open All Channels
seplocked My EVE
blankseplocked [VIDEO] Sabre Kill & Video Editing
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.05.28 12:23:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Iam Widdershins on 28/05/2011 12:32:37
In my first cautious foray into video editing and PVP video production, I took a 3 minute clip of me blowing up a Fatal Ascension sabre and tricked it out. This is more about the editing and presentation than the awesomeness of the kill; not that it's a bad kill, but it's not worth changing your pants over.

Size: 64MB; Length: 2'36"
Eve-Files linkage
YouTube linkage (doesn't look very good; try the Eve-Files link)

Comments/critiques? Poast 'em below.

This clip will probably make it into a full-length video if I ever have enough hard drive space to make one. Every time I've been blessed with a wildly overabundant quantity of incredible fights, 1v5+, I never have the HDD space to be running FRAPS. Trying to break this pattern.

Naomi Wildfire
Amarr
Spricer
Raiden.
Posted - 2011.05.28 22:27:00 - [2]
 

Sorry to say, but its boring and barely woth the time.

So the "awesomeness" about this kill is to let you drop into low shields to attract the sabre or what?

Also HDDs are cheap as hell.

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.05.28 23:26:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Naomi Wildfire
Sorry to say, but its boring and barely woth the time.

So the "awesomeness" about this kill is to let you drop into low shields to attract the sabre or what?

Also HDDs are cheap as hell.


You didn't read what I wrote, did you. Not even a little bit. The kill wasn't the point.

And hard drives are not "cheap as hell" when you need to pay rent and buy a car on a part time job. Don't be such a ****.

achoura
Posted - 2011.05.28 23:54:00 - [4]
 

Unfortunately they are cheap, very cheap and that's from someone who's financially tight. The cost per GB is minute, you just have to buy something like 500GB for it to even be worth considering but honestly, if you select your clips and transcode anything you want to keep before even beginning to compile a vid you can get by with relatively little space.

Anyway, it looks bad on youtube for the same reason it looks bad on eve files - 960*680. It's either the res you play at or bad encoding. I assume the latter but a quick transcode resulted in a 60% reduction in file size (see here). Record at full res, encode at full res.

Also, and I appreciate nano needs a large fov, it's too far zoomed out tor really see what's going on. It's run in real-time speed it up to 2x at least and don't drop below something like 1.4/5 if you want to show of macro management (unlikely in a cynabal).

Also, cynabal with active hardeners is unusual :)

Zach Donnell
Ghost-Busters
Posted - 2011.05.29 00:57:00 - [5]
 

Honestly man, the clip is really boring, and the editing didn't save it either. Sorry to be so harsh, but this is far from "tricked out"

AlleyKat
Gallente
The Unwanted.
Posted - 2011.05.29 01:05:00 - [6]
 

1000% better than most peoples first attempts.

But, PvP vids should have their editing focus on the kills, not the quality - in my most humblest of opinions.

AK

Naomi Wildfire
Amarr
Spricer
Raiden.
Posted - 2011.05.29 03:31:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Iam Widdershins
Originally by: Naomi Wildfire
Sorry to say, but its boring and barely woth the time.

So the "awesomeness" about this kill is to let you drop into low shields to attract the sabre or what?

Also HDDs are cheap as hell.


You didn't read what I wrote, did you. Not even a little bit. The kill wasn't the point.

And hard drives are not "cheap as hell" when you need to pay rent and buy a car on a part time job. Don't be such a ****.


I did read the discription, fully.
HDDs are cheap as heck, and that comes from someone who cant afford a car.

I might look like a **** to you but i said the truth.

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.05.29 06:12:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: achoura
Unfortunately they are cheap, very cheap and that's from someone who's financially tight. The cost per GB is minute, you just have to buy something like 500GB for it to even be worth considering but honestly, if you select your clips and transcode anything you want to keep before even beginning to compile a vid you can get by with relatively little space.

Anyway, it looks bad on youtube for the same reason it looks bad on eve files - 960*680. It's either the res you play at or bad encoding. I assume the latter but a quick transcode resulted in a 60% reduction in file size (see here). Record at full res, encode at full res.

