Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 11, 2017 10:44:21 GMT
For the last week, I've been editing old footage from 2001 taken in Florida.
In those days, I used a camera that was basic, low resolution, (not hd) and ran at just 25fps. So flicker could be an issue for some movement and to be honest, the contrast was a bit pants so that everything looked a bit grey. It is also in 4:3 format, not 16:9.
Looking at it on a 55 inch modern tv was a bit gruesome. Picked every editing fault, every piece of grain and flicker, to the point that it was quite distracting.
I have also spent ages looking around for an efficient piece of software that might be able to clean it up for me.
Anyway, I found something quite cheap and installed it onto my laptop, so that if any nasties came down with it, I'd just reformat the computer and start again. (No problem) it seems that the installation was a clean one and nothing else was loaded onto the machine, but the joys of modern editing ....
Contrast was raised. Colour raised so that it 'popped' a bit more. Nasty clips isolated and then cut away. Sound boosted. Music added at some points.
Then a reconversion to MP4 (again) My feeling was that loading an MP4 and then reconverting it back might kill it, but it has come out remarkably well!! I am really surprised how the quality 'seems' to have been improved.
Of course, the original footage is what it is, but with raised contrast and colour with better sound, it has become something else and is now perfectly watchable.
In 2001, I was too busy bombing around to worry about lovely clean footage, so in being able to properly edit what I did, I have a film that looks really nice. A mate came over while one was playing and he asked me what channel I was watching!!
Some of these modern editors for film are extremely good nowadays. Very efficient and work unobtrusively on your footage. The worst part is the time that it takes to re render them back to MP4. Means that your computer has to be left for a very long time, while it sorts it all out for you.
I ended up with about three or four hours of perfectly watchable footage that I've not really looked at since 2001!!! I had dark hair then too.
|
|
jello
extremely active
Posts: 1,569
|
Post by jello on Feb 13, 2017 12:38:53 GMT
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 13, 2017 15:35:37 GMT
Gone ..... just like that!!! That's the second time that bloke has appeared with his advert. I still wonder about allowing guests to post here tbh.
|
|
jello
extremely active
Posts: 1,569
|
Post by jello on Feb 14, 2017 11:53:17 GMT
I noticed he'd posted before. Personally (and I think you may have just put some steps in place) I don't think guests should be able to post. If you want to contribute to a forum then surely you should become a member? Doing it that way also means that spammers need to go through a few more hoops and trolls can't simply do 'drive by' posts as they roll through. Won't stop all of them or prevent the crackpot from re-surfacing but what can you do?
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 14, 2017 14:09:36 GMT
The guests do get to me a bit tbh. While I know that there are serious ones, it doesn't take much to register and post but I don't really like these sporadic visitors who make some comment or ask a question without joining. Generally, if I see them I just delete them.
Last time I did that, the 'guest' joined and reposted the same thing!!
Also what puzzles me is 400 visitors a day who don't write a word.
Anyway, my old 2001 video is great now. Trouble is, I can't post it without YouTube and copyright which is annoying, They block any video with music that they think might be copyrighted so I guess Santana is out?
Ive plugged the place up now. Visitors can't post.
|
|
jello
extremely active
Posts: 1,569
|
Post by jello on Feb 14, 2017 17:00:22 GMT
I don't get the posting thing either. Seems the ones that want to post don't want to sign up and the ones that don't post do sign up! And then there's the sad old gits who have nothing better to do than hang around all day posting @#!* all day. Regulars I think they're called Good to hear that you've been able to give your old vids a new lease of life. A lot of old video camera footage looks awful nowadays old so that software you are using must be good!! Shame about youtube spoiling your fun though as it's not like you are gaining anything financially from it. Would it make a difference if you didn't make them 'public' or do they block it before you can even get that far? (might be a daft question as I rarely use it other than for viewing what's already there)
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 14, 2017 17:15:02 GMT
I'm not sure, Mark. If I make it a private area, I'm not sure if I can plant a link for everyone to get at. The only option is to take music off and remake it. I might give uploading a go to see if it gets stopped. I reckon it will though.
The software seems to work well. Funny thing though is that I rendered in hi definition from a very low def original. Less lines (lor pixels) but my thinking is that it all gets captured that way.
The older lens wasn't so good on the old camera so I was able to use an 'unsharp' type mask which is a great fix and add colour and contrast to anything looking a bit grey. The result is that overall, everything looks a lot sharper.
Trouble is that a modern 55 inch tv is almost laser like in what it picks out and it shows every flaw.
In any case, it really has brought old, grey looking footage back to life which is nice.
As far as guests go, I've allowed them to see the top threads but not post but they can't see the technical areas so they'd have to log on if they were serious. That might help to stop these spammers and also, people who think they can pester without any interest in the forum, except their own current little problems!!
