Posted by ptravel on 07/03/06 19:01

Neil Smith [MVP Digital Media] wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:04:00 GMT, "PTravel"
> <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> I'm not
> >> clear that "consumer level" is relevant to the discussion, which was
> >> about what can be used to generate this effect. PS is one of probably
> >> a wide range of options, but it benefits from ease of use, so if he
> >> wants quick results then it's a good trial reference point.
> >
> >The OP has Premiere Pro, which is capable, not only of doing the basic
> >effect, but offering infinitely more control over the process, including the
>
>
> OK agreed on that, for sure.
>
>
> >ability, for example, to handle any resampling artifacts, camera position,
> >etc. WMV is a lossy format, so you're introducing an additional layer of
> >coding/transcoding to get it into and out of the NLE, which will further
> >degrade the image.
> >>
> >>
> >>>THEN import it into his NLE to add the video?
> >>
> >> Video is video - I don't see the problem
> >
> >Video isn't video. DV-codec-encoded video can be imported and exported from
> >Premiere without loss. WMV-codec-encoded video cannot.
>
>
> OK So I wasn't aware Premiere would transcode it internally - my
> mistake. The project does sound like a family oriented project though,
> rather than a broadcast scale project - obviously we try to get the
> best quality possible, but there are limits to the minutinae needed
> for items which aren't meant for wide distribution.

I'm an amateur, too, and my videos have no wider distribution than
friends and family. Like the OP, I have prosumer-level gear (a VX2000,
lots of prosumer-grade accessories, Premiere Pro, After Effects, and a
slew of other prosumer-level software, etc.). Though my videos are not
intended for, and will never have, professional, much less commercial,
application, I still strive for the highest quality video that I can
achieve and, at least from the standpoint of technical quality, my
final projects approach commercial quality.

There are all levels of amateur production, ranging from the
occassional shooter who just wants DVDs of the kids' birthday parties,
up through obssessed lunatics like me. Given the gear that the OP says
he has (as well as a few things he's written in the thread), I assume
that he's well on his way to my level of fanaticism. For people like
me, limited-capability consumer software that results in degarded video
is simply not an option unless there is no affordable alternative
available.


>
>
> >rec.video.production. No offense, but a recommendation to use a consumer
> >product that will produce degraded video compared to what the OP has is
> >really off-topic.
>
>
> Probably I'd have to disagree that it's specifically OT for this group
> I haven't seen a specific charter posted, but lots of people drift by
> from all levels of experience asking for advice. The answer depends on
> the poster, agreed the OP has a greater capability than most users,
> but he's stated not to operate a Pro level facility.

I think you're right -- any discussion about video is probably on-topic
here. My point was that the OP came to a pro ng, suggesting that he
was interested in the "right" way to do it. However, though he may not
be a pro, or doing these projects commercially, he seems interested in
maintaining the highest feasible quality for his work.


> >which sounds fine even on a good home theater audio setup. WMV, on the
> >other hand, was designed for high compression rates and small file size so
> >that video can be shipped around the internet easily (WMV9 isn't relevant to
>
>
> Aww c'mon now ! That's horses for courses, I wouldn't expect him to
> export to email-quality here. WMV9 has many profile levels up to very
> high bitrates, just as MPEG2 does - obviously not many are usable for
> photo story output, so that goes OT. To be honest, WMV9 and WMA at low
> bitrates are dreadful codecs, WMA only really performs acceptably
> above 64-96 kbps for example. Even H264 struggles at low bitrates (but
> look at the results near DVD bitrates ;-)

Well, sure -- I think I said something similar somewhere else. But
that's also like saying that mpeg2 is capable of producing the highest
quality video. It is, but the compromises required by producing
DVD-compliant mpeg2 ensures that video transcoded to that spec will
never look as good as DV-codec-encoded video. I'll also admit to not
having experimented with WMV imports into my projects. However, I'll
stand by what I said about an extra transcode step degrading the video.

>
>
> >By accident, I had hit "reply" instead of "reply group," when I responded to
> >the OP so my response went directly to him. This is what I wrote:
> >
> >"You don't have to pan across photographs with your camera. Import them in
> >to Premiere Pro. It works best with Adobe's PSD proprietary format. Keep
> >your resolution to no greater than 4000 x 4000 pixels. Drag the image to
> >the timeline. Click on the Effects Control tab in the Monitor WIndow and
> >select Motion. Using Position and the key frame control you can move
> >around the image, and using Scale and the key frame control you can zoom in
> >and out. This is the easiest way to do it, though there are other tools in
> >Premiere Pro that will accomplish the same thing."
>
>
> I'm glad you mailed him useful Permiere advice though pity I missed
> them the first time round, looks like a useful technique ;-)

My fault for hitting the "Reply" button instead of "Reply Group."

>
>
> Cheers - Neil
> ------------------------------------------------
> Digital Media MVP : 2004-2006
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/mvpfaqs

[Back to original message]