Hot answers tagged

20

The default settings for ffmpeg are very low quality, and since you don't specify any codec or quality parameters it's just using the defaults (I don't know why the devs don't fix that because it generates a lot of questions on forums everywhere). Edit: the defaults are now quite sane. With a recent build of ffmpeg you don't need to specify anything more ...


10

The problem is that definitions such as HD, UHD and 4k etc. are partly hype. Marketers for AV equipment like to be rather elastic with the truth, hence the rather rubbery definitions. They're not standards such as ATSC or DVB, or graphic display resolutions such as VGA, WXGA etc., they're really just buzzwords. There are other complications - like the ...


8

No, there is no difference to the human eye (or exceptionally minimal). Your monitor can't display higher quality than it is capable of displaying. The only advantage you would have is if you were to zoom in on part of the image, you would have more detail when you zoomed in. The exception to this is if the 4k stream uses enough extra bandwidth to reduce ...


7

What you are talking about is upscaling and any current HDTV will do upscaling automatically. Upscaling doesn't work miracles though, it will only make it so that the lower quality signal can be watched on a higher quality display. It just multiplies the pixels so that a 720 by 480 (.9 pixel compressed) signal for example doesn't end up only taking up 1/4 ...


5

There's not a lot of point to it. You're using more network bandwidth to download it, and your computer is working harder to display it, but no, you get no additional visible quality from it. In fact, it's likely that you'll get lower quality because the computer has to downsample it before it can display it.


4

The cabling is likely your problem. The composite cables you're using (red, yellow, white) will only move analog signal from the set top box to the TV. Likewise with RG59 or RG6 (coaxial). While both varieties of cables there are technically capable of passing digital signals (they don't care... they're just dumb cables), set top boxes typically only ...


4

It uses a lower data rate (within the TV, not for the actual signal) and is cheaper to produce. That is all. The only difference is that if you are going to view it on a 1080i display, then shooting in 1080i would look slightly smoother since half the information updates every half a frame rather than updating the whole thing at once, but 1080p is ...


4

DVD Video is limited to Standard Def, not High Def (HD). Blu-Ray overcomes that limitation. Alternatively you can use the DVD as a filesystem and play arbitrary media using a computer. But as a media container itself, the DVDs limits are very restricted.


3

There is no one right answer to this very general question, but here are the considerations. Some cameras (such as the Canon EOS DSLRs) have very naive line-skipping algorithms to decimate their normally very high resolution down to FullHD or HD video. Such algorithms create lots of aliasing noise, which is further aggravated by further image scaling. ...


3

Apparently Youtube took some extra time to process the HD. Both are showing in HD now.


3

I assume the actual data rate is 3.3 Mb/s, not MB/s (bits, not bytes). This is very low for 1080p60, and artifacts are likely at such a low rate. You might consider capturing at at least double that rate. Alternatively (or also), halving the frame rate to 29.97 would double the effective bit rate. You would be trading some motion artifacting for less ...


3

I don't use CS4 but in CS5.5 you can do it this way: Open the Composition dialog, open the Settings tab, and choose Custom as preset (this should be the first entry). Now you can change all parameters. To save you preset, click the button Change preset at the lefthand bottom.


3

Drives are definitely the answer. My miniDV setup worked fine with 5400rpm, but HD playback looked like internet video from 2004. Upgraded to 7200rpm internal SATA drives, and ~most~ of the time, I've got good results. While I've never done any work with SSDs, I suspect those would be the ideal circumstance. For external drives, I've used 5400rpm USB2.0 ...


3

If you have a 8 core CPU I'd bet it is a fast one too, so that shouldn't be a problem. 16 GB is more than enough for HD, and DDR3 should ensure the speed. The GPU shouldn't have much to say as long as it's not crap. If you have 6 slow harddrives, it would be a bottleneck. You should have at least 7200 rpm disks!


3

Use Mpeg Streamclip, its an industry used conversion software that is reliable and fast, and free


3

Unacceptable is in the eye of the watcher, so that part is tough to answer. Distinguishable is easier: yes, there will be a difference. It will not be obvious in every frame or circumstance, but it will be there. If you simply truncate the lowest bit, it will raise the noise floor and the effect will be most evident in low light areas. So, it will look ...


2

FFmpeg can do this. By "FLV (Flashvideo)" I assume you mean "FLV1 / Sorenson Spark / Sorenson H.263". Not sure why anyone would choose this these days over H.264. Example: ffmpeg -i input -c:v flv1 -q:v 2 -filter:v scale=iw/2:-1,hqdn3d output.flv What the options mean: -c:v flv1 Choose the encoder named flv1 -q:v 3 Quality level. Range is 1-31 (for MPEG-...


2

Either Avidemux or FFMpeg+Avisynth(+Avanti) will do the job. The former should be faster to get going.


2

A common problem for a slow edit is incorrectly setting the codec of the sequences. Unless under very specific circumstances (of which I'm not sure of), you should set your sequence codec (when you create the new sequence and Premiere asks you what preset it should use) to be identical to your footage.


2

I have no practical experience, but you might take a look at using a (linux) computer with blackmagic decklink or intensity pro card. There are command line tools like bmdtools which (should) allow you to interface the capture card. https://github.com/lu-zero/bmdtools You could then pipe the video input to ffmpeg to record. I don't know of a setting to ...


2

There is no way around needing more data rate to capture that much video information. It sounds like the camera probably isn't actually capable of delivering 1080P/60 but that they use a very low quality version so they can slap the label on the box. Data rates are generally measured in Mb(bits)/sec rather than MB/s, but even if your suggested rate ...


2

Native resolution is always better than non-native. If it only has a resolution of 720p, then it would have to be down-converting to that resolution which means it has to blend pixels which can produce artifacts from the pixel blending. (Notably, softer edges is the most likely.) Update: I'm sorry, re-reading, I noticed that it isn't native for either ...


2

They both matter. What really matters is the combination of the two. Scaling always produces a loss of quality unless you are using an even multiple of the resolution. This is because interpolation must occur during a scaling operation that isn't an even multiple or divisor of the original resolution. This is due to the fact that some pixels must ...


2

You're not going to be able to replicate the precise "look" of 59.94, even with special plugins. This, due to the fact that interlaced is in many ways like: Double Frame Rate - Half Resolution. Think of 59.94i at 1080 really as 119.88 at 540p. Interlaced lines are scanned odd lines first, then even. So you technically have a first set of lines which are ...


2

4:2:0 means that only the colour information is subsampled. So while that the colour is at a lower resolution the brightness information is at full resolution. This works because human vision is more sensitive to brightness than colour. A 4K 4:2:0 image has 3840×2160 luma samples (luma ≈ brightness) and 1920×1080 chroma samples (chroma ≈ colour). So it's ...


1

Unfortunately, smart TVs are still a relatively young market and the ability to play back video files is not yet uniform. Each TV may support or not support a variety of formats, resolutions and frame rates. Your best bet is likely to stick to formats used by popular services such as youtube and NetFlix as these platforms increase the likelihood that a ...


1

Others have said the answer is simply no, but that's not entirely true. You can get some slight improvement from downscaling; errors and artifacts in the stream will be less visible, but this slight improvement usually isn't worth the increased bandwidth usage and CPU usage. Effective downscaling also requires graphics which can manage it, Nvidia GTX GPUs ...


1

If you're only delivering to the HTC One mini, then yes, screen resolution overrides source resolution, as you put it. Your assumptions are correct about 1080p video either having to be scaled or cropped to fit the display, and you're right, whether the source media is scaled or cropped does depend on the playback application. As a general rule, you ...


1

It is unlikely to be noticeable. This is basically the principal on which steganography operates. It changes the least significant bits in images and video such that there is not a noticeable change in the final image, however software can later pull out the data without it being obvious that the data was there. Without access to the original image it is ...


1

If Adobe Premiere has too steep a learning curve, you might like Adobe Premiere Elements. It is a pared down editing package and not as complex as Adobe Premiere. You can download a free trial here. See here for the system requirements. It is available for Windows 7 All non-linear editing programs are pretty much the same: they are I/O (input/output) ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible