CP - preps sample for critique

[HankCastello]

Adam was brave, so I'll jump in there too.  Unfortunately, this isn't one of my better prep sequences, but it's one I've just finished editing, so I was able to throw a bug on it and post.

That first circling Varizoom move didn't work too well and I could fill this server up with what I don't like about this - but the darkness and lack of saturation are due to PP's encoding to WMV.  It looks beautiful when burned to DVD.  Anyone got  a cure for that?

http://www.castelloproductions.com/video/

[vismaster]

the darkness and lack of saturation are due to PP's encoding to WMV. It looks beautiful when burned to DVD. Anyone got a cure for that?

I think Quicktime (mov) video has the best quality.

[Forever Endeavor]

Sorry Hank, I just noticed this thread. Here's my critique:

It's great! Good footage (lighting, focus and such). You did a great job with using shots that will be sentimental to the couple and family.
Only thing I could say to maybe improve it would be to try to add a few more artsy shots in there. I know your focus was on the people but you can add a bit of emotion I think by adding some creative shots. I have an ongoing list of shots that I try to get when I'm at weddings. When I see something I like from another videographer I rip it off...erm...borrow it and add it to my list. Not that your video needs that to be effective but it might kick it up a half a notch.

[HankCastello]

try to add a few more artsy shots in there.

You're absolutely right, my wedding videos have consistently lacked in "artsy-ness".

Although I think "artsy" can be and often is overdone in wedding vidoes, there is no doubt that mine could use a heavy injection of "artsy"!

Care to share your list?   :lol:

[cnp1606]

Adam was brave, so I'll jump in there too.  Unfortunately, this isn't one of my better prep sequences, but it's one I've just finished editing, so I was able to throw a bug on it and post.

That first circling Varizoom move didn't work too well and I could fill this server up with what I don't like about this - but the darkness and lack of saturation are due to PP's encoding to WMV.  It looks beautiful when burned to DVD.  Anyone got  a cure for that?

http://www.castelloproductions.com/video/

Quicktime is by far the best. The problem with wma for the web is that some people operate on macs, (myself included) so wmas dont play on our computers, quicktime is a mac product but works well on a pc,  So not only do you get better quality you get compatibility from all users.

[HankCastello]

You're right about quality.  I'm not so sure that all Windows users have Quicktime capability.  I think they need to download Quicktime and many may not care to do so.  Most browsers have built-in Flash capability, so that may be the way to go.

[HankCastello]

I take it back - I no longer agree that Quicktime automatically offers better quality.  Here's a video with similar settings to my other one..

http://www.castelloproductions.com/vid6/

It looks great on DVD, but terrible on the Web in Quicktime.

By the way, this is from a Pakistani Engagement Party we video'd a few weeks go.

[Forever Endeavor]

i agree that QT is not the best. I am going to migrate to flv. Flash 9 seems to be way better than anything else out there.

[Josh Crain]

I love you guys, but you're wrong about Quicktime.  Encode your videos with the H.264 Quicktime Codec.  Flash just added support for H.264 as well, and it's the lightest weight and best-bang-for-the-buck codec I've discovered yet.

Great web encoding has a LOT to do with your settings for export as well.  These have worked really well for me in the past using HD footage:

File Extension: mov
Audio Encoder
AAC, Stereo (L R), 48.000 kHz
Video Encoder
Format: QT
Width: 640
Height: 360
Pixel aspect ratio: 0.75
Crop: None
Frame rate: 23.976
Frame Controls: Off
Codec Type: H.264
Multi-pass: On, frame reorder: On
Pixel depth: 24
Spatial quality: 75
Min. Spatial quality: 25
Temporal quality: 50
Min. temporal quality: 25
Average data rate: 1.536 (Mbps)
Fast Start: on

I don't have anything up right now for you to check out the settings, but a videographer I admire named Joe Simon uses the same ones.  You can check out one of his trailers here.

Also, Hank, I noticed you were using the Sorenson 3 codec for your QuickTime videos.  Check out this comparison to see why it's a tired dog compared to H.264.  It'll blow you away (I hope).

[HankCastello]

Thanks for the info, John!  I'll give that a try.  Flash still has the advantage of native brower support, and may be able to use the same codec (I'll have to research).  Gotta run to Tulsa for a wedding shoot.  Y'all have a good weekend!

[Forever Endeavor]

Good points. I forgot about that H.264 factor. You're right. That may be the way to go.

[Josh Crain]

One more point on your Quicktime concern, Hank.

You seem to be concerned that not everyone will have it installed on their computer in order to view your videos.  

Keep in mind, though, that everyone who has iTunes on their computer also has Quicktime.  I think it's safe to say that most people in their 20s and lower 30s have iTunes, and therefore Quicktime, installed.  And EVERYONE who has a Mac has Quicktime on their machines.

So you have an understandable concern, but I don't know that it's really that big a disadvantage.

[HankCastello]

Josh,

You've brought to light some excellent points about codecs, for which I am grateful.  And your logic regarding the usage percentages of Quicktime looks flawless.  However, I don't seem to be able to find the facts to back it up.  In fact -



(from http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0702/ )

..so it would seem that most Windows users, at least, do not have Quicktime installed.  

I had I-Tunes and it was just too invasive, so I removed it.  I have a host of other players, not the least of which is Windows Media Player, which keep updated more seamlessly than QT which messed up my Registry files a couple months back.

[Josh Crain]

Haha.  Okay, Hank.  But there are a few problems with your data.

First of all, it cover internet usage for everyone.  Realistically, my audience isn't everyone.  My audience is generally going to be young marrieds, between the ages of 20-30.  That's just me.  I find that most older couples don't think much of a video, or if they do they'll use their Uncle Ernie or they'll hire somone closer to their own age because they don't trust a punk kid like me (I'm 25).

So my audience (just speaking for myself here) is generally 20-30 years of age.  In other words?  The iPod generation.  That's right, among 20-30 year olds, the kind of people that would think to want a high-quality video very often own MP3 players.  And of those MP3 players, iPod is BY FAR the most popular one.  In fact, I even found a little chart...



(from Roughly Drafted)

So those are all Quicktime users.

Even so, I will agree that Windows Media Player has greater market penetration, even among the audience that I named.

However, at the end of the day, videos encoded in WMA format generally don't look anywhere near as good as those encoded with H.264 in Quicktime.  So my choice is easy: I want my videos to look better than the competition.

Besides, if you have a nice looking site and you have a link to download Quicktime in order to view your videos, most people who don't have it will just download it if they like what they see so far.

Anyway, that's just my thinking.  But if it comes down to who's chart is better, remember that mine looks way prettier than Hank's because mine was made on a Mac.  (relax, folks, that's a joke)

[HankCastello]

However, at the end of the day, videos encoded in WMA format generally don't look anywhere near as good as those encoded with H.264 in Quicktime. So my choice is easy: I want my videos to look better than the competition.

We can probably all agree that quality (with reasonable downloads and compatibilty) is the bottom line.

And your chart IS prettier than mine.   :lol:

I'd like to see someone do a test using the H.264 codec and the SAME quality/bandwidth settings, and the SAME video, on both WMA and QT formats.  I'll host them here side-by-side.  It'll likely be October before I could do it, maybe November.

I've got to catch up on my magazine reviews too - got lots to post as time permits.  

Thanks again Josh, for excellent posts and for your clear, logical thinking.

And for anyone who may think that a young (early twenties) videographer is a poor choice - I've seen some of the most professional, artistic stuff done by young people.  Think about it - if they're over thirty and and really, really good - would they still be doing wedding videos?  (and this from a sixty-year-old!)

..I'd better add to that - although I studied for film back in the sixties, Life intervened.  I got into video in the eighties & began shooting weddings, events & instructional videos but divorce divested me of tens of thousands of dollars worth of gear.  I am restarting as of less than five years ago.  Late starters like myself, can be a good choice for wedding videographers because there is a reason that we can't rise above the field (a late start), thus the attempts to raise the level of the field itself.