1. #11
    windows movie-maker for win7 can produce HD-content by default.
    however, HD just means High-definiton as per resolution. 'YouTube' needs furthermore that the video fulfills certain standards, so it can transcode them into a Flash-wrapper.
    these standards are for most the reason, why microsoft still behaves like an angry child... microsoft lost the battle for high-definition some years ago and didn't succeed with promoting their 'WM9'-format for HD-DVDs. still there is no common agreement (as there is also BlueRay in the lead), but for most there is no doubt, that no proprietary format will be chosen, but an open standard - which is 'MPEG-4 AVC'.
    while 'WM9' is also compliant to that standard, it hasn't been opened yet by microsoft, so one needs to have licenses for de- and encoding. in regard of encoding microssoft is quite rigid and does not give private licenses.

    regarding 'movie-maker' this means, that - although the format could easily be made accessable for other video-software - microsoft keeps it proprietary to their systems (basically still hoping for their concept of DRM). the same it does not allow to create formats other than their own (basically to get the users stuck to movie-maker).
    any plug-in or tool for creating 'mp4', 'flv' or 'mov' (as the most common containers for 'MPEG-4 AVC') needs to make registry-changes to be used with 'movie-maker'. and as far i know, the resulting 'MPEG-4 AVC' encoded files are very restricted in the way of encoding and still cause quite often problems in being properly decoded - or needs intermediate steps of transcoding.

    it all comes down to 'movie-maker' being the most common, free and basic editor available for windows - which doesn't allow ordinary 'avi'- (or whatever other container) output and choice of compression... pitiful attitude of microsoft.
    so either one stays with 'movie-maker' and has to use more or less suboptimal workarounds to create files not proprietary to microsoft, or one tries to work linear and put the pieces together later (with many problems to use synched sound-files and limited use of blends), or one spends money on commercial non-linear editors.

    opposite to several free editors for linux and mac, i know of only one for windows:
    http://www.debugmode.com/wax/
    it offers editing with multiple video- and audiotracks and saves to 'avi' or 'wmv', using all available codecs installed.
    i tried it once, but it appeared not very stable that time - since i work with adobe's suite, i didn't investigate further. however, it might be worth a try...


    edit:
    i just came across an old revived open-source project 'jahshake', now developed as 'cinefx'. haven't tried it yet, but at least the website looks quite sophisticated:
    http://www.cinefx.org/cinefx/
    edit again:
    well, 'cinefx' looks promising and has excellent hardware-support. but it seems to be far from final... probably only another adventure.
    Share this post

  2. #12
    YT took it after my post last night.
    It ended up stretched, but it isn't a video for the looks anyway.

    More testing on way.

    I've got Pinnacle Studio8, but it can be a temperamental @#@$

    After making that purchase a few years back, I've been rather hesitant on spending money on anymore.

    Since I only do it for fun, and free.

    I'll look into the debugmode.

    Oh when does the racing draw a decent crowd.

    My shift at work is weekend nights, I'm off Mon-Wed Evening.
    Share this post

  3. #13
    The one suggestion that i would add is if recording the tracks (and you plan on having it played back at full speed)

    When recording at normal speed, have FRAPs set for 30 FPS

    If at Half Speed have FRAPs at 15 FPS

    The reason is most videos play at 29.97 FPS(round up to 30 FPS) So creating an image stream that syncs with the playback would create the smoothest images. By recording so you have 24 FPS when the video player plays at (or close to) 30 FPS means that you are short changing your self of 6 fps of images.

    While movie film is 24 frames per second is true... there is what the projector does that needs to be considered. A movie projector in a movie theater does not show 24 images per second. How is this you say? How can it not show 24 images per second when there is only 24 frames in a second of film?

    The reason is every projector has a shutter, and the shutters on movie house projectors are designed to show the image on the frame two or three times before advancing to the next frame. This will mean one will see either 48 or 72 images in a second

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_projector

    _________
    SHUTTER

    A commonly-held misconception is that film projection is simply a series of individual frames dragged very quickly past the projector's intense light source; this is not the case. If a roll of film were merely passed between the light source and the lens of the projector, all that would be visible on screen would be a continuous blurred series of images sliding from one edge to the other. It is the shutter that gives the illusion of one full frame being replaced exactly on top of another full frame. A rotating petal or gated cylindrical shutter interrupts the emitted light during the time the film is advanced to the next frame. The viewer does not see the transition, thus tricking the brain into believing a moving image is on screen. Modern shutters are designed with a flicker-rate of two times (48 Hz) or even sometimes three times (72 Hz) the frame rate of the film, so as to reduce the perception of screen flickering. (See Frame rate and Flicker fusion threshold.) Higher rate shutters are less light efficient, requiring more powerful light sources for the same light on screen.




    Now, for the old analog TV.s, the ones in the US ran at 30 FPS, but due to interlacing the image (draw the odd lines of the image, then draw the even lines of the image) it created a flicker rate that would correspond to 60FPS
    Share this post

  4. #14
    hi wailwulf,

    quite true what you said about projectors... not only the new ones show with 2x24fps, but it's principle used since long.

    30fps (29.xxx) is the NTSC-standard, PAL uses 25fps. interlacing is a consequence of the limited bandwidth available for TV-transmission at the time the standards were created. it does help with flickering of bright images, but the decrease in quality (as it effectively halfs the resolution) would be reason enough to keep the pictures progressive.
    movies with 24fps are simply speeded up for PAL (hardly noticeable in shorter playtime and pitched-up sounds), but the process for NTSC-conversion (telecine) is quite a messy thing and leads to stutter due to frame-repetition.

    flickering occurs mainly as frame-changes in bright scenes. for playback on monitors and flatscreeens it has become neglectible, since the frames are not projected in distinct time-intervals, but continiously built.
    you are right however, that movement is of course the more fluid the higher the framerate is - but 30fps will create 20% bigger files and needs better hardware to support recording.
    (mine would be much too old, but for modern rigs it surely is worth a consideration)

    i think that 30fps is also considered for HDTV by some TV-stations.


    edit:
    sry wailwulf, i think i didn't quite get what you were aiming at first... since you mentioned 'video-player', i guess you mean the 'YouTube' integrated player?
    'YouTube' plays the uploaded video with the correct framerate (for most). so, if you upload 24fps, the playback will also be at 24fps. same for 25fps and 30fps.
    still your comments on framerates are very well worth a read in general - especailly the part about cinematic projection (i spent 8 years behind 2 'Ernemann' as a student )



    on a different topic... concerning how 'YouTube' handles the uploaded content:
    'YouTube' still massively recompresses the uploaded files. i had both of my test-videos compressed at high bandwidth, resulting in ~20MB size each. 'YouTube' recompressed them down to 5MB in 720p.
    which is a pity, since this results merely in the quality of a normal-sized DVD... effectively degrading the promoted 'HD'-playback to insufficient bandwidth - in addition to the quality-decrease during reencoding.

    i had redownloaded the test-videos and it showed that they are now encoded in AVC, High@L3.1, CABAC, 2100 kb/s (originally they were compressed by me in High@L4.1, CABAC, 8500 kb/s). it might be worth to test if an upload with setting similar to 'YouTube' still gets reencoded or just transcoded with another wrapper. in which case, it is probably better to just use the lower quality-settings to prevent recompression.
    nevertheless, the 'HD' opportunity is a bit of a fake!
    Share this post

  5. #15
    Hail deepo_hd,

    Thanks, I was not aware of YouTube converting to the same frame rate that you saved in. I always go for the 30FPS anyways.

    Natalie Wood's last movie, Brainstorm was considered for being filmed at 60FPS in 70mm film-stock. Testing showed that 60FPS (at least 120 images a second due to the shutter) came as the smoothest image. Anything over 60 FPS created a negligible improvement that wasn't worth the cost. In the end they decided it would have cost too much any ways, so they filmed the movie in 35mm at 24FPS.

    So,if you can record at a higher FPS with high quality is the way to go in my book. But I do understand about HD space, on the last video I went from 360GB of free space to just under 50GB before I even did any editing. However I just recorded without a real plan, most of it wasn't even used, and some was mirrored so as to smooth out the editing.
    Share this post

  6. #16
    aah, wonderful times when 70mm was still found in distributions! it would need a digital resolution of minimum 12-16k to get the same quality on the screen...

    for the framerate:
    sure, the higher, the better! however, the effect of 'flicker' is due to the distinctable change between picture and no-picture (as represented in mechanical shutters and the need for film-transportation). and for human perception, 'flicker' is more present if the image is bright - like one can see the flicker of bright neon-lights very well, and not to speak of the beam of a bright projection lamp interrupted by the shutter. with digital projection the intermitting black is far less visible (as there is no need for a shutter) so the image is a lot more steady.
    nevertheless, for fluidness in motion higher framerates are preferrable. and here it is a misconception that 24, or 25 or 30 fps is some kind of choice done for 'natural' reason. 18/24fps for chemical film was just for the limits of transportation, and 25 (PAL), resp 30 (NTSC) had become standard for the current-frequencies in the regarding countries.
    the eye can detect motion up to some 5-10ms(depending on brightness and extent of motion).
    so - as you say - it can only add if framerates are higher.
    but that is left for my next system to achieve for now, i still have troubles with DVD-standards (development is too fast anyway)

    on another topic:
    has anyone tried to make a stereoscopic video from game-footage?
    since my grafics-card is the same not up-to-date as the rest of my system, i haven't bothered much. however, i tried the stereo-drivers of nvidia for my old card (they are included already in drivers for 9xxx and newer, i think) and they produced an anaglyphic image, but which was not very convincing... at least the cockpit-view was messed (the rest seemed to be correct, but still causing me headache)
    Share this post

  7. #17
    I have actually thought about how I would go about crating a 3D IL-2 film, but have considered it would be do difficult to be practical.

    The hardest part would be recording two separate sets of footage (one for the left eye and one for the right eye). Static images might just be about doable, but forgeddabout it for anything where the camera moves.

    Then you would have to put a Red / Blue tint over each footage, and then painfully splice them together, frame by frame.

    That wouldn't be much fun.
    Share this post

  8. #18
    Originally posted by RAAFStupot:
    I have actually thought about how I would go about crating a 3D IL-2 film, but have concluded it would be do difficult to be practical.

    The hardest part would be recording two separate sets of footage (one for the left eye and one for the right eye). Static images might just be about doable, but forgeddabout it for anything where the camera moves.

    Then you would have to put a Red / Blue tint over each footage, and then painfully splice them together, frame by frame.

    That wouldn't be much fun.
    Share this post

  9. #19
    You Should Get Windows Live Movie Maker
    Step One of Making it HD = ^ _^=
    The first one is improtant record your video
    and open it up with wlmm and then you save or (you wanna edit) If you want to have 1080P Click Save at the right and click High definition
    After the Saving is done you should publish to youtube click the youtube above and then you wait for hours ( if the movie is very long )
    and then you need to wait after that you will see the video published!! if its 480p please try refreshing!! refresh until you see 1080p at 'Change Quality'
    Your Video is 1080P
    Thank you
    Hope you try dis!!
    Share this post

  10. #20
    You Should Get Windows Live Movie Maker
    Step One of Making it HD = ^ _^=
    The first one is improtant record your video
    and open it up with wlmm and then you save or (you wanna edit) If you want to have 1080P Click Save at the right and click High definition
    After the Saving is done you should publish to youtube click the youtube above and then you wait for hours ( if the movie is very long )
    and then you need to wait after that you will see the video published!! if its 480p please try refreshing!! refresh until you see 1080p at 'Change Quality'
    Your Video is 1080P
    Thank you
    Hope you try dis!!
    Share this post