Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!

[tesla500]

Hey Dave, I notice you've got a new camera (or you're processing your videos differently lately), because the video has interlacing artifacts. It's subtle, but highly annoying, at least to me. You'll need to either set your camera to progressive scan mode (1080p/720p as opposed to 1080i) (preferable), or de-interlace the output of your video editor (less preferable, time consuming, quality loss).

Hopefully you didn't buy a camera that doesn't support progressive scan!  I wish interlaced video would die already, the only display technology that can show it properly is CRT, all other technologies are native progressive scan.

David

[Zad]

Yep I noticed this too. It should be possible to de-interlace it when processing it to get rid of the interlace lines.

I also noticed that if you tab away from the window, the video slowly gets out of synch with the audio when you tab back in. I guess this is a codec issue, as it has done it before in the past. No biggie though.

[EEVblog]

Yes, I just realised this yesterday.
It really shows up when you chose 1080P on youtube, and yes it is horrible. It is called "combing" and looks like this:


Yes, I shot the last two blogs in 1440x1080 in 50i mode, not knowing any better.
Unfortunately the Canon HF G10 does not support 50P mode, only 25P. So I guess I'll have to shoot 25P.
I didn't think 50P mode was absolutely essential when buying the camera.
I haven't tried anything in software yet. I don't see an obvious "deinterlace" option in VideoStudio.

Are their any pros here who know the best option?
i.e. Am I better of:
1) shooting in 25P, outputting in 25P, and living with the motion blur (which I find fine actually, it's the combing caused by interlacing that is horrible)
2) shooting in 50i, and rendering in 25P or 50P somehow?
3) shooting in 25P, and somehow outputting in 50P?

It's confusing, because everywhere I read, everyone seem to say it's better to use 50i because it captures moving images much better than 25P, but as you can see the results in my case are just horrid. Perhaps I'm just not rendering the video correctly?
I need to run some test on this.

Here is test footage I did yesterday comparing 50i and 25P





You have to select 1080P in Youtube to see it.

Thanks.
Dave.

[vtl]

Isn't the industry film standard 1080p/24fps? Theres really no need for interlaced because you're not filming fast movment much. Even for fast movment I'd still stick to progressive because only CRTs do it properly.

[Lightages]

IMHO, as humble as I can be, shoot 25P and render in 25P. DO NOT use interlaced. For video blogging and using your normal lighting (50Hz) do not use 24P or you will have flickering.

If you want the "film look" use 1/50 second for shutter speed while shooting 25P. If you want less motion blur use 1/100 or faster shutter speed. The problem with 25P and too fast a shutter speed is that motion will look strobed. Personally I would use either 1/50 or 1/100 shutter speed for your use.

[EEVblog]

IMHO, as humble as I can be, shoot 25P and render in 25P. DO NOT use interlaced. For video blogging and using your normal lighting (50Hz) do not use 24P or you will have flickering.

My camera is PAL and not capable of 24P. 25P only, which is actually "FP25" saved as 50i.

Dave.

[EEVblog]

Isn't the industry film standard 1080p/24fps? Theres really no need for interlaced because you're not filming fast movment much. Even for fast movment I'd still stick to progressive because only CRTs do it properly.

See, that's the stupid thing. You are supposed to use interlaced for "fast motion", but the results are terrible. The 50i straight out of my camera is horrible on anything that moves. And this is a latest generation top of the line Canon HF G10.

I have not been able to find anyone who can give me an answer on this on various forums.

Dave.

[Lightages]

IMHO, as humble as I can be, shoot 25P and render in 25P. DO NOT use interlaced. For video blogging and using your normal lighting (50Hz) do not use 24P or you will have flickering.

My camera is PAL and not capable of 24P. 25P only, which is actually "FP25" saved as 50i.

Dave.

Good! Just use 25P and forget about it. Adjust your shutter to your liking between blurred motion and strobed motion effect. Film "standard" is usually twice the shutter speed of the frames per second. Or in more archaic terms, 180 degrees of shutter. This is when shutters used to be two rotating discs with half the disc missing and you could adjust the overlap of the two discs to achieve different degrees of open duration.

[Lightages]

See, that's the stupid thing. You are supposed to use interlaced for "fast motion", but the results are terrible. The 50i straight out of my camera is horrible on anything that moves. And this is a latest generation top of the line Canon HF G10.

I have not been able to find anyone who can give me an answer on this on various forums.

Dave.

Nobody (sane) uses interlaced professionally. It is all shot in progressive mode. The advice to shoot interlaced by Canon or in the  manuals is just to justify its existence in the camera as a fallback to older display tech. Properly de-interlacing video basically is always a compromise. Interlacing should be avoided whenever you can unless your intended market is solely for interlaced display devices like old TVs.

[tesla500]

Shooting and processing all in the same format is the way to go, 25p in this case. At the moment, more is pointless, because youtube only encodes their video up to 30fps. They will reduce the frame rate, probably by decimation (dropping every nth frame), of anything uploaded with a higher frame rate. However, I guarantee Google keeps all the originals, so if they allow higher frame rates later, videos uploaded as 50/60fps may be re-encoded by them.

The reason interlaced looks horrible is that your computer doesn't know how to display it properly. If you hooked your camera up to a TV or played the video using VLC Media Player with deinterlacing enabled,it would look much better. There's no easy to use solution for deinterlacing during encoding, when I was using an interlaced NTSC camera, I used Avisynth with the TomsMoComp deinterlacing plugin, encoding with VirtualDub. This was a whole extra step after editing, and was a big pain.

I would have suggested a camera such as a Panasonic TM700 (which I have), which is one of the very few that shoots 1080p60.

[jahonen]

Isn't the industry film standard 1080p/24fps? Theres really no need for interlaced because you're not filming fast movment much. Even for fast movment I'd still stick to progressive because only CRTs do it properly.

See, that's the stupid thing. You are supposed to use interlaced for "fast motion", but the results are terrible. The 50i straight out of my camera is horrible on anything that moves. And this is a latest generation top of the line Canon HF G10.

I have not been able to find anyone who can give me an answer on this on various forums.

Dave.

I think that there is nothing wrong with the camera, but modern panel displays have trouble displaying an interlaced material properly, as they are inherently progressive. Deinterlacing is very heavy black magic to do acceptably. So, it is better to avoid that altogether and stick with the progressive mode anyway, so like others already said, just use 25p mode.
 
Regards,
Janne

[vtl]

IMHO, as humble as I can be, shoot 25P and render in 25P. DO NOT use interlaced. For video blogging and using your normal lighting (50Hz) do not use 24P or you will have flickering.

Good cameras these days should have a filter for flickering. On my Nikon D3100 theres an option to select the filter to 50Hz or 60Hz. In video mode (1080p/24) theres no flicker at all sitting directly under fluorescent lighting.

[Lightages]

Let me rephrase that. You can have problems with flickering.

[EEVblog]

IMHO, as humble as I can be, shoot 25P and render in 25P. DO NOT use interlaced. For video blogging and using your normal lighting (50Hz) do not use 24P or you will have flickering.

Good cameras these days should have a filter for flickering. On my Nikon D3100 theres an option to select the filter to 50Hz or 60Hz. In video mode (1080p/24) theres no flicker at all sitting directly under fluorescent lighting.

My old Sanyo Xacti had a flicker filter, and I think you could select 50/60
But the new Canon doesn't have any filter option.
I wonder if that means it would flicker if I shot footage in the US under 60Hz lights?

I don't understand why cameras are sold in PAL and NTSC version with 24p/25p and 50i/60i modes. Why can't this all just be in software?

Dave.

[Lightages]

I don't understand why cameras are sold in PAL and NTSC version with 24p/25p and 50i/60i modes. Why can't this all just be in software?

Dave.

It is usually the opinion that the manufacturers do not want to eat into the sales of their higher end products. It should be easy of course but money makes these decisions......

Flicker filters don't always work BTW.

[Kiriakos-GR]

My old Sanyo Xacti had a flicker filter, and I think you could select 50/60
But the new Canon doesn't have any filter option.
I wonder if that means it would flicker if I shot footage in the US under 60Hz lights?

The human eye can detect up to 18FPS as far I know , the 25 offers an maximum smoothness to the ones who can feel the difference, not every one does.

I don't understand why cameras are sold in PAL and NTSC version with 24p/25p and 50i/60i modes. Why can't this all just be in software?

Dave.

PAL and NTSC = compatibility
30 FPS VS 60i modes =  richest color cast for the second.
The 60i demands even more bandwidth ( +20%) , and probably uses the CCD in a way like the digital still image cameras uses the RAW format.
In simple words, the CCD output, goes to separate electronics, that can handle such digitizing format.

I could think of a similar example with sound and bit rate,
like 44.1kHz  40kHz 88.2kHz 96kHz .
Even if 44.1kHz sounds good for the many , the theoretical maximum of sound quality it is served at the max with 96kHz sample rate.
This is why I will record my music at  96kHz  = Master copy , and then I will downgrade it by having in mind the specs of the play back device. 

About software editing, I found  that the Corel VideoStudio Pro X3 has the maximum compatibility with the 60i = 60 fields/S mode, at 1920X1080 full HD.

The Sanyo can not do full HD at 1920X1080 SHQ !! or any other mode that is based in Frames per second.   

[EEVblog]

Shooting and processing all in the same format is the way to go, 25p in this case. At the moment, more is pointless, because youtube only encodes their video up to 30fps. They will reduce the frame rate, probably by decimation (dropping every nth frame), of anything uploaded with a higher frame rate. However, I guarantee Google keeps all the originals, so if they allow higher frame rates later, videos uploaded as 50/60fps may be re-encoded by them.

The reason interlaced looks horrible is that your computer doesn't know how to display it properly. If you hooked your camera up to a TV or played the video using VLC Media Player with deinterlacing enabled,it would look much better. There's no easy to use solution for deinterlacing during encoding, when I was using an interlaced NTSC camera, I used Avisynth with the TomsMoComp deinterlacing plugin, encoding with VirtualDub. This was a whole extra step after editing, and was a big pain.

I would have suggested a camera such as a Panasonic TM700 (which I have), which is one of the very few that shoots 1080p60.

1080p60/50 doubles the video rate though doesn't it? So I probably wouldn't use 1080p50 even if I had it.

Dave.

[EEVblog]

The reason interlaced looks horrible is that your computer doesn't know how to display it properly. If you hooked your camera up to a TV or played the video using VLC Media Player with deinterlacing enabled,it would look much better.

Ah, VLC does indeed have a deinterlace option, with no less than 8 different algorithms to chose from.
Yes, it looks much better now, just the usual motion blur.
Doesn't help the uploaded Youtube video of course.

The raw PF25 video looks better than the "deinterlaced" 50i video though.

I just noticed my Handbrake program has a "decomb" filter which will likely work and get me decent video.
But I don't see the point, might as well shoot in 25P to begin with.

And I guess that raises the question of what's the point of 50i mode?
Is there any benefit over 25P?
Because if I'm understanding this right (for the same raw bitrate, say 12Mbps that I use):
- 25P gives 25 full frames per second non-interlaced (obviously)
- 50i gives 50 interlaced "fields" per second, but still 25 full frames per second. But that means fast moving stuff gets this "combing" problem.

So what's the advantage of 50i? And why does every man and his dog seems to say it's better to use 50i for fast action stuff?

Dave.

[Kiriakos-GR]

Well I like to believe that the interlaced thingy had to do mostly with anything is related to frames.
The Full HD uses fields and its another technology , totally compatible with every Full HD screen. 

The computer monitors that can support the Full HD resolution, they do just the half work.
The other half is made by the hardware or software decoder in our computers,
and so the results can vary by allot.

Youtube uses their own video engine and compression,
and I do not have any idea of how it works.
And no one haves any control over their codec's.

In my personal PowerDvd player I have control over the De-interlacing !!

And so the most wise act, would be to send a email at the technical support of Youtube.
And find out what works for them best.   
   

[EEVblog]

And so the most wise act, would be to send a email at the technical support of Youtube.
And find out what works for them best.   

It is clear from the test footage I uploaded, Youtube cannot display interlaced video in HD without the "combing" effect.
So I have to feed Youtube progressive video one way or another.

Dave.

[FreeThinker]

Erm! this may seem like a silly question but why not just turn off the 1080 HD mode in youtube? Job done.

[sonic]

So what's the advantage of 50i? And why does every man and his dog seems to say it's better to use 50i for fast action stuff?

50i is actually quite efficient in transporting fluid motion: It keeps the non-moving background at full 1080 resolution and encodes the fast-moving subject at half the resolution (540 lines). Since the human eye can't resolve motion and resolution at the same time, interlacing leans to our visual perception system.
The only problem is that something has to adapt interlaced content to the progressive display devices in use (LCD). Normal video player software uses the graphics card hardware to deinterlace video with quite a good quality today. It's just this Flash based YouTube video player mess that doesn't get it at all. They just now managed to use the graphics card to decode the video without burning all CPU resources.
By the way, there is a discussion going on with german HDTV: all the public networks decided to broadcast in 720p50, but one is thinking about switching to 1080i50 because foreign source material is often mastered interlaced anyway.
Interlacing will only go away if the immense bandwidth increase of 1080p50 won't matter anymore.

[ivan747]

Erm! this may seem like a silly question but why not just turn off the 1080 HD mode in youtube? Job done.

I watch 720"p" and it removes most of the interlacing.

[Mechatrommer]

some software can decode the interlaced movie (source) into progressive mode (output). it seems video format industry got mixed up, pal/ntsc now can be set for either 50 or 60Hz?

[tesla500]

The human eye can detect up to 18FPS as far I know , the 25 offers an maximum smoothness to the ones who can feel the difference, not every one does.

I'm not sure about the sensitivity of the human eye, but I can detect the difference between 25/30 and 50/60fps very easily. There is a significant difference in smoothness. Also, if your display strobes (displays the image as pulses of light, as in a CRT or plasma display), and the video frame rate matches the display strobe rate, you get a "perfect smooth" effect, it looks as smooth as if your frame rate was 1/shutter speed.

I don't understand why cameras are sold in PAL and NTSC version with 24p/25p and 50i/60i modes. Why can't this all just be in software?

I'm sure it's just a software difference, but they seem to not want to upgrade everyone to 30/60, even though they have the chance with HDTVs.

So what's the advantage of 50i? And why does every man and his dog seems to say it's better to use 50i for fast action stuff?

50 image samples per second is better for motion than 25, plain and simple. 50p would be even better because you have more image data.

50i is actually quite efficient in transporting fluid motion: It keeps the non-moving background at full 1080 resolution and encodes the fast-moving subject at half the resolution (540 lines). Since the human eye can't resolve motion and resolution at the same time, interlacing leans to our visual perception system.

That's true, or at least was back in the days of analog when you couldn't do digital compression. It was an ingenious analog compression system that halved the data rate. However, with modern codecs, I think it would it be better to simply send 50/60p, using the same bitrate as 50/60i. The codec does the same thing, loosing detail during motion, and having full detail when a static image is displayed. The codec can do a better job though, with features such as motion compensation (dragging pixels around at full resolution), while interlacing looses half your vertical resolution at the slightest motion.

1080p60/50 doubles the video rate though doesn't it? So I probably wouldn't use 1080p50 even if I had it.

Yes, the data rate is quite high, it runs at 28Mbps. But storage is cheap! The bigger problem was that my 2 year old computer wasn't fast enough to play the video from it, I had to get a new computer to play and edit the video.

David

[Kiriakos-GR]

The bigger problem was that my 2 year old computer wasn't fast enough to play the video from it, I had to get a new computer to play and edit the video.

David

I had faced the same problem,  I had an fast and stable system for the most of my tasks, that was an extremely expensive  singe-core horse,  six years back.
And I got in to quad cores just for the video editing.  ( The old system was capable for HD playback)
But I do a bit of gaming too, and so I had to spent even more, about a true fast VGA and 4GB of fast DDR3 memory. 

[Lightages]

So what's the advantage of 50i? And why does every man and his dog seems to say it's better to use 50i for fast action stuff?

Dave.

The more information the better in motion recording. But this depends on too many factors now when you are producing video for more than one type of display. I and my dog say "Use 25P and don't worry about it". If you had 50P or 60P then it would be better and no hassle. Using non-interlaced recording makes less work for you, less work for the viewer, and ensures that everyone sees the video without nasty artifacts.

I shoot 30P for NTSC clients and 25P for PAL clients. I never shot interlaced as it just causes all kinds of issues and more work to make sure the end viewer sees the intended quality.

The eye can see the difference between higher frame rates. It is just that the minimum frame rate to help the brain fool itself into seeing fluid motion is around 18fps and 24fps to ensure the appearance of fluid motion. Of course people can see motion better with higher frame rates, just ask any gamer why they spend $400 or more on a video card.

The frame rates for PAL and NTSC were chosen to get the best motion appearance out of the signal bandwidth provided. The interlace idea was a work around to using phosphors in the CRTs. At 25/30FPS the phosphor at the top of the screen that was "written" to by the beam would start to fade before the beam finished drawing the whole image and the rolling flicker was annoying. If they used a phosphor mix that had longer persistence then the image retained so ghosting from the previous and the image got blurred. So the idea was to write half the image very quickly on every other line, then go back and re-draw the second part of the image, the in between lines, before the image could fade too much and this alleviated the rolling flicker effect. So this interlacing was a compromise for video and the technology of 60 years ago. Therefore, interlacing is old and useless now and should not be used!

