CFNM Village Discussion Forum

The Forum Where "CFNM" Originated
It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:05 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:24 pm 
Offline
Legendary Contributor
Legendary Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:21 pm
Posts: 532
DaveTheRave wrote:
Just a couple of things I have learnt through experience. You are best to buy 2 drives! Hard drives can fail and that could be an end of the world type thing.
DTR


Once I move my material to the external hard drive, I will have a ton of empty flash drives. I plan to save some of my better files on flash drive. That way, if something catastrophic happens to the external hard drive, I will have backup copies of my best CFNM reaction material.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:33 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 9:43 am
Posts: 106
Frame rate for NTSC DVD players (used in the USA) is slightly less than 30 frames per second and PAL players (generally used outside the USA) is 25 FPS. Since movies look okay at 25 FPS, coding at anything higher is just using file space unnecessarily unless you are shooting some very unusual situations. Thus using 60 FPS unnecessarily increases the file size. Maybe it has some use if you are shooting on a fast moving bike down a mountain side.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:08 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:50 pm
Posts: 479
The History of Frame Rate for Film shows a great insight as to where these numbers come from and why they are used.

Anything above 24 fps satisfies the human flicker fusion frequency for persistence of vision resulting in a smooth "moving" image.
( The NTSC is actually about 29.97 frames per sec developed to allow the introduction of the color signal into the existing broadcast band without creating audio distortions in the process.)

Bit rates and frame rates though also need to take into account visual artifacts, equipment standards, compatability issues (interconversions) and ultimately the imperfect "human eye"

Important for James Cameron shooting an avant garde major film, but
not likely for a Bay to Breakers "glasses cam" voyeur who wants to post a few freebies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:37 pm 
Offline
Legendary Contributor
Legendary Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:21 pm
Posts: 532
dh92014 wrote:
Frame rate for NTSC DVD players (used in the USA) is slightly less than 30 frames per second and PAL players (generally used outside the USA) is 25 FPS. Since movies look okay at 25 FPS, coding at anything higher is just using file space unnecessarily unless you are shooting some very unusual situations. Thus using 60 FPS unnecessarily increases the file size. Maybe it has some use if you are shooting on a fast moving bike down a mountain side.


Just from personal experience, I've recorded CFNM reactions with 720p at 60 frames per second. I have also recorded with 1080p at 30 frames per second. While I prefer 1080p over 720p, there is a noticeable difference in quality between 60 frames per second and 30 frames per second. I have public nudity videos that prove this. I would always choose the 60 frames per second over 30 frames even if I'm forced to use 720p rather than 1080p.

In other words, 720p together with 60 frames per second is better than (at least for my purposes) 1080p together with 30 frames per second.

The different speeds (or frames per second) is most noticeable when you watch your recorded material in slow motion. When you walk around a public nudity event, with your neck/face moving to and fro, and your targets (clothed chicks) moving too, you will sometimes capture blurry footage. There are many instances, I'm sure Arbex can relate to this as well, where you record some hot dick reaction only to watch it later and realize the reaction is too blurry to fully enjoy. From personal experience, this problem is more likely to occur with a recording device that captures 30 frames per second. At 60 frames per second, the problem is noticeably minimized. Maybe this isn't the case when you work with top of the line Hollywood cameras, but when you're working with the kinds of cameras we use to capture dick reactions, there is a noticeable difference.

A few years back I had my spy sunglasses specially made by a company in China. Apart from requesting a quality lens, I requested 720p together with 60 frames per second. I had already tested out and compared such specifications to a 1080p, 30 frames per second recording device. I have used both devices, sometimes at the same public nudity event, and the 30 frames per second is more likely to fail (that is, capture blurry footage) than the 60 frames recording device.

The bit rate is something new to me. I still don't fully understand its impact, but at least I'm now aware of bit rate and can research it whenever I purchase new recording devices.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline
Legendary Contributor
Legendary Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:21 pm
Posts: 532
Something else worth noting. The bit rate setting (low, normal, high) does matter in terms of quality when running a video through a video editor.

I ran a brief public nudity video through my VSDC player (where attractive girls approached me for a pic). In the first one, I set the bit rate to low quality. I then ran the same exact video through my VSDC player setting the bit rate to high quality.

I made two videocaps to demonstrate. The first videocap is low quality bit rate; the second is high quality bit rate. You may need to save both videocaps and move back-and-forth in order to see the difference in quality.

LOW
Image

High
Image

(Compare the girl's face on the left in both pics to see the difference)

My take: anytime you run a video through a video editor and then save the new video, you lose quality. By setting the bit rate as high as possible, you lose less quality than lower bit rate. Of course, increased bit rate will also create a larger file as I discovered above.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:11 pm 
Offline
Legendary Contributor
Legendary Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:21 pm
Posts: 532
In a PM, Arbex sent me some tips on how to blur out a portion of your video -- someone's face for example.

Quote:
There is software that makes it MUCH easier by doing all of that for you. It is called “motion tracking” and is a feature available on some free and commercial video editing software. Basically you just draw a box around the object you want to blur out. After that the software can automatically move the blur to follow the object. I’ve only done it this way a couple of times on some very dark video which caused the software to have a problem following things. But even then it was far easier than doing it manually. This 2 minute youtube vid shows and example using commercial (meaning cost money) software.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbdMTdrYT5k

A Google search for something like: “free video editing software with motion tracking” Should turn up some free programs.

This program is one that works on my Windows 7 machine.

https://www.blender.org/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:54 am 
Offline
Founder & Owner
Founder & Owner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:06 pm
Posts: 1555
Location: Southern California
cfnmdude wrote:
In a PM, Arbex sent me some tips on how to blur out a portion of your video -- someone's face for example.

Quote:
There is software that makes it MUCH easier by doing all of that for you. It is called “motion tracking” and is a feature available on some free and commercial video editing software. Basically you just draw a box around the object you want to blur out. After that the software can automatically move the blur to follow the object. I’ve only done it this way a couple of times on some very dark video which caused the software to have a problem following things. But even then it was far easier than doing it manually. This 2 minute youtube vid shows and example using commercial (meaning cost money) software.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbdMTdrYT5k

A Google search for something like: “free video editing software with motion tracking” Should turn up some free programs.

This program is one that works on my Windows 7 machine.

https://www.blender.org/


One of the problems of videotaping when moving is that the camera moves as well. I've tried carrying various types of cameras as it allows one to videotape much better subjects than just sitting their motionless hoping something exciting happens.

The problem is this - no matter how smooth you think you're holding the camera, upon playback, it looks like you're riding in an off-road vehicle bouncing about. The subject is jumping back and forth on the screen making the footage virtually worthless outside of screen captures. It's why I've posted far more screen captures than footage in my clothing-optional beach posts.

Is there a motion tracking video editor wherein one can focus upon a stationary point in the video then the video editor compensates by moving the frames to coincide with that point? ergo, you set the point to, say, a small bush way off in the distance that is motionless, then, the video editor repositions each video frame to keep that same point in the same spot? Doing so would thus eliminate the motion issues wherein the landscape/background would remain motionless.

I don't know if it is out there, but if so, would sure like to find it. It would allow me to use a much higher quality camera than the go-pro types, which are fine for up close video, but such if the subjects are more than about 10 feet away.

_________________
If the highest aim of a captain were to preserve his ship, he would keep it in port forever. ~ Thomas Aquinas


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:48 pm 
Offline
Legendary Contributor
Legendary Contributor

Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:33 pm
Posts: 214
Brad wrote:
cfnmdude wrote:
In a PM, Arbex sent me some tips on how to blur out a portion of your video -- someone's face for example.

Quote:
There is software that makes it MUCH easier by doing all of that for you. It is called “motion tracking” and is a feature available on some free and commercial video editing software. Basically you just draw a box around the object you want to blur out. After that the software can automatically move the blur to follow the object. I’ve only done it this way a couple of times on some very dark video which caused the software to have a problem following things. But even then it was far easier than doing it manually. This 2 minute youtube vid shows and example using commercial (meaning cost money) software.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbdMTdrYT5k

A Google search for something like: “free video editing software with motion tracking” Should turn up some free programs.

This program is one that works on my Windows 7 machine.

https://www.blender.org/


One of the problems of videotaping when moving is that the camera moves as well. I've tried carrying various types of cameras as it allows one to videotape much better subjects than just sitting their motionless hoping something exciting happens.

The problem is this - no matter how smooth you think you're holding the camera, upon playback, it looks like you're riding in an off-road vehicle bouncing about. The subject is jumping back and forth on the screen making the footage virtually worthless outside of screen captures. It's why I've posted far more screen captures than footage in my clothing-optional beach posts.

Is there a motion tracking video editor wherein one can focus upon a stationary point in the video then the video editor compensates by moving the frames to coincide with that point? ergo, you set the point to, say, a small bush way off in the distance that is motionless, then, the video editor repositions each video frame to keep that same point in the same spot? Doing so would thus eliminate the motion issues wherein the landscape/background would remain motionless.

I don't know if it is out there, but if so, would sure like to find it. It would allow me to use a much higher quality camera than the go-pro types, which are fine for up close video, but such if the subjects are more than about 10 feet away.


I have the same problem. I’ve always had shaky hand when holding a camera, add to that shivering from the cold morning weather at the Bay to Breakers, and some of the video I shot was just unwatchable. Fortunately there are solutions to that, and I was able to save shots that I thought were useless.

I’m trying to teach myself more about video editing, and have been investigating different software when times allows. Some software has a pretty steep learning curve and is very complicated, some are simple. While I haven’t progressed far enough to recommend much in the line of specific software or provide tutorials, I can give a little help. The feature you are looking for is called “Stabilization.” There are at least two methods of doing this with software. But first, check your camera settings. Some cameras have stabilization built in, where the camera tries to reduce any shaking while you are shooting the video.

If you’ve already shot the video, or it is still shaky even with the camera’s built in stabilization, then there are software programs that can help. This 4 minute YouTube video give a quick explanation of how the various methods work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgAdeuxkUyY

The first method is point stabilization. It is similar to motion tracking, where you select a point or a small area of the video and tell the software to follow the movement. This works well if you are standing still and pointing the camera in one direction. But if you are moving around or panning the camera across the crowd it will cause problems. You would want to make sure the area you select is part of the background, for example a building and not a person. If you were to select the person and they walked away, the software would think the camera is moving and try to keep the person steady.

The other method analyzes every (or most) of the pixels in the entire image and tries to figure out how they are moving in relation to each other. This works well of you are moving the camera. For example I shot some very shaky video while shivering in the starting coral of the B2B, where I was panning the camera from right to left to get a 180 degree view. In this case there would not be any good points to track using the first method because they would eventually move out of frame as I turned the camera.

Both of these methods have a few down sides. No matter which one you choose, the software stabilizes by moving the entire video up, down, left, right, or rotates it, in order to keep things steady. This means that part of the video will move out of frame and leave black “bars” where there is no video. To remove the black areas, the software will zoom in (or enlarge the video) to make sure it fills the entire frame, and that will reduce the quality a little bit. The shakier the video is, the more the software will have to move and zoom it, so the amount of quality you lose depends on how badly it shakes. Also, some of the methods and introduce artifacts such as slanting or a slight ripple effect. However, the time I have stabilized my video, the artifacts and loss of quality were far better than that shaking was, so it did improve the video dramatically.

Probably the easiest way to stabilize your video is to use YouTube itself. I haven’t actually tried it, but when you upload a video to YouTube, it can recognize that the video is shaky and will popup and option asking you if you want to stabilize it. If you don’t want the video to be seen, you can upload it as a private video, then after it has been stabilized and you have downloaded it, delete it from YouTube. The Down side is, I don’t know what other changes YouTube might make in terms of quality, frame rate etc. I don’t know what method it uses, but a little Google searching found a video demonstrating how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcwE9g1-Fr8

The free Video Blender program, mention in the above quote above, seems to use the point, or motion tracking method of stabilization. I haven’t actually used this program myself. So far all I have done is install it and poke around a little. It seems like a very complex program, and the video tutorial I found demonstrating its stabilization seems very complicated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpIXqAepfxY

So far, I have only used one program to stabilize my videos. I likes the results, and the software is easy to operate, but difficult to set up the first time. The program is called VirtualDub and it is free. But setting it up was tricky and probably not for the timid. You need to download and install a free “filter” called Deshaker 3.0. Also the program is really made to work only with AVI files. So if you are using MOV as most cameras seem too, you also need to install extra Codecs to handle them. But once you get it set up, you simply open your video, select the shaker filter, run it through an analysis pass, and then render pass. It uses the second method, which analyzes the entire video, so there is no need to select any points to track, and it works well when the camera is in motion. I have uploaded a short side by side example of a shaky video I converted using this program. The left side is the unedited, shaky video I shot, and the right side is after I used VirtualDub with the Deshaker filter. https://youtu.be/0wOT0_r7OBs

Lastly, one handy free program I use is called MediaInfo. You can download it here: https://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo This program installs in Windows Context Popup menu. Simply select your video, right-click and select MediaInfo from the menu. A window will appear giving you all kinds of information about the video file. Size, frame rate, encoder, and much more. This information can be very handy when selecting rendering options for whatever software you are using to edit your videos.

My best advice would be to either use Youtube, the simplest option, or to search Google for software that offers stabilization. Hope this helps.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:42 am 
Offline
Legendary Contributor
Legendary Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:21 pm
Posts: 532
Quote:
I have uploaded a short side by side example of a shaky video I converted using this program. The left side is the unedited, shaky video I shot, and the right side is after I used VirtualDub with the Deshaker filter.
https://youtu.be/0wOT0_r7OBs

That is an amazing difference. I once tried using the stability feature on YouTube and was dissatisfied with the result. I don't remember why. The upgrade/difference wasn't as noticeable as your example.

I guess there is no fix for blurry footage. With blurry footage, the capture simply isn't there at the outset and thus can't be recovered.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:08 pm 
Offline
Legendary Contributor
Legendary Contributor

Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:33 pm
Posts: 214
cfnmdude wrote:
Quote:
I have uploaded a short side by side example of a shaky video I converted using this program. The left side is the unedited, shaky video I shot, and the right side is after I used VirtualDub with the Deshaker filter.
https://youtu.be/0wOT0_r7OBs

That is an amazing difference. I once tried using the stability feature on YouTube and was dissatisfied with the result. I don't remember why. The upgrade/difference wasn't as noticeable as your example.

I guess there is no fix for blurry footage. With blurry footage, the capture simply isn't there at the outset and thus can't be recovered.


My video was horrible. It was very cold that morning and I didn't realize how much my hands were shaking until I saw the video. I was about to delete a lot of those clips, but instead searched the net to see of there was anything I could do to fix it. That is how I found the program I used, VirtualDub and the Deshaker filter. I'm still looking for a better program, but haven't had much time to play around with them and experiment. You can see that the stabilized vid is zoomed in a little, and of less quality, but at least it is watchable instead of deleteable! 8-) I shot a lot of shaky clips that day, so I'm glad I was able to salvage them.

I don't think you can do too much about blurry video for the reason you mention, the data just isn't there. Some video editors have sharpness filters you can run the video through. This might make it look slightly better, as it enhances edges where there is high contrast, but it will also add what look like tiny specs (looks a bit like static on a TV screen). There may be other things you can do to try and enhance it, but I don't know of any.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group