Hey Darren, I have a question for you or someone. I just finished using the media encoder for my turkey hunt video. It comes out pretty blurry. I set it up just like the example has shown, but blurry. Is it maybe the way I uploaded it from my camcorder to begin with? It is clearer before I encoded it, but is viewable as about a 2 1/2" x 3" video on the monitor. Any help will be appreciated. Using windows xp and dazzle 150 capture device, and capturing from analog camcorder.
Thanks1

The quality of the wmv file will be dependent on the quality of the original video, the amount of motion in the video, and the amoint of compression you use. The more compression the less the quality. THe more motion, panning, and zooming the more blurr you will get with compression. If you are using analog video it will start out having less resolution than digital.

It's a compromise of quality vs file size. You need to play around with different compression settings to come up with a good compromise between the two. It helps a great deal if you know you are going to convert the video to wmv before you begin videoing and then keep motion, panning, and zooming to a minimum while videoing. The higher the quality of the original video the more you will be able to compress and reduce file size.

So then, the amount of compression is determined at the time of capture? I'm really new to this and my capture device did not come with a manual (thats another story in itself). There is no panning done in the video at all, and I did not use the zoom at all, it is all the way out on the zoom setting. So, I guess I can get some better quality out of it, I have had better quality with other videos that I have captured. I need to go back into capturing the video again and see if I can change the (compression) way I captured it. Thanks for your reply.
Regards,
Terry

Terry, the video you capture will be umcompressed avi format. Very large. This is the format that you view when you connect your camcorder directly to TV and is why the quality is so much better than a compressed video. Even DVD's have some compression of video/audio signals (MPEG2) and some quality is lost here also.

You compress and convert to wmv, mpg, mpeg2, mov, etc. in your editing program. You should have options for compression in your editing program. What editing software are you using?

One thing I have found is that I get a little better results when using analog if I digitize the video first by running the tape through a digital camcorder with analog to digital pass through or a DV deck rather than capture the analog video directly to PC. You can then capture the digital video to your software using firewire.

Im using dazzle 150, also called Pinnacle studio 9. I posted it after changing it to vhs prior to making the movie, still not really good, and small view, have a look and you will see what I mean. but better than it was. I know I can capture and edit it with a larger view on the monitor, I just cant find that now...DUH!
Thanks again,
Terry

Terry, your video clip was over a minute long yet only 443kb which means it is very highly compressed. Pinnacle 9 is a pretty good program so you should have several options available to you. They may be listed as "best", "good", "poor", but I imagine with Pinnacle you will be able to actually select bit rates and format for customized compression. If the former select "best" and render the file again. If the later, try rendering the file at around 400 to 500 kbps. If the file is then too large drop your rate down a bit and render again. You need to balance acceptible quality with file size and I think Darren wants video clips at 10MB or under. In your video in present form you aren't even at 1MB.

One note. Do not work with the compressed video you have posted. Always work with the original uncompressed video you captured. If you have deleted it from your harddrive re-capture the video and keep it on your harddrive to work with until you get the wmv video you are satisfied with..

I really appreciate it. I think I got it, anyway it is bigger and clearer. Thanks for all your help, next time I just hope I can gt my hand on the zoom and get a closer view of the tom. I am posting the new one then going to delete the first one.
Thanks again,
Terry

Dang It! I just tried to upload the new file and I get this message.

The file you uploaded was not an acceptable format.: springturkey2005encodebetter.wme

I went to the file and even changed ow it opens from wme to windows media player and get the same message when trying to upload it.

I'm not familiar with any video formats with .wme extensions. Have no idea how your video was assigned that extension. It's a wild shot but you might try and rename the video springturkey2005encodebetter.wmv and see if it works in Media Player.

I am not sure, but I thought that the .wme was "windows media encoder". I cant figure out why it came out that way. I followed the steps that Darren has on site in that link (PDF) on how to. Computer systems, programs and such...drive me crazy.

Terry, if you are capturing your video in Pinnacle you do not need to use Windows Media Encoder. The Pinnacle software does the encoding when you render the file. All editing programs do this a little differently so you need to consult your manual or help section of Pinnacle to get instructions.

Since you are running XP another option you have is to use the video editing program bundled in this operating system, Windows Movle Maker. It's a very basic program but very user friendly and will do all you need to do to capture, edit, and encode your video for internet use.

Sorry I'm just now getting in on this discussion. It sounds like you guys are working things out.

As was discussed, Pinnacle will have similar capabilities to Windows Media Encoder. I use Vegas Video which will also encode to a WMV format. However, I typically like to capture my footage using Vegas, save as an uncompressed AVI, and then do the compressing in Windows Media Encoder. I guess I do this because I am familiar with the process/program, it's quick, and I haven't really spent the time to get familiar with trying to produce a similar WMV file using Vegas.

The website rejected your video because it had the wme extension. WMV, MOV, MPG, AVI, and a couple others are acceptable. I have to have these restrictions in place otherwise I'll get a bunch of viruses on the site.

Darren

Thanks for the relies...no problem getting in late on this Darren, I'm sure your busy enough as it is. I had the understanding that in order to reduce the size of my video that I captured in Pinnacle, I had to then place it in windows media encoder to reduce the file size, or I thnk it's called compress it. The file that is captured with Pinnacle is something like 63.8MB, and I worked it in the WME and it compressed it to a size that is acceptable to upload. And here we go again with the "MANUAL" thing, I think Darren is aware of that problem that I have, but as for thehuntingarcher, just take a look at the topic I posted in the forum here if you want the whole story on it... http://www.huntingfootage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=374 I guess I need to try and figure out how to compress the file in Pinnacle Studio 9, so I can upload a better quality video with a size large enough to be able to see without hurting your eyes squinting.
Thanks all,

Terry

Terry, you can download the manual for your Pinnacle software off internet. This is in PDF form.

http://www.pinnaclesys.com/docsupport1.asp...%20&page_id=139

You can also probably get good instruction for what you want to do from the help section of your program.

If you still are having problems using Pinnacle consider the option of using Windows Movie Maker that should already be bundled in your XP operating system. Very easy to use and it captures, edits, and encode without the need for other programs.

BTW, great over the shoulder video of your turkey. Hope you can get it posted in better quality video clip soon.

Thanks for the help...I just posted another editing of that video, and deleted the first, although I had to cut it up a bit to make it larger. I tried the Pinnacle encoding, but I just dont understand it. I will continue to try and read the PDF file for the manual. Also, the dang Pinnacle will say estimated file size somewhere like 10.68 MB and then turn out to be only 2.78MB
Thanks,

Terry

"the dang Pinnacle will say estimated file size somewhere like 10.68 MB and then turn out to be only 2.78MB"

Welcome to the world of NLE. LOL

When you do a few you will be able to predict file size and quality better than the software can. So many variables.

New clip looks very good for analog video. Worth the wait, thanks.

What is NLE ?

Non Linear Editing.

If you have any intentions about getting serious in the video editing world you should bite the bullet and step up to either Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5 (IBM) or Apple Final Cut Pro 4.5 (5 now is available) (MAC) These are the two most used by tv and video and host/interconnect with a bunch of production software for audio, DVD and graphics. These programs share very similar controls making the transiton to work in both worlds pretty pain free. Other edit/capture software usually ends up teaching you bad habits before you make the move.

The Capture is the mostimportant part in having good quality end results.
I captured a 20 minute clip and it was 4.23 Gigs. This was the AVI format that you will use to encode it down to the final product that can be much smaller.

I use Windows Movie maker when encoding down to an acceptable file size for the web site. However I could never get the 20 minute clip to have good quality at 10 MB. Maybe a 3 or 4 minute clip could have decent quality encoded down to 10 Meg.

Ive learned that Adobe Premier captures the AVI from the camcorder with better quality thatn windows media encoder also. Always remember that the quality of the original capture from the camcorder is the most important step.

Get Adobe Premier Elements free 30 day trial and capture some video with it and see if that improves your quality.

I am surprised to hear that Adobe Prem is a top choice of TV productions. Taste in editing programs is subjective and everyone has their particular favorite, however I personally believe going from either Vegas 5/6 or Avid to Adobe would be a step down, not up. For a lot of reasons. I found the audio capabilities of Adobe lacking in comparison to Vegas and Avid and also found both Avid and Vegas to be more stable than Adobe.

Avid has been the standard in high end NLE's for several years and Vegas is quickly gaining support as more and more documentaries and low end TV productions are turning to DV and away from film and BETA SP. Two very big pluses for Vegas is it's cost and it's low demand on PC resources as compared to other NLE's in this range.

If you are looking for your first NLE Vegas would be a very good choice. If you are coming from another NLE you might find the learning curve of this program a bit steep at first because it does do things differently. However, those differences are there for a reason and in most cases a big improvement over working with other NLE formats. The only thing I found that Avid can do that Veags cannot is offer true real time editing, and some rendering time is not worth the $600 difference in price between the two.

Hmmm, I really didn't speak clearly here. far and away the most popular edit suite is FCP 4.5+. Nothing in the IBM world comes close and believe me if something did we'd all be using it because nothing makes me madder than dumping all that money into a Mac, usually 4 or 5 times the cost of a similar performance IBM! FCP and Adobe are popular because of their suite systems they integrate into. Audio (mixes, effects, corrections) is done in programs like Adobe Audition and FCP's Soundtrack Pro. NLE programs are only used for the very basic audio functions - level and pan setting.



Years ago it was not any more FCP 3 was the end of Avid and their crazy prices.