This peice is for the highlight vignette on a wedding I'm finishing up. Shot with a PD-170 and VX2100. (a few XL-1s and TRV33 shots as well *see if you can spot them)

Oddly, two shots have a flickering towards the top of the frame. The only thing in comon between the two shots is the use of the "glow" filter. Maybe Edward or another Vegas Guru can explain why this is happening.

Anyway- here's the clip....

http://home.comcast.net/~g.elliott3//Genna_Highlight_Vignette.wmv

Glen - ppphhoarrgghh .. . another superb piece . .. really excellent .. .

OK, "seems" you've an interlace flicker-y type fight going on.

Q1: Do you observe this "prior" to applying the FX? If so it aint the FX.

Q2: Do you use this same FX somewhere else, where you aren't getting this flicker?

I notice you are using the Pan and Rotate option either in Track Motion or Pan/Crop - yes? If yes then sometimes where there are some really defined horiz lines - I think I saw lines of bricks - I can get flicker. PLUS you've slowed the whole thing down, so I'm not really "seeing" the actual effect of flicker at the correct frame rate - yes? It would be real neat to actually see the flicker at normal rate - yes? In any event I'd try a combination of Forced Resampling and or Reduce Interlace Flicker [ RIF ] - you can find these in the Event Properties - but definitely RIF. I've had similar and RIF has got it. Think about what the cammie and then the s/w has to do with motion and horiz lines and edge aberrations and then rotation of that same view AND then you add an FX .. I guess something is going to give . . . However, and this might also be the issue here, is that the FX isn't being applied "evenly" throughout the rotate - yeah? Then maybe you might want to apply the FX first - render this - then do the rotate .. see what I'm driving at? It was your comment about applying the FX and your obvious advanced understanding of video that is making me think that you might have considered RIF, applied it, and are now examining/researching other lines of investigation .. . anyways, it want do any harm to give it a go . .. Apply FX then rotate OR Rotate then apply FX OR slomo and the FX OR any combination of the three in various steps . ..

Interesting . ..

Grazie

I noticed flickering in two maybe 3 shots. They were shots I had used the "glow" filter on. I've seen "glow" do this before but usually on the very edge of the image which is well in overscan zone. However, since I applied the 1:85:1 Academy crop on it the "edge" is well WITHIN overscan. I'll try and go back and give the "RIF" a shot....if not I'll do as you suggested and render then rotate...and/or apply the 1:85:1 crop.

I've never used this "1:85:1 Academy crop " . . I'm presuming it is a method of cropping for ... er .. . whatever you need - yeah? I just stick to plain ole 4:3 . . . But yes, maybe this is introducing another "vector" variable we might need to consider. I guess anything that will adjust the native film may have an effect. Maybe you might need to "finish" the movie and THEN do this ratio crop? Maybe the FX needs some "waste" to do its thing . . .I really don't know - this might be worth a try too! If you DO dig out this as being something that is exhibiting itself only in this scenario then maybe you may have indeed discovered an invertebrate/insect - BUG!

Very Impressive mate :)

Nice work Glen.

I am curious about the sound track. Where is it from?

Bob

could the flickering at the top of the frame have anything to do with the xl-1s? i read somewhere about a problem with xl-1s regarding something appearing at the top of the frame. i'm probably way off here, but when you mentioned "xl-1s" and "top of frame" that was the first thing that came to mind.

Hi Glen,

Excellent! The video made some parts of my body stand straight up ( the hair, the hair :-)

The end is really 100% good!

Great work! Good music - recognize it but can't place it...

// Lazze \\

<<<-- Originally posted by Adi Head : could the flickering at the top of the frame have anything to do with the xl-1s? i read somewhere about a problem with xl-1s regarding something appearing at the top of the frame. i'm probably way off here, but when you mentioned "xl-1s" and "top of frame" that was the first thing that came to mind. -->>>

Well ironicly enough- the one shot (out of the 2) that exhibit this is, indeed, an XL-1S shot. It's the one right after the bride slides the ring on and looks up at the groom. You might have been on to something, however, the other shot that exhibits this is from my PD-170. The linking factor is the use of the "glow" filter. I've seen this happen before...something about that effect causes it. Maybe Edward can chime in if he's experienced it or know's what the cause is.

<<<-- Originally posted by Bob Schneider : Nice work Glen.

I am curious about the sound track. Where is it from?

Bob -->>>

"Inama Nushif"- Children of Dune.

<<<-- Originally posted by Glen Elliott : I've seen this happen before...something about that effect causes it. Maybe Edward can chime in if he's experienced it or know's what the cause is. -->>>

I haven't specifically noticed this but can't rule anything out as a possibility. I know my XL-1 (no s) has 4 black pixels on both the left and right but have not noticed anything on the top or bottom. I'll have to pay closer attention when I next use the glow filter. Although I tend to use Zenote's instead.

That was really very nice.

Are the camera moves handheld?

Yes all handheld.

Hey Kim me and two friends are going to the GPVA (Greater Philadelphia Videographer's Association) meeting on tuesday in Philly. Let me know if you want to attend.

Hi Glen,

Thanks for the response.

If I may elaborate on the sound track Question:

I am not familiar with the artist. Is this a well known artist? If so did you have to buy the rights to the work to use it? I am just curious how this works when doing wedding work. Or perhaps there are royalty free tracks of this nature available. Any insight would be helpful.

Thanks again,
Bob

How did you do the b&w mixed with color? Ive done simpler things using the color corrector, but nothing like this... ...you did this in vegas?

I have that defined in my newsletters (link under my name). In Vegas 5, it's even easier.

1) Add the secondary color corrector to the clip
2) Click on the "Select Effect Range" eyedropper and pick the color to keep.
3) Click on "Invert Mask"
4) Click on "Mask" and use the "Limit" tools to adjust the mask to the correct area.
5) UNCheck "Mask"
6) In the top section, change "Saturation" to 0.

this works with more then 1 color? Like you have the flowers with the greens as well as the colors of the flowers...

It's really pretty much limited to a single color.

If you have an "area" that you want to keep in color, then use something like the Cookie Cutter to cut out that area.

glen, very well made. how did you make all the camera motion move so elegantly? they look like crane shots. did you crop and pan? in vegas 5?

<<<-- Originally posted by Adi Head : glen, very well made. how did you make all the camera motion move so elegantly? they look like crane shots. did you crop and pan? in vegas 5? -->>>

Depends on which shots your referring to. There were shots I added some subtle movement with the pan/crop but because of it's limitations I wouldn't be able to get the shots that have more than very subtle zooms/pans. I'd, subsequently, have to zoom in far enough to get slak on either edge of the frame to pan but it would be zoomed so close the image quality would suffer greatly.

So yeah...the shots with lots of lateral movement (ie Pan across pew to wipe transition, etc) were indeed shot handheld. I've long been continually working on improving my handholding technique. Thank you.

glen, i don't want to take this thread off topic, but i though i might ask you.

i started experimenting with the crop/pan tool and tried to create slight camera motion within a video track which was originally shot with camera mounted on a tripod, no motion, no panning, no tiliting - nothing).

for example:
i created keyframe 1: cropped a smaller frame within the original frame and alligned the cropped frame to the left side of the original.

about 10 seconds after keyframe 1, i created keyframe 2. with the cursur set on keyframe 2, i moved the cropped frame from the left side of the original frame, to the right side. no vertical change.

right clicked both keyframes and set them to smooth.

what i was hoping will happen is that from keyframe 1 to keyframe 2 there will be a nice smooth pan from left to right.

the result: when previewing what i did, there was some kind of motion from left to right within the shot, but it was far from smooth. very gittery. since the left to right motion was very slight, it was even hard to judge which diriection the panning was.

preview window was set to draft.

am i doing something wrong?
is it just the preview? do i have to render to see the smooth result?

thanks,
adi

Adi - you editing in Vegas? Are you seeing this in only previewing OR in the finsihed piece?

1/- Previewing : Try doing a RAM preview or Pre render the section. Also if you are previewing in anything greater than Preview quality this can reduce the frame rate, which maybe what you are experiencing.

2/- Finished Work: Now another possibility is to reduce interlace flicker - if you are also seeing this in the finished piece


. ..from what I gather, a lot of maths is going on to accomadate all sorts of stuff: Change in sizing of the picture and the actual movement on screen . . lots for the PC to do .. .something has got to give - first thing will be the Previewing.

Grazie

Adi, setting the preview to "draft" is the problem. Draft always makes pan crops look terrible. Try switching to "preview" or even "good".

ok. first of all, yes, i edit with vegas 5.

the rendered piece looks fine, although the cropping DOES really hurt the resolution.

also, i found that when preview window is set to good, the movement is closest to what it should look like.

thanks.

sorry.
correction: <<< also, i found that when preview window is set to good, the movement is closest to what it should look like. >>>

i meant, when preview window is set to PREVIEW, the motion is smoothest. it's still a bit jumpy, but all other options are worse. at least, that's how it is on my machine.

You probably don't have the horsepower to run it at "good" or "best" and maintain the framerate.

Hi Glen,

Did you happen to see my follow-up question in this thread regarding the sound track in your piece?

Thanks

Bob

Adi, look at the lower right of the Preview window. You will see a bunch of numbers. One of these will be the frame rate. I'm PAL so I would be looking for the 25fps [ fps=Frames Per Second ] value to stabilize. I can get this if I Loop the section in question - may only be about 3 or 10 seconds - but after about 5 or 10 Loopings the fps does stabilize. Do try the Build RAM Preview. You can "set" the amount available for this within Preferences. You can increase the amount of RAM set aside for this procedure and "balance" what you need for other processes. I've got 2gb of fast RAM. So I put aside 1gb for RAM previewing.

This gets me onto to actual PC muscle you have for your work. Remember, the more pc intensive stuff you throw at your poor machine - Pans/Crops; FXs; Trannies etc etc . . - the slower the maths being done and hence the frame rate you will be able to achieve. First off how much do you have? I've got 2gb RAM working with an ASUS 3.2gHtz. It's fast but my demands are getting higher and higher. So something has got to give .. Frame Rate!

Secondly, I need to mute or remove tracks that may have got redundant as I progress through the creative process. From what I understand even tracks with nothing in them are recognised by Vegas and as such - I don't know this for real - but this MAY affect Previewing too. It certainly affects the rendering times if I still have them in my final Video mix - yeah?

So, there you have it: When you reach for them Stars make sure you are packing plenty of RAM and FFFFaaassst Mobos! - At least recognise you aren't doing anything wrong - but you maybe doing too much!

Best regards

Grazie