Aaaaarrrggghhhh!!!! I am so frustrated - please help

I think your main problem is that your clips are far too heavily compressed, what causes the pixelation. No way that a clip like e.g. "durham and river", with trees moving in the wind, can have only 70 MB @ 30 sec duration with Pjpeg codec 95%. Many of my 20 sec stock clips have 500+ MB after encoding. Only the most simple ones with little movement and colors stay below 400 or 300 MB.

I would suggest to try Mpeg Streamclip (freeware) for encoding. I have spent more than 2K $ on Final Cut Studio and Photoshop, use them almost every day and think they´re great. But for the final rendering into an MJpeg / PJpeg Q95% stock clip, either from the native camera file directly or from an (FCP 10 bit) uncompressed clip that has been edited with one of the other applications, I prefer Streamclip. It´s perfect just for this. No gazillions of checkboxes to take care of, only the essential ones. You need to install Quicktime Player to be able to use it.

Good luck,
Stefan

@vader: Please inform yourself before posting and mostly before making strong statements!!!

All AVCHD camcorders except for AVCHD Lite models are capable of recording 1080i interlaced video. For some models this is the only recording mode offered.
Currently, all consumer Sony AVCHD camcorders record 1080-line interlaced video only.


@ OP: You should check render at maximum depth. Than try and reduce the compression level down to 75%.

Christian

@ionescu - You're not 100% correct - turns out this specific model does only shoot in progressive. I downloaded the manual on this model. - The only time it puts out interlaced is on the out ports if you connect it to a TV. No need for your aggressiveness.

I believe based on the original information posted, that it would lead anyone to see that there was a conversion issue at play from interlaced to progressive.

However, as it is, it turns out to have been a simple setting on rendering that was not set. Of course, when someone makes aggressive comments such as you do here - it helps absolutely no one.

As Sony is implementing more and more H.264 into the newer cams, particularly the consumer versions, it is most likely that progressive is and will be the recording mode standard.

I am so sorry that anything I stated caused such an uproar in your world. But what I don't understand is that you didn't mention this about some of the other comments. Am I in your cross hairs for some reason?

Just as an FYI - this artist sent me one of the files so that I could see what was going on and run some tests with Premier Pro and some other apps as well. So the information I am posting is fact.

Perhaps we should all help one another when issues of this nature happen. Technology changes, software changes and format/codec changes can throw us all curve balls once in a while - so instead of throwing commentary for the sake of commentary for a quick spotlight - how about taking that energy into helping one another instead? - Just a thought.

Vader, you shouldn't take it personally. I apologize: my intention was not to offend/upset you. On the contrary my intention is to help.

I read and re read twice or three times the manual and I could not find word progressive in it. On the 66th page of that manual it says: "Signal format: PAL color, CCIR standards HDTV 1080/50i specification"

Here is a link to the http://pdf.crse.com/manuals/4170897131.pdf The link is from Sony UK product page.

50i means interlaced. We should help each other, but with the right information. Instead of acusing me of all those terrible things you should have tell me the page of the manual where it says it is progressive.

Again, please do not feel offended and there is no war, no uproar and I have no cross hairs. :)

Yes - I know it says that - look at the term HDTV 1080/50i but if you look at the recording format it states clearly on http://pdf.crse.com/manuals/4170897131.pdf:

Movie recording format:
HD: MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 AVCHD format
compatible
STD: MPEG-2 PS

I actually have an original file from this artist and verified the properties. It is progressive. When playing back through the out ports of the camera itself, then it converts for the purpose and standard you are talking about, and only then.

Doing a google search reveals even more interesting tidbits.. it seems SOny, Panasonic and others have what they call "native progressive" formats... it really is a confusing standard across the board.

Hi gang,

Well, well, well, I never did intend this thread to cause so much trouble.

Firstly Andy (Vadervideo) – you have been brilliant in supporting me with this issue, you have taken the time, emailed me, looked at my footage, diagnosed the problem, rendered the file and ftp’d it all back to me – for that I am very grateful – you are a total star, I know you are a very busy man and to take time out of your busy schedule to help someone is overwhelming, what I didn’t expect is for you to be taking abuse from someone who should know better!!!

@ionescu

Your comments were uncalled for and very rude. You harp on about not offending Vader yet you post this rubbish???

ionescu says:
@vader: Please inform yourself before posting and mostly before making strong statements!!!

All AVCHD camcorders except for AVCHD Lite models are capable of recording 1080i interlaced video. For some models this is the only recording mode offered.
Currently, all consumer Sony AVCHD camcorders record 1080-line interlaced video only.


Interlaced footage looks bad on a computer monitor?? What the hell??? If you really think that then I suggest you take a look at some best sellers with interlaced footage – click on the thumbnail at 100% - they look brilliant – faultless – perhaps you need glasses – I don’t know. I feel your comments along with exclamation marks were totally and utterly out of order towards Vader – your apology was the least you could do!! Although I found it hilarious that you also said “my intention was not to offend/upset you. On the contrary my intention is to help” – LOL

Which bit of your rude comments did you think would help anyone???

As Vader already pointed out – I sent him clips – he worked on them got back to me with help and support – He is a good person and very talented – take a look at his website – He does not deserve the likes of you and your nasty comments and please don’t bother replying with some rubbish about I meant no offence – you clearly don’t have any idea how to speak to people.

Vader – again thank you so much for your help – I will be in touch

If anyone would like to comment on this – please be polite – there really is no need for rudeness – we are all here for the same reason – to earn a few extra pounds selling our work.

Jen

Just my 2-cents:

Interlaced footage DOES look bad on a progressive monitor. But if there is little to no motion (specifically, horizontal motion), then it would be acceptable. Even unnoticeable in some situations.

But try and shoot a football game from the sidelines in an interlaced format and play it on your computer monitor. All the motion would have "jaggies". These are the interlaced fields rearing their ugly heads.

Conversely, progressive footage can look just as bad on an interlaced monitor (which these days, are becoming more rare). Ever try to watch a pan, shot with a progressive camera, on a "traditional" tube television? I have, and it makes my eyes water.

I think that most buyers aren't too educated on this matter. Why would they, unless they worked in this business? And sometimes, the interlacing problem just goes unnoticed to the untrained eye.

But subtle as it may be, it's in there. Sort of like Ragu sauce.

I much prefer spaghetti with Ragu sauce however. ;)

Looks like another thread to move to artist only section. Crap why does anyone want to start conflicts here? If an artist disagrees why not just leave that idea alone and make your own suggestion without calling out names or artists. This kind of back-biting does nothing but scare buyers away.

Move it to artist forum and it die.

Hope Andy helped Jen and we can move on.

I don't see a conflict here. I just see a lively, opinionated thread about the difference between interlaced and non-interlaced.

And my post just simply set things right.... :)