My P2V Video Workflow and Sample Footage

I must, respectfully, disagree. Video is shot in frames per second (FPS). Time is the constant. A second of 60 FPS is still a second. If you render the 60 FPS down to 24, you still have a second of video. It does not play back any slower.

The benefits of shooting at higher frame rates is that it captures motion better (like a fast shutter rate on a camera) and that IF you wanted to apply a slow motion effect, you will have the frames necessary to make the slow mo fluid. For example, if you film a second at 60 and stretch it out to 2 seconds (slow motion), you still effectively have 30 frames per second. If you tried to stretch 30 fps to 2 seconds, you will end up with 15 fps which will look very choppy. That is why many will shot higher frame rates and render (as a last step) down to the magical 24 during final.

If you take video and render at smaller frame rates you do loose frames. From 30 to 24 you effectively lose 6 frames every second. You can render back up but you would be relying on the editing software to interpret and write the new frames.

So what's up with the magical 24 fps? Human conditioning. Back in the '20s and '30, 24 fps (and 25 fps Eur) was the standard. It was a good balance of fluid motion and film costs. It's what we all grew up with when watching movies. As such, most videos are either shot (if camera supports) at or rendered to 24 fps to give the video a more film like appearance.

Some filmmakers are experimenting with higher frames rates to give a more "life like" presentation. The Hobbit, for example, was projected at 48 fps, known as HFR. It was so sharp that the video was actually softened after audiences and critics complained. I saw it and my thoughts were mixed. It was gorgeous, different, and a little hard on the eyes. It didn't "feel" right.
 
disjecta said:
One of the biggest disadvantages to working with footage from cameras such as the FC200 is that they write to a highly compressed codec. The minute you do anything to that file in your editing program, the quality dramatically degrades.

I wanted to share my process with those that are interested in doing some editing and preserving maximum quality throughout the pipeline.

In order to avoid any further degradation of the original footage (and this really pertains to those using more advanced editing software like FCP, Avid or Premiere, etc.), I save it immediately to a more robust format. For me, on Windows, that means an uncompressed AVI. On a Mac, you'd probably save as ProRes. There are other shareware programs that will do this kind of conversion but you'd have to Google them.

I do this file conversion before I even change the frame rate or anything else. After I reimport my AVI file, I reinterpret my 30fps to 24fps (just because I like the feel of that frame rate). I then do some basic editing, trimming the footage to what I want to use and stabilize it using the Warp Stabilizer. Next I can start color correcting or applying effects or whatever.

Below is some sample footage that went through the process described above. I did a levels adjustment to boost the blacks a little and that was pretty much it for color correction. Ironically, this does not look anyway as good as the original :)

This maybe too much effort and time for many of you but it's my own workflow and it helps to keep the quality optimal.

As an additional tip for shooting video, I would recommend taking the camera off auto white balance and choosing the "cloud" icon for daylight shots. This way, all your shots from the same location will have consistent color. This is especially important if you are shooting jpegs for a panorama photograph.

http://youtu.be/aKD0u6rRdU8

Long time TV producer / AVID FCP editor here. By the way, to the gentleman who posted this. I'd like to see a resume of your handheld work. I'm always looking for good DPs / reality shooters. I love the fact that you're a fellow P2V user too. I just wanted to add to your great post with a program that I use all the time to transcode ION, GoPRO, iPhone or any other piece of video that I need in ProRes 422 for consistency when editing. ProRes is a great codec for the shows I work on because it plays nicely with DVCPROHD in a timeline. Anyway, tech talks aside... The software is called Mpeg Streamclip. The link is below. It's free and everyone in the professional video world uses it.

http://www.squared5.com
 
disjecta said:
In Premiere Pro you right click on the file and under the modify dropdown menu, interpret footage is an option.

I don't know if it really matters when you choose to stabilize in the workflow. I just like working with smooth footage upfront so it works for me.

In my experience, the easiest way to bang 30fps into 24fps is the following...

1. Open Mpeg Streamclip http://www.squared5.com (It's Free)
2. Transcode to ProRes422 or to AVID native codecs / DVCPROHD (for avid)
3. Create a timeline (sequence) that has a frame rate of 24p. Look for 1080p 24p in the presets
4. Drop your 30p F2V clip into this timeline. If the software asks you to change the timeline to the clip's frame rate say no
5. Export the video
6. Wallah... You're now in 24p.
 
iResq said:
I must, respectfully, disagree. Video is shot in frames per second (FPS). Time is the constant. A second of 60 FPS is still a second. If you render the 60 FPS down to 24, you still have a second of video. It does not play back any slower.

The benefits of shooting at higher frame rates is that it captures motion better (like a fast shutter rate on a camera) and that IF you wanted to apply a slow motion effect, you will have the frames necessary to make the slow mo fluid. For example, if you film a second at 60 and stretch it out to 2 seconds (slow motion), you still effectively have 30 frames per second. If you tried to stretch 30 fps to 2 seconds, you will end up with 15 fps which will look very choppy. That is why many will shot higher frame rates and render (as a last step) down to the magical 24 during final.

If you take video and render at smaller frame rates you do loose frames. From 30 to 24 you effectively lose 6 frames every second. You can render back up but you would be relying on the editing software to interpret and write the new frames.

So what's up with the magical 24 fps? Human conditioning. Back in the '20s and '30, 24 fps (and 25 fps Eur) was the standard. It was a good balance of fluid motion and film costs. It's what we all grew up with when watching movies. As such, most videos are either shot (if camera supports) at or rendered to 24 fps to give the video a more film like appearance.

Some filmmakers are experimenting with higher frames rates to give a more "life like" presentation. The Hobbit, for example, was projected at 48 fps, known as HFR. It was so sharp that the video was actually softened after audiences and critics complained. I saw it and my thoughts were mixed. It was gorgeous, different, and a little hard on the eyes. It didn't "feel" right.


I learn something new every day. Thanks for putting me straight. My understanding was wrong. :D
 
NoFlyAways said:
disjecta said:
In Premiere Pro you right click on the file and under the modify dropdown menu, interpret footage is an option.

I don't know if it really matters when you choose to stabilize in the workflow. I just like working with smooth footage upfront so it works for me.

In my experience, the easiest way to bang 30fps into 24fps is the following...

1. Open Mpeg Streamclip http://www.squared5.com (It's Free)
2. Transcode to ProRes422 or to AVID native codecs / DVCPROHD (for avid)
3. Create a timeline (sequence) that has a frame rate of 24p. Look for 1080p 24p in the presets
4. Drop your 30p F2V clip into this timeline. If the software asks you to change the timeline to the clip's frame rate say no
5. Export the video
6. Wallah... You're now in 24p.
Sure, just drop the 30fps clip into a 24fps timeline. With this method, I'd expect the clip to play at full-speed (no slowing down) - just converted to the timeline's 24p frame rate. Sometimes that's all you want. Premiere Pro will do this automatically by either dropping frames or blending them together (user setting).

But sometimes you also want an actual speed change - a slow-motion effect. For that you would choose Interpret Footage in Premiere Pro, and change the clip from 30fps to 24fps. This will change the speed (20% slower) & duration (20% longer). I think you can also accomplish the same thing by choosing Speed/Duration and picking a percentage rather than a target frame rate.

I think the OP was doing the latter - getting *both* the small slow-down and the more-cinematic "look" of 24p.
 
Shrimpfarmer said:
iResq said:
I must, respectfully, disagree. Video is shot in frames per second (FPS). Time is the constant. A second of 60 FPS is still a second. If you render the 60 FPS down to 24, you still have a second of video. It does not play back any slower.

The benefits of shooting at higher frame rates is that it captures motion better (like a fast shutter rate on a camera) and that IF you wanted to apply a slow motion effect, you will have the frames necessary to make the slow mo fluid. For example, if you film a second at 60 and stretch it out to 2 seconds (slow motion), you still effectively have 30 frames per second. If you tried to stretch 30 fps to 2 seconds, you will end up with 15 fps which will look very choppy. That is why many will shot higher frame rates and render (as a last step) down to the magical 24 during final.

If you take video and render at smaller frame rates you do loose frames. From 30 to 24 you effectively lose 6 frames every second. You can render back up but you would be relying on the editing software to interpret and write the new frames.

So what's up with the magical 24 fps? Human conditioning. Back in the '20s and '30, 24 fps (and 25 fps Eur) was the standard. It was a good balance of fluid motion and film costs. It's what we all grew up with when watching movies. As such, most videos are either shot (if camera supports) at or rendered to 24 fps to give the video a more film like appearance.

Some filmmakers are experimenting with higher frames rates to give a more "life like" presentation. The Hobbit, for example, was projected at 48 fps, known as HFR. It was so sharp that the video was actually softened after audiences and critics complained. I saw it and my thoughts were mixed. It was gorgeous, different, and a little hard on the eyes. It didn't "feel" right.


I learn something new every day. Thanks for putting me straight. My understanding was wrong. :D

Well, you were part right. In the days of film, movie cameras FPS sometimes measured in feet of film per minute, did translate into slow mo or time laps. 24 PFS USA and 25 PFS in Europe was normal speed. So if you shot at 240 FPS your movie would be at 1/10 speed. conversely 2.4 fps would be at 10x speed.

So though you were a little off base for modern tech, you were not that far off base. It's good to know that your prior info had its roots in fact.
 
Hi
Can anybody please explain the whole idea and why it seem like everyone want to go from 30fps or 60fps to 24 fps?
I can understand it if you want to slow something down, but besides from that, I really can't see why you would do that.
Again as I see it, more frames per sec. would mean more precise and smooth movement.
Is it just to get that "feel" you had in a little earlier videos/movies or what?
 
jimre said:
I find that Warp Stabilizer *definitely* benefits from applying lens-correction first. My first step is to apply the DJI Lens Profile to the P2V footage in Photoshop, then immediately save it in an un-compressed format. Then bring this un-compressed, de-fisheyed footage into AE or Premiere Pro, and run Warp Stabilizer on it.

This is an interesting thread ... I'm learning megatons of good stuff here.

Being an uber-noob to video editing, I have a question:

You use the DJI Lens Profile in Photoshop to de-fisheye the footage. Is that any better than just using After Effects (Effects | Distort | Optics Compensation) to take care of the fisheye and then warp stabilize right in the same program? Maybe it makes no difference, but I guess I'm just curious as to which process yields the best results. When you combine my horrible footage (I'm a noob, remember?) and my untrained eye - I really can't tell the difference.
 
GneeChee said:
jimre said:
I find that Warp Stabilizer *definitely* benefits from applying lens-correction first. My first step is to apply the DJI Lens Profile to the P2V footage in Photoshop, then immediately save it in an un-compressed format. Then bring this un-compressed, de-fisheyed footage into AE or Premiere Pro, and run Warp Stabilizer on it.

This is an interesting thread ... I'm learning megatons of good stuff here.

Being an uber-noob to video editing, I have a question:

You use the DJI Lens Profile in Photoshop to de-fisheye the footage. Is that any better than just using After Effects (Effects | Distort | Optics Compensation) to take care of the fisheye and then warp stabilize right in the same program? Maybe it makes no difference, but I guess I'm just curious as to which process yields the best results. When you combine my horrible footage (I'm a noob, remember?) and my untrained eye - I really can't tell the difference.
Good question. I've tried both - but on different footage, so it was hard to compare. In theory, if you do everything in AE - then no additional export/re-encoding step takes place, and overall picture quality *should* be higher. On the other hand, I just sort of "eyeballed" the fisheye adjustment with AE's Optics Compensation, no way to really know if it exactly matched the FC200 lens' actual fisheye curvature. Being new to AE, I'm also not positive if Video Effects are applied in the in order which they're listed in the Effects Controls panel.
 
Klaus said:
Hi
Can anybody please explain the whole idea and why it seem like everyone want to go from 30fps or 60fps to 24 fps?
I can understand it if you want to slow something down, but besides from that, I really can't see why you would do that.
Again as I see it, more frames per sec. would mean more precise and smooth movement.
Is it just to get that "feel" you had in a little earlier videos/movies or what?
Yep - it "looks" more "cinematic" at 24 fps, in part because we've been conditioned that way. More "film like" or "artistic" I guess. Most people can easily tell the difference between an actual "film" movie and a video production like sports or live soap opera - the latter are hyper-sharp and (almost overly) realistic. Film is a bit more dreamy & smooth-looking - mostly because of the motion blur incurred at 24 fps.

So if 30 or 60 fps are sharper than 24 fps - then 120 fps or even 240 fps must be even better! At least that's the premise of many new large-screen TV advertisements. I recently saw a network TV show (CSI or the like) on a TV set to 120 fps. This show normally looks like it's "filmed" or at least shot at 24 fps - and I was shocked. It looked like it had been suddenly switched from professional film to super-sharp amateur camcorder footage! I think this is the same problem people are having with The Hobbit movies being filmed/shown at 48 fps.
 
*ALL* Adobe products are new to me, so I was just looking for a way to cut down on the learning curve :)

I appreciate your response!

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
 
GneeChee said:
*ALL* Adobe products are new to me, so I was just looking for a way to cut down on the learning curve :)

I appreciate your response!

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Adobe = steep learning curve. Just the nature of the beast.
 
GneeChee said:
*ALL* Adobe products are new to me, so I was just looking for a way to cut down on the learning curve :)

I appreciate your response!

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Well, you've picked a tough one. After Effects (AE) is quite possibly the most complex of all Adobe products. It's really for creating high-end professional 3D and 2D special effects. I've said it before - using AE just to correct fisheye distortion is like using a nuclear aircraft carrier for a canoe ride across the lake!

People used to buy After Effects just to get Warp Stabilizer, but Warp is now also included with Premiere Pro since version CS6. And Premiere Pro is a much better tool for most people who just want to edit & create videos.
 
jimre said:
Well, you've picked a tough one. After Effects (AE) is quite possibly the most complex of all Adobe products. It's really for creating high-end professional 3D and 2D special effects. I've said it before - using AE just to correct fisheye distortion is like using a nuclear aircraft carrier for a canoe ride across the lake!

Well ...the only reason I started with AE was because 1) the full Adobe Pro suite was a *gift*, and 2) it was the first How-To video that I found when I googled fisheye and warps. haha

(besides - canoes tip over too easily - and I prefer more power!)
 
jimre said:
GneeChee said:
*ALL* Adobe products are new to me, so I was just looking for a way to cut down on the learning curve :)

I appreciate your response!

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Well, you've picked a tough one. After Effects (AE) is quite possibly the most complex of all Adobe products. It's really for creating high-end professional 3D and 2D special effects. I've said it before - using AE just to correct fisheye distortion is like using a nuclear aircraft carrier for a canoe ride across the lake!

People used to buy After Effects just to get Warp Stabilizer, but Warp is now also included with Premiere Pro since version CS6. And Premiere Pro is a much better tool for most people who just want to edit & create videos.


AE really isn't that difficult to learn, I find it more intuitive than AP actually.
 
. For me, on Windows, that means an uncompressed AVI. On a Mac, you'd probably save as ProRes. There are other shareware programs that will do this kind of conversion but you'd have to Google them.


So I import it from the camera, open it in studio 17 and convert to a avi from the cameras 1080p

but avi is 720 x 576 then I do the work and then save as a mpeg4 1920x 1080

is this right :?:
 
CunningStuntFlyer said:
skyhighdiver said:
. For me, on Windows, that means an uncompressed AVI. On a Mac, you'd probably save as ProRes. There are other shareware programs that will do this kind of conversion but you'd have to Google them.


So I import it from the camera, open it in studio 17 and convert to a avi from the cameras 1080p

but avi is 720 x 576 then I do the work and then save as a mpeg4 1920 x 1080

is this right :?:

That is not optimal. The avi should be the same resolution as the source file.


So the avi should be uncompressed frames at 1920 x 1080 ?? I think that's is what the camera shoots at 30fps
but I was right to convert it do the work and then mpedg it

what is the advantage of converting from mpeg4 to avi back to mpeg4
as the camera saves it as mpeg4 right
 
skyhighdiver said:
CunningStuntFlyer said:
skyhighdiver said:
. For me, on Windows, that means an uncompressed AVI. On a Mac, you'd probably save as ProRes. There are other shareware programs that will do this kind of conversion but you'd have to Google them.


So I import it from the camera, open it in studio 17 and convert to a avi from the cameras 1080p

but avi is 720 x 576 then I do the work and then save as a mpeg4 1920 x 1080

is this right :?:

That is not optimal. The avi should be the same resolution as the source file.


So the avi should be uncompressed frames at 1920 x 1080 ?? I think that's is what the camera shoots at 30fps
but I was right to convert it do the work and then mpedg it

what is the advantage of converting from mpeg4 to avi back to mpeg4
as the camera saves it as mpeg4 right
The overall goal it to minimize the amount of "lossy" compression that's done. The P2V camera shoots 1920x1080p video and then saves it to the SD card with highly-compressed, lossy H.264 compression. So it's already lost some of the potential original video quality. Nothing we can do about that.

The issue is whether you do any intermediate processing steps - like remove fisheye, prior to doing stabilization - then you need to be sure not to degrade the video any further. Any intermediate files should be saved in a LOSSLESS format. That way, it won't be any worse than the original file. Sure, you get HUGE intermediate files - but that's just part of the deal when trying to make high-quality video.
 
AVI is a container, not a codec. There are a few lossless hd codecs but most have their unique issues. The AVI container in AP (I believe) is SD not HD.

If your ultimate goal is Youtube or Vimeo, it's going to get crushed anyway so it's just as easy to edit in native format h.264.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,355
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.