just take out the shot. It's not one of your better shots, and not the smoothest pan. Consider moving on to the next project. The footage is what it is.

Roger Shealy · November 4th, 2010, 09:56 AM

Jeff,

It's not about this specific shot or project, this was a family trip and hand held. I'm really trying to learn how to do it better in future projects that do matter. This specific clip is just a convenient example of something I've been fighting with for a while and hope there is a solution other than avoiding detail with motion when shooting HD with anything shy of 60P.

As I look at the samples, the slow-mo @ 50% seems to be the largest contributing factors and the resampling did reduce it slightly.

Jeff Harper · November 4th, 2010, 10:12 AM

Well, for hand held it was actually quite a nice scan or pan or whatever. If the clip in the original video you showed us was slowed down to 50%, THAT was a huge factor. It's no wonder it was jittery. Slow motion with these consumer cams is rarely great looking.

Roger, as I mentioned before there is a thread that has detailed instructions on how to smooth slow motion footage out...you'll have to find it, but it may be a big help.

In the future it might be helpful to include details such as the fact the footage was slowed down in the original post. In this case it would have saved a lot of time and effort in figuring out your solution. 50% footage is really pushing it. Sometimes it can look fine, and other times it won't.

If I missed this fact, my apologies.

Ben Lynn · November 4th, 2010, 05:24 PM

Roger,

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back on this thread but I've been off the computer for a bit.

The HDV-30p setting in Vegas should work fine even if your original format may be a little different. If you output to a dvd you can always change the setting in the properties again and go back. But if you're going to the web, it helps to see it in 30 frames a second. You should always edit in a timeline as close to the target output as possible.

If the resampling didn't take care of the dual image problem completely then it could also be a field order setting. I shoot in progressive but know people who shoot in 60i and their stuff looks great so if I get time I'll try and ask them what other changes they make other than just the resampling.

Ben Lynn · November 4th, 2010, 05:29 PM

Jeff,

Please, please stop posting on this thread. You've already posted that you don't know the exact problem, why it happens, or how to fix it. Thank you for the interest in the topic but the additional posts and comments only confuse the issue.

Roger Shealy · November 4th, 2010, 06:09 PM

Ben,

I also am shooting Progressive, but didn't know which timeline was better to use, the HD-60i (thinking perhaps Vegas transformed it to duplicate frames of 30P) or HDV-30P. I think the resampling helped slightly, and certainly slowing the motion down causes the biggest problem.

I'm going to continue to look for ways to smooth such footage more through plug ins or setting.

Ben Lynn · November 4th, 2010, 07:42 PM

You also might want to consider upgrading to Vegas 10. I just made the switch myself about three weeks ago and it's a lot better than 9 at handling the current blend of formats available. 9 might have been the worst version of Vegas I ever used and I feel like 10 has gotten things back on track. It also has all the options for the full 1080/60p timeline you'd need. I'm sure you've already thought of the upgrade before this, but I wanted to say that it's worth the money. Download the trail version and see how it runs on your computer.

Roger Shealy · November 4th, 2010, 07:45 PM

I'm in the middle of contemplating a new computer. My Dual core 6400+ is a bit slow by today's standards, and if I upgrade I'll either load CS5, Vegas 10, or both. I have downloaded the trial but haven't loaded it yet.

Jeff Harper · November 5th, 2010, 07:43 AM

Ben, I am a professional editor. I edit a fair amount and get paid for it. Who are you Ben, have I missed something? Are you a moderator?

I admit I didn't know the cause from a technical angle. I don't think I know everything and I like to admit that upfront.

On the other hand, I admit I have no idea what is going on in this case, but not for the reasons one might think.

Edward Troxel · November 5th, 2010, 08:08 AM

Actually, I'm the moderator. So let's all please play nicely so we don't have to close this thread. If you have a problem with a post, please use the reporting options to report it. I agree we should never tell anyone to NOT post in a thread - instead, report the thread you don't like and then things can be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Jeff Harper · November 5th, 2010, 08:14 AM

Thanks Ed.

November 4th, 2010, 08:50 AM	#16
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I would just take out the shot. It's not one of your better shots, and not the smoothest pan. Consider moving on to the next project. The footage is what it is. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

November 4th, 2010, 10:12 AM	#18
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Well, for hand held it was actually quite a nice scan or pan or whatever. If the clip in the original video you showed us was slowed down to 50%, THAT was a huge factor. It's no wonder it was jittery. Slow motion with these consumer cams is rarely great looking. Roger, as I mentioned before there is a thread that has detailed instructions on how to smooth slow motion footage out...you'll have to find it, but it may be a big help. In the future it might be helpful to include details such as the fact the footage was slowed down in the original post. In this case it would have saved a lot of time and effort in figuring out your solution. 50% footage is really pushing it. Sometimes it can look fine, and other times it won't. If I missed this fact, my apologies. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described." Last edited by Jeff Harper; November 4th, 2010 at 05:04 PM.

November 5th, 2010, 07:43 AM	#24
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Ben, I am a professional editor. I edit a fair amount and get paid for it. Who are you Ben, have I missed something? Are you a moderator? I admit I didn't know the cause from a technical angle. I don't think I know everything and I like to admit that upfront. On the other hand, I admit I have no idea what is going on in this case, but not for the reasons one might think. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

November 5th, 2010, 08:08 AM	#25
Edward Troxel Sponsor: JET DV Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 7,953	Actually, I'm the moderator. So let's all please play nicely so we don't have to close this thread. If you have a problem with a post, please use the reporting options to report it. I agree we should never tell anyone to NOT post in a thread - instead, report the thread you don't like and then things can be handled on a case-by-case basis. __________________ Edward Troxel [SCVU] JETDV Scripts/Scripting Tutorials/Excalibur/Montage Magic/Newsletters

November 5th, 2010, 08:14 AM	#26
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Thanks Ed. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

November 4th, 2010, 09:56 AM	#17
Roger Shealy Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fayetteville, GA Posts: 772	Jeff, It's not about this specific shot or project, this was a family trip and hand held. I'm really trying to learn how to do it better in future projects that do matter. This specific clip is just a convenient example of something I've been fighting with for a while and hope there is a solution other than avoiding detail with motion when shooting HD with anything shy of 60P. As I look at the samples, the slow-mo @ 50% seems to be the largest contributing factors and the resampling did reduce it slightly.

November 4th, 2010, 05:24 PM	#19
Ben Lynn Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Bloomington, IL Posts: 636	Roger, Sorry it's taken me a while to get back on this thread but I've been off the computer for a bit. The HDV-30p setting in Vegas should work fine even if your original format may be a little different. If you output to a dvd you can always change the setting in the properties again and go back. But if you're going to the web, it helps to see it in 30 frames a second. You should always edit in a timeline as close to the target output as possible. If the resampling didn't take care of the dual image problem completely then it could also be a field order setting. I shoot in progressive but know people who shoot in 60i and their stuff looks great so if I get time I'll try and ask them what other changes they make other than just the resampling.

November 4th, 2010, 05:29 PM	#20
Ben Lynn Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Bloomington, IL Posts: 636	Jeff, Please, please stop posting on this thread. You've already posted that you don't know the exact problem, why it happens, or how to fix it. Thank you for the interest in the topic but the additional posts and comments only confuse the issue.

November 4th, 2010, 06:09 PM	#21
Roger Shealy Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fayetteville, GA Posts: 772	Ben, I also am shooting Progressive, but didn't know which timeline was better to use, the HD-60i (thinking perhaps Vegas transformed it to duplicate frames of 30P) or HDV-30P. I think the resampling helped slightly, and certainly slowing the motion down causes the biggest problem. I'm going to continue to look for ways to smooth such footage more through plug ins or setting.

November 4th, 2010, 07:42 PM	#22
Ben Lynn Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Bloomington, IL Posts: 636	You also might want to consider upgrading to Vegas 10. I just made the switch myself about three weeks ago and it's a lot better than 9 at handling the current blend of formats available. 9 might have been the worst version of Vegas I ever used and I feel like 10 has gotten things back on track. It also has all the options for the full 1080/60p timeline you'd need. I'm sure you've already thought of the upgrade before this, but I wanted to say that it's worth the money. Download the trail version and see how it runs on your computer.

November 4th, 2010, 07:45 PM	#23
Roger Shealy Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fayetteville, GA Posts: 772	I'm in the middle of contemplating a new computer. My Dual core 6400+ is a bit slow by today's standards, and if I upgrade I'll either load CS5, Vegas 10, or both. I have downloaded the trial but haven't loaded it yet.