SEARCH

The How-To Geek Forums Have Migrated to Discourse

How-To Geek Forums / Tutorials

Video capture, editing and publishing experiment

(11 posts)
  • Started 5 years ago by whs
  • Latest reply from whs
  • Topic Viewed 3625 times

whs
Posts: 17584

I have spent a few hours today to experiment with video capture, edit and publishing. I like to invite your comments on the results, which I think are stunningly good. I have to thank ScottW who is ,so to speak, the "father" of this experiment, because he found the 2 nifty programs I am using and also pointed me to Vimeo.

Here is what I did:

1. I "played" 2 .pps files on my screen and captured those with the WMCapture Program. I chose those .pps files because I thought that they were particularily challenging for a video capture progam. The "Mirror" file I got from Sinclair's skydrive.

2. Then I fist cropped the files with the Machete program because the files had my desktop views in the beginning and the end and I really only wanted he .pps part.

3. Since I made 2 seperate capture files, I had to put them together into 1 file. For this I also used the Machete program. I chose this pogram because unlike WMM, Machete does not alter your files - it just "pastes" them together. That guarentees that there is no loss of quality which can be significant with WMM.

4. Then I uploaded the pasted file to Vimeo. And here is the result: http://www.vimeo.com/3288748
Note: The captured files sometimes run a little faster than the originals because I kept clicking on them to advance them a little faster.

5. For comparison you can download the original .pps files from here.

I have also done a compilation of the 2 captured output files with WMM. Below you can see the data differences in the Machete and WMM outputs.

NOTE: The "Machete input" is the data from only 1 input file, but the parameters (other than size) of the other file are the same.

I think the results that those 2 little programs provide are impressive and it did not even suffer in the Vimeo transformation. Yes, one has to spend a modest sum for the licenses, but as always, quality does not come for nothing.
If I had to change one thing, I would probably increase the kbps for the audio capture.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
ScottW
Posts: 6609

whs, you certainly are putting together a lot of videos. I'm glad you found good tools for it and thanks for sharing your videos and experiences with us.

On this video, I found myself distracted by the mouse pointer. Even after it moved out of the center of the pictures, it continued to sit there in the corner catching my eye. Silly mouse pointer! :-)

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
whs
Posts: 17584

YA, I am always playing with my trackball - bad habit. What do you think about the result (in terms of quality) and the specs of the capture file?

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
techgranny
Posts: 1443

I think it's beautiful and also thank you for sharing your journey:) I hope to one day make pp presentations, baby steps.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
whs
Posts: 17584

techgranny, for learning PP, I highly recommend the following book: Power Point 2007 by Steve Johnson, Perspection Inc., ISBN 0-7897-3643-8 for $34.99. For the book, they also supply a bunch of data for practice cases on their website. The book is very well structured and easy to follow, but if you really do all of it, you can make it all the way to Microsoft Certified Application Specialist - one reason they supply all that data for in depth practice.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
ScottW
Posts: 6609

whs, this is not a good video to judge quality on because it is a video of a slideshow. The quality of this video depends on the original quality of the images that were stored in the .pps file. Some look very clear, others are a little fuzzy and I think it's because the images in the slideshow are that way. I guess that says something good about the video -- the quality of the original images is preserved.

As for the specs, the bitrate seems low at only 1200 kbps for a 1640x1048 video. Of course, this content is rather static -- no big car chases or explosions -- so that's probably enough. It also demonstrates how good the VC-1 encoder is. Finally, because you are able to cut and paste segments with Machete, I know you are not losing quality from the original capture.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
whs
Posts: 17584

Thanks for the input ScottW. I thought the mirror images and the ice would be a challenge for the capture. But as you suggested, I will make a test with car chases and explosions (or something similar) - have to find an appropriate clip. What do you think about the audio. Should I increase the bitrate? Since I neither see nor hear very well any more, it is always hard to judge for me - and the wife refuses to be the test person - LOL.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
Aleeve
Posts: 2818

Audio sounds good to me :)

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
whs
Posts: 17584

Thanks Aleeve for the input. The audio was not too great on the input to start with.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
ScottW
Posts: 6609

whs, there is room to increase the audio bitrate, even if you can't hear the difference. When you consider the bitrate of the video is 1.2 Mbps, the audio bitrate is a mere .128 Mbps which is small by comparison. I like at least 192 kbps audio for stereo, at least 384 kbps for 5.1 surround. For voice only, you can go with lower bitrates and a single track, no stereo. Audio bitrates, like video bitrates, depend on the content.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
whs
Posts: 17584

Understand, thanks. Here are my choices.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 



Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.