Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Treasure Quest

  1. #1

    Default Treasure Quest

    Hi all

    I thought you might like to see this. More of local interest, this is a record of one Sunday's production of 'Treasure Quest' on BBC Radio Norfolk. We were given full access and co-operation by the BBC team to make this film, and had two cameras at the studios and two in a chase car, following the action. The first attempt was snowed off, so the show was cancelled - only the second time in for years.

    The film was originally made for a club competition entitled 'Out and about' and was restricted to 5-minutes duration. The biggest problem was trying to condense a total of seven hours of footage into 5 minutes! This is a very slightly longer version.
    We had a lot of fun making this, and were invited into the studios for an interview on the follow-up programme, TQ Extra Time.

    This film recently got a rather average 3-stars at BIAFF.

    (Video deleted from YouTube, replacement further down this post)


    Cheers

    Paul
    Last edited by Paul Strutt; 03-25-2013 at 11:46 AM.

  2. #2

    Default

    What happened to the aspect ratio ? I presume it's some sort of glitch.

    I think this was put together quite well. I don't envy you having to cut down such a vast amount of material down to 5 mins.

    I would take a look at some of the interior shots with an eye on the white balance. For example look at the shot at around 1:55. This could have been one of the reasons you were only given 3-stars at BIAFF and not 4.

    It's still a well put together piece in my view.

    I'm sorry but I couldn't get Alan Partridge out of my head all the way thought the video.

  3. #3

    Default

    Thanks for pointing out about the aspect ratio... as you say, must be some kind of glitch. I'll have to take this one down and re-post it. Odd that the first few frames are OK, though. Maybe the YouTube processing.

    Some variations were caused due to different cameras being used, but I'll have a look at the colour cast you mentioned.

    Paul

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,842
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Paul, I stick a wide angle, standard definition dv avi up on YouTube last week and got similar results. Rendered as Mpeg2 and no issues. Just a possibility.
    Tim

  5. #5

    Default

    The problem is definitely with YouTube. I have checked the wmv file I uploaded and it's perfect. I know YT 'prefers' mp4, but I hate the downgrade in quality. It always seems a pity to see beautiful full HD being converted to mobile phone quality. MKV seems to work well... might be worth a try.

    The real problem we have here is Broaband speed: 1.5Mb/s on a good day. Pretty much like a piece of damp string, so uploading big files, such as avi or mpeg2 can take all day. Very tedious, but that's the price you pay for living rural.

    P

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    11,526
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default Treasure Quest

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Strutt View Post
    The problem is definitely with YouTube. I have checked the wmv file I uploaded and it's perfect. I know YT 'prefers' mp4, but I hate the downgrade in quality.
    P
    Why would that downgrade the quality? Your aspect ratio problem may well be a pixel aspect ratio issue. It's possible your WMV encode has non-square pixels. The YouTube encoder then assumed they are square, which means you end up with a squashed picture.

    I recommend that you follow the YouTube guidelines to get optimal size / quality for your video. Either way, there is no logical reason for a WMV encode to produce better results at a given bitrate to H264.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Peters View Post
    Either way, there is no logical reason for a WMV encode to produce better results at a given bitrate to H264.
    I agree. There is no logical reason for there to be a difference in quality, but there is. I have just rendered the file to MP4 at 9300kbps and to WMV at 6099kbps. The MP4 file has noticeable artefacting in shots where there is movement and generally looks less clear. Viewed side by side, the difference is quite marked. But my real point was that it seems a pity that we produce a video in quality 1080i or 1080p and then due to upload considerations, are forced into using a lower quality in order to keep filesize down.

    I have now uploaded the re-rendered WMV file to YouTube and it seems to play fine now. (I have also tweaked the colour balance for the in-studio shots, as suggested.)

    Much more enjoyable in its intended aspect ratio!


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •