text:
Modify a sample in a mix using the original sample
The song 'No Homo' by The Lonely Island samples 'Girls Can't Do What the Guys Do' by Betty Wright.
http://www.whosampled.com/sample/view/96863/The%20Lonely%20Island-No%20Homo%20Outro_Betty%20Wright-Girls%20Can%27t%20Do%20What%20the%20Guys%20Do/
In 'No Homo', the sample is lowered in pitch. I was able to raise the pitch to make it kind of sound like the original song. However, this obviously raises the pitch of the entire song. So my logic is to remove the sample from 'No Homo' and raise the pitch, then put it back in. Naively I thought I could cancel it out, but that obviously doesn't work because they're not the same waveforms.
Using Audacity, is there an easy way of changing the sample in 'No Homo' using the original song?

In theory, if you knew exactly what they did to the sample, you could produce an inverse wave and recombine it with the mixed version in No Homo.  However in practice, since it is unlikely that you will be able to match the frequency shift exactly plus whatever other effects they may have applied (like compression), you are unlikely to be able to make an inverse wave that satisfactorily cancels out the original.


text:
MV 750i image sensor
I've just bought a second-hand Canon MV 750i camcorder. Unfortunately, its screen doesn't show what I'm looking at. I understand that the problem is with the image sensor, which I want to try to replace myself. I have a repair manual. I got in touch with Canon, but it doesn't have the part and its support wasn't very helpful. Does anyone know the part number and where I might source it?

If Canon no longer has the part, most likely your best bet will be to find another used MV 750i that you can salvage the part from.  If you have a repair manual, you might checking what the part number it lists is and try searching if any surplus places have the part itself.  Some quick looking on eBay shows what appears (or at least claims) to be a compatible part for $20.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
How to start and record Flash video stream without recording the player taskbar
I want to record a Flash video stream from the web. This is the website in question: http://www.arte.tv/guide/de/plus7
The problem is that the video starts with a task bar over it and I have to move the mouse pointer over and out of the video to fade it out, all of which is recorded in my screen capture.
How do I avoid recording the task bar?

As long as the video isn't copy protected, you will want to use a stream ripper instead of trying to do a screen capture of your monitor.  Any number of software products are able to directly transfer a video that is in the Flash streaming video format as long as it isn't copy protected.  A quick search for "flash video ripper" and your operating system should return numerous results to choose from.  The advantage of this is that the stream can be recorded with the original encoding preserved, which avoids loss of quality due to repeat encoding and compression.
As a side bonus, since the stream rippers will record the stream directly, you also don't have to worry about the bar or your mouse being over the screen.

@what - it may be the least hassle, but it will always be the lowest quality.  In the case of the link you provided, some basic checking of their website shows that they are using a bit of JSON code to provide the information to the player and since they are using JW Player, an HTML5 version is also provided.  There is infact an MP4 that you can simply download directly for content from their site.  The JSON is here

More explicitly, the link for that video is this.  You can pull it out by looking for the HTTP address in the JSON result.  It also has several RTMP streams defined in there if you want higher quality than the HTTP based mp4 download provides.

The HD RTMP stream (which any flash ripper should be able to pull) is rtmp://artestras.fcod.llnwd.net/a3903/o35/geo/videothek/ALL/tvguide/048474-179-A_SQ_1_VA_00673307_MP4-2200_AMM-Tvguide.mp4?e=1378534327&h=9fa6e70cfa4bdc1988dba5ccd5cd1236 which is also extracted from that same JSON file.

Okay, I managed to download the MP4 file directly. I'd like to accept your answer, but while it answers my intention, it does not answer my question. I'll accept my own answer, as it gives a solution to the problem in the question. But +1 for putting me on the right track.

@what - the stream rippers work with the RTMP path I listed, it does answer the question, just the particular HTTP link doesn't even require stream ripping.

I simply looked at the source code of the web page and opened the player in a new window, scaled to the width of the video iframe, but higher, so that the task bar came to lie below the video. Now I can click and mouseover the task bar as much as I want, without recording it.

Screenshot of the original website to the left, and the player in a scaled separate window to the right.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
I am not able to take video with my SD card
I purchased a Sandisk ultra with 64GB of memory for like 60$ but now it will not allow me to take videos. Why is this and is there any way to change it? When I display the info on the screen I can see a little REC button but it has a slash through it, implying that I cannot record (which is correct)
I did format the disk, and also when I used a friends SD card in my camera it worked for video, AND when she used my SD card in her's it worked for her to take videos(though her card is a 16GB "Silicon Power" make). We both have Nikons though mine is a D5000 and hers is a coolpix p510....
I am on a trip through Europe and I like videos because I make music videos... I would love for the expensive large memory card that I bought to work for my camera. Hence why I bought it. So if anyone has any good answers on how to get it to work, that would be much appriciated

Most likely at that price point it won't be fast enough to do video.  Sandisk do a number of cards - what exact card is it (what class and speed is it?)

There are two possible problems, first is that your camera does not appear to have SDXC support.  32GB is the limit of the SD and SDHC file system used on lower capacity memory cards.  To move to 64GB, you have to move to exFat which your camera may not support, so the card may simply be too big.
It is also possible the card is simply too slow to support your chosen resolution and quality level.  Have you tried stepping down the quality (to IBP or less than 1080p)?  The Ultra line of SanDisk cards is one of their slowest lines and $60 for a 64GB card is not expensive, it is dirt cheap.  To give you an idea, the SanDisk Pro Extreme SD card that I use (which is still slower than my compact flash card I use) was $150 for a 64GB card that handles 1080p video at All I frame storage.
Update: After some more reading of the manual, it appears the problem is the card size.  I see your camera doesn't even support 1080p video at all and 720p should be fine on an Ultra card.  It simply doesn't support exFat, so you will need to limit yourself to a SDHC card of no more than 32GB.  It might be worth doing some more digging on that too as there are SDHC cards listed for your camera, but none in the 32GB range (but that may simply be that there weren't any available when it was made.)  I would verify 32GB compatibility before buying a 32gb card since 16GB is the biggest listed in the manual.


text:
What is the best method to record a home video of multiple players?
What is the best method to record a home video of multiple players?  I see people doing this all the time on the internet but I want to pick the easiest one.  For example, I want one video that has 2 video tracks on it, one for rhythm guitar and one for lead guitar.   Another example:  generate a video of 4 different musicians playing together.
For example, how was this done, and is there a better way?

Here is what I do (for my videos on http://www.youtube.com/user/killergege).
Tools :

Software : Reaper for audio recording, Sony Vegas Pro for video editing
Hardware : a camcorder, an audio interface (POD HD500 in my case)

Process :

I create a new project in Reaper and Vegas and setup everything to record audio properly on Reaper through my audio interface.
I add a backing track in Reaper.
I record myself playing each instrument (video & audio) at the same time, Reaper takes the sound, the camcorder takes the video. I might do several takes, Reaper handles pretty well takes and the camcorder just keeps recording.
When finished recording I then have a track for each instrument in Reaper (with maybe several takes in each track), and a video for each instrument.
Then I select the audio takes and mix the tracks with the backing track (changing volume, adding fades, etc.)
I export the audio mixed and import it in Vegas
Then I edit the videos in Vegas, cutting the unused takes and mixing with effects (I use chroma keying to remove the background, fades, camera movements) and to place the videos like you want. Editing the video to do a "splitscreen" like in the example is quite easy and a lot of other editing software can do that.
The hard part is syncing the audio with the video. I try to sync the videos' audio with the Reaper mixed audio I imported just before removing the videos' sound.
I also do it visually (trying to match hand movements with audio).

If you need more details, just ask.

This is just a crop effect (also sometimes called picture in picture or size and position).  Any video editing software that supports layers and layer resize can do this, though the exact approach varies from software to software.
It is a very basic thing to do and just involves bringing in each of the video clips as a layer, synchronizing them time wise and then sizing and positioning them such that they each are 1/4 of their original size and sit in the corners of the screen.


text:
Video file is inverted. Can it be fixed?
I just got a video file in my email that we want to use on our website.  However, the entire thing is inverted so the people are walking on the ceiling.  Is there any software that I can use to reverse this?  The file is a .mov if that makes a difference.

Use ffmpeg. It's the swiss army knife for video converting/editing.  Once it's installed, enter the following command on the command line:
ffmpeg -i input.mov -vf "vflip" output.mov

Look at following answer: https://superuser.com/questions/578321/how-to-flip-a-video-180-vertical-upside-down-with-ffmpeg

You can flip your video online on video rotate if you don't want to install anything.
Just drag video to upload , choose orientation and download.


text:
Invalid timebase converting videos from Galaxy S3
I have a video that I recorded on my phone and would like to flip horizontally. I am using the following command:
avconv -i 20131117_220136.mp4 -vf "hflip" 20131117_220136.flipped.mp4

I get the following output:
avconv version 0.8.9-4:0.8.9-0ubuntu0.12.04.1, Copyright (c) 2000-2013 the Libav developers
  built on Nov  9 2013 19:12:07 with gcc 4.6.3
Input #0, mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2, from '20131117_220136.mp4':
  Metadata:
    major_brand     : isom
    minor_version   : 0
    compatible_brands: isom3gp4
    creation_time   : 2013-11-18 04:35:04
Duration: 00:33:26.03, start: 0.000000, bitrate: 17127 kb/s
    Stream #0.0(eng): Video: h264 (High), yuv420p, 1920x1080, 17000 kb/s, PAR 1:1 DAR 16:9, 30 fps, 90k tbr, 90k tbn, 180k tbc
    Metadata:
      creation_time   : 2013-11-18 04:35:04
    Stream #0.1(eng): Audio: aac, 48000 Hz, stereo, s16, 124 kb/s
    Metadata:
      creation_time   : 2013-11-18 04:35:04
[buffer @ 0x9a80de0] w:1920 h:1080 pixfmt:yuv420p
[mpeg4 @ 0x9a83200] removing common factors from framerate
[mpeg4 @ 0x9a83200] timebase 1/90000 not supported by MPEG 4 standard, the maximum admitted value for the timebase denominator is 65535
Output #0, mp4, to '20131117_220136.flipped.mp4':
  Metadata:
    major_brand     : isom
    minor_version   : 0
    compatible_brands: isom3gp4
    creation_time   : 2013-11-18 04:35:04
    Stream #0.0(eng): Video: mpeg4, yuv420p, 1920x1080 [PAR 1:1 DAR 16:9], q=2-31, 200 kb/s, 90k tbn, 90k tbc
    Metadata:
      creation_time   : 2013-11-18 04:35:04
    Stream #0.1(eng): Audio: [0][0][0][0] / 0x0000, 48000 Hz, stereo, s16, 200 kb/s
    Metadata:
      creation_time   : 2013-11-18 04:35:04
Stream mapping:
  Stream #0:0 -> #0:0 (h264 -> mpeg4)
  Stream #0:1 -> #0:1 (aac -> aac)
Error while opening encoder for output stream #0:0 - maybe incorrect parameters such as bit_rate, rate, width or height

The issue is the timebase 1/90000 not supported by MPEG 4 standard error, I'm assuming. I haven't found anything on it yet.

Specifying the framerate fixes the issue. I.e. adding -r 23.967 to the command.

-r 24000/1001 is more accurate (or use the alias -r ntsc-film).


text:
On-line and Off-line editing?
I am just wondering if anyone can shed any light on the subject of On/Off line editing, as I have been approached and asked before..
I understand this is type work flow for post production process but without sounding too clueless about things, can you somebody please describe to me what it means and what different skills are required that separate these workflows...
Thanks so much for your time and answers!

