3

I have that camera. Here are a few things to consider: The camera doesn't have any in-body stabilization, so the footage can be very shaky unless you're prepared. In my situation, I knew I wanted to use a gimbal to stabilize. This works great, but it will affect your lens choice. If you plan to use the BMPCC on a gimball ever, remember that you won't ...


2

Since you're asking for "uncompressed" I assume you don't care about file size. If so, I suggest rendering to mjpeg. This smoothing issue is because your command is defaulting to h.264. The difference between h.264 and mjpeg is that mjpeg is intra-frame compression only, but h.264 is intra- and inter-frame compression. As such, mjpeg is a massive file by ...


2

There are a number of comparison algorithms available beginning with PSNR through SSIM/SSIMPLUS to VMAF. VMAF is implemented as an ffmpeg filter.


1

Without an example it's hard to say, but I think perhaps sometimes people just hold up their camera and film, they can't or don't frame the shot or adjust the zoom, they're often standing in one place and can't get closer to line up a good shot. Also lighting is super important for good video, unless it's filmed during the daytime in sunlight, the quality ...


1

Do you have a manual for the VCR? Does it show the pin mappings for the SCART connector? I did a quick search, I can't find a manual online. Where did you get your SCART cable? Did it come with the VCR? I'd agree with the link you posted - SCART more commonly connects to a composite signal, or sometimes RGB. All my SCART cables are wired for either to those,...


1

Yes, using the S-Video output of the SCART breakout will give you better quality than if you use the composite output of the same breakout. (You can get even better quality if you use a different SCART breakout that has RGB outputs.) NTSC and PAL composite signals sacrifice the amount of data about the brightness and color of the scene for the sake of ...


1

Could you give files (or png screenshots) to comparing? I think that file with higher bitrate and higher resolution should look better, with other conditions being equal. 1056*594 = 627 264 pixels. 1280*720 = 921 600 pixels (47% more pixels relative to 1056x594 resolution) 921 600 / 627 264 = 1.469 * 100% = 147% relative to 1056x594 resolution. 2966 kbps ...


1

If you can use Zoom, it has a pretty good recording feature which can record separate audio files for each participant in addition to the video in gallery view. Obviously, already synced. As far as quality, Zoom does have a video optimization option that improves the resolution at least.


1

For watching movies, screens with a greater width than height are better suited. Now the 16: 9 format is popular. For some video games, high screens are suitable, when the character is visible in full growth. It’s better to look at large screens from a high distance.


1

Depends on what your standard of quality is. If your standard is maximal retina coverage, then, well, you've got round eyeballs, so a 1:1 aspect ratio would be the "best" rectangular shape. But they don't make square TVs, let alone circle-shaped ones, which would be "better". On the other hand, if you watch a lot of television, you'll get the most use out ...


1

I do not understand your question. As it is I would say nothing. Get a 16x9 inches monitor. It measures 16 x 9 inches. Now rotate it 90°. It has the exact same total displaying area but now measures 9 x 16 inches. The "optimal" viewing distance is the same. If you are referring to different aspect ratios, the unit that is important and easier to get is the ...


1

For videography you do not necessarily look for "a good" lens for pixel peeping, you want a good autofocus system and a wide aperture for a "cinematic look". This depends on what type of videography you are doing. Interviews, documental, landscape, indoors, outdoors, using a tripod, using a handheld. Jason Conrad's answer is interesting because he is using ...


1

For most people, the first workhorse lens will be a zoom, because of the versatility. Sharpness in lenses isn't a huge factor for video; at HD resolution and below, lenses that photographers turn their noses up at for their sharpness do a perfectly adequate job. Once you're shooting 4k it starts being a bit more important, but even still that's way below ...


1

You need to define what is acceptable to you. Record a well illuminated scene and increase the ISO while decreasing the aperture and compare what noise level on your specific camera is acceptable for you, and you will know what are the limitations of your equipment. In the case of the example video, the noise is "the same" because both moments, the dark ...


1

Your program probably re-encoded the resulting video file from scratch and used whatever setting it considered okay. If you want to have more control about the process and/or do not want it to re-encode the video at all (if both are of the same format), then I strongly suggest looking into ffmpeg for this. For reference, https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/...


1

Yes, there is a method using AI to upscale images: if you convert your footage into an image sequence using ffmpeg, you could run every frame through such upscaling.


1

Ad 1: Try adding the -pix_fmt yuv420p10le option (e.g. before -vf). Or only -pix_fmt + for using the same pixel format as the input video has. If it doesn't help, you obviously have an inappropriate, albeit more common FFmpeg version — only for 8-bit colors. (Your original video uses 10-bit colors, and FFmpeg will try use the best 8-bit pixel format in ...


1

YouTube re-encodes whatever you give it. The process is lossy so there will be a quality reduction. All you can do is give it a very high quality: ffmpeg -framerate 10 -pattern_type glob -i 'resized/*.JPG' -vf scale=1280:-2 -c:v libx264 -crf 17 out.mp4 Use -crf 17 or -crf 18 for higher quality. Try without -pix_fmt yuv420p. I'm not sure what YouTube uses ...


1

You can use Premiere Pro or similar video editing software and plugin Flicker Free from Digital Anarchy with one of the preset. Result of plugin work Settings of the plugin in my case Also I know some other methods but they are poorer and harder.


1

That violates the rules of information theory. Look into the work of Claude Shannon if you wish to understand why what you are asking is mathematically impossible.


1

People need to define the priorities, if the video footage is important to assign a good place to the camera. A television studio with a live audience is a good example of the priority. Of course, this is not the case, but I am pretty sure these days is not the opposite to that. It has some importance to be streamed, "Youtoubed" or something. So, talk to ...


1

In Davinci Resolve, I would solve this problem by creating a multicam clip using Timecode as the method for synchronization and keeping clips organized by camera. This will create a multicam clip with only a single camera, but each clip spaced out according to its timecode. If you like, the multicam clip can then be decomposed in place and converted into a ...


1

Adaptive streaming is accomplished by switching between pre-encoded streams of different bitrates and/or resolutions. But the bitrate within any given pre-encoded stream does not vary too much. YT-DL, with your command, will select the 'best' video stream, usually the one with the highest bitrate and resolution, and return its URL. This URL is a direct ...


1

I'd suspect anything purely automated is going to be pretty marginal. There's a lot of complexity to getting a good curve with the right gamma, but there's a variety of possible levels of what would be considered "good results". Personally, I'd rather try getting a good mapping manually with something like Resolve and then trying to see what scenes I could ...


1

As it seems both videos have a bitrate of 118 (117) megabits per second. This means - regardless off any other parameter - your video will take up 118 mb for each recorded second. But as you already noted, a video with double the FPS should have double the data, so if you originaly exported the 4k60 video with 118, you can export the 4k30 video with 57mb/s ...


1

If I was doing it I would probably give both speakers a wireless lavalier (lapel) mic, and record each to a separate channel. I would have two cameras (at least), one generally staying wide (which can be a static camera if you don't have more than one operator), and one getting close shots, and following on the action or dialogue, so when one of the speakers ...


1

Format: h.264 -> that's what makes it look bad. h.264 is a codec in the mp4 container and always compresses, making the file smaller and look worse. For lossless exporting you use prores 4444 xq if you're using mac (or windows with the newest version of premiere) or DNxHR. I highly recommend prores 4444 xq though.


1

In my experience (using handbrake) increasing the bit depth increases the file size but not by much. However, lowering the CRF is what causes significantly larger files. I encoded several times the same source with different settings to see what I'd get, so for a random source of 1.45Gb (H.264/AVC) it gave theses results: H.265 8bit CRF 22 (slow) > 362.6 Mb ...


1

A lower-than-optimal bitrate video with higher resolution could easily look worst than a smaller one with proper bit per pixel dedication. Of course a very important fact is the viewing device and condition. A smaller video should get upscaled to fill the screen, for example a 1280×720 will get upscaled in full-screen mode on a 1920×1080 screen. So, in ...


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