[romeo615]


Hi, new user here...So i just got a fdr ax1 and i love the Codec: XAVC-S and how the size is not big....

 

Then i go into after effects cc do all the effects i need and now this is the part im stuck on....So for rendering i picked lossless,quicktime,animation, but they makes the files so super big..as i render  like im at 11.8gb so far for 400 frames of 5008....the whole file raw from my camera was only 1.8gb shot in 4k 60fps 150mb....

 

i tried to render with the lossless quicktime,and mpeg4 and h246 or w/e the number is with a high bitrate but the file size came out to around 500mb but with a loss of quality i can not accept....

 

Id like to render the video in after effects without the file turning into a monster 33+gb file and without losing quality...

Its a must i use after effects and am able to render good clips out in 4k(i know its not tru 4k)

 

i have no clue what other render settings to try and knew alot of you here have been using the ax1 and ax100  so maybe some 1 could really offer some help and understand what i mean...

 

so the next thing i wonder is if there is no other option then to make those super huge files if i then edit in sony vegas 12 can i use the Codec: XAVC-S  to render it out for clients/youtube without it being some monster file...

 

and 1 last thing i spent around 6k on the fdr ax1 with tripod and cards....i do music videos...I cant afford a Red camera,and now wonder did i get the wrong camera and is there other cameras like the black magic camera (3k cost) or a canon that would work better then the ax1....the 1 thing i dont like is when u pan or move the camera takes a mili sec to adjust and u get grainy like pixles when u move...ive seen it on tons of youtube videos...and wonder with how music video do alot of crane and movement shots  is there a better camera in the 6k price range then the ax1.....

 

 

I really watched this topic grow as people talked about the ax100  so this was the only place i felt like you guys would know what im talking about...

 

i use after effects 95% of the time and sony vegas to render for youtube...but now id like to use the youtube 4k option on my videos

so thats why i went with this camera

 

Originally Posted by Tugela  /t/1510309/sony-4k-handycam-fdr-ax100-thread/750#post_24518094


This thread is about the AX100, not the AX1. Maybe you need to start a new thread?

 

Originally Posted by romeo615  /t/1510309/sony-4k-handycam-fdr-ax100-thread/750#post_24518103

 

ok i will...but the question was aimed at the people i seen here using the same codec as the ax100..again the codec and how to render it in after effects for best quality and small file size.....

 

seeing as how some here have the ax100 and use the codec why not ask them instead of making a new thread based on camera model...not the codec issue!!!

 

but w/e ill make the new thread!!!       still open to answers from those that do know...

 

and please if u dont have a answer dont offer your 2 cents...im looking for real answers not snarky cheap shots!!!

 

Respect...Romeo615

 

[coolscan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by romeo615  /t/1523842/fdr-ax1-codec-xavc-s-and-after-effects-rendering#post_24518112


Hi, new user here...So i just got a fdr ax1 and i love the Codec: XAVC-S and how the size is not big....


Then i go into after effects cc do all the effects i need and now this is the part im stuck on....So for rendering i picked lossless,quicktime,animation, but they makes the files so super big..as i render  like im at 11.8gb so far for 400 frames of 5008....the whole file raw from my camera was only 1.8gb shot in 4k 60fps 150mb....

I am no expert on this......I have seen the same complain for HD. It is always because of wrong setting in the Adobe media encoder.


What I have seen recommended is don't use Quicktime, Just export H264 MOV at like 80mb 4K. Or 60mb VBR..

It is also much about all the other settings in the media encoder which has to be right - wrong choices increase file size.

A lot of effects shouldn't increase the file size as it is in the end just video - but effects of course increase render time.


The video in this link , although for HD and a little old, should show you the best settings, just change the settings that are applicable for 4K.

For archiving - which you should render first - many recommend ProRes or DNxHD.


If you want to put the video on YouTube or Vimeo - use the presets in media encoder.

Quote:
so the next thing i wonder is if there is no other option then to make those super huge files if i then edit in sony vegas 12 can i use the Codec: XAVC-S  to render it out for clients/youtube without it being some monster file...

Should be no difference between Vegas and Adobe CS 7 when it comes to rendered size.

Quote:
and 1 last thing i spent around 6k on the fdr ax1 with tripod and cards....i do music videos...I cant afford a Red camera,and now wonder did i get the wrong camera and is there other cameras like the black magic camera (3k cost) or a canon that would work better then the ax1....the 1 thing i dont like is when u pan or move the camera takes a mili sec to adjust and u get grainy like pixles when u move...ive seen it on tons of youtube videos...and wonder with how music video do alot of crane and movement shots  is there a better camera in the 6k price range then the ax1.....

With such a new model camera you are really on the cutting edge of early adopters - not many can give good advice for that camera yet.


The camera would not have been my choice for Music videos - it is really a small sensor video camera - which is ok for interviews and documentaries but is very limited in the cinematic expression department compared to a camera with larger sensor.

Remember that up to some years ago - when people wanted cinematic styles using video cameras they used big expensive lens adapters with spinning ground-glass discs - these adapters disappeared when large sensor cameras and videoDSLR's arrived.


But then I don't know in which style you make your music videos - so maybe a small sensor video camera is a good choice for you?

Quote:
i use after effects 95% of the time and sony vegas to render for youtube...but now id like to use the youtube 4k option on my videos

so thats why i went with this camera

I would recommend that you use Premiere for editing and After Effects for effects - you can easily switch back and forth on the same project - and then render all project out through Adobe media Encoder.


Seems to me that you have jumped on a 4K camera a little bit too early based on some wrong reasons like the one you mention above, limited funds and such.

Early adopters are really engaging in "extreme sports" - depending on what other camera equipment you have - a GH4 or even a Blackmagic camera would have been a better choice and saved you some money - but you would have needed some rigging equipment options - particularly for the Blackmagic camera.

 

[romeo615]


So testing out the h.264 with 150 bit rate did the trick in keeping the file smaller and not losing alot of quality...but it made my 60 fps render to 30 fps so im not sure how that will effect my twixtor slo mo shots...

 

[coolscan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by romeo615  /t/1523842/fdr-ax1-codec-xavc-s-and-after-effects-rendering#post_24518412


So testing out the h.264 with 150 bit rate did the trick in keeping the file smaller and not losing alot of quality...but it made my 60 fps render to 30 fps so im not sure how that will effect my twixtor slo mo shots...

Red shooters use 50-80mbs for web video, which YouTube compress automatically down to 12-15mbs..

Did you film in 60fps and edit on a 60fps timeline? No normal playback option for 60fps are available so that seems to be wasted.


If you filmed in 60fps - I recommend you convert it to 30fps - and don't film in 60fps again for a 60fps output. Normally, music videos are shot in 24fps.

Then you would have 100Mbps at 30P/24P with 4:2:0 as maximum.

 

[romeo615]



Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan  /t/1523842/fdr-ax1-codec-xavc-s-and-after-effects-rendering#post_24518402



I am no expert on this......I have seen the same complain for HD. It is always because of wrong setting in the Adobe media encoder.


What I have seen recommended is don't use Quicktime, Just export H264 MOV at like 80mb 4K. Or 60mb VBR..

It is also much about all the other settings in the media encoder which has to be right - wrong choices increase file size.

A lot of effects shouldn't increase the file size as it is in the end just video - but effects of course increase render time.


The video in this link , although for HD and a little old, should show you the best settings, just change the settings that are applicable for 4K.

For archiving - which you should render first - many recommend ProRes or DNxHD.


If you want to put the video on YouTube or Vimeo - use the presets in media encoder.

Should be no difference between Vegas and Adobe CS 7 when it comes to rendered size.

With such a new model camera you are really on the cutting edge of early adopters - not many can give good advice for that camera yet.


The camera would not have been my choice for Music videos - it is really a small sensor video camera - which is ok for interviews and documentaries but is very limited in the cinematic expression department compared to a camera with larger sensor.

Remember that up to some years ago - when people wanted cinematic styles using video cameras they used big expensive lens adapters with spinning ground-glass discs - these adapters disappeared when large sensor cameras and videoDSLR's arrived.


But then I don't know in which style you make your music videos - so maybe a small sensor video camera is a good choice for you?

I would recommend that you use Premiere for editing and After Effects for effects - you can easily switch back and forth on the same project - and then render all project out through Adobe media Encoder.


Seems to me that you have jumped on a 4K camera a little bit too early based on some wrong reasons like the one you mention above, limited funds and such.

Early adopters are really engaging in "extreme sports" - depending on what other camera equipment you have - a GH4 or even a Blackmagic camera would have been a better choice and saved you some money - but you would have needed some rigging equipment options - particularly for the Blackmagic camera.

well on the 1 hand i cant afford a red camera so in the word of under ground videos 4k is the closest i can get to super crispy quality....

I do kind of think i made a bad choice in buying this camera in terms of how my footage looks super crispy but to camcorder

 

i really ty for ur reply...and im uploading a video to youtube now thanks to the h.246 w/e its call codecs...i def was doing wrong with going with quick time....

I wouldnt mind keeping this camera if i can find a balance in getting the film/music video look...and getting rid of the movement grain this camera adds(will show in video)

but im really leaning towards the black magic camera...i dont know if its the way people colored the videos or the cam made em look really movie/music video like...but the lack of slo mo in ghetto music videos could really come back to bite me if i do buy that camera...

 

or if you think a better camera in the 6,000 price range would give better quality then both im open to other options...and plan to take the ax1 back monday if the black magic would be the better choice...

 

Here is a clip straight from the camera i uploaded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8M8jRHq5Kw

 

And here is 1 i tried to get a film look (tho i tend to record in 60fps for slo mo) this was 60 fps  but the codec made it go 24 frames

 

For the ghetto video market most people use canon 7d with hella grain n low light noise....so a 4k cam will really give me a edge in getting a super crispy look...my pc is a 3d gaming pc so it eats 4k up with no prob so i def wanna be able to offer that 4k option to my clients....

 

[romeo615]



Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan  /t/1523842/fdr-ax1-codec-xavc-s-and-after-effects-rendering#post_24518441



Red shooters use 50-80mbs for web video, which YouTube compress automatically down to 12-15mbs..

Did you film in 60fps and edit on a 60fps timeline? No normal playback option for 60fps are available so that seems to be wasted.


If you filmed in 60fps - I recommend you convert it to 30fps - and don't film in 60fps again for a 60fps output. Normally, music videos are shot in 24fps.

Then you would have 100Mbps at 30P/24P with 4:2:0 as maximum.

about the 60 fps thing, im new to shooting in it as i was an editor and the director would send it to me in slo mo already...i got a program twixtor that does slo mo really good so i want to be able to go super slo back to real time and this program needs the 60 fps to get a smooth look....

 

i never planed to shoot in 24 fps (but i will now...tho i pref the 150mp record option giving by doing 60 fps) again i wanna squeeze every drop of crispy i can out of the video....

 

if i use twixtor to go from 100% speed to 5% speed and back with a 24fps render will  it  knock off the slo mo effect or slow it down more then 5%?

 

again ty for all ur help, been up past 3 nights reading everything on google about the codec problem

 

[brunerww]

Hi romeo - I apologize - didn't see this thread until after I answered your PM. I am very happy that it looks like you've solved your rendering problem.


I still think you should look into the 1080/96p slow motion feature on the upcoming Panasonic GH4 for your music videos.


Here is what it looks like (please watch at your monitor's highest resolution):

Very smooth 4X slow motion - without Twixtor frame interpolation and blurring.


Good luck!


Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

 

[coolscan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by romeo615  /t/1523842/fdr-ax1-codec-xavc-s-and-after-effects-rendering#post_24518505


about the 60 fps thing, im new to shooting in it as i was an editor and the director would send it to me in slo mo already...i got a program twixtor that does slo mo really good so i want to be able to go super slo back to real time and this program needs the 60 fps to get a smooth look....


i never planed to shoot in 24 fps (but i will now...tho i pref the 150mp record option giving by doing 60 fps) again i wanna squeeze every drop of crispy i can out of the video....


if i use twixtor to go from 100% speed to 5% speed and back with a 24fps render will  it  knock off the slo mo effect or slow it down more then 5%?


again ty for all ur help, been up past 3 nights reading everything on google about the codec problem

It easily becomes a misunderstanding when people refer to what framerate certain clips are shot in for special purposes, and not refer to the time base for the edit.


If you want to have slow-mo using Twixtor, then of course you use 60fps to shoot those sequences - but your edit timebase and regular speed footage must be 30fps or 24fps and not 60fps.

Editing 60fps or even 120fps or higher slowed down with Twixtor doesn't increase your bitrate or increase your file-size, because it will playback at 30/24fps - which also is the only framerate YouTube accept.


You regular speed footage will of course be shot in-camera at 30/24fps, which means that any bitrate over 100mbs (the cameras maximum bitrate) is unnecessary and doesn't give you any improved quality - and half of that should be sufficient for any web publishing (which will compress it further)


Be aware that when you set your export settings in the media encoder, it might be that 30fps will not yield the best quality because the camera might actually record at 29.97fps - the same goes for 24fps>23.97 and 60fps>59.97.

As an example; Pansonic GH4 shoots at 23.98 - 29.98.


This you have to check with your camera - eventually use a media info program and run a clip through it to see the exact framerate.

Same goes for ingesting clips into Twixtor, for best quality it should have the exact same base framerate as the regular speed content captured by the camera.


I am curios to know; What sort of camera have you been using before? - Have you shot any music videos before or any type of drama production?

Are you familiar with Black-Magic Resolve software for color-grading?

Quote:
Originally Posted by romeo615  /t/1523842/fdr-ax1-codec-xavc-s-and-after-effects-rendering#post_24518459


or if you think a better camera in the 6,000 price range would give better quality then both im open to other options...and plan to take the ax1 back monday if the black magic would be the better choice...

As I said in my previous post and brunerww also recomend - please take your camera back to the shop and buy a Pansonic GH4 - it is better for you and you save a lot of money which you can use on lenses, ND-filters, batteries, sliders and Lights, all things you will need when shooting music videos.


If you want to learn more about how to use the GH4 in the best way, read everything you can about the previous models GH2 and GH3 - they are very similar - the biggest difference is that GH4 is 4K while the others are HD.

You will find many tips on shooting music videos by googling those earlier cameras.


The Blackmagic 4K is really more for experienced shooters that has a lot of rigging equipment to support it. It is not a easy camera to work with.


If you are on a Mac - buy FCP-X and take time to learn it, it will be easier.

 

[romeo615]


based off youtube videos...what is it about the BM camera that gives a movie feel, where as the gh4 videos i saw i didnt much like the quality or the feel it had....?

 

and can you buy the BM camera at a store i live in nyc so no prob getting to a store? I think i'd be willing to work with the learning curve if i can make my video look like the 1s i saw on youtube with a easy mojo or looks effect....or maybe its alot more then that and i just dont know any better....

 

i saw this gh4 video and it just look meh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFMsrBi0nD0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beqdF5dpbys

 

and then there is this video from a BM camera http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujFz60KXq_A     this blew me away...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpxlygUX2UI

 

i know i might just be a noob and not understand all the work that went into the BM video  but it sure has that big budget music video look....

 

can the same look be done on the ax1 or gh4?  is it all a matter of how they graded it or the dynamic range of the film option on the BM camera...

 

keep in mind most of my shots will be on a tripod and static... or a lil slide to the side shot, i doubt i try to film holding the camera..

most videos will cut from b roll to slo mo shots as  filler and wide mid and tight shots and maybe a crane here n there...

 

does the gh4 have a setting to make it look like the black magic  videos?

 

[romeo615]



Quote:
I am curios to know; What sort of camera have you been using before? - r.

Well ive done instudio edits for shade 45,done about 10 music videos,but always as a editor...im tired of working with grainy shaky footage from canon 7d so i figured  for my budget i wanna get a 4k cam to give me a edge...cause in the land of ghetto videos its all about the crispy quality, low too no noise,and slo mo....we look at people like rick ross or wayne who have the red camera videos and try to get as close as we can to those crispy shots....

 

i sent u a reply but not sure if it went through it had youtube links....i hope it pops up so u can see the clips that really stand out and i think would make my clients drool...

 

[coolscan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by romeo615  /t/1523842/fdr-ax1-codec-xavc-s-and-after-effects-rendering#post_24519337


based off youtube videos...what is it about the BM camera that gives a movie feel, where as the gh4 videos i saw i didnt much like the quality or the feel it had....?

Mostly CinemaDNG RAW, flat profile slightly larger sensor and that people that buy and rig a BM camera often are more experience DPs that shoot in a more cinematic style than the GH4 crowd. They also often know more about color-grading - Davinci Resolve full version is included ( the lite version anybody can download for free ) - its the same people making the camera that make the software.

Quote:
and can you buy the BM camera at a store i live in nyc so no prob getting to a store? I think i'd be willing to work with the learning curve if i can make my video look like the 1s i saw on youtube with a easy mojo or looks effect....or maybe its alot more then that and i just dont know any better....

It is a lot more too it - it isn't the camera that make the movie, you must know what you are doing, how you shoot and how you light - knowing how to shoot around limits and still get great footage you can turn into beautiful images.


Both cameras can be bought in shops in NY - there might be a waiting list as they both are in great demand and low quantities released.

Quote:
i saw this gh4 video and it just look meh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFMsrBi0nD0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beqdF5dpbys

This is just test footage - the camera have just been launched in the shops so you can't expect much good footage yet.

Here is another graded test - gives you more of a idea of the technical quality.

Quote:
and then there is this video from a BM camera http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujFz60KXq_A     this blew me away...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpxlygUX2UI

The first one there is made by Philip Bloom who is a very experienced DP, so no surprised about the quality - this was a unfinished prototype which he wasn't very happy with.

Quote:
i know i might just be a noob and not understand all the work that went into the BM video  but it sure has that big budget music video look....

You can read his experience here where he has added new footage shot recently with a production version of the camera.

Notice how much extra equipment you need for having the camera i useful condition, like larger batteries, extra monitor/EVF and a rig to mount it on - and of course lenses.

The BM camera is also not very light sensitive so you can't shoot in the dark evening without extra light.

Quote:
can the same look be done on the ax1 or gh4?  is it all a matter of how they graded it or the dynamic range of the film option on the BM camera...

Not on the ax1, because it has such a small sensor that you will not be able to get the shallow DoF.

GH4 ought to be able to achieve this if you know how to do it (shooting/grading).

Quote:
keep in mind most of my shots will be on a tripod and static... or a lil slide to the side shot, i doubt i try to film holding the camera..

most videos will cut from b roll to slo-mo shots as  filler and wide mid and tight shots and maybe a crane here n there...


does the gh4 have a setting to make it look like the black magic  videos?

The point is really to not use the settings in camera - but it is too early to tell what settings will be best for color-grading with GH4 and getting the look you want because it so new.

The BM camera - which is also new - has been around as prototype for a long time, therefore you will see more good footage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by romeo615  /t/1523842/fdr-ax1-codec-xavc-s-and-after-effects-rendering#post_24519405


Well ive done instudio edits for shade 45,done about 10 music videos,but always as a editor...im tired of working with grainy shaky footage from canon 7d so i figured  for my budget i wanna get a 4k cam to give me a edge...cause in the land of ghetto videos its all about the crispy quality, low too no noise,and slo mo....we look at people like rick ross or wayne who have the red camera videos and try to get as close as we can to those crispy shots....

If you haven't been using a camera shooting a lot - it is huge learning curve - even if you are an experienced editor.

I don't recommended that you buy a expensive camera and think that you can hire yourself out to a music video production and thinking you will succeed - that might end in an embarrassing disaster for you.

Start small and shoot for yourself and with friends and make a reel of good footage you can shop around after you have learned how to use the camera.

Even if you have been given a lot of bad footage to edit - it doesn't mean you can do better or even as good right from the start with a new camera.


The GH4 can shoot as crisp footage as the BM camera - equal for both is that you have to know how to do it.

Quote:
i sent u a reply but not sure if it went through it had youtube links....i hope it pops up so u can see the clips that really stand out and i think would make my clients drool...

Like the last one - it is all about the light, not about the camera - shot at sunset - the time of day (or at sunrise) every smart DP use to make beautiful and impressive images.


.

 

[romeo615]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZpI_qfyWaI

here is my older demo reel....i just shot a video a hour ago with the ax1 for a client so ill see how it turns out and post it up...

and thankyou for the advice...i even found a store in ny that has the camera so i think im going to take the sony back even if i wait for the gh4

 

ill post  the ax 1 music video to ur pm  might be a week or 2

 

[romeo615]



Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan  /t/1523842/fdr-ax1-codec-xavc-s-and-after-effects-rendering#post_24518402


- a GH4 or even a Blackmagic camera would have been a better choice and saved you some money - but you would have needed some rigging equipment options - particularly for the Blackmagic camera.

I think im going to take your advice....i boxed up the sony and its shipping back tomm, the video i shot it looks super clear, almost to clear i guess in the camcordery kind of way or maybe a broadcast look, but i dont know how i feel about it..

I d/l'ed some black magic footage and using the same color fix i used for my video it looked way more like a music video with only a saved preset in magic bullet looks...(though i own the whole suite mojo,colorama,ect..)

 

So is it the fuzzy background (dynamic range?is what makes the movie style look or just something with the bigger sensor?  and i can make a roto mask around my rapper and put the layer in 3d and use the after effects camera to make dynamic range...would this be a simi bootleg way of pulling it off?  more or less keeping him crispy and making the background look in my words a lil fuzzy or blurry?   if i could link you some videos id show u just how it ranges from some people doing iphone looking videos, 7d grainy night videos,up to my lvl 7d-5d with after effects,to the type of videos lil wayne or the big budget people...though i have seen some sloppy edits on red camera most videos i see on it just look ultra clear in rick ross videos