JVC Everio GZ-Hm300 Question.

TheWholeMatt · #1 03-16-2010, 03:16 PM

Yo yo, i appreciate any feedback you can give me. I just bought the JVC Everio GZ-Hm300 last week and i'm stoked about it. It takes amazing video. I upgraded from an entry level Aiptek hd cam so needless to say i love the upgrade. Anyway, my question is how do i get the best quality out of my videos on youtube, or vimeo, etc. My raw vids look incredible... I've currently been using sony vegas pro 8 to render my clips to .mp4 format, main concept AAC AVC .mp4 to be exact. Using all the highest settings possible, and my vids look decent on youtube, but they just dont cut it for me. Maybe i'm just looking for something that isn't gonna be there, but i was wondering if any of you have any tips on getting the best quality out of my videos on youtube. Different format maybe? .m2t? Who knows, any advice would be great.

www.youtube.com/thewholematt if you wanna check some out.

ConsumerDV · #2 03-16-2010, 04:20 PM

First, this is an HD camera with a CMOS sensor, so you cannot toss it around, you will get smear, macroblocking, skew and jello. Second, this is an interlaced-only camera, fine for an HDTV but no good for YouTube. Your video has blended frames, which exhibits itself in ghosting. You need to deinterlace using single field method if you want to avoid ghosting.

TheWholeMatt · #3 03-16-2010, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsumerDV

First, this is an HD camera with a CMOS sensor, so you cannot toss it around, you will get smear, macroblocking, skew and jello. Second, this is an interlaced-only camera, fine for an HDTV but no good for YouTube. Your video has blended frames, which exhibits itself in ghosting. You need to deinterlace using single field method if you want to avoid ghosting.

<--- Still new, haha. So what is it about youtube that makes my vids look not so great?

Jerry_R · #4 03-16-2010, 04:54 PM

YouTube applies some pretty sophisticated processing. There is a very good article on Videoguys.com on how to make your YouTube video look its best.

If you deinterlace do not use the throw data away method. Get a modern program what will make excellent video by blending the fields using interpolation. (The simple field average looks even worse than the single field.) Its expensive and requires a lot of computer power but worth it.

What are you using for editing and compressing? Vegas+
DVD is a good buy.

Frankly I am not real impressed by Vimeo.

TheWholeMatt · #5 03-16-2010, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry_R

YouTube applies some pretty sophisticated processing. There is a very good article on Videoguys.com on how to make your YouTube video look its best.

If you deinterlace do not use the throw data away method. Get a modern program what will make excellent video by blending the fields using interpolation. (The simple field average looks even worse than the single field.) Its expensive and requires a lot of computer power but worth it.

What are you using for editing and compressing? Vegas+
DVD is a good buy.

Frankly I am not real impressed by Vimeo.

I'm using nothing but sony vegas pro 8. I just rendered my first video that i deinterlaced with the interpolate method. And rendered as .m2t. The raw file already looks better than the .mp4 counterpart. It's uploading as we speak so we'll see how it turns out.

ConsumerDV · #6 03-16-2010, 07:13 PM

Correct. Use "interpolate", do not use "blend".

TheWholeMatt · #7 03-16-2010, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsumerDV

Correct. Use "interpolate", do not use "blend".

Why is that exactly? What sort of difference does it make? Is it even remotely noticeable?

Jerry_R · #8 03-16-2010, 11:32 PM

It makes a huge very noticeable difference. Interlaced video consists of two fields that make up one viewed frame. One has the odd numbered lines (1,3,5,…) and the other the even; resulting in a small but noticeable temporal difference. Interlaced footage is almost always inferior to progressive which has all the lines taken at the same time. This is more like film and looks much better. There are 3 ways to convert:
First, throw away one of the fields either the odd or even. This cuts the resolution in half.
Second, is to average, just mix the two. This results in more resolution loss than just throwing away one field and because of the temporal difference it looks very bad.
Third interpolate. That is build a progressive frame as if it was taken between the two fields in time.

TheWholeMatt · #9 03-17-2010, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry_R

It makes a huge very noticeable difference. Interlaced video consists of two fields that make up one viewed frame. One has the odd numbered lines (1,3,5,…) and the other the even; resulting in a small but noticeable temporal difference. Interlaced footage is almost always inferior to progressive which has all the lines taken at the same time. This is more like film and looks much better. There are 3 ways to convert:
First, throw away one of the fields either the odd or even. This cuts the resolution in half.
Second, is to average, just mix the two. This results in more resolution loss than just throwing away one field and because of the temporal difference it looks very bad.
Third interpolate. That is build a progressive frame as if it was taken between the two fields in time.

This is all good info. Here's a sample vid i did with deinterlacing using interpolate instead of blend. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNZGrui2oUc

TheWholeMatt · #10 03-17-2010, 06:51 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNZGrui2oUc It still seems a tad bit choppy at times, could this be because i set the bitrate too high? I selected a constant bitrate of 35,000,000

ConsumerDV · #11 03-17-2010, 11:59 AM

I did not notice any choppiness. Don't wave the camera and slow shutter speed down to 1/60 if you camcorder allows setting shutter speed explicitly.

TheWholeMatt · #12 03-17-2010, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsumerDV

I did not notice any choppiness. Don't wave the camera and slow shutter speed down to 1/60 if you camcorder allows setting shutter speed explicitly.

Perhaps it's my computer then. Do you think it would be better to set it to a constant bitrate of 25,000,000 ? Or maybe a variable bitrate with a max of 30,000,000 ?

osv · #13 03-18-2010, 03:43 PM

he's right about the shutter speed, 1/60th of a second for fast action stuff is your best bet... go back and re-shoot it, then do a comparison.

i have a really fast pc, and it's kinda skippy over here as well.

Jerry_R · #14 03-18-2010, 04:12 PM

I have a fast connection and PC and didn't see any thing that looked like camera problems, compression problems etc. There were a lot of poor shots though. You are firehosing (waving the camera around and not shooting). There are no estalishing shots. what are the dogs chasing—looks like it might be a ball but you could be throwing live mice. Take a look at Videomaker magazine it hs a lot of good tips and articles aimed at newbies.