My First U/W Video!

[Empty V]

Hey everyone here's my first attempt at U/W video, let me know what you think, honest critiques only please. You need to Use

User Name: dive
Password: videos

And it is case sensitive

http://www.oocpromotions.com/thethickofit/Video Files/Diving Videos/Hawaii January 2008.mov

Thanks!

Billy

 

[PerroneFord]

Critiques eh?

Ok.

Opening and closing sequences were excellent. I loved the music, and your editing was pretty good to. Pacing was very good. Better than most videos I've watched.

My issues were:

1. The interlacing really bothers me. Please convert that to progressive for web use.

2. It was a bit dark inside the hold with the shark. I would have LOVED to see that scene with more light.

3. I think some of the scenes were a bit 'dry' with no focal interest. Having a strong subject to take us through the scenes would be great. The shot late in the video where you are following a diver and swooping low is magnificent.


Someting else I noticed in this video that I see a LOT of... many of the shots are medium shots. Close shots get us in on the action, and wide shots give us the vistas. Try to get some of both extremes in there as that will really spice things up. And yes, I know it's probably hard to do that in settings where you have fixed ports and lenses.

Overall, I thought it was VERY enjoyable! More please!

 

[Empty V]

Critiques eh?

Ok.

Opening and closing sequences were excellent. I loved the music, and your editing was pretty good to. Pacing was very good. Better than most videos I've watched.

My issues were:

1. The interlacing really bothers me. Please convert that to progressive for web use.

2. It was a bit dark inside the hold with the shark. I would have LOVED to see that scene with more light.

3. I think some of the scenes were a bit 'dry' with no focal interest. Having a strong subject to take us through the scenes would be great. The shot late in the video where you are following a diver and swooping low is magnificent.


Someting else I noticed in this video that I see a LOT of... many of the shots are medium shots. Close shots get us in on the action, and wide shots give us the vistas. Try to get some of both extremes in there as that will really spice things up. And yes, I know it's probably hard to do that in settings where you have fixed ports and lenses.

Overall, I thought it was VERY enjoyable! More please!

Thanks for the honest critique and encouragement! Seriously, I appreciate it. the footage was shot in 24P so I've got to do some research on optimal compression for exporting a 24P project in a 29.97 timeline for streaming. I'm guessing that's part of what you're seeing.

With the shark I only had a single light canon and it was pitch black in there, so unfortunately if I bump it up all the blacks will turn gray. I would've been so stoked if I had more light. If you know any tricks that I don't please share.

And as far as your "dry" comment I totally agree. This is no excuse but living subjects were few and far between on most of these dives. Personally I'm a fish guy not a wreck guy and my fish coverage was way below par. There wasn't a story either which I think is very important. My goal for this project was mainly to get used to holding the camera and operating it's controls. With this setup it's a little difficult because I have to MWB, manual focus(manual focus only in 24P) and control the exposure. I gotta say equinox did right by adding in an adjustable lead weight in the bottom of the housing. With my extended batteries and wide angle adapter trims out perfectly. I can put my finger directly underneath the center and it balances. Plus it's huge so that helps with stability.

Everything was shot with a 0.6x wide angle so you're right, most of my shots look very similar with similar framing. I think my next purchase will be standard and macro ports(if they make a macro) and get a macro lens setup. I'm big into macro for still photography(mainly because it's easier) but not sure about macro video.


Thanks again for the criticism, if you've got more please tell.

Billy

 

[limeyx]

Thanks for the honest critique and encouragement! Seriously, I appreciate it. the footage was shot in 24P so I've got to do some research on optimal compression for exporting a 24P project in a 29.97 timeline for streaming. I'm guessing that's part of what you're seeing.
...
Billy

For the web, I export 428x240 H.264 @ about 400Kbps data rate (average) with keyframes every 96 or so. I have to de-interlace in s/w as my camera only shoots interlaced footage.

i think it comes out pretty decent and H.264 at low bandwidth is really hard to beat.

 

[Empty V]

For the web, I export 428x240 H.264 @ about 400Kbps data rate (average) with keyframes every 96 or so. I have to de-interlace in s/w as my camera only shoots interlaced footage.

i think it comes out pretty decent and H.264 at low bandwidth is really hard to beat.

I shoot everything progressive and don't want to change the resolution, problems develop when you do that. For 2min worth of footage I get a 32MB file so I'm not too worried about my data rate. I just have to dial it in.

Billy

 

[PerroneFord]

I shoot everything progressive and don't want to change the resolution, problems develop when you do that. For 2min worth of footage I get a 32MB file so I'm not too worried about my data rate. I just have to dial it in.

Billy

Billy, this is just my opinion after compressing video for the web for the past 5 years or so. Changing the resolution does not have to compromise quality if it's done properly. What you don't want to do is to change aspect ratio.

I would also STRONGLY suggest you shoot interlaced if you don't have really solid lighting. You can de-interlace in post, and unless you are planning to go to broadcast, it really won't matter all that much.

I also don't have any clue why you are putting your 24p footage into a 29.97 timeline. Why not just do a 24fps timeline and export at 24 frames? Not only will you not change the cadence, you'll create better encodes at the same file sizes.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Empty V]

Billy, this is just my opinion after compressing video for the web for the past 5 years or so. Changing the resolution does not have to compromise quality if it's done properly. What you don't want to do is to change aspect ratio.

I would also STRONGLY suggest you shoot interlaced if you don't have really solid lighting. You can de-interlace in post, and unless you are planning to go to broadcast, it really won't matter all that much.

I also don't have any clue why you are putting your 24p footage into a 29.97 timeline. Why not just do a 24fps timeline and export at 24 frames? Not only will you not change the cadence, you'll create better encodes at the same file sizes.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks for the tips. I'm not too knowledgeable when it come to compression for web. Most everything that I've ever done had been uncompressed for compositing or offline edits with the intent to online. So in the uncompressed world when you start messing with resolution problems are more apt to come around. Any advice you've got the better.

With this camera I always shoot 24P because that's when it looks best, it's designed for it. I've been shotting with the DVX since before it was released and I don't think I've ever shot anything in 30i. If I was going to shoot 30i I'd use a different camera like an XL2. So unfortunately for me shooting interlaced is not an option.

As far as timeline settings go, when you shoot 24P with the DVX100 you're actually capturing @ 29.97. When you shoot 24P(a)(advanced) is when you capture @ 24fps. So that's why I edit in 29.97. My statement was incorrect guessing that the issue you're seeing is a frame rate thing. The camera does the pulldown without compromising that beautiful 24p look. Shooting in advanced mode sometimes forces you to do weird things like reverse telecine in order to get the fields correct.

Billy

 

[PerroneFord]

I also have a DVX (not an A or a B) so I am familiar with the shooting modes. I do nearly everything at 24p or 23.96 (for sync sound) unless I am going to broadcast, and then it's 29.97. Occasionally I'll work in 30p.

I agree with you about seeing issues with resolution changing, but for web use, I just don't see it as that big an issue. If you were watching on a 50" plasma, I'd be more concerned.

When I work with files for the web coming from the DVX, I shoot 24pa onto my Firestore, drop that into a 24p timeline, edit, color grade, then write out my quicktime and wmv files.

I also don't understand why you'd be worried about doing an inverse telecine. Every Hollywood DVD is cut at 24p. Your DVD takes care of the rest.

 

[Empty V]

I also have a DVX (not an A or a B) so I am familiar with the shooting modes. I do nearly everything at 24p or 23.96 (for sync sound) unless I am going to broadcast, and then it's 29.97. Occasionally I'll work in 30p.

I agree with you about seeing issues with resolution changing, but for web use, I just don't see it as that big an issue. If you were watching on a 50" plasma, I'd be more concerned.

When I work with files for the web coming from the DVX, I shoot 24pa onto my Firestore, drop that into a 24p timeline, edit, color grade, then write out my quicktime and wmv files.

I also don't understand why you'd be worried about doing an inverse telecine. Every Hollywood DVD is cut at 24p. Your DVD takes care of the rest.

My DVX is also an original. I don't do anything for DVD release, that's a different world. If you shoot 24P(a) and edit in a 30fps timeline, which we accidentally did when the camera was still in beta, if you take it into Cinema Tools and perform a reverse telecine it fixes the pulldown issue. After that we saw no need to shoot in 24P(a). Just didn't make any sense if everything we're doing is going to MTV and other networks.

Billy

 

[PerroneFord]

After that we saw no need to shoot in 24P(a). Just didn't make any sense if everything we're doing is going to MTV and other networks.

Billy

I hear ya. If you're going out to NTSC, then working in a 29.97 timeline is the way to go. Shooting 24pa when trying to emulate film is just a nice way to go. And has benefits for web use. Not only is it easier to get 24p video to play with a computer, but you can push the bit rate up further with the same file size versus 30p.

By shooting interlaced though, you do get more light on the sensors which is the only reason I'd consider it for low light work.

By the way, do you know Ozzie Silvera?