Also, and I appreciate nano needs a large fov, it's too far zoomed out tor really see what's going on. It's run in real-time speed it up to 2x at least and don't drop below something like 1.4/5 if you want to show of macro management (unlikely in a cynabal).

Also, cynabal with active hardeners is unusual :)


The FRAPS original is in 960x680, half the resolution that I play at on that client (1920x1360), which I figured might be too goddamn big for some people's computers. You were able to compress it to such a small size because the copy I published was encoded with x264 with quality CRF 13.0, which may be a bit HQ for the original resolution. (My main issue with encoding is that I can't find a codec or plugin that will do H.264 with CRF in Vegas; the only usable one that's on there only does specified bitrate or target file size, neither of which are useful for what I want to do. Other than that, it's easy for me to Handbrake the FRAPS raws down to a usable size.)

Most of the fight is shown at 2-3x realtime.

Originally by: Zach Donnell
Honestly man, the clip is really boring, and the editing didn't save it either. Sorry to be so harsh, but this is far from "tricked out"


I already know that, and said as much. It's the only footage I had on hand; I just went out and killed something that night because my memory controller or something is ****ting itself and EVE is crashy as hell. It's something for you to take a look at, not to keep. I don't consider this my first official PVP video; I just f***ed around with Vegas for 4 hours (most of that time spent vanquishing the demon twins of Interlacing and Pixel Aspect Ratio).

Originally by: AlleyKat
1000% better than most peoples first attempts.

But, PvP vids should have their editing focus on the kills, not the quality - in my most humblest of opinions.

AK



Yes. Read above, I guess.

Zach Donnell
Ghost-Busters
Posted - 2011.05.29 06:32:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Iam Widdershins
The FRAPS original is in 960x680, half the resolution that I play at on that client (1920x1360), which I figured might be too goddamn big for some people's computers. You were able to compress it to such a small size because the copy I published was encoded with x264 with quality CRF 13.0, which may be a bit HQ for the original resolution. (My main issue with encoding is that I can't find a codec or plugin that will do H.264 with CRF in Vegas; the only usable one that's on there only does specified bitrate or target file size, neither of which are useful for what I want to do. Other than that, it's easy for me to Handbrake the FRAPS raws down to a usable size.)

Most of the fight is shown at 2-3x realtime.




1. Record at full resolution for your first real project, the people you are frustrating by using a full size video are vastly outnumbered by those who are annoyed by seeing < 720p video.

2. For good quality and manageable size, Export your final project out of Sony Vegas as a Lagarith (mostly uncompressed) video, (once you get yourself an HDD of course Laughing) and use either StaxRip on it and get an h.264 mkv or follow Don's awesome tutorial on vid making, and use VirtualDub to get an h.264 avi.

achoura
Posted - 2011.05.29 08:59:00 - [10]
 

A CRF of 13 is too high. Heck, programs that transcode bluray have a CRF of 20 ugh I'd much rather have a a CRF 20 1920x1360 than a CRF13 960x680. A CRF of 20 with correct settings is not only a far better use of space (important given your storage issue), if it's good enough for a crystal clear movie transcode it's more than adequate for a video game :) Peopel with smaller screens can always crop, adjust or zoom in if they really want to see detail but only if it's there, and 1680x1050 is the standard screen size these days so it's not that much different.

Prefer the gui of handbreak to staxrip personally, but they're both free and do exactly the same thing Very Happy Also CamStudio is an excellent fraps alternative. Dons tutorials are awesome btw Wink

Might be a bit advanced, but you can quite easily edit video in blender too, which is easily the most powerful free video/modelling program available.


Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.05.29 09:54:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Iam Widdershins on 29/05/2011 10:06:51
Originally by: Zach Donnell
1. Record at full resolution for your first real project, the people you are frustrating by using a full size video are vastly outnumbered by those who are annoyed by seeing < 720p video.

2. For good quality and manageable size, Export your final project out of Sony Vegas as a Lagarith (mostly uncompressed) video, (once you get yourself an HDD of course Laughing) and use either StaxRip on it and get an h.264 mkv or follow Don's awesome tutorial on vid making, and use VirtualDub to get an h.264 avi.

I'll put it back to full resolution when I get back at it.

I've been using uncompressed export and compressing it with Handbrake's x264 GUI (easier than using the commandline). My main concern with doing this in the future is that, especially at 1920x1360, any project of around 20 minutes in length will take up a MASSIVE amount of space. This one, at half the resolution, took up 9GB uncompressed. It would be almost infinitely nicer for me to be able to output with the final codec and quality from Vegas directly.

Maybe I'll just give it a very large target size with the H.264 option on the Vegas export -- like however much space I have available -- and encode that way, then recode it to final from that source. I'll try out Lagarith first though, see how well that works.


And, achoura: I understand that screens are getting bigger, but I play on a 2560x1600 monster and it's kind of hard to think of anyone else's as anything but small. I play eve at a resolution too high for any screen but mine or a high-quality CRT to properly display... which makes me hesitant. I appreciate this makes the videos less good to distribute to people, as does playing very far zoomed out like that, but part of my basic philosophy about making any of these videos in the first place is that if zooming in more and playing differently than works best for me just because other people do it more and think it looks cooler, then I'm doing it wrong.

I'm putting in a lot of time and effort to show you how I play. Tell me how to bring that to you as best I can without changing how I do it and I'm happy to oblige.

achoura
Posted - 2011.05.29 10:35:00 - [12]
 

You miss understand, when we say full screen we mean record at the res the game is running so that text can be read, edges are clear and lines aren't blocky. 1920x1360 is an unusual res but it would be better at that than half with the aforementioned problems. Plenty of 1080p videos on these forums were made on much larger screens, they simply played, recorded and edited at the maximum res more screens could accommodate.

I know someone will beat me for suggesting this, but once you've frapsed something you know you will use, have you considered transcoding for storage i.e the raw footage? Handbreak > High profile > container mkv & you may/may not have to manually set anamorphic to strict if it crops the footage.

Bad practice aside, those settings are what ultimately the view will see once edited, so there's no detail lost if you're working with those rather than lossless avis but you save space, a lot of space. I did it for an eve project 4 years back when I ran low on HD space, only worth it if you've got a speedy cpu though.

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.05.29 11:14:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: achoura
You miss understand...[clipped]

Bad practice aside, those settings are what ultimately the view will see once edited, so there's no detail lost if you're working with those rather than lossless avis but you save space, a lot of space. I did it for an eve project 4 years back when I ran low on HD space, only worth it if you've got a speedy cpu though.

No, I got all that the first time. Also, anamorphic/strict shouldn't be a huge problem as 1360px is already modulo-16.

But yeah, that's what I'm planning on doing.

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.05.29 11:39:00 - [14]
 

I just re-rendered it from Vegas with lagarith as the raw codec; it's about 1/9th the size of the unencoded version. That ratio should be even better for large resolutions.

Feels good man.

AlleyKat
Gallente
The Unwanted.
Posted - 2011.05.29 11:50:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Iam Widdershins
No, I got all that the first time. Also, anamorphic/strict shouldn't be a huge problem as 1360px is already modulo-16.

But yeah, that's what I'm planning on doing.


Stick with square (1.0) pixels inside Vegas though. As you've pointed out it is already anamorphic 24:17 (1.41) and if you try and match that, Vegas will distort it.

Always use 1.0 and just pick the resolution you used in EVE for the project settings in Vegas, and it'll be fine.

AK

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.05.29 13:14:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Iam Widdershins on 29/05/2011 13:22:08
Originally by: AlleyKat
Originally by: Iam Widdershins
No, I got all that the first time. Also, anamorphic/strict shouldn't be a huge problem as 1360px is already modulo-16.

But yeah, that's what I'm planning on doing.


Stick with square (1.0) pixels inside Vegas though. As you've pointed out it is already anamorphic 24:17 (1.41) and if you try and match that, Vegas will distort it.

Always use 1.0 and just pick the resolution you used in EVE for the project settings in Vegas, and it'll be fine.

AK



Yeah, and if I really need to I can use VirtualDubMod and pillarbox it on the final encode.

Edit: Actually, you might be misunderstanding the term 'anamorphic' slightly.

The video I posted is a weird aspect ratio, but it's not anamorphic. Anamorphic is where the actual aspect ratio of the encoded video is different from the desired aspect ratio. A properly configured video player will then stretch it to match the desired ratio. In the case of weird resolutions, the anamorphic option is generally used to make the encoded resolution an even modulo-8 or modulo-16 value for more efficient compression (some codecs, mostly older ones, do not even support resolutions that are not a multiple of 8/16). What it'll do is output the video to a slightly different resolution, say with a few pixels added on/chopped off the top or sides, and then stretch the desired video slightly to fit. It is then marked in the video metadata that the player should stretch it back to the desired resolution after it is rendered.

For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.05.31 00:11:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Iam Widdershins on 31/05/2011 02:29:02
Well, I'm having a hellish time with VirtualDub; just got VirtualDub 1.9.11 64bit, and already had installed/reinstalled the most recent x264vfw 64 bit codec, and x264vfw is not showing up in the Video > Compression menu in VirtualDub.

I'll have to look at this more later.

Edit: Current plan is, I'll give StaxRip a go; Handbrake doesn't understand Lagarith, and VirtualDub (which I'd rather use) won't seem to list x264vfw no matter what I do.

AlleyKat
Gallente
The Unwanted.
Posted - 2011.05.31 01:31:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Iam Widdershins
Actually, you might be misunderstanding the term 'anamorphic' slightly.


Aspect ratios and camera lens are different than computer pixel aspect ratios.

Your footage is not square, but your pixels are - it is already 'morphed.

AK

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.05.31 02:30:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Iam Widdershins on 31/05/2011 04:44:06
Originally by: AlleyKat
Originally by: Iam Widdershins
Actually, you might be misunderstanding the term 'anamorphic' slightly.


Aspect ratios and camera lens are different than computer pixel aspect ratios.

Your footage is not square, but your pixels are - it is already 'morphed.

AK



Bro, I'm starting out with pixels, not camera footage. It's never anamorphic at any point.

Edit: Fixed! I was using MasterNobody's x264vfw build; I went out and found komisar's alternate build, and it worked immediately with VirtualDub.

AlleyKat
Gallente
The Unwanted.
Posted - 2011.05.31 09:32:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Iam Widdershins
Bro, I'm starting out with pixels, not camera footage. It's never anamorphic at any point.
Quote:


No. You are starting out with 1.41 being displayed on a 1.0 - it is already morphed, which is why you should not use 1.41 when you import into vegas.

If the pixels on your monitor were 1.41, you would be correct.

AK

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.05.31 17:27:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Iam Widdershins on 31/05/2011 17:49:51
Originally by: AlleyKat
Originally by: Iam Widdershins
Bro, I'm starting out with pixels, not camera footage. It's never anamorphic at any point.


No. You are starting out with 1.41 being displayed on a 1.0 - it is already morphed, which is why you should not use 1.41 when you import into vegas.

If the pixels on your monitor were 1.41, you would be correct.

AK


Allow me to explain it in simpler terms. All pixels are assumed to be square.

If I have a video that is displayed 100 pixels tall and 150 pixels wide, but encoded at 96 pixels tall and 160 pixels wide, then that is anamorphic, because the pixels encoded by the video codec are non-square internally.

However, if you have a video of any weird resolution, even if it's 56 pixels wide and 768 pixels tall, as long as it is meant to output to the screen at the same resolution as it is encoded then it is not anamorphic.

TL;DR Anamorphic video is video whose pixels are a different shape than the pixels on the screen, and therefore needs to be stretched/compressed to display properly.

Edit: With what you are saying about 1.41 and 1.0 aspect ratios, you'd be right if the video was outputting to a square field that was 1000 pixels by 1000 pixels on the screen; it's not, though. When properly displayed, it is outputting pixels 1 to 1 both horizontally and vertically.

AlleyKat
Gallente
The Unwanted.
Posted - 2011.05.31 20:59:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Iam Widdershins
If I have a video that is displayed 100 pixels tall and 150 pixels wide, but encoded at 96 pixels tall and 160 pixels wide, then that is anamorphic, because the pixels encoded by the video codec are non-square internally.

However, if you have a video of any weird resolution, even if it's 56 pixels wide and 768 pixels tall, as long as it is meant to output to the screen at the same resolution as it is encoded then it is not anamorphic.

TL;DR Anamorphic video is video whose pixels are a different shape than the pixels on the screen, and therefore needs to be stretched/compressed to display properly.

Edit: With what you are saying about 1.41 and 1.0 aspect ratios, you'd be right if the video was outputting to a square field that was 1000 pixels by 1000 pixels on the screen; it's not, though. When properly displayed, it is outputting pixels 1 to 1 both horizontally and vertically.


No.

You are mixing your ratios up.

24:17, 1.41

aspect ratio, pixel aspect ratio

Your aspect ratio is 24:17, yielding a pixel ratio of 1.41 - which is being displayed on something which has 1.0 pixel ratio and as you say, is being output 1 up and 1 across.

1.0 does not divide by 1.41

This is why you do not use the same pixel aspect ratio in Vegas or any other editing suite, you keep it to 1.0

AK

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.06.03 17:11:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: AlleyKat
No.

You are mixing your ratios up.

24:17, 1.41

aspect ratio, pixel aspect ratio

Your aspect ratio is 24:17, yielding a pixel ratio of 1.41 - which is being displayed on something which has 1.0 pixel ratio and as you say, is being output 1 up and 1 across.

1.0 does not divide by 1.41

This is why you do not use the same pixel aspect ratio in Vegas or any other editing suite, you keep it to 1.0

AK



I don't know what you think you are talking about, and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

This video, like all other properly used FRAPS, is 1.0 pixel aspect at every stage in the process, from recording to displaying the final version on the screen.

The aspect ratio of the frame is 1.41, but frame aspect has no relation whatsoever to pixel aspect. They are completely independent values which represent completely different things. As I just said above, the video always has a pixel aspect of 1.0.

I'm not here to teach you basic fractions; please get better immediately.

Jackaryas
Caldari
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.06.03 18:49:00 - [24]
 

tbh, Allykat has given more to the video community of eve than you could ever hope to, so show a bit of respect.

Also, your video was terrible, please "get better" or stop posting....

AlleyKat
Gallente
The Unwanted.
Posted - 2011.06.03 22:49:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Iam Widdershins
The aspect ratio of the frame is 1.41, but frame aspect has no relation whatsoever to pixel aspect.


Glad we agree!

AK

Willl Adama
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.06.04 14:56:00 - [26]
 

I have no idea of what you guys are discussing, but maybe you should reconsider the way you reply to people's comments, cause it makes you come off as quite the douche bag, Widdershins.

Also, the video was boring. Tbh, don't bother learning how to edit before you actually have something worth editing.

achoura
Posted - 2011.06.04 15:18:00 - [27]
 

Basic anamorphic explanation for the confused but put simply, it's the storage of a distorted image which contains a tag telling the player how to stretch the image for it to be displayed correctly.

In short, you can cram more data into a small space.

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:43:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: achoura
Basic anamorphic explanation for the confused but put simply, it's the storage of a distorted image which contains a tag telling the player how to stretch the image for it to be displayed correctly.

In short, you can cram more data into a small space.


Exactly. Thank you for the link, btw.

This video is not anamorphic. The word itself means "different shape," as anamorphic video is a different shape internally than it is when output to the screen. As I have already said about four different ways, this is not the case for any videos I have posted.

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.06.05 20:53:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Jackaryas
tbh, Allykat has given more to the video community of eve than you could ever hope to, so show a bit of respect.

Also, your video was terrible, please "get better" or stop posting....


Given more to the community than I have so far? Almost undoubtedly. Than I could hope to? You'd better show me something pretty damn good for me to believe that. He's 11:14 on BattleClinic, and he seems to think that I recorded my video stretched to 1000x1000 pixels or something.

I'm here for useful feedback on a short video I built so I can bring you something better when I finally put it together for real. Since you provide no useful feedback on why it's so bad, I will happily disregard you and everything you just said.

Prozacxx
Caldari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.06.05 21:34:00 - [30]
 

Hi!

Your videos footage was bad.
Your videos quality was bad.
You're bad.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only