my footage vibrates

when I apply slow motion to let say 90%, mi footage vibrates..... how can i explain this... it looks like a small vibration of colors.... very weird, this happen even I check the Frame Blending option


thanks

Post some stills. Sounds like interlacing issues. What sort of footage is it? Frame rate, codec, camera, etc.

Noah

Final Cut Studio Training, featuring the HVX200, EX1, EX3, DVX100, DVDSP and Color at [www.callboxlive.com]!
Author, RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera available now at: [www.amazon.com].
Editors Store- Gifts and Gear for Editors: [www.editorsstore.com]

>my footage vibrates

That's nice to know!

Now, what sequence codec are you on?



www.strypesinpost.com

here is a clip




and some stills
[www.flickr.com]
(click on ALL SIZES) to see the picture bigger




i asked some friends who have premier and they dont know why this is happening.
thanks

Um...is it just me or is that YouTube vid totally black? The stills are no help.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

I don't think it's a technical problem. I think it's a lighting problem.

Which is my wiseass way of saying, like Joey, I see no footage in your footage.

here is the video [www.flickr.com]

grafixjoe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Um...is it just me or is that YouTube vid totally
> black? The stills are no help.


it looks like i am cursed... i upload it to flirk [www.flickr.com]

I ask a second time, there will not be a third. What sort of footage is it? Frame rate, codec, camera, etc.

-Noah

Final Cut Studio Training, featuring the HVX200, EX1, EX3, DVX100, DVDSP and Color at [www.callboxlive.com]!
Author, RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera available now at: [www.amazon.com].
Editors Store- Gifts and Gear for Editors: [www.editorsstore.com]

I see it Looks like a sloppy pan, but as Noah said what are the Frame rate, codec, camera, etc.?

------------------------
Dean

"When I see you floating down the gutter I'll give you a bottle of wine."
Captain Beefheart, Trout Mask Replica.

From SEQUENCE SETTINGS:

Editing Timebase: 29.97
Frame Size 720x480 NTSC DV 3:2
Field Dominance LOVER EVEN
QT Video Settings: Compressor DV/DVCPRO - NTSC Quality 100%
Audio Settings:
Rate 48 Khz, Depth 16 bit Channel Grouped
----
Video Processing Render in 8-bit YUV
Process Max white as WHITE
MOtion Filtering Quality NORMAL
----
Render & PLayback
Checked ON for Filters and Frame Blending for speed
Frame Rate: 100% of sequence Editing Timebase
Codec: Same as Sequence Codec
Resolution: 100% of sequence Frame Size
********************

Camera used:
Sony Standard Definition
But I used a Panasonic DVC30 for capture

here are some stills of these settings:
[www.flickr.com]


THank You

NoahK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I ask a second time, there will not be a third.
> What sort of footage is it? Frame rate, codec,
> camera, etc.
>
> -Noah

that vibration appears even when there is no panning
thanks



Dean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see it Looks like a sloppy pan, but as Noah said
> what are the Frame rate, codec, camera, etc.?

Looks black to me too. This must be an earthquake at midnight?

You slow motioned the footage you say? From 100% to 90%? Did you turn frame blending off? How does it look WITHOUT slow motion? Good? Because slowing footage down that much isn't a smooth regular amount of frames.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Yeah I'd try slo-mo'ing in Motion maybe. Or just cutting to something else. 90% is like nothing.

Noah

Final Cut Studio Training, featuring the HVX200, EX1, EX3, DVX100, DVDSP and Color at [www.callboxlive.com]!
Author, RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera available now at: [www.amazon.com].
Editors Store- Gifts and Gear for Editors: [www.editorsstore.com]

here is the video hosted in FLIRCK [www.flickr.com]
yes I slowed motioned the clip from 100% to 80%. And FRAME BLENDING is ON. the clip looks ok at regular speed of 100%

thanks

Shane Ross Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks black to me too. This must be an earthquake
> at midnight?
>
> You slow motioned the footage you say? From 100%
> to 90%? Did you turn frame blending off? How
> does it look WITHOUT slow motion? Good? Because
> slowing footage down that much isn't a smooth
> regular amount of frames.

Then turn off Frame Blending for one. But the issue isn't with you footage, it is what you are expecting to happen when you do slow motion with FCP...and the non-even percentage you chose. 75% is decent, 50% of course is better. But still, it is taking 30 frames per second and using them more than once to make your slow motion. Use on off-numbers and the result can be odd shakiness.

FCP isn't too good at slow motion. It's OK, but Motion is better, AE is better, TWIXTOR is a VERY good plugin for slow motion.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

You're trying to do an inherently difficult thing. Video plays back at a fixed frame rate ? 29.97 frames per second in NTSC-land, 25 frames per second in PAL-land. You can't just play it back slower. In order to do a 90% speed change, Final Cut has to generate entirely synthetic frames, basically using your original source material as a mathematical guide to create whole new footage. That's just difficult to do, period.

Basically what you're seeing are mathematical rounding errors.

Like Shane said, you'll see better results using a better tool, like Motion's optical flow retiming. Compressor can also do optical flow retiming in a batch process. Whether those better results will be good enough lies entirely in the eye of the beholder. Only way to find out is to try it and see for yourself.

I cant believe Premier handles better slow-motion. My friend who uses PREMIER simply lower the speed.... and no issues....



Jeff Harrell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're trying to do an inherently difficult thing.
> Video plays back at a fixed frame rate ? 29.97
> frames per second in NTSC-land, 25 frames per
> second in PAL-land. You can't just play it back
> slower. In order to do a 90% speed change, Final
> Cut has to generate entirely synthetic frames,
> basically using your original source material as a
> mathematical guide to create whole new footage.
> That's just difficult to do, period.
>
> Basically what you're seeing are mathematical
> rounding errors.
>
> Like Shane said, you'll see better results using a
> better tool, like Motion's optical flow retiming.
> Compressor can also do optical flow retiming in a
> batch process. Whether those better results will
> be good enough lies entirely in the eye of the
> beholder. Only way to find out is to try it and
> see for yourself.

Sigh. If you don't understand the principles behind what you're trying to do, then you will often be surprised when different tools produce different results.

FCP's frame blending works better on interlaced footage. On progressive footage, frame blending will result in better temporal quality (smoother motion), but not so good spatial quality ('pulsing' frames). Turning off frame blending will result in jerkier motion, but better spatial quality, since the frames are duplicated or dropped.

There are better tools- Motion does it well, and so does Compressor. After Effects is pretty good on slow mos. And there are other plugins that Shane mentioned that works within FCP- Twixtor.

I'm not sure how precise Premiere is with the slow mos as it has been years since I touched Premiere. But when I was on it back then, I could see visible jerkiness when I ripped a DVD of the cut.



www.strypesinpost.com