On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 10:07:51PM -0400, Scott C. Frase wrote: > Hey Nicolas, > Thanks for the tips. I was able to get a better result from the video I > made a while back. I realized I did not use the "Previous Frame Same > Block" option originally. This made a huge difference. As I didn't > have much time to fuss with it, I lowered the translation search steps > to 128 as you suggest. > > Here are my results with comparison of before, after and zoom. The > video is very compressed, but you can see that the zoom doesn't degrade > too badly, as my source is HDV, which is something you'd be interested > in seeing: > http://content.serveftp.net/video/motionexercise.m2v > 7MB > > scott
Scott, There's no more lost motion tracking due to shade. However, your footage is so jerky that you had to zoom in a lot to discard the black borders. And now, all the "context" of the video is lost: you don't know where the video was taken. :-/ So, technically, the motion tracker is, IMO, well set. But with such a footage, one could hesitate to use the motion effect. I encountered the same problem sometimes with my video. At some places, I had to zoom it at a factor of 1.8, and I am using DV material... :-/ I really hesitated between using the motion tracker, or cutting the scene. :-/ I'll continue to do some tests with that effect. I really would like to be able to render to a higher resolution format, in order to see 100% of the image, even when there's a lot of motion compensation. That way, I could decide myself of the "stabilization effectiveness": - zoom in a lot to discard the jerkiness, but the image is not sharp - don't zoom it that much, and move the projector. The image is jerky, but less than without any motion tracking. And I would not see those large black borders. Anyway, who now know how to use that motion effect. I think I'll often use it from now. Nicolas. _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
