Et clip part2
•
28 Nov 2006, 22:36
•
Journals
Ok, part2
What i wanted is that clips look as close as possible to ET ingame look and since i dislike vegas motion blur i decided to make 50fps clips (this way your eye creates the blur). Both clips are the same, but compressed with different codecs.
http://rapidshare.com/files/5155912/n_nnnva.mp4
35mb This clip is compressed with x264, form previous journal my guess is that you need processor better than P4, i recommend 3500+ or some new intel :o
This vid worked on my 1.86 pentium m (laptop singlecore processor).
http://rapidshare.com/files/5224974/nn_nnnnnnnnnxvid2.avi
41mb This one is compressed with Xvid 1.2, a bigger than x264 clip and a bit lower quality.
It should work on any proc. above 2ghz.
I need feedback on quality/size ratio (just to add this is 50fps and that is harder to compress than 25fps), do you like cameras (or do you think they are boring?) and if you would download movie made this way (if it would have good frags, better skill than this one in the clips). Note that 10min movie made this way would be between 270-290mb x264 and around 320mb for xvid.
Thx for your time ;)
What i wanted is that clips look as close as possible to ET ingame look and since i dislike vegas motion blur i decided to make 50fps clips (this way your eye creates the blur). Both clips are the same, but compressed with different codecs.
http://rapidshare.com/files/5155912/n_nnnva.mp4
35mb This clip is compressed with x264, form previous journal my guess is that you need processor better than P4, i recommend 3500+ or some new intel :o
This vid worked on my 1.86 pentium m (laptop singlecore processor).
http://rapidshare.com/files/5224974/nn_nnnnnnnnnxvid2.avi
41mb This one is compressed with Xvid 1.2, a bigger than x264 clip and a bit lower quality.
It should work on any proc. above 2ghz.
I need feedback on quality/size ratio (just to add this is 50fps and that is harder to compress than 25fps), do you like cameras (or do you think they are boring?) and if you would download movie made this way (if it would have good frags, better skill than this one in the clips). Note that 10min movie made this way would be between 270-290mb x264 and around 320mb for xvid.
Thx for your time ;)
edit: cant!!!! :((((
I'll upload here http://www.oxyshare.com/
the counter was faster for the second one, need first to:D
I know you all think scripted cams are the most amazing things in the world, but they aren't. Watch the Kih movie, see how the FIXED camera switches position with the beats (The scene at the choke point on village)? Notice how the music has defined beats, and not just lots and lots of different beats? This is why that movie worked so well, the Ante up Part especially.
Also, instead of simply going 3rd person, try using a stationary camera; I'm not talking about the clip I just watched here, I think fast switching cams wouldn't work well with the music, or the lack of action; but for future scenes, where you kill a lot of people, and the music has some better beats, try switching stationary cam angles.
It was a nice clip, don't get me wrong, but if you're going to put a lot of effort into something, you might as well try and get it the best it can be. All first person movies are quite boring, they feel like demo's with mp3, even with synching: in a movie, you want to see the frags differently than you would in a demo; you want to see slow motion; you want to see what the enemy was doing; you want to feel involved.
Skip to 6:14, just watch the camera changes and listen to the beats of music. You'll notice that the beats are really pronounced, you can pick them out easily, unlike other types of music where there isn't really anything pronounced enough to fit those cuts into.
Also, notice how sometimes a camera cut will remove a section of material e.g. the ladder scene; not only does it remove boring material, but it also gives you an easier route when you want to synchronise something. It's stuff like this that so few movie makers think about.
[edit] wth.. i cant see that xvid.. lagging almost as much as x264 =E
2nd cg_marktime 0
3rd healthinfo on xhair sux
come to msn and ill send you your pro avi :p
Anyway, I think it's a good idea to do high-fps-fragmovies, if the primary medium of delivery will be internet and target audience uses PCs to watch the movies. If something like DVD-compatibility isn't an issue, why stick with the old 25 fps limit? There is no reason.
With higher framerates one can save time skipping (partially skipping at least, higher framerates don't actually eliminate the need for blurring fast motion) the frame blending needed for the source material. Of course one has to record material at double the framerate, but it's nothing compared to 500-1000 frames per second needed for semi-decent motion blurs made by frame blending.
Resolutions are, in my opinion, another overlooked thing in fragmovies: people still use ancient resolutions for their movies, even though HDTV has been every day business for a couple years. If I were to do a movie now, I'd choose a 720p resolution; 1080p is still a bit overkill for todays machines.
An interesting thing is, that progressive (an image with no fields) 60 fps specification is actually included in standard HDTV frame rates. So 1280x720 resolution at 60 fps would be worth considering for any fragmovie maker out there. Compression could be a problem with this combination though: with x264 compression it would require a fast computer to decode and watch it. XviD would handle it pretty well though.
Did you watch the xvid clip? Its big and a bit disappointing quality... Resolution i used is 1024*576.
To further illustrate this, here are some old tests I did with TGA_merge. It's the same clip; first one is without motion blur, second is recorded with 1000 fps and frames are blended together for "motion blurring":
No motion blur (6 Mb)
"Motion blur" (6 Mb)
As one can see, the first clip feels pretty choppy, even though the files are identical in size. GSpot actually reported a higher bitrate for the first clip. An image captured from the clips from the same frame points out how Xvid really struggled with the clip without frame blending:
But anyway, size isn't really an issue anymore as it was back in the day -- does anyone really care whether a good movie is 300 or 700 megabytes? I at least wouldn't give a damn. Especially if it comes from a fast host.
I have this impression, that sometimes fragmovie geeks (in general, not refering to you here) can't really see the forrest from the trees, and concentrate too much on technical issues instead of the movie they're making. Which is ridiculous: most people would watch a good clip even if the image quality is mediocre, but usually not the other way around.
opinionZ <: