Coker footage in full HD!

Took some test footage today using my new Canon Vixia HV 30. This is my first footage actually shot, and edited and in true super resolution HD! (My last “stair” video was edited in standard DV mode) I captured today’s raw footage with Nero 9, which has “motion adaptive deinterlacing” and other cool features.

Then I exported it as a WMV in the highest resolution (HD), then finished the editing with MM and again saved it to super HD. Only real downside was it took almost TWO hours for Nero to finish processing it! It looks so amazing like you are there in person! So have a look and let me know what you think.

Canon Vixia HV30 Coker footage in HD, etc. :D:) :sunglasses:

Although it looks striking in Youtube HD, here at home watching the original, the clarity, shaprness and overall quality is just amazing! And finally, I can now deinterlace all my footage so no “jaggies” or artifacts…yay! :smiley: Next I will try shooting in the 24p and 30p mode, and since those are “progressive” modes, the footage shouldn’t be interlaced to start with. :slight_smile:

Bu from here out, I’m probably going to use the 30p mode as described below, effectively eliminating the need to deinterlace at all! Btw, in still cam SD mode, you can shoot an astounding FIVE (3.1 Megapixel) still images per second! :smiley:

Very nice!

I still havent figured out though how you managed to use wmm with an hd file?

Have you joined, ive learned alot stuff from there.

Well, I used nero 9 first to capture the raw footage; I would start and stop the camcorder to get the clips I wanted, then used the motion adaptive deinterlacer and exported it as a wmv in super HD. Actually, I could have used 1080, but settled for 720. Then I uploaded that wmv to MM where I finished the editing and added titles and music.

MM lets you save in a wide variety of qualitites, including 720 and 1080 HD! The only thing MM can’t handle is footage shot in 24p & 30p. I tried but even though I could edit in those formats, when I tried to save it it would always stop and hang at 99%. Having googled it for answers, it’s a common and known issue with MM. What I haven’t yet tried is to use nero 9 with those modes also, and then see if MM will handle it. :smiley:

I just shot some test footage in 24p cinema mode with 1/2000 shutter speed! Absolutely unbelievable quality! As crystal clear as it gets and at that fast shutter speed, there is zero blur on fast moving objects! And of course, zero interlacing! This truly opens up a whole new world for making videos! Next is to step up to at least a good prosumer editor; Nero 9 is ok but it’s mostly for dvd burning. :smiley:

I love how you talk about interlacing.

I suggest filming most everything you do in 30fps. Just number wise, 30fps is faster than 24fps, so it will be even better, unless you want the film effect on everything you do.

I also suggest to move away from WMM. Then deinterlacing will always just be something thats nothing special and just a check in a box. More options too. If you got Nero 9 ultra, you could try their video editing software.

I’ve got nero 9, not sure about ultra. It does have a video capture and edit function, which is how I was able to use MM to finish the editing, since I’m not fully up to speed on all the function in nero. But yeah, 24p and 30p are progressive modes, as you know, and therefore do not need deinterlacing since there are no interlaced frames. I’m uploading my 24p test now and will be ready in a short while. You can pause the video at any random point and the frame is as clear, sharp and clean as a high res. still shot. I’m stoked! :sunglasses:

This is a still capture from the video shot in 24p, and not even full res so it would fit here! I was idling back & forth fairly fast.

Ok here’s a short test clip I made using the 24p cinema mode and 1080p full HD resolution! try in in full screen too and stop the video at any point and you’ll see there is zero blur!

I just find it funny that your hyped about a function that is one of the simpliest things to do in anyother editing program. =p

You should make your vids in both 720 and 1080. Host the 1080 videos on some type of server (Not rapidshare!!!) and then x720 to youtube. At least when you can handle your native capture resolution. It will be good to give options.

If you’re referring to deinterlacing, it’s not needed when shooting in 24p & 30p. But as I mentioned, nero 9 has the deinterlace option, which is what I used in my previous footage shot in 60i, and it came out great. I will likely be shooting mostly in 30p as you suggested. And yeah, 1080 is overkill, and 720 is more than adequate. :slight_smile:

Did you see the last test vid in 24p and 1080 res?

YouTube - canon HV30 test in 24p

If you’re referring to deinterlacing, it’s not needed when shooting in 24p & 30p. I will likely be shooting mostly in 30p as you suggested.

I was about to comment on it. lol

For youtube, id change the x1080res and convert down to 1280x720. The image will still be sharp and good, but you wont have those black bars in the video.

Ahh, ok. I thought the highest res of 1080 would fill the screen. I’ll try it at 720 like my previous video; that one DID fill the screen and it was sved as 720. Thanks! :slight_smile:

When watched on a standalone player it would, depending on the person monitor settings, but youtubes max is only at 720 right now. Thats why uploading x720 to youtube and x1080 to a server would be the best bet for now until video sites start offering 1080 uploads and higher.

Im tempted to buy a new camera now. :slight_smile:

Yep, I just uploaded a snippet in 720 and that’s the ticket! :smiley: I LOVE this new camcorder!!! No, “love” isn’t a string enough word…I LUFF this camera…I, I, LERVE it! (Annie Hall quote-parahrased)

Nice camera terry. The footage looks amazing.

I’m still trying to work out how to get the best out of my High-def camera (the Panasonic HDC HS9) but, to be honest, I’d sooner edit in slightly lower quality so that our computer can actually handle it.

Are there actually any advantages to filming interlaced footage? Because it just seems to be a bit of a hassle when it comes to editing really. But with my camera, the highest quality setting (highest bit-rate) is higher with 1080i than the corresponding 1080p.

And what’s the deal with Youtube “high-def” anyway. Can it really be full high-def (1920 x 1080) when most computer screens don’t have anywhere near the right resolution to display that many pixels?

Sorry to turn your thread into a general HD discussion, but I was just wondering a few things haha. Keep up the High Definition Terry!


Well currently YT’s largest HD size is 1280x720, and if you upload the max of 1080x1980, you will get black bars on each side! So 720x1080, while still HD, is the optimum size to fill the entire YT screen. And the quality is more than excellent. As to you other question, I shoot everyhting for the web now in 30p, which does not require deinterlacing since it’s progressive. However, if you shoot in “i” mode you should deinterlace it so you won’t have the “jaggies”. Or just shoot in progressive mode.

As for bitrate, which is for both audio and video, nero 9 allows me to manually choose whatever bitrate I want. I don’t really know much about that though, so I usually just set it to the higher end.

Oh ok, thanks for clarifying the resolution of Youtube HD. I understand the difference between progressive and interlaced, but I was wondering if there are actually any advantages to recording in interlaced mode. Like maybe it somehow gets the best quality. Because otherwise you’d think all cameras would just record in progressive. Just wondering if anyone can help me out there.

Sorry to highjack your thread Terry.

haha no problem. Interlaced video is really only noticeable on the web, but won’t be on a TV screen, watching it on a dvd for example. 60i footage when played in slo mo (on your TV) looks smoother than progressive, which can have a 'strobe" effect when slowed down, especially if it was shot with a high shutter speed.

I’ve been experimenting in highdef too.

Filmed using a Sony HVR1ZU HDV 1080i camera, which is entry level professional.
Weak points on the camera are

  1. its expensive and fragile. no good for muni
  2. resolution is 1440x1080i. Why can’t cameras do 1920x1080p 60 fps?
  3. 20 Mbit/s MPeg2 has artifacts

Captured and Edited on iMovieHD, which does a great job editting on HD. Nice and easy/fast. Exports reasonably fast.
Weak point on iMovie

  1. Capture is realtime. If your harddrive is slow, it’ll drop frames. So I got an external sata drive.
  2. Not good at deinterlacing - creates a mix of 30p ‘theme’ and transitions, with 60 hz interlaced for the content.
  3. So I export a lossless compressed PNG Quicktime, which produces huge files. About 15 GB for 3 minute video. Working with large files is slow.

Deinterlacing - I wrote my own tool, using “Bob and Weave” technique.
Bob is good for the fast motion, producing blur instead of interlace ‘weave’
Weave is good for static bits - like the background, if you filmed with a tripod.
The bob or weave is done on each pixel, depending which produces less error.
Because iMovie also produces 1080p for titles and such, I had to detect these frames and not deinterlace them. They are high resolution, but only 30 fps, whereas the rest of the movie is 60 fps. But for youtube, 30 fps is good enough.

Once deinterlaced to 1920 x 1080 60 fps progressive, I reduce the frame rate and resolution to 1280 x 720 and compress with 10 MBit/s H.264 / AAC, which produces somewhat practical sized files for upload… around 300 MB.

The weakest link in the process was the camera.
interlace is bad.
mpeg2 at 20 Mbits is bad. It needs about 80 Mbits to be good. AVC cameras would be better too.
Tape is bad, because the capture process is error prone. SD or HDD would be better.
The camera is bulky & fragile.

Might want to get with the times. =p. My own monitor is at x1050. I could take it much larger too. I game right around x1200.

This is why I never liked the “HD” hype, because my comp monitors for the last years have always been higher or been able to go higher than HD today. If they just kept it to tv applications where it is an improvement, I wouldnt mind, but now its all over the internet, and at 720 hd, its just a tiny box on my screen, so nothing special.

4k tvs (Native HD of around the year 2015. resolution will basically be 4kx2k) will be the time I will be happy. Even though thats slightly above my monitor now, it will be a better reason of hype then the small resolutions of today.

1080 files are jsut too big for most online places. The best best is like I said earlier, to upload your videos to the sites recommendation, that upload the native HD files on a separate server. Megaupload or mediafile. Or putting them in a torrent.