What determines video recording quality?

BrianNC said:
Quick question about that cam. I was researching the RunCam 2 after I read your post and I read something that seemed to be saying depending on the rate, etc, you used, that the camera would divide the video into 5 min segments, I think due to how large one video can be. Is there a resolution that still looks good and you can get a whole longer flight in one video? Or did I read that wrong?
Click to expand...

I'll have to look into that. I know it automatically divides into sections, but I think it's longer than 5 minutes on 1080p @ 30fps. I want to say it's 15 minutes. I didn't like it at first, but I actually prefer it now because a long video takes a loooooong time to upload or copy to the computer. The shorter clips don't take long, and if you're editing, you'll usually be cutting it up anyway. You can also just splice them together if you want a continuous video. That said, I definitely understand the preference to have a seamless video, and again, I'll have to check into it.
 
OkieFlyer said:
I'll have to look into that. I know it automatically divides into sections, but I think it's longer than 5 minutes on 1080p @ 30fps. I want to say it's 15 minutes. I didn't like it at first, but I actually prefer it now because a long video takes a loooooong time to upload or copy to the computer. The shorter clips don't take long, and if you're editing, you'll usually be cutting it up anyway. You can also just splice them together if you want a continuous video. That said, I definitely understand the preference to have a seamless video, and again, I'll have to check into it.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. That actually could be an advantage. You wouldn't even need to upload some clips, so you're already taking care of editing before you even start.
 
OkieFlyer said:
Yes I did. Recorded in 1080p @ 30 fps. Edited in Cyberlink PowerDirector. I ended up producing the video as MPEG-2 1920x1080/60i (25 MBPS). What do you suggest, Rich?

P.S. Bryan, let me get a quick answer, and I'll stop hijacking your thread. Many apologies.
Click to expand...

I'm not too familiar with that software. I downloaded a trial when I was moving away from Adobe products, but ultimately chose another program.

Is MPEG-4 an available output option? If available, I'd try using h.264 to encode to an MP4 output file at native resolution and framerate and 24 Mbps or better video bitrate.

Otherwise, you can look for a "match source" or "match input" setting in the output encoding. That in theory should force rendering at the same values as the source, provided that the hardware and software are capable of doing so and the format is supported for output. (For licensing reasons, some software support importing from but not outputting to certain formats.)

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
I'm not too familiar with that software. I downloaded a trial when I was moving away from Adobe products, but ultimately chose another program.

Is MPEG-4 an available output option? If available, I'd try using h.264 to encode to an MP4 output file at native resolution and framerate and 24 Mbps or better video bitrate.

Otherwise, you can look for a "match source" or "match input" setting in the output encoding. That in theory should force rendering at the same values as the source, provided that the hardware and software are capable of doing so and the format is supported for output. (For licensing reasons, some software support importing from but not outputting to certain formats.)
Click to expand...

EDIT: There may also be a multipass encoding feature. That usually results in a bit better output quality (but takes longer because of the multiple passes).

Rich
 
eman1200 said:
sure! and also don't you have a longer video of monkeyaerobatics?
Click to expand...

I was flying a little foam RC jet that day, and due to severe lack of skills, I let the thing get away from me. The little jet ended up about a half mile away in the middle of a soy bean patch. Since I couldn't drive into the field, I took off walking. In the middle of the bean patch, there are irrigation ditches, which are wet. Since Einstein said Wet+Dirt=Mud, when I attempted to jump over said ditches, gravity counteracted the soaring ability of my 285 pounds of pure beefcakeness and I came to rest knee-deep in said mud. Said mud was Earth's clever concoction of clay and silt which creates a mighty suction when trying to pull out of it. When the pullout was complete, I couldn't help but notice that Mother Earth had required of me a pair of size 13 shoes, and retained them deep within the quagmire of aviation shame. Undeterred, I trudged on shoeless deeper into the field of beans with only a thick layer of mud on my feet to protect them. The going was tough, but I eventually retrieved the little foam jet and walked the half mile back across the field. However, once more I had to cross the ditch of despair. This time, I got a running start and flew across that ditch like a fat kid in a winged laundry basket. Having fared little better than the first trip across the ditch, I again plunged into the cool squishiness of the muck. Noticing that I had already soiled my Sunday school clothes, I decided to retrieve my kicks from the Earths grasp and now went elbow deep in the pit. After retrieving those, I returned to my RC brethren at the airfield and resumed my exploits with the Monkey. Having no shoes worth wearing, I simply rolled up my jeans and commenced without delay. And thus, the story of the Dirty Hobo and the Monkey. It's kind of the redneck version of Curious George, but with a Hobo looking dude instead of the man in the yellow hat, and the monkey is addicted to hookers and blow.

And yes, the monkey acro vid was posted in the Monkey to Oshkosh and Beyond thread, IIRC.
 
Last edited:
RJM62 said:
I'm not too familiar with that software. I downloaded a trial when I was moving away from Adobe products, but ultimately chose another program.

Is MPEG-4 an available output option? If available, I'd try using h.264 to encode to an MP4 output file at native resolution and framerate and 24 Mbps or better video bitrate.

Otherwise, you can look for a "match source" or "match input" setting in the output encoding. That in theory should force rendering at the same values as the source, provided that the hardware and software are capable of doing so and the format is supported for output. (For licensing reasons, some software support importing from but not outputting to certain formats.)

Rich
Click to expand...

I don't believe MPEG-4 is an option on my version of the software. Thank you for the tips. I'll do some fiddling and see what I can come up with.
 
OkieFlyer said:
I don't believe MPEG-4 is an option on my version of the software. Thank you for the tips. I'll do some fiddling and see what I can come up with.
Click to expand...

I tried the Cyberlink product you're using and wasn't happy with it, although frankly I don't remember why. That may have been one of the reasons.

You may want to try new software if that limitation is true. That's a pretty severe limitation, especially if you publish on YouTube. (MP4 is their preferred format.)

Almost all video editing suites offer free trials. There also are some FOSS programs that are quite good; and Lightworks (which is as high-end as video editing software gets) offers a free version which is quite powerful. But it also has a steep learning curve -- and I'm talking Spielberg steep. It's not for the faint of heart.

In my personal opinion, Magix Movie Edit Pro is a good compromise for most users. It's powerful enough for most projects, inexpensive enough for most budgets, has limited but well-chosen effects, and is stable. The interface is a bit simplistic for those used to higher-end professional products, but that's hardly a disadvantage for those who aren't. It's worth a free trial if you're outgrowing your current software.

Rich
 
I've been thinking about videoing some of my flights, but I know nothing about it really. Is iMovie on my MacBook Pro sufficient enough to just do some simple editing in order to post to YT? I'm not really wanting to do a full-out production like some do.
 
JayCray and I flew from Dallas to Austin to eat at Dairy Queen today.
Need to mount on a more sturdy surface next time

 
BrianNC said:
So what is the difference in the Session and the Black?
Click to expand...

Hero 5 black and hero 5 black session are the same only the session does not have a led viewing screen.
$199 vs $399 for a video screen so I opted for the session.

It will connect via bluetooth to your phone so you can get an idea about the shot that way.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Hero 5 black and hero 5 black session are the same only the session does not have a led viewing screen.
$199 vs $399 for a video screen so I opted for the session.

It will connect via bluetooth to your phone so you can get an idea about the shot that way.
Click to expand...

Ah. I was just going to ask how you know you have the camera set up right and know what you're seeing.
 
BrianNC said:
Ah. I was just going to ask how you know you have the camera set up right and know what you're seeing.
Click to expand...
Yup, it connects to the phone live so you can see, adjust settings, snap a photo, start recording.
It would be tough to use w/o the phone since the limited number of buttons on the device can make it a challenge to navigate through menus.
 
Just because I haven’t seen it mentioned yet, in addition to bitrate, sensor size is also quite important especially in low-light or wide dynamic range.

If you have a way to mount it and you want to see seriously good video, rent something like a Nikon D810 with a pro-grade lens. Instead of using the built-in memory cards, use an HDMI cable to a digital video recorder...this gets you a totally uncompressed video stream. This is something around 750Mb bit rate, and the huge 24x36mm sensor captures incredible detail with something like a 15-stop dynamic range.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Hero 5 black and hero 5 black session are the same only the session does not have a led viewing screen.
$199 vs $399 for a video screen so I opted for the session.

It will connect via bluetooth to your phone so you can get an idea about the shot that way.
Click to expand...

The Hero 5 Black is on sale for $299.00 with a bundle of extra paraphernalia at Sam's Club. Extra battery, external charger, head strap, and some extra mounting brackets. If I didn't already own one, I'd run out and buy one tomorrow.

Rich
 
OkieFlyer said:
Yes I did. Recorded in 1080p @ 30 fps. Edited in Cyberlink PowerDirector. I ended up producing the video as MPEG-2 1920x1080/60i (25 MBPS). What do you suggest, Rich?

P.S. Bryan, let me get a quick answer, and I'll stop hijacking your thread. Many apologies.
Click to expand...

Mpeg-2 sucks. You should be using H.264. Second best would be Xvid (the free version of DivX), though even that is oldschool these days.
 
asicer said:
H.264? Yesterday's news. H.265 is better.
Click to expand...

Sure, if the machine and the software support it on the encoding side and you're the final broadcaster on the delivery side. I'd be surprised if the average consumer-grade machine has hardware encoding support for H.265/HEVC, however. I don't know about the editing software because it wasn't something I kept records of when I was testing software, but I also suspect that only higher-end video editing software supports true H.265 encoding.

Also, if the video's going to YouTube, using H.265 would be rather pointless because at least as of the last time I checked, Google had no intention of supporting it on YouTube. If a video encoded with H.265/HEVC is even accepted for upload (I've found it to be hit or miss the few times I accidentally tried), they're going to re-encode it anyway using H.264, VP8, or VP9.

In other words, if YouTube is the destination, and the video is even accepted for upload, the only advantage to H.265 would be less bandwidth (and time) on the upload, which would only be an advantage if the uploader has a bandwidth cap. The tradeoff, however, would be much longer encoding time on the creator's side, and yet another transcode on YouTube's side, over the latter of which the creator would have zero control and which could very well decrease the final quality of the video.

If the destination is Vimeo, however, or if the creator will be self-hosting, then H.265 is clearly the better option because of the dramatic bandwidth savings at comparable or better quality.

Rich
 
dmspilot said:
Mpeg-2 sucks. You should be using H.264. Second best would be Xvid (the free version of DivX), though even that is oldschool these days.
Click to expand...

As it turns out, my program does have H.264. Don't know why I didn't notice it before. Too many buttons I guess.
 
OkieFlyer said:
As it turns out, my program does have H.264. Don't know why I didn't notice it before. Too many buttons I guess.
Click to expand...
What? Did it have more than two buttons? <insert evil snarky laugh here>
 
Clark1961 said:
What? Did it have more than two buttons? <insert evil snarky laugh here>
Click to expand...

mrlnu.jpg
 
I think gopro's advantage would be in the codec used to record the video. Years ago,they acquired a company called Cineform which made a visually lossless codec for editing video. I bet they used that tech to make a better quality live capture possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top