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 24, 2017 8:29:45 GMT
I've found a new magic trick on the software which has really helped old footage. So far, contrast, colour and sound have been restored to something much better but in the early days, there was no stabilisation so shots could be pretty shaky. That shakiness could also introduce 'judder' into the movement on pans etc.
So, I found a 'secret' right click command which stabilises your video by making the screen size smaller and moving the new screen about to compensate for picture movement. So if you shook the camera left and then right, the frame follows you left and right so the picture stays still.
It's a long process since it analyses the video first, before applying 'frame movement' and you can also adjust the size of the frame for really bad shake.
You end up with a way smoother looking video and actually, 'judder' effects on movement are reduced as a result of less camera movement.
Of course, modern cameras like the GoPro have this built in and you do lose a little bit of the frame, but it does make things way more watchable.
These modern editing suites are really excellent value. I was used to using one at work on a Mac which was really expensive, but this is a cheap programme and it does most of what home users would probably want to be honest.
Rendering works fine as long as you film, edit and render at the same frame rate. If you don't, then it still renders fine but 'pan' shots need a good looking at for smoothness with frame rates not exactly matching. When they do, it's butter smooth.
You really can do a lot for old footage with these programmes. It would make sense to digitise old Super 8 stuff and get at the resulting file with it. Can't remember the frame rate of the old film but if there was a way of copying it at the same frame rate and then playing around with rendering rates on the programme, old films could well be restored and even maybe look better than the original!!
The biggest downside it the amount of time that it takes the computer to process HD files. I just leave a computer working in a corner and come back next day!!
|
|
juke
very active
Posts: 396
|
Post by juke on Feb 24, 2017 11:16:07 GMT
Super 8 is usually 18fps for silent, 24 for sound.
What's the name of this software Ian? Would it be suitable for VHS?
I have some old Super 8 that I intended to get transferred, never got around to it.
I must have a look around to see if anyone does it still, assuming my film is still OK.
Trouble is my projector went faulty and the film is all on 200' reels that need separating back to 50' originals as some of it judders at the joins.
Syd
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 24, 2017 17:55:05 GMT
Sorry Syd, didn't see your reply....
I don't want to advertise but it's called Filmora. I've tried loads of different packages and they can be a bit puzzling to use tbh, but I could use Filmora straight away. I got into just the basic things at first and thought it was ok, but then discovered hidden options like the automatic picture enhancement, audio enhancement and just recently, video stabilisation which is excellent. One of the better ones I've seen actually. You can even control how much stabilisation you want.
I've seen quite a few reviews and they are variable and some warning of viruses etc, but I've found nothing at all. I loaded it onto a computer that I wasn't too bothered about with a new Windows installation and was going to just reinstall if a virus appeared. Got nothing.
I also bought a couple of 'effects' packages from their website. In fact, it turns out that this programme has been kind of used by other companies in different forms but Filmora renders are possibly a bit better.
The worst part is getting the frame rate to work properly on tv. Takes some experimentation.
Any digital film can be split so that you can cut judder out. I had some large films that I separated into scenes and then put transitions in, plus music and actually, some 'ambience' sound which I recorded on my digital recorder from YouTube.
Result is smoother, shorter films with music with occasional camera sound (enhanced), ambient sounds and music to smooth everything over and way more watchable.
Tbh, I'm not sure how 18 FPS would translate to modern digital TVs. Might be very rough actually. Motion might have to be cut out for your own sanity. So pan shots might have to go because of stutter. 24 is a bit easier.
For some reason, I'm finding that a render at 50fps looks better, even with the original being shot at 25. I haven't a clue why that is. Just looks slightly smoother, but no extra frames can be added. I'm guessing that the early footage is 25i so interlaced is in effect 50 half frames per second, so 50p does look better because I have everything on progressive scan. Not sure.
I've pretty much learned the programme now so I can find the important stuff quickly. There's another useful feature that automatically splits a very long file into scenes. Somehow, it detects different scenes. That's useful if you need to edit single scenes for contrast, colour or camera shake.
Biggest drawback is the time it takes the computer to sort out the rendering in HD. I'm rendering for my tv, no matter what the source is. If I go 4K in the near future, I'll just leave them in HD in progressive scanning rather than interlaced.
|
|
juke
very active
Posts: 396
|
Post by juke on Feb 24, 2017 18:59:47 GMT
Looks like a useful bit of software, I'll see if I can get my Super 8 sorted and copied. I don't have a lot of movies even including digital but it would be nice to get them a bit more watchable.
I'm not aiming for your level of artistry <G>
Syd
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 24, 2017 20:49:41 GMT
I've gone into full production mode Syd! I'm re-jigging old stuff in order to make them more watchable on a 55 inch led tv. Trouble is that these TVs are a bit laser like and light up and the pixels turn off quicker than old TVs so that glitches and any problems stand out like a sore thumb.
I can't believe how poor my old videos are tbh. Unsharp, low colour. Low contrast. Too long and unedited. No music. Poor microphone sounds. Camera shake.
Virtually all repairable on modern software except for sharpness, but there are 'tricks' to make it look sharper. (Contrast adjustment, picture enhancement etc)
What I like about the software is just how easy it is to make a full production.
I've want to do this for a long time but now actually have the time. The GoPro set me off again. Quality from the Hero is absolutely top notch and with a decent editor, you end up with virtually broadcast quality film.
I've also been playing around with bit rates on the rendering. This seems to make a lot of difference to some films; especially with a lot of movement. The editor suggests certain bit rates for predefined quality, but I've been finding the higher you go, the better. Until the file just becomes too big. My TV will only play files up to a size of just over 4gb so I make that the target size, no matter what length the film is. So a 10 minute film can be made in ultra high quality whereas a 30 minute film is lower, just to get it to play.
The bit rate seems to affect the smoothness of the look and even movement on film, so it's worth playing around with. I've played around with all of the bit rates offered on the editing programme.
High bit rate looks butter smooth.
With 18fps Syd, it might be worth looking for a video frame converter and see if you can at least get it to 25 so that it matches TV or else, you might well get 'judder' on screen where movement stops and starts a bit.
|
|
juke
very active
Posts: 396
|
Post by juke on Feb 24, 2017 23:17:22 GMT
Have you tried one of the programs that 'compress' your movies? I copied my DVDs to a HDD using Make MKV then Handbrake to make them into MP4, the quality remained excellent, I watch them on a 55 and they're great, even BDs. Both are free. It'll take me a while to get sorted but I certainly don't have any artistic/director gift so I'll be delighted just to get the viewing quality up. It's great you have the flair to really go for it. Not hard to pass time in retirement Eh!
Syd
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 25, 2017 7:32:52 GMT
Exactly Syd. I'm lucky enough to have the time. It can take ages to sort all the clips out!!
Handbrake is reckoned to be a really good programme. I keep meaning to take a look at that one. I think that it's more of a converter than editor though.
Well, whatever you use, it pays to look more closely at the rendering settings. The automatic settings on many programmes are a little low because they're more concerned with saving space than getting quality video. If you want to archive movie, I would try to get it into as high quality as you can, since storage space is cheap now and rendering in lower quality means that you'd never get it back.
I've found that the bit rate is quite important. Unlike audio, you really can see the differences on modern TV's. I go for 10mps or even 20 if I can. It makes a very large file, but the picture quality makes it worthwhile. I'm also rendering in 50fps even when the original is 25. For some reason, it looks smoother even though the software isn't adding frames. The frame rate doesn't up the file size much at all. I'm also rendering for HD TV even though the original looks like it's been rendered for canvas!! A lot can be done to clean it up and the rendering seems to smooth out a little more.
Yesterday, I did a rough 30 minute film that I took on a Flip digital machine in a place called Westleton in Sussex. Lots of scenery stuff and luckily, not too many pans and shakes. Result is that the standard of the final film is really good with some English country music added in points. I wanted to get it up to a decent standard because it has Lucy as a little girl in great form on it.
At the time, I had very little that I could edit properly on but for this one, the original is actually in HD although just 25fps. I think it's interlaced as well, so it's really 50 half frames a second. It came up very well because the original resolution is good and I added in some kind of 'sunshine' lighting effect which really lightened up some dark footage without using contrast and brightness settings.
I rendered it at 20mps which gave an enormous file of something like nearly 6 gb which was too big for the memory card to play. There is a limit of 4 gb on cards which once exceeded, means that the video won't play, so you either have to rip at a lower bit rate or split the film for a tea break!! I lowered the bit rate to 15mps and the file came out under 4. Quality was fine.
So I try to get the highest bit rate possible that is playable tbh. Although lower bit rates work, on big tv's you can sometimes see that quality has been compromised on things that move. You've probably seen the same kind of thing on standard definition TV if you have a 55 inch screen. When there's a load of movement, it goes blocky. That's because they used too low a bit rate in order to stream it. You get the same effect on rendering if the bit rate is too low and it gradually lessens as you move up in quality.
Trouble is that a lot of the software is geared at people wanting to make low bit, rougher videos for things like YouTube where the quality of the rendering isn't anything like the issue that it is for a large tv. So automatic settings on many pieces of software are geared up this way, when in fact, they are capable of much better quality.
It's worth checking.
|
|
juke
very active
Posts: 396
|
Post by juke on Feb 25, 2017 10:11:39 GMT
That's great advice for the editing stage, some of the terms (50 half-frames etc) I'll have to look into. It's great that you've got movies into something that's a technical pleasure to watch as a bonus to retrieving the subject in much better form.
I only meant to use Handbrake as a quality means of watching a completed movie in one go, I'd never dispose of the full-quality originals, just as in photography.
Some searching of dark corners of the roof space now must be undertaken!
Syd
|
|