Compressor Issues, fast motion looks terrible.

Hello,
I require the collective wisdom of this community please!
I'm editing a project for a company that shoots dance competitions.
I've edited a single show, and now I'm looking to send this seq. to Compressor 3, and find an appropriate way to compress said project. This video a little over 3 hours, and is very fast motion.
Previously I have exported the sequence as a self-contained and referenced quicktime movie, and each export gave my footage a pixelated (interlaced?) look. It looks terrible.
I should state that this footage was shot with a Canon XHA1, but is not being distributed in its original HD format.
When I view the sequence in FCP6, it looks great, then I started attempting to use Compressor 3, I wanted to use the compression mode DVD Best, but my project is over 150 min. (the apparent maximum compression time, I may be wrong).
I tried this once, and it took out all of my motion titles, then I tried again, and it took out my audio.
Can anyone help me shed some light on how to get this project exported/compressed so the fast motion won't look like trash, and I can get it into DVDSP in an acceptable format?
Thanks so much. A thousand internets to you.

What are your sequence settings?

Similar Messages

I tested my new Canon 5D Mark iii with my 85 1.2 L lens. The images look terrible! What gives?

I just purchased a new Canon 5D Mark iii body. It is replacing my 1Ds Mark ii. I tested it with my 85 1.2 L series lens. I took the RAW images into Capture One 7 to look at them. I was highly disturbed at what I saw. The quality was no where near my Canon 1Ds Mark ii. The images seemed somewhat soft even after applying a consderable amount of sharpening. They also looked flat and lifeless, even after pumping the contrast and adding Clarity. All in all they looked terrible! I must have something wrong, as I have read countless times that the new chip gives incredible results.
When first attempting to set up my camera I set it to Adobe RGB and for RAW images only. I noticed that you seemed forced into deciding on a specific "Picture Style". I left it on the default settting of "Standard". Should that effect my RAW files, or is that bypassed altogether when shooting RAW? I noticed that in "Standard" mode that some in camera sharpening was applied to the files. Is that my problem? Should that be turned down to zero, as I would normally do all my sharpening afterward either in Capture One 7 or other software. I shot all my test images with fast shutter speeds so that is not the issue. This lens is in perfect condition and has always produced incredibly sharp contrasty images. What on earth could be wrong? Any suggestions? I am a professional shooter for the last 20 years, so this is really perplexing me! Help!!!

Hi Corey,
Picture styles are ONLY applied to JPEG images or video. They are never applied to RAW. Canon will "tag" the meta-data of the image indicating picture style choices so that desktop processing software that understands those choices can apply it after-the-fact. But the point of "RAW" is that the camera will not perform any change to the image which would result in a loss of original data.
As for the soft focus... the good news there is probably nothing wrong with your camera or your lens. It probably just needs a slight focus calibration adjustment (you don't even need to send it in for this.)
The camera sensor is analogous to a movie screen. If the image is blurry... it's not the movie screen... it's the movie projector (or the focus). However... keeping with that analogy... suppose we focused the image perfectly... but then moved the project a foot closer to the screen. The result would be a slightly out-of-focus image even though there is actually nothing wrong with the projector.
The phase detect focus sensors are on the floor of your camera. When the reflex mirror is down, some light is bounced down into those sensors to focus the image. The distance to the AF sensors vs. the distance to the real sensor is supposed to be calibrated to match... but it's actually possible for the AF sensors to think the image is focused when it's really slightly out of focus on the sensor. For this reason, your camera has auto-focus micro-adjustment capability -- in other words this is something you can test and tune yourself. The REASON you might do it yourself is because it turns out it can be different for every lens (even two EF 85mm f/1.2L lenses in a row might have slightly different focus). This adjustment is only available on the mid-range and pro bodies -- it's part of the reason you buy a premium body. The camera can actually remember the AF adjustment for each lens uniquely.
See this article: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths
Or this article: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/are_your_pictures_out_of_focus.shtml
BTW, to test the lens, I'd suggest getting a focus calibration target. You want controlled conditions when you do this -- don't shoot typical everday subjects because it wont be precise enough.
I use a DataColor Spyder "LensCal". The LensAlign products are also popular.
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

QT format doesn't work, only dvstream. Resulting DVDs look terrible. Help!

I'm really frustrated with this. For years I've been using my Avid Xpress DV to edit and exported a host of movies during that time using the DVstream format and for the most part it's been acceptable. For some reason I never understood, any time I attempted to use quicktime movie as the format I have never been able to get it to work. The audio works fine, but the video is not there. It's either blank or I get a solid green screen. So, as I said I'd always used dvstream. The problem is I just did 110 minute African safari documentary and the footage looks great. But when I burned DVDs the compression looked terrible. The blacks become milky, there is very noticeable compression and it looks soft, a hollow imitation of the original DV format footage. Not at all the way it should look. I am using iDVD 8 on the "professional setting." I even cut the sequence in half to around 50 minutes and exported and burned a DVD and it looked EXACTLY the same. So I thought maybe I am using the wrong settings to export. I read around the web and was reminded of what others had been using as settings. Everyone seems to be using QT movies! I tried again to export and chose QT, picking avidDV as the video compressor and uncompressed audio. I used 720 by 480 (had been using 540) picked the recommended field (I believe the top choice) chose the 601 color etc and the same **** thing happens. In fact, when I preview the DVD in iDVD8 you can see that it won't display the video track while the audio track plays fine. I have the Avid codec installed in case that's an issue. I refuse to accept that this is the best I can get this DVD to look. It's an insult to all of our work. So I'd be tremendously grateful for any and all help or advice in this matter. I'm now sitting on my hands, at a loss to fix this. I do not have the option of using another program other than iDVD so please keep the response aware of this. Sure it;d be nice to buy a new program but it's not going to happen. THANKS!

I kind of suspected that beside the fact that I consider myself fairly smart about this stuff this was actually a fairly simple problem to fix and that in my panic trying to resolve this for hours and hours I was overlooking something obvious. Despite the fact that I thought I had put the avid codec manually into what I thought was the proper system folder, a download from Avid ti install the latest codecs into my macbook pro fixed it. Now I'm ready to burn and see if the discs look better. Fingers crossed...

External Monitor looks terrible

I recently got ahold of two monitors, both DVI, to hook up to my 12 inch PowerBook for my setup at work.
On both of them I attempted to run as a mirrored displays as well as an extended desktop. I can verify that at least one of the monitors is high-quality and gives a nice crisp picture when attached to any other machine.
However the image coming from the PowerBook is pretty abysmal. The edges are dull, the colors are washed out and I'm really unimpressed with the picture.
I bought the 12" PowerBook because of the portability and because evetually I knew I would want to use it with a larger screen. Is this not the case?
Any ideas?

I've tried different profiles as well as calibrating.
They all look terrible.
It isn't an issue of the colors being off, it primarily has to do with the clarity of the picture. Both of these monitors I KNOW are capable of a better picture than they have with the PowerBook.

Text looking terrible in InDesign document...

I am running into an issue putting together a marketing report for my work. The small photo caption text (frutiger light size 8) looks terrible when I PDF it.
But in addition to it looking terrible when I pdf it, it also looks terrible in the InDesign document if I get too close to an image.
I have tried putting all the text on a separate layer that is on top of everything else (including anything that is a transparency).
The body text (which is frutiger regular size 9) looks totally fine.
I do have transparencies on my pages but I have to because my boss likes us to have drop shadows when we show sample document pages.
How can I fix this? The proposal document is going to be delivered digitally, so even if it prints ok that wont work because most likely it will only be viewed on screen.
These images show how the text changes depending on how close or far away I get.

Does it look bad in the PDF on screen only or also when printed on a high resolution device?
If the text is above all transparent objects than it is not a transparency flattening problem, although you did not tell us anything about your PDF export settings.
If it looks good on high resolution print but bad on screen only it might be an issue of the used font only. To be honest, on your screen shot I don't see the problem here what you mentioned. Could you link your problematic INDD and PDF here. Not the original file, it understnd that it is not possible for you, but a small file where you reconstruct this problem with a placeholder image and blind text, one page only to keep things small.

Dotted Stroke created in Indesign look terrible in pdf...

Help.
I'm creating dotted strokes in InDesign, which when exported (or distilled) to a pdf look terrible - no Anti-aliasing.
This can be fixed by creating the same shapes in Illustrator, expanding the stroke, then placing that file in InDesign. But that means each shape has to be re-created in Illustrator each time - which is not a good solution as I am setting up templates for other agencies around the world to use. Editing and creating these strokes in InDesign is the only solution. However, it doesn't seem possible to 'expand' the stroke in InDesign prior to creating the pdf...
...any ideas?
Thanks

This is a screen issue only, depending on the local Acrobat/Reader settings in antialiasing vector objects.
BTW: Don't use Distiller or any other Postscript like EPS anymore, use only export.

Edit in photoshop looks terrible

i thought i would try the "seamless" editing between LR and photoshop. go to photo, edit in photoshop....CS2 opens up...i can edit, dogde, burn, whatever...how great! then click save....and there are my changes in LR. in a perfect world, this would be great. but, the RAW file looks TERRIBLE when opened in photoshop. it looks like a washed out bluish cast with a bit of negative effect on it. it just looks bad. then when you save and view it in LR, it looks the same...terrible. i spoke with a couple people and they said this was a bug in the beta version. looks like an issue still. so now i have to take the long way around and export to tiff, then work on the photos, then export to jpg. ridiculous. i still like the software but they really should have focused on the big things instead of the small stupid things...like the 5 star rating system for photos.

there was no tone in my first post, what you were reading was insane frustration. i spent 5 hours on this and it still isn't working. sorry if you took it personal. the photos look faded when i right click, choose edit in CS2, and view them in CS2. if i open any other photos in CS2 they look mint. let me say they don't look night and day but they are very faded and the color saturation is not there. what settings in CS2? where do i look for these? i thought everything was perfect since it always is when i just use CS2. 2 of my other guys have the same issue, as well as another photo studio we are in touch with who dont' work with us. 4 people with the same issue is odd i think you would agree. i don't think we will get much resolved via this since i can't show you the photos. and when i do select edit in CS2, i get the box that comes up with the 3 bullet points...half the time i only am able to select the 3rd, since the first and 2nd are greyed out and yes i have the full version. bought right from adobe. what setting do you check off in CS2 to make it look great? then when i click SAVE in CS2, it brings it back to LR with my edits which is great, but it's the faded non-saturated version. i really really really wish i could give you more info but i can't. i'm not new to adobe, just LR. i have been using After FX, premiere, PS, encore, audition for years.

Why does the web look TERRIBLE on my new Retina display?

The new retina display is fantastic, but browsing the web looks horrible. Can anything be done to improve the web browsing experience?

Most websites are designed to look good on low end computers, typically with a resolution of around 1024x768.
Our retina macbooks have such a high resolution display that they basically show the flaws you would not normally see on a low resolution display.Text that is rendered using the mac os system fonts should look beautiful, but low resolution pictures and non-native text will look terrible on any website or application.
There is no real fix for this issue, other than hoping the web in general starts moving to higher resoltuion content in the future. The same problem exists with the retina iPad, and in my opinion, things look even worse on the ipad since you tend to be zoomed in further while browsing the web.

Movie looks terrible when exported. Help!

So i just got back into some video work. I used to know how to video edit, but there has been some time between my once educated stage and now.
To get myself going I installed this old program and used a few files that I took from youtube. I converted the files to WMV's and began to cut away. After some considerable manipulation, music added and what not, i decided to export my project.
Here then enlies my probelm; every time I go to export the project the video looks terrible. The quality is degraded, the cuts between scenes are slower, and what is perhaps most annoying, is that anywhere a clip was manipulated ie (slowed down, reversed, whatever) the size of the clip shrinks to about half the size.
I can't figure out what is wrong, but then again I barely know anything about this program. What could be wrong? The project looks great on the time line. It's only when its rendered or exported that it gets all messed up. The clips are from youtube. the music is just an mp3. Is the footage just not high enough quality? Is the program I have too old? Any information regarding a solution to these problems would be greatly appreciated. Sorry if this is a stupid question.

Do you have any other suggestions or advice pertaining to my situation?
Two:
1.) Use G-Spot to tell you what CODEC is used, and possibly use a different conversion program to get the material into Premiere.
2.) Use a program like one from Moyea, or FLV to AVI. The conversion from FLV to another highly compressed CODEC like you probably used for the WMV will destroy any quality that you might have had.
If you had PrPro 1.5, or later, Moyea makes a plug-in to Import and edit FLV within PrPro. You might want to contact them, just to check if your version, known as PrPro 1.0 in most circles, will work with their plug-in. In PrPro 2.0, the Moyea plug-in works fine. However, when starting with FLV's quality is ALWAYS going to be an issue. There is no way around this.
Copyright issues totally aside, you'd be better off working from a ripped DVD of that Disney production. Do consider copyright issues long and hard. Won't go into the legal issues, but they should be considered.
Good luck,
Hunt

Imported pictures look terrible

Has anybody noticed that imported pictures from iPhoto look terrible? They're all jagged and blurry. This same issue happened with iMovie 4, I think it was, and then was fixed in iMovie 5 and now it seems to be back again.

Not a solution, but you'll find some feedback I got from my posting (jean-Claude) dated feb 5th, 06 ... "jagerred lines on slides show". I find that the problem seems to be getting worse as time goes by, and it's driving me crazy !!!
jcr
eMac - G4 Mac OS X (10.3.7) 768 MB SDRAM

Anyone else haveing issues where Motion 5 performs worse than Motion 4?

I'm having an issue where even simple particle emitters playback slowly. I can create the same simple effect in 4 and it plays back in real time.
I even saved a test file in 4 (which ran real time), and when I open it in 5 it plays back slower. What gives?

I´m having a strange issues with Motion 5 performance:
In my iMac 2010 (i3 @ 3,06 ghz, Radeon 4670 256 mb and 8 gb) Motion 5 is about 20-25% faster than Motion 4.
For example, when rendering the PulseHD Open Motion 4 takes 2:30 mins and Motion 5 takes 2:00 mins.
The strange results come from my Macbook Pro 2010 (i5 @ 2,4 ghz, Geforce GT 330m and 8 gb also):
With the same template this computer takes 3:20 mins in Motion 4 and about 6:30 mins in Motion 5!!!! So near the double.
Even more strange: if I make a ram preview in Motion 5 with this same template and settings that I used in the final render it only takes 2:51 mins and Motion 4 is slower, because it takes 3:25 mins!!!!!!
I forgot to say that in all the cases the render quality was set to normal and motion blur was turned on with 8 samples.
So, it´s clear that Motion 5 needs an update as does FCP X, because in my computers it crashes a lot.

SmoothCam looks terrible

I have some footage shot using the JVC GY-HD110 on HDV 720p24 from a car mount. We pulled the vehicle using a trailer and every little bump causes slight vibration. I am trying my best to edit around the huge shakes but some are unavoidable. I am experienced using SmoothCam in Shake and was always happy with the results but the FCP filter look terrible to me. I don't blow the image up above 110% but it still is out of focus looking and has terrible motion blur. Is there anything I can do to help make the image more clear?
BTW I export each clip as a self contained movie to prevent the 2 minute takes from being analyzed for hours and hours. Does that have anything to do with it?
thanks,
cja

I've got to think that this is a tough shot to begin with depending on how tightly focused your shot is on the talent in the car as opposed to the movement in the background.
Anyway, I've had fairly decent success with Smoothcam, but often times it really takes tweaking the "Translation Smooth", "Rotation Smooth", and "Scale Smooth" parameters. You might try re-visiting those controls and maybe even the "Auto Scale."

Font rendering looks terrible

I have the Firefox 26.0 running on Windows 7 Ultimate and have noticed that the font rendering often looks terrible. For example, have a look at the lower left title on the New York Times:
http://webspace.lenscritic.com/firefox/2.png
Interestingly, when the page is first rendering I get a split second where it looks fine, but then it quickly changes to what you see above. Here's what it looks like in the early stages of rendering when it looks fine:
http://webspace.lenscritic.com/firefox/1.png
I have tried disabling hardware acceleration (in Tools > Options > Advanced > General > Browsing) as well as setting the gfx.content.azure.enabled pref to false and gfx.direct2d.disabled pref to true, none of which made any difference.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Hello,
Some help articles:
*[http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/ Check plugins]
*[http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ Last Firefox]
*[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/upgrade-graphics-drivers-use-hardware-acceleration Upgrade your graphics drivers to use hardware acceleration and WebGL]
*[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/websites-look-wrong-or-appear-differently Websites look wrong or appear differently than they should]
*[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-firefox-issues-using-safe-mode Firefox in safe mode]

Quick movements on DVD movie has tracers and looks terrible

When I preview the movie before burning it everything looks fine. After I burn the DVD and view it, all quick movements look terrible... horizontal lines and tracers. Please help!
Thanks,
-Paul

Previewing a movie is simply a "link" to the uncompressed movie you have made. iDVD will compress this to MPEG 2 for DVD playback. It seems many are not happy with iDVDs compression schemes... HOWEVER, quick movements are the bane of any MPEG compression with any software. Although some software will be better than others. Why is motion difficult? DV, NTSC, is 29.97 frames per second. Basically 30 still images/second. This equates to 13GB/hour. Keep in mind that a SL DVD holds roughly 4.3GB. For playback on tabletop DVD players your material must be compressed to the MPEG 2 format (which also always it to fit on a DVD). MPEG 2 takes one reference picture about every 15 frames and then only records the motion difference between frames. So you go from almost 30 frames/second down to two with motion difference. So anything that has a lot of motion is very difficult for any MPEG compression because of the nature of the compression. If these are quick pans & zooms, I would suggest a more controlled pan & zoom. If the camera isn't on a tripod, I would suggest using a tripod. You could also make a disc image prior to burning the DVD and the disc image will actually be the compressed version as opposed to just previewing the sequence in iDVD.
Mike

Fast Motion unsmooth shots ; PLEASE HELP

as when shots are in slow motion...fast motion creates shaky ghostiness too with the footage (i wonder how technologically incorrect that term is).
how do i reduce/fix this eye-piercing problem when i increase speed of my footage.
please help.
deadline imminent.

Denis Murphy wrote:
If you shot this footage with the wrong shutter speed, however, there's not much you can do to make it look good in slow motion.
If that's the case, I've found that doing motion blur on it after the fact can help...
Patrick

Compressor Issues, fast motion looks terrible.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for