RocketTheme Joomla Templates
Moving Pictures
Written by Ryan Cathey   
Monday, 21 December 2009 18:15

When it comes to production value, you can't beat a good tracking shot, jib or crane move or just putting the whole camera on a glide-cam.  It makes the job of the cinematographer so much easier.  Dull setups and subjects suddenly pop out at you, lackluster lighting isn't quite so bad anymore and framing problems can all but be eliminated.  So why don't all videos call for these types of camera moves?  Besides the embedded emotional and psychological aspects each of these types of camera moves have taken on, there's one reason that's more practical but very important.  If you are planning on distributing your video online, beware of the moving camera!

Although compression technologies have come a long way in the past few years (even months), most online streaing services like YouTube and others still have trouble dealing with a moving camera.  To understand why, we must first look at how video compression works.  Don't worry, I'll be gentle.

The way a video is compressed is pretty ingenious and I want to make clear that this is an incredibly oversimplified explanation of the process, but it will suffice for the non-video professional.  In most videos, there are thirty different pictures per second that are displayed one after the other in order to give the illusion of the images "moving".  Each of these pictures are called "frames".  In uncompressed videos, each of these frames is an independent image.  In compressed video, there are certain frames that appear every certain number of frames (usually 30) that are independent, but the frames between these "key frames" are completely dependent on whatever "keyframe" came before it.  Here's another way to explain it:

  • Frame 1 is a full image
  • Frames 2-30 only have the parts of the image that are different than frame 1
  • Frame 31 is a full image
  • Frames 32-60 only have the parts of the image that are different than frame 31
  • And so on, and so on.

Because video is compressed like this, it makes it very difficult for videos made with moving cameras to look good when compressed at a high level like you would find on modt online streaming services.

If you've ever noticed the difference between how a DVD looks on yourTV when fast forwarding versus rewinding, this is caused by the same compression problem.  When fast forwarding, the DVD player still reads all of the frames from the DVD in order.  When rewinding, the DVD player sees frame 61 (a key frame) then 60, 59, 58...(frames based on key frame 31) then key frame 31.  As long as the DVD player hasn't seen the keyframe for each individual frame, it cannot "draw" any of thos frames because it doesn't know what to base them off of.

So if you have a video made with a stationary camera of a person being interviewed against a wall, frame 1 would include the whole image but frames 2-30 would only include the person (or more accurately their mouth, hands or anything else that moved since frame 1) and just copy the wall, chair, lights, etc., from frame 1.  If we shot that same scene with a moving camera, frame 1 would include everything in the shot, but so would frame 2, 3, 4, etc., because everything in the shot is now moving.

You can see how this type of shot can very quickly start to hinder a video compressor's ability to keep file sizes low yet keep images sharp.  None of this means that you can't use a moving camera shot in your productions now and then, but just know that in the end, too much movement in a video meant to be streamed online, can come back to bite you.  We at Factor 3 Productions usually have a rule of no more than 30-40% moving camera shots for a video that is going to be streamed online.  For traditional DVDs, we suggest a limit of 60-70%.  Of course we know rules were meant to be broken, and with the advent of H.264 compression standards and the constant evolution of technology, these rules will probably become extinct.  Keep in mind those other reasons why we do and don't use moving cameras in productions (emotional and psychological) trust your production company to help you make these types of decisions and your video projects will be successful.

For more information on how moving camera shot can spice up your next video project, contact us today.

 
YouTube Vs Vimeo
Written by Ryan Cathey   
Monday, 21 December 2009 17:49

As most of us know, YouTube is still the king of online video.  The sheer volume of videos, the affiliate programs, advertising, featured content and just the fact that if you're looking for episode 5 of season 1 of The Hogan Family, the first place you look is YouTube are certainly good reasons why the mammoth video sharing site deserves such acclaim.  After all, any of us could sit, mindlessly clicking the related videos feed for hours being entertained by the multicolored moving pixels that make up the most recent incarnation of our love affair with watching all things moving.

But what about if your needs aren't being met?  What if you don't really like being a small fish in a pond the size of the Atlantic?  What if you absolutely dispise the constant negative comments from angst-ridden pre-teens with dirtier mouths than a longshore fisherman facing a perfect storm?  What if quality is a bigger issue to you than the YouTube brand?

May I introduce Vimeo.  What can I say? they had HD video capability months before Youtube, their quality blows the behemoth out of the water and the community is far more polite, professional and overall committed to the art, science and magic that is video.  Also the layout is far less cluttered and isn't constantly having everything on the page compete for your attention.  Of course, in terms of SEO and other web centric topics than the black art "gurus" talk of, Vimeo is of course a little lacking.  But when you look at the advantages, Vimeo is a winner in my book (you could probably already tell from the hosted videos on this site).  Check them out and have fun looking at all of the great albums, groups and channels some people have created.