Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Mister Speaker
May 8, 2007




Aix posted:

thats the insert / overwrite icon, have a look at the buttons to the right of your play-button in the preview window. its not going away. any footage thats still being worked on will just show the yellow multilingual media en attente screen

putting huge files in the timeline shouldnt be that big of a deal, tho id prefer to just clip the parts i actually need via three point editing

Thanks! I'm going to familiarize myself with three-point editing today and pull some of the highlights from the ride. Ultimately what I'm trying to do is make a short music video set to footage from various sources (360 cam, drone, action cams, still photos) that I shot at the cottage this summer. Using that to cut my teeth on basic editing and do more in a similar vein later. I'm trying to work out the workflow in my head because, as I said some of these clips are large. Should I create a session with all the large clips and cut highlights out of them to assemble in a new session? When I've done similar work in the audio realm (e.g: cutting a long take of location sound into clips, topping/tailing, EQing etc.) most of the source clips have stayed in the same session, just at the end of the timeline a ways away from the work area. Is this acceptable in Premiere as well or are there better practices?

Also, with regard to effect automation/keyframes... If I automate some parameters in a larger clip, and then copy and paste a piece of that clip, does the automation follow with the copy? Thanks again.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Aix
Jul 6, 2006
$10

sure, having a bunch of footage on your timeline works just fine in premiere or final cut. you can even have two separate sequences open at once (i think sessions are the audio equivalent?) and cut & paste footage from one to the other, to keep things tidy

powderific
May 13, 2004



Grimey Drawer

Do you mean sequence? I usually keep everything Iím not using in a separate sequence, but if you arenít doing it for someone else Iím not sure it matters. How large is large? If these are multi hour files and youíre doing like a minutes long edit Iíd probably cut them down to selects in one sequence and then pull from that.

Greenplastic
Oct 24, 2005

Miao, miao!

I was shocked at how bad performance in Premiere had become, and scoured the internet for optimization tips. Then I discovered and removed the metric ton of condensed cat hair in the vents of my computer, and lo and behold, I can edit 4k media again without trouble.

Consequently I had to fire my cat from the editing assistant position - she is now banned from the desk area!

Edit: I thought this was the editing thread, so now I have to fire myself too

Greenplastic fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Sep 18, 2020

Mister Speaker
May 8, 2007




powderific posted:

Do you mean sequence? I usually keep everything Iím not using in a separate sequence, but if you arenít doing it for someone else Iím not sure it matters. How large is large? If these are multi hour files and youíre doing like a minutes long edit Iíd probably cut them down to selects in one sequence and then pull from that.

The 360 footage is about an hour and 40 minutes, give or take. I also have some 4K footage about the same length from a handful of Sony FDR-X3000 action cams that are mounted on my bike and helmet. I usually take a few hours in an afternoon and do loops around my local highway off/onramps for the footage, but it'd be the same deal if I went on a nice ride through some forest twisties up North: Some long-rear end captures because I'm not able to hit stop and record every few minutes.

Thanks for the timeline/sequence suggestions guys. I figured for this amateur application it wouldn't really matter where the raw files are too much. I've got another semi-related question about the 360 footage...

GoPro's 360 stitching software is called Fusion Studio. I use this to render useable video from the 360 camera; it will do all the fun 'straight to social media' presets like 'little planet' and panoramic photography and all that crap, but I simply render the raw 360 files stitched to bring into Premiere (where the GoPro VR plugin is applied to them to pan & scan and otherwise treat them like a traditional camera angle). Fusion Studio has several options for output resolution on rendering - one of these is 5.2K, and would make the aforementioned 1:40-long video about 350GB in size. It also crashes every time I try to render in 5.2K, no matter the file size. Someone in the Mac Hardware thread suggested this may be a limitation of my older CPUs (a pair of 3.46GHz Xeons) and their lack of something called 'QuickSync'.

I'm wondering what 5.2K is even for; seat-of-the-pants my best guess is that these extra 1.2K lines of resolution are overlap so that the end product (panning around in Premiere using the VR plugin) is in 4K. Is this correct? Or is there some other reason for the extra resolution; can I use Fusion Studio's 4K render setting and still end up with true 4K video? I hope the latter is true, otherwise I'm SOL and may as well just be sticking with 1080p on my other cameras. Thanks again for your time.

powderific
May 13, 2004



Grimey Drawer

Thatís not unreasonable file sizes; the lowest bitrate/resolution combo I usually shoot at is about an hour every 256 gig card. In the use case you describe I would personally cut selects out into their own timeline, and then pull from those to make your edit.

For the crashing, does the program have an option where you can choose to use or not hardware encoding? Could be a thing where your video card doesnít have enough memory. It could also just be a buggy program ó Iíve never used it.

edit: I canít imagine why quicksync would make it crash vs just be slow. And there are a lot of different Xeons, are we talking old single core chips or what? Whatís the rest of your system?

If youíre using the 360 video as choose-your-frame normal angle in Premiere Iíd think youíd want the highest resolution you can get (assuming the source files are that res and itís not just upscaling.)

Double edit: if the 360 video is 5.2k thereís no way the angle you choose is going to be a full 4K. Think about it, youíre taking a little slice of the big 360 pie, so unless itís like 75% of the frame itís not gonna be 4K.

powderific fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Sep 19, 2020

Mister Speaker
May 8, 2007




powderific posted:

For the crashing, does the program have an option where you can choose to use or not hardware encoding? Could be a thing where your video card doesnít have enough memory. It could also just be a buggy program ó Iíve never used it.

edit: I canít imagine why quicksync would make it crash vs just be slow. And there are a lot of different Xeons, are we talking old single core chips or what? Whatís the rest of your system?

They're the 6-core 3.46GHz Xeons. The machine is a Mac Pro 5,1 with an 8GB RX580 GPU, 64GB of 1333MHz RAM, and an SSD startup disk on the PCI bus. It's an old machine but I've never really had issues with it crunching the (very basic) video editing tasks I've thrown at it. I don't see anything in Fusion Studio about hardware encoding.

quote:

If youíre using the 360 video as choose-your-frame normal angle in Premiere Iíd think youíd want the highest resolution you can get (assuming the source files are that res and itís not just upscaling.)

Double edit: if the 360 video is 5.2k thereís no way the angle you choose is going to be a full 4K. Think about it, youíre taking a little slice of the big 360 pie, so unless itís like 75% of the frame itís not gonna be 4K.

Right, that's why I had assumed that the extra resolution from '5.2K' was to end up at 4K in choose-your-frame, and that's why I elected to try rendering video in it. I'm still thoroughly confused by the ambiguity of this screen that pops up in Fusion Studio when you go to render:



As you explained, 5.2K total wouldn't have enough res to choose a 4K frame... so what is it for? And what if I render at 4K, is that a sphere with 4K resolution, so choosing a frame out of it would be significantly less, like even less than true 1080p? Like I said, I'm confused by the ambiguity of it all and THOUGHT that I'd be able to work with a moving frame in 4K, but I guess not.

Thanks for helping to clear this up, I appreciate it.

powderific
May 13, 2004



Grimey Drawer

Your machine should be fine for the export I would think. Even if it is a quick sync thing seems like itís a bug on the part of gopro. Is there anything else you can try to do the stitching?

The 5.2k preset is just to give you as much of the original resolution as possible, so youíve got everything the source had to work with for reframing. Itís not based on some delivery format, but on what the camera captures. Assuming itís a Fusion 360, it captures 5.2k so thatís why thereís a 5.2k export preset. How much resolution your reframe has is gonna depend on what kind of fov you pick.

Mister Speaker
May 8, 2007




powderific posted:

Your machine should be fine for the export I would think. Even if it is a quick sync thing seems like itís a bug on the part of gopro. Is there anything else you can try to do the stitching?

The 5.2k preset is just to give you as much of the original resolution as possible, so youíve got everything the source had to work with for reframing. Itís not based on some delivery format, but on what the camera captures. Assuming itís a Fusion 360, it captures 5.2k so thatís why thereís a 5.2k export preset. How much resolution your reframe has is gonna depend on what kind of fov you pick.

I don't know if there's a third-party program out there to do the stitching but I'll look around. Still not sure why Fusion Studio was hanging up on 5.2K, I'm not even rendering directly from the camera - I copied the files to my HDD and am rendering from there.

By "what kind of FOV you pick" do you mean the parameter inside the GoPro VR plugin (FOV, Yaw, Pitch, Roll, Smooth Transition are the parameters in the plug)? Does that act as a sort of 'digital zoom' reducing resolution if it's engaged at more than 0? I'm still confused as to exactly what resolution I'd be looking at post-reframe in Premiere if I exported from Fusion Studio using the 4K setting with no adjustments of the FOV parameter.

powderific
May 13, 2004



Grimey Drawer

Yes that FOV. I guess you could think of it as a digital zoom, but really youíre just taking a square slices of the 360 sphere. The FOV is how big of a square youíre taking out of that 360 sphere thatís in 4K or 5.2k or whatever. I havenít used the program so I donít know if thereís a way to get it to tell you exactly the output resolution of the reframe, or what the default setting is.

Mister Speaker
May 8, 2007




powderific posted:

Yes that FOV. I guess you could think of it as a digital zoom, but really youíre just taking a square slices of the 360 sphere. The FOV is how big of a square youíre taking out of that 360 sphere thatís in 4K or 5.2k or whatever. I havenít used the program so I donít know if thereís a way to get it to tell you exactly the output resolution of the reframe, or what the default setting is.

OK thanks for clearing that up. Someone in another thread I think mentioned that 5.2K is actually the resolution necessary to get 1080p out of it, which is a bit bothersome. I'm going to try the 4K renders that I made in a day or so and see if that's true; if they look blown up at 1080p we'll know. Someone suggested that the computer hanging up might just be it trying to go to sleep, so I'm going to run the 'caffeinate' Terminal line and see if I can get the 5.2K render to work.

Another resolution-related question, this time for my little Sony action cams that I have on the bike alongside the 360 cam. Today I was shooting with them set to 4K, with the thought in my head that even if the 360 footage I get only ends up being half-decent at 1080p, the extra resolution from the action cams should allow me to do some stabilization in post without too much distortion. BUT, their batteries do not last very long at all shooting in 4K. Like, less than an hour. Not nearly enough time to rip several runs down my ramps during the day, with traffic. I'm wondering how bad things would look if I simply let them shoot and record at 1080p and did some mild stabilization in Premiere... I have little experience with stabilizing in post but I understand if you don't have some extra res to work with, things can start to look wonky. Is it going to be real bad, or passable? TBH I kind of like a bit of trippy distortion.

powderific
May 13, 2004



Grimey Drawer

I think you should just test the stabilization and resolutions to see how it works for you. For the stabilization, resolution is just going to matter for resolution. Itís going to crop in some and if youíre starting from 1080 youíll have fewer pixels to work with. The wonky-ness comes from how shaky the shot is, how fast your shutter is, and how well the stabilizer interprets the scene.

For the 360 resolution think of it like this: your 360 horizontal image is 5.2k or 4k pixels wide. If you take a slice of that with a similar FOV to a GoPro, say 120 degrees horizontal, youíre taking that sized slice of the 5.2k or 4k pixel pie. So thatís gonna be something like 1.3k for 4k, 1.7k for 5.2k frame. For reference a 1080p frame is 1.9k pixels wide. Iím sure there are subtleties to the math and things Iím missing about it, but maybe that helps you understand why FOV is the key number here?

Mister Speaker
May 8, 2007




Not really sure how to ask this but is it A Thing with action cameras that their colour washes out due to overuse or exposure to elements? The last time I used my Sony FDR-X3000s was to record a motorcycle ride; they were in their protective cases mounted to my bike and helmet but it was a bit nippy outside. Early this morning I used them to record a DJ mix and immediately noticed something very off about their colour.

VoodooXT
Feb 24, 2006
I want Tong Po! Give me Tong Po!

Mister Speaker posted:

Not really sure how to ask this but is it A Thing with action cameras that their colour washes out due to overuse or exposure to elements? The last time I used my Sony FDR-X3000s was to record a motorcycle ride; they were in their protective cases mounted to my bike and helmet but it was a bit nippy outside. Early this morning I used them to record a DJ mix and immediately noticed something very off about their colour.

I searched on Google about the FDR X3000 and washed out color and apparently the camera has a tendency to overexpose. You try color grading it yet?

Aix
Jul 6, 2006
$10

imo that looks fine for what it is, thats a pretty dim room, the outdoor footage probably looked better because you had sunlight. try it again outside, id bet the camera will work as it did before. an action cam really shouldnt break from... action

Mister Speaker
May 8, 2007




I haven't tried colour grading yet, no. A friend also suggested that it may also be the white balance settings changed, but I haven't altered anything except switching to and from 4K/1080p recording for some rides.

The room wasn't dim, that's with my Hue bulbs on maximum (though they are behind me) and the Rotolight you can see in frame lighting the gear. Compare to an earlier mix and there's definitely something different going on. I will try those suggestions though, thanks!

BonoMan
Feb 20, 2002


Jade Ear Joe

Mister Speaker posted:

I haven't tried colour grading yet, no. A friend also suggested that it may also be the white balance settings changed, but I haven't altered anything except switching to and from 4K/1080p recording for some rides.

The room wasn't dim, that's with my Hue bulbs on maximum (though they are behind me) and the Rotolight you can see in frame lighting the gear. Compare to an earlier mix and there's definitely something different going on. I will try those suggestions though, thanks!

Is there a RAW or LOG mode that might be changing the look of the footage? Those modes typically change the color to a more washed out (aka "neutral") balance to enable better color grading.

edit: Looks like there's a "Natural" and "Vivid" color mode which may have accidentally gotten change (old vid was Vivid and new one was Natural).

https://helpguide.sony.net/cam/1640/v1/en/contents/TP0000912374.html

Aix
Jul 6, 2006
$10

yeah, comparing the two, other than the whitebalance being different the saturation really did take a weird hit. id bet its that color setting

Aix fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Oct 30, 2020

powderific
May 13, 2004



Grimey Drawer

I agree that it mostly looks like a change of color profile and doesn't look broken in the first shot to me. Comparing the two, it does look to me like your hue lights are set to a cooler tone in the less saturated shot.

VoodooXT
Feb 24, 2006
I want Tong Po! Give me Tong Po!

Yeah, it's probably the natural/vivid setting. The footage looks way more log-y and if you increased the contrast and saturation, you'd probably be able to match it to whatever other footage you had before in vivid.

Sitting Here
Dec 31, 2007


Just a reminder that the Traveling CCircus Showcase of Wonders Show will be departing CC soon for its whirlwind adventure around the forums. Share your art, writing, animations, scrawlings, or whatever else you're proud of with the rest of the forums and see what goons from other subfora are up to!

the_lion
Jun 8, 2010

On the hunt for prey...

What I'm looking to do is add a plate to move my camera a bit off axis so it will balance on my gimbal. I'm attempting to balance a Blackmagic Pocket on a Came TV Single.

I think I've seen people post this before, but does anyone have a link to one online or the name of the plate?

powderific
May 13, 2004



Grimey Drawer

If you put it in a cage you'll have some more 1/4 20 on the bottom to choose from: https://www.smallrig.com/smallrig-cage-for-blackmagic-design-pocket-cinema-camera-4k-2203.html

Or you could get a tripod clamp/cheeseplate combo of some kind, what you'd want would depend on what kind of tripod plate you'd use normally.

VoodooXT
Feb 24, 2006
I want Tong Po! Give me Tong Po!

The other option would be getting a dovetail and a base plate to go with it.

the_lion
Jun 8, 2010

On the hunt for prey...

powderific posted:

If you put it in a cage you'll have some more 1/4 20 on the bottom to choose from: https://www.smallrig.com/smallrig-cage-for-blackmagic-design-pocket-cinema-camera-4k-2203.html

Or you could get a tripod clamp/cheeseplate combo of some kind, what you'd want would depend on what kind of tripod plate you'd use normally.



VoodooXT posted:

The other option would be getting a dovetail and a base plate to go with it.

Probably should have mentioned I have that particular cage. This is exactly what I was looking for, thanks guys!

powderific
May 13, 2004



Grimey Drawer

Also, I just had to rent a Pocket 6k on a shoot and it barely fit into my Movi Pro with the Tilta cage. That thing is wide.

BonoMan
Feb 20, 2002


Jade Ear Joe

powderific posted:

Also, I just had to rent a Pocket 6k on a shoot and it barely fit into my Movi Pro with the Tilta cage. That thing is wide.

It is but godddamnnnn it's great. Our Pocket 6K (often on Ronin gimbal) with the Ursa Mini Pro are just a killer duo.

powderific
May 13, 2004



Grimey Drawer

Definitely a great camera, but for my purposes I think I'd rather have something a little more non-rigged friendly, like an S1H or A7SIII. And right now I've got two Ursa Mini Pros, a G1 and G2, so a third camera probably isn't happening any time soon.

Greenplastic
Oct 24, 2005

Miao, miao!

Hey filmgoons, I could use a little advice if anyone has a minute.

I've been doing videography on the side for over a decade, but with covid I'm not getting any other work, so it looks like I'm gonna have to lean into the video stuff, but my camera is starting to get ooold, and it's really showing.

I'm currently wielding a Sony FS700, without the LOG/4K raw to recorder upgrade. I'm in Norway, and struggling to even find a shop that can perform the upgrade.

The question is, should I get a new camera, and what? My deliveries are soft, hard to grade, and the codec is dogshit. I'm kind of saving my self with a couple of cine-lenses I have that give a soft but pleasing image and kind of hipsterize the shittiness away a bit, but it's not holding up next to footage from newer cameras and doesn't really work as showreel-material anymore. Got complaints from an editor the other day about the technical quality, which is partly what prompted this post.

I can scrounge up around 4,000 usd / 3,500 euro, possibly pushing it to 6000 usd / 5000 euro if it's a futureproof solution. I get the VAT (25% in norway) refunded, which makes it go a bit further than retail price.

I use XLR for lapels and mics, I run and gun so really need built in ND and decent ergonomics.

Am I in the range for anything new or used that will work? It NEEDS to output a usable format, I can't handle grading more lovely 4:2:0 footage.

powderific
May 13, 2004



Grimey Drawer

What lenses do you have? The FX6 just just came out and I think may wind up being the FS7's replacement as go-to freelancer camera, but it is full frame. It's $6k here, not sure about where you're at. A used FS7 should be well within your budget I'd think and a big upgrade while still having a lot of other similarities to the FS700.

There are a lot of good options in your price range, and you could consider going more of a mirrorless camera direction too. An A7SIII or S1H with the XLR jack pack would both be within budget (but again are both full frame so if your lenses are super35 not a great fit.) Pocket cinema camera 6k would be good too. I don't love the ergonomics and you only have a single mini XLR built in, but if you've been using the FS700 for years anything is gonna be an ergonomic upgrade.

For more traditional size cameras you could also go for an Ursa Mini Pro, though the big batteries and whatnot can get expensive, or a C300 MkII or C200 if you don't mind the canon ergos.

What kind of stuff are you doing?

powderific
May 13, 2004



Grimey Drawer

Also BlackMagic just came out with a new Pocket Cinema Camera 6k that looks nice. Now has a tilty screen, ND, and an extra XLR port for $2500.

TTerrible
Jul 15, 2005


An actually useful battery too.

Greenplastic
Oct 24, 2005

Miao, miao!

powderific posted:

What lenses do you have? The FX6 just just came out and I think may wind up being the FS7's replacement as go-to freelancer camera, but it is full frame. It's $6k here, not sure about where you're at. A used FS7 should be well within your budget I'd think and a big upgrade while still having a lot of other similarities to the FS700.

There are a lot of good options in your price range, and you could consider going more of a mirrorless camera direction too. An A7SIII or S1H with the XLR jack pack would both be within budget (but again are both full frame so if your lenses are super35 not a great fit.) Pocket cinema camera 6k would be good too. I don't love the ergonomics and you only have a single mini XLR built in, but if you've been using the FS700 for years anything is gonna be an ergonomic upgrade.

For more traditional size cameras you could also go for an Ursa Mini Pro, though the big batteries and whatnot can get expensive, or a C300 MkII or C200 if you don't mind the canon ergos.

What kind of stuff are you doing?

Daaaamn, the FX6 looks incredible. Holy poo poo, I'm spreadsheeting it right now to see what the total cost would be with a lens and everything. The one thing I'm sceptical is the full frame though... Isn't the whole industry based on S35? Are there FF lenses with good manual zoom or are the reasonably priced ones all still-photo AF lenses? With a good lens that camera might be out of my maximum budget anyway, so I'll look a bit at the used market. Thanks for the tips!

powderific
May 13, 2004



Grimey Drawer

Again, what lenses do you already have and what kind of work are you doing? Sure S35 is more standard, and staying with a smaller sensor is especially helpful for zooms on range/price/size/options. If this is a side gig you expect to not be your main thing forever it may make more sense to grab an FS7 used from someone upgrading to the FX6. Then you'd have the Fujinon MKs and a few other cheap cinema style zooms to choose from. Or go the more hybrid form factor with the new pocket cinema camera or similar.

powderific fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Feb 19, 2021

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Greenplastic
Oct 24, 2005

Miao, miao!

Oh, sorry, I have a set of cheap rokinons, but they have really really good manual focus rings and a pleasing look. Yeah, it makes sense to go for something cheaper then the FX6, especially since I can usually rent a better camera for bigger productions anyway

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply