Dear Neil, Yes it was that. When rendering I changed the "as source" and set "lower" and when rendered the blinds were not there anymore. The downside is that for rendering a 21 minutes video it took 45 minutes! Note that when left "as source" it was rendering "upper" and took 25 minutes only. So my "lower" solution took me 20 minutes more! I suppose this is normal, but frustrating also.
Cheers, */Leonel Dolara/* *Actor y Director* *leoneldolara.webs.com <http://www.leoneldolara.webs.com/>* El 29/06/2011 10:51, BEDFORD NEIL escribió: > Hello Leonel, > > Sounds like interlace problems to me. > It could be that the screen you are viewing it on just doesn't do > interlace. Try playing it with Windows Media Player or VLC to see if that > makes any change (or another viewer at least). > > If not, try that G-Spot (free) program to see what the original exactly is > and try to keep the outputted file the same. Personally, if the HD version > is OK, I would convert that using one of the free converters and try to keep > all the settings (apart from the codec of course) as close as possible, > aspect ratio etc. In the field selection I think its upper first for PAL > and lower for NTSC however if you re-encode in Adobe PP. > > Your almost there now... > > Cheers, > Neil. > > On 29 June 2011 14:09, Leonel Dolara<[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> Dear Greg and Neil, >> >> Thanks a lot for your clarifying answers. Yes, all the computers that I >> tested on with the HD version of the movie where kind of old and no more >> than one core for them. I myself have a quad core so of course it could >> play >> it well. >> I have just tested the MPG version on the old ones and it plays very well, >> so my problem is solved. And I understand and agree with you both about the >> explanations for the files to be the same size. And when I rendered in mpg >> I >> used Maximum bitrate and Maximum everything (8mbps of video) so the mpg >> file >> could have been smaller. >> >> Just one more little question: on the mpg version I found that the faces of >> the movie shot originally in HD are a bit pixelated (it shows on the faces >> because they move, but I guess it is all the frame. You get to see >> horizontal lines when the faces move as if there were a transparent blind >> before them) , as if the deinterlace is done wrong (I guess). Could that be >> that I selected it in upper and should be lower? For the record is not the >> natural blurness that you see in a mpg video compared to the HD version, >> it's something else. >> >> Thank you all! >> >> >> 2011/6/29 BEDFORD NEIL<[email protected]> >> >>> Hi Greg, >>> >>> Been there, seen it, got the t-shirt. Good fun back then, wasn't it? >>> >>> I'm not 100% on this, but what I do know is that, uncompressed HD video >> is >>> large in size (obviously). Reading a few forums on this, it seems its >>> about >>> 400-675GB an hour in size. Go to R3D and this shoots through the roof... >>> >>> However, this handy size calculator says different, but doesn't include >>> adjustable bit-rates or FPS etc: >>> >>> <http://www.fastvideoindexer.com/articles/VideoSizes/VideoSize.htm> >>> >>> I believe APP does some clever math and utilises the GFX card (CUDA) >>> support >>> for rendering on the fly, making it seem to take much less time than it >>> does >>> with SD video. >>> Problem is, we may have the technology to edit HD, but some people are >>> still >>> struggling to view HD video on You-Tube and Vimeo, let alone any files we >>> may create for them. >>> (I sometimes create a Lo-Fi version too, for people that have these >>> 'issues'.) >>> >>> Playing around with the output settings for the final render, I have >> found >>> the 'Vimeo HD' setting seems to be the best quality against file size, no >>> doubt the You-Tube one is similar. Tried outputting 1080 HD to an AVI >>> once, >>> ouch! >>> >>> Interesting thread and no doubt others will chip in with their >> experiences >>> too. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Neil. (Still learning.) >>> >>> On 29 June 2011 08:36, Gregg Eshelman<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> ** >>>> >>>> >>>> Which is also why it's possible to edit uncompressed SD video on old >>> boxes >>>> like a Pentium III which might be barely capable of playing a DVD using >>>> software decoding. Done there, been that. ;) Also experienced the fun >> of >>>> maxing at 7 frames per second encoding to MPEG2, and that with a dual >> 450 >>>> Mhz PIII server. The single CPU Socket A box I had at the time could >> get >>> up >>>> to 10, 12 with a tailwind! >>>> >>>> Does the same apply to HD where a system can edit it uncompressed with >>> ease >>>> but not be able to play it well or at all, and take forever to compress >>> it? >>>> Or are the requirements for editing high enough that playback and >>>> compression at least as fast as realtime are no problem? >>>> >>>> >>>> --- On Wed, 6/29/11, BEDFORD NEIL<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hence the need for a faster processor >>>>> to decompress the video.... the more >>>>> the compression, the more power needed. >>>>> >>>>>> MPEG2 is an old codec, goes back to the mid 1990's. >>>>> MP4 is newer, more >>>>>> optimized and can produce a better image than MPEG2 >>>>> with higher levels of >>>>>> compression. >>>> >>> >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------ >>> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Leonel Dolara >> Actor y Director >> leoneldolara.webs.com >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