Shutter speeds for lower frame rates are slow to compensate for the loss of temporal information between frames. If you use 1/1000 shutter speed then you have a nice series of frozen very sharp frames and the film/video can look non-fluid. If you use a slow shutter rate then the blurring effect on the moving object helps the brain fool itself into seeing more fluid motion.

Interlaced video corrected for non-interlaced output will just look the same as non-interlaced output in the first place if you use simple de-interlacing techniques. The more sophisticated techniques will throw away half the spacial resolution locally to remove the comb effect and fill in the missing information with interpolated lines so that things look nice and smooth. You gain temporal resolution for the trade off of loss of spatial resolution. The really advanced techniques can clean up most of the problems but there is always a loss of information somewhere but balanced in a way so the eye is fooled.

For the purposes of a video blog that will be viewed on mostly non-interlaced display devices, interlaced is a complication without any benefit. Again, the only reason to use interlaced is if you intend the final output to be viewed solely on CRT TVs!

[Kiriakos-GR]

For the purposes of a video blog that will be viewed on mostly non-interlaced display devices, interlaced is a complication without any benefit. Again, the only reason to use interlaced is if you intend the final output to be viewed solely on CRT TVs!

That's true, but still we have and another problem, and this is the response in milliseconds of the latest computer screens.
I accepted to get an latest DELL with IPS panel technology.
That it does sacrifices a bit of speed in 2011, so to get almost accurate colors (80%).
There is no way to tell with it what would be the ultimate video quality, like sharp frames and ultra fast motion!!
And I bet that some people with old TN panels, they would be even in a more worst position than me.  ( truly slow panels)

[EEVblog]

For the purposes of a video blog that will be viewed on mostly non-interlaced display devices, interlaced is a complication without any benefit. Again, the only reason to use interlaced is if you intend the final output to be viewed solely on CRT TVs!

And therein lies the complete answer!
Why of why, can't they just explain this in the camera user manual?
Finding this info online was incredibly painful!

Thanks, problem solved, I'll shoot forever in 25P mode and forget all about interlaced.
BUT, my Canon shoots at PF25, which means it actually stores the progressive image in 50i format.
Only the NTSC version of my camera has "True 24P" mode.
Will that cause any complications (or has advantages?)?
It doesn't appear to be a problem, it "just works".

Now all I need is a better video editing program than Corel VideoStudio! (opens can of worms)

Dave.

[EEVblog]

1080p60/50 doubles the video rate though doesn't it? So I probably wouldn't use 1080p50 even if I had it.

Yes, the data rate is quite high, it runs at 28Mbps. But storage is cheap! The bigger problem was that my 2 year old computer wasn't fast enough to play the video from it, I had to get a new computer to play and edit the video.

Not when you shoot and edit the amount of video I do.
And processing speed is a real big issue too. I do everything on my bottom of the range Core i3 notebook.
I'm kinda glad my camera doesn't have a 50P, so I've got no choice but 25P.
I have 5 choices of video bit rate.
1920x1080 24Mbps ("High Quality")
1920x1080 17Mbps  ("High Quality")
1440x1080 12Mbps ("High Quality")
1440x1080 7Mbps
1440x1080 5Mbps

I've chosen to use 1440x1080 12Mbps, as I can't really see the difference with the other two for what I do, and figure the lower bit rates gives me an edge in processing/editing speed.
Will likely use 5Mbps for the live show where quality doesn't matter much.
Before I was shooting in 1280x720p 9Mbps.
Advice on that also appreciated from the pros!

Dave.

[Lightages]

Why of why, can't they just explain this in the camera user manual?
Finding this info online was incredibly painful!

Like everything else on the Internet, the signal to noise ratio is abysmal. The information is out there but it can be hard to recognize dick heads with more money than brains spouting off like they know everything just because they know how to go to the store and purchase something. They then become instant "experts" and start thinking they know how everything works based on their limited equipment and experience. I know, I am preaching to the choir here. (I am an atheist, just using the phrase!)

Thanks, problem solved, I'll shoot forever in 25P mode and forget all about interlaced.
BUT, my Canon shoots at PF25, which means it actually stores the progressive image in 50i format.
Only the NTSC version of my camera has "True 24P" mode.
Will that cause any complications (or has advantages?)?
It doesn't appear to be a problem, it "just works".

It isn't a problem. Ignore it. The video editors know what to do with this method of wrapping up PF25 into a 50i stream.

Now all I need is a better video editing program than Corel VideoStudio! (opens can of worms)

Dave.

Yes, asking someone's opinion on video editing software is likely to cause flame wars. My PERSONAL opinion is that Sony Vegas is a very powerful and relatively inexpensive editor in the professional range. The main thing is, if you are getting the results you want from what you have, then there is no "better" software for your use. If you know you are being held back with the software or do not like it, then give Vegas a try.
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegassoftware
There are trial versions available and different levels for different needs. You might not need the highest version.

[Lightages]

I have 5 choices of video bit rate.
1920x1080 24Mbps ("High Quality")
1920x1080 17Mbps  ("High Quality")
1440x1080 12Mbps ("High Quality")
1440x1080 7Mbps
1440x1080 5Mbps

I've chosen to use 1440x1080 12Mbps, as I can't really see the difference with the other two for what I do, and figure the lower bit rates gives me an edge in processing/editing speed.
Will likely use 5Mbps for the live show where quality doesn't matter much.
Before I was shooting in 1280x720p 9Mbps.
Advice on that also appreciated from the pros!

Dave.

Well Dave, some really weird guy who hangs around says "Horses for courses". If it looks good enough for your purposes, then it IS good enough. Personally I think that 1440x1080 is good enough resolution. This is not FULL HD but rather HDV resolution with rectangular pixels. Probably 1280x720 is more than sufficient for the purposes of your video blog. The differences in editing time, upload time and storage are rather big.

If you were concerned about motion artifacts from interlaced video, then I would not use 1440x1080 5Mbps as this will artifact badly with fast motion. Drop to 1280x720 for 5Mbps if you want a better compromise in motion and bandwidth.

[EEVblog]

If you were concerned about motion artifacts from interlaced video, then I would not use 1440x1080 5Mbps as this will artifact badly with fast motion. Drop to 1280x720 for 5Mbps if you want a better compromise in motion and bandwidth.

Like most new camcorders on the market, it can't shoot anything lower than 1440x1080

Dave.

[EEVblog]

Yes, asking someone's opinion on video editing software is likely to cause flame wars. My PERSONAL opinion is that Sony Vegas is a very powerful and relatively inexpensive editor in the professional range. The main thing is, if you are getting the results you want from what you have, then there is no "better" software for your use. If you know you are being held back with the software or do not like it, then give Vegas a try.

Yes, Videostudio has many problems. Annoying audio "pops", lack of decent AVCHD output (I need to render to MPEG2 first and use Handbrake), among other things.

I've tried Vegas before but didn't like it, but I need to try again.

Dave.

[EEVblog]

Ok, I tried Vegas Movie Studio Platinum 11 and I finally got the hang of it.
It seems to do most of what I want.
I might give it a go for editing the next blog.

Dave.

[Kiriakos-GR]

Videostudio X3 , needs a very stable computer to work properly.
Took me allot of time, even to find and adjust the proper V-core for my CPU,  that keeps all four cores, rock stable under intensive operation.
Not even intensive games does not use all four cores.
Additionally important is the quality of the PSU for the desktops.
Motherboard / RAM / everything must be carefully selected, so to offer speed & stability. 

[Lightages]

Ok, I tried Vegas Movie Studio Platinum 11 and I finally got the hang of it.
It seems to do most of what I want.
I might give it a go for editing the next blog.

Dave.

Does it not do something you want? I am curious.

[Mechatrommer]

Additionally important is the quality of the PSU for the desktops.

why cheapo psu will degrade performance? how?

[EEVblog]

Does it not do something you want? I am curious.

For starters, I can't see a way to do the animated cartoon effect I was able to do in VideoStudio.
Granted, that's just a bundled wanky effect probably exclusive to Videostudio, but I liked it.
I'm left scrambling for ideas for an intro now...

I can't see a way to quickly and simply edit the duration of an image (element it's called in Vegas?). Sure, I can drag it on the timeline, but I don't want to do that, I want to just type the value in myself.

Dave.

[Lightages]

Yes, you are correct. There is no way to set a time for an image before it is dumped into the timeline. There you have two choices. First, as you said, is to drop the image onto the timeline and stretch it to your liking. Secondly you can set the default time for new images in the Options>Preferences>Editing tab>New still image length (seconds).

As far as the cartoon transition effect, I have no idea how to find that for Vegas. But I will look for you.

[Kiriakos-GR]

Additionally important is the quality of the PSU for the desktops.

why cheapo psu will degrade performance? how?

At video editing, in functions  like Play video - stop - add a filter- review the change - stop - ,
causes very fast or instant changes in the power demands.
The PSU that its not fast enough to handle such instant changes of load, it will cause problems and even crash the computer.
When the video editing software converts a video In a specific format, this takes some time,
and it stress the PSU too, all four cores need allot of juice.
And so the PSU it must be over-sized in Watts , so to not run hot.

Small details , but they do matter.
This is why some semi profesionals on video editing, they build dedicated computer boxes,
just for video editing.
   

[Mechatrommer]

This is why some semi profesionals on video editing, they build dedicated computer boxes,
just for video editing.

yea, its $$$ matter and its "semi".

[Kiriakos-GR]

This is why some semi profesionals on video editing, they build dedicated computer boxes,
just for video editing.

yea, its $$$ matter and its "semi".

Nop its just the correct way to do it , if you do not like to nag about unstable results.
No one tells you up front, that by buying one HD capable camera, you have to own an worthy computer system,
so to edit or view the results of your footage !!

I always had an over-sized PSU on my system, the latest is a solid brick at 900W   
Its unable to run hot.  ( at the cost of 197 USD )

[Zero999]

I always had an over-sized PSU on my system, the latest is a solid brick at 900W   

I doubt it's really rated to 900W, that's probably just the peak rating.

[Mechatrommer]

I always had an over-sized PSU on my system, the latest is a solid brick at 900W   

I doubt it's really rated to 900W, that's probably just the peak rating.

he got his point. i understood

[RCMR]

Personally I think that 1440x1080 is good enough resolution. This is not FULL HD but rather HDV resolution with rectangular pixels. Probably 1280x720 is more than sufficient for the purposes of your video blog.

Absolutely dead right!

I shoot all my video with a Panasonic MX500 which is 10 years old and only has an SD resolution of 720x576 (progressive) -- yet people keep asking me "what camera are you using? the video looks great."

I edit with Sony Vegas (the $50 edition) and when rendering, I upscale to 1280x720p.

A lot of the time it's hard to tell the results from a true HD camera at 720p and i have the benefits of much faster edit/render times than if I were to be running a higher native resolution.

Personally, I see no point in running 1080p for the average "talking head" video blog.  I'm happy to see Dave's face without being able to count the hairs on his chin and so I rarely watch at anything greater than 480p.

Even when I do manage to find an affordable camera that has the features I need, I'll still stick with 720p because there's really no benefit (that I can see) to going to 1080p.

[rew]

Hi RCMR,

I bought a high-res projector some time ago, and watch a lot of stuff on that. I bought 1024x768 when 800x600 was the norm. Lots of money!

Anyway, I've tried watching stuff in higher res than say 800x600, but I don't actually see any difference.

But then I visited a friend who recently upgraded to a 1920x1080 projector... Wow! there IS a big difference.

So: if your display isn't up to the task of display high res stuff, then you won't see the point of having higher resolution content.

[EEVblog]

It's not just the resolution either, but the bitrate too.
I used to upload 1280x720 to Youtube in as little as 2Mbps! but eventually upped that 4-5Mbps for most videos
The new 1440x1080 stuff I'm shooting at 12Mbps (the last blog was accidentally 7Mbps) and am now encoding at 8Mbps for the upload, so there will ultimately be loss in video quality there somewhere.
But for the really long videos (like that live show) I've had to drop right down to 3Mbps or so.

If I know there is lots of movement in the video (like say a canyon video) I'll up the bit rate for that one. But I've found I can generally get away with those bit rates.

Some videos are now pushing 1-2GB uploads to Youtube, and that can take all night to upload, which has a habit of cutting off my VOIP phone until done. Crazy stuff.

Dave.

[Wartex]

It's not just the resolution either, but the bitrate too.
I used to upload 1280x720 to Youtube in as little as 2Mbps! but eventually upped that 4-5Mbps for most videos
The new 1440x1080 stuff I'm shooting at 12Mbps (the last blog was accidentally 7Mbps) and am now encoding at 8Mbps for the upload, so there will ultimately be loss in video quality there somewhere.
But for the really long videos (like that live show) I've had to drop right down to 3Mbps or so.

If I know there is lots of movement in the video (like say a canyon video) I'll up the bit rate for that one. But I've found I can generally get away with those bit rates.

Some videos are now pushing 1-2GB uploads to Youtube, and that can take all night to upload, which has a habit of cutting off my VOIP phone until done. Crazy stuff.

Dave.

Enable and configure QoS in your router so your phone doesn't get cut off.

[IanB]

Dave, FYI, I watch all YouTube videos at 480p, even when a higher resolution is available. It's a little window on a computer screen, not some blockbuster movie! If I up the resolution to HD levels the download time takes too long and playback is annoying (I am in the US and I have a > 10 Mbps Internet connection).

So from my perspective, uploading HD to YouTube is not worthwhile.

[EEVblog]

Dave, FYI, I watch all YouTube videos at 480p, even when a higher resolution is available. It's a little window on a computer screen, not some blockbuster movie! If I up the resolution to HD levels the download time takes too long and playback is annoying (I am in the US and I have a > 10 Mbps Internet connection).
 
So from my perspective, uploading HD to YouTube is not worthwhile.

And that's how I'm sure most people watch it. It's how I watch most Youtube videos.
The reason I shoot and upload in HD is because of future reasons I can't think of now (and there are some who do watch in full HD, so it benefits them)
Getting that base load of material up on youtube in HD means that whatever future viewing technology Youtube brings, the videos will have the resolution to take advantage of it. I think it worth the extra pain in editing, processing and upload time. Nobody pays a download penalty because Yotube does transcoded version at lower resolutions.
As one example where it's beneficial, my screen capture tutorials for instance are captured in 1280x720, and viewing at anything less makes the onscreen text quite hard to read.

Dave.

[DrGeoff]

For starters, I can't see a way to do the animated cartoon effect I was able to do in VideoStudio.
Granted, that's just a bundled wanky effect probably exclusive to Videostudio, but I liked it.
I'm left scrambling for ideas for an intro now...

I can't see a way to quickly and simply edit the duration of an image (element it's called in Vegas?). Sure, I can drag it on the timeline, but I don't want to do that, I want to just type the value in myself.

Dave.

Am also using Sony Vegas for video editing (use Cubase 6 for audio editing). Have you looked at the NewBlue effects? They have cartooning effects available (I think I got a bunch with my copy of Vegas as a promo) as well as some other nice things. Worth checking out their Video Essentials products.

[EEVblog]

Am also using Sony Vegas for video editing (use Cubase 6 for audio editing). Have you looked at the NewBlue effects? They have cartooning effects available (I think I got a bunch with my copy of Vegas as a promo) as well as some other nice things. Worth checking out their Video Essentials products.

Yes, I tried the newBlue cartoon effect in Vegas. It couldn't match the one in vegas, so for the last few videos the intros have been done in VideoStudio and the rest of the edit done in Vegas.
But my Vegas trial has now expired and I've gone back to VideoStudio. There wasn't enough benefit in Vegas to make me jump to it.
But I did like it's faster (but quirkier to use) video editing and playback, and the direct MP4 output that actually worked (but it was slow).
But the bug that caused corrupted rendered video output was unacceptable, and no cartoon intro effect were enough reason not to switch.
So have gone back to VideoStudio for now.

Dave.

[Kozmyk]

I usually watch YouTube in 720p wherever available, unless the net is slowing it down.
Can't stand playback interruptions
1080p only comes down smoothly when traffic is quiet around here; I'm connected via  Up To 8Mbps.
Local contention can wreck 1080p playback quite easily.
Some vids really don't need that much clarity but it 's useful for engineering or modelling descriptions where you really NEED to see what's going on.

I like the Vegas control/timeline layout.
I'm an old Cubase user and Vegas is similar enough to make it easy to get to grips with.
Plus, I mixed an album using Acid one time that Cubase threw a wobbly.
Acid and Vegas are related so I already know my way around a lot of it.
I really like the graphic level controls.
Just draw those level changes in.

WMM itself surprised me at how effective it was especially considering it is a freebee/OS bundle.
Windows Live Movie Maker is WAY too dumbed down. No timeline.

Now I've just gone out and bought a Panasonic HX-DC1 to record vids with instead of my old Canon Powershot A470 I'm going to need an editor that will import mp4 without conversion.
I'm currently employing mp4Cam2 avi to be able to edit in Windows Movie Maker.

So it looks like one version of Vegas or another is going to be my selection.
Not necessarily out of feature/performance superiority but more out of familiarity.

Way back when (90's), when I was spec'ing this kind of software for the college I worked at, the choices were a Ulead package (I think that became the Corel VideoStudio), Adobe Premiere (the 1st version) and something by Pinnacle IIRC.
SCSI drives were the order of the day and HD sizes were measured in 100's of MB.
If the college had had more money we'd have been looking at Mac based kit but as it was we were making the best of it using PC's
Rendering times were horrendous overnight affairs. 

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.