Offline editing, was almost standard when non-linear video editing started, because of hard disk memory mostly. It was easier to digitise your rushes at a low video resolution, especially in longer form high shooting ratio programmes and films. As the previous person says, at the end of the edit, a 'conforming' session took place, whereby the sequence was rebuilt, at full resolution (but only the actual shots in the final cut)
With sound it was a slightly differing story. During offline digitising, the audio was usually taken in at 48khz digital, so it was technically ok for broadcast. So in theory the final cut audio tracks could simply exported to the sound mix. Sometimes however, for various reasons, the audio was also conformed, using an EDL ( for example a CMX3600 C mode list) The sound editor would load up each audio rushes tape and import Just the audio referenced by the edit ( with suitable handles for mixing/ramping)
To dig deeper, sometimes the audio digitised with the rushes was a mix of various microphones, taken from a digi beta tape or SX or Beta SP. The original sound rushes having been recorded onto DAT tape for example. In this scenario it was of course necessary to redigitise (I.e. Conform) the audio at the end of the edit, to make sure all the original sound tracks were imported into the sound editors system. They effectively then used the editors final soundtrack as a guide to check sync etc, but they would rebuild the soundtrack using the digital rushes.
There was another distinction about offline/online editing, whereby a traditional 'film editor' would be called an offline editor and a traditional VT editor would becalmed an online editor. The implication being that offline editors were more used to editing from scratch, without the director present for assembly work.
(Film of course was the original non-linear medium, as usually the editor cut a positive print copy of the originally shot negative)
Nowadays, by and large an ON line editor is someone who is very accomplished at compositing, effects work, quick turnaround high-end work, and an offline editor restricts themselves to cutting the film or programme. however these boundaries are breaking down fast now, with many editors able and forced to do everything from start to finish - and crucially now it is possible to edit full resolution video in the initial non-linear edit, removing the need for a conforming session.

I've never heard the terms On-line and Off-line editing used for audio.  In the video world, off-line editing is a term used for the editing process, whereby you edit your footage (often compressed) and then export and EDl for the On-line editor to do the final assembly with higher quality picture, maybe adding titles and some transitions and color correction.


text:
Premiere Pro - How to make a slideshow/compilation
I have a bunch of videos and pictures. I want to make a compilation with them. I just don't want it to be worse than movie maker. I am looking for these moving effects that you can play while the video is changing ( http://prntscr.com/29coci ) I already have experience in After Effects and Photoshop CC

Premiere Pro has a number of default transitions under the "video transitions" tab in the effects pane (usually located in the bottom left of the window). Are those what you are looking for? If you have experience with After Effects, you could also use AE's more robust effects library to animate interesting effects for your videos.
Based on your included image, it looks like you might be interested in wipe transitions.

Exactly what I was looking for!


text:
Audio/Video Out of Sync with Samsung NX1000 Camera - Why?
I'm a total digital video beginner, having a weird (to me) issue in the music videos I've shot with my Samsung NX1000, which is that the video and audio are out of sync with each other, but not in a consistent way (to be clear, I'm talking about video/audio both captured by the camera itself - I'm not using any external mic for the audio). Here's the rundown:

Slightly out of sync when played back in the camera
More out of sync in VLC
Very out of sync in:
Finder windows (when quick-look previewed by hitting space bar)
QuickTime Player 10
Final Cut Pro X

First I imported the movies from my camera to my Mac over USB cable, using the Image Capture app. The files are in .mp4 format, and the related codecs are H.264 and AAC.
Then I tried importing movies directly into FCPX (ticking Optimize and choosing to convert the camera native format into ProRes 422.
Both methods result in un-synced audio/video. However, the amount of delay differs depending on how a given clip was imported. I opened several clips in VLC and was finally able to sync things by adding an audio delay: 200ms for a clip imported with Image Capture, 300ms for a clip imported with FCPX.
Does anyone know what's going on here? I'm sure there are apps I could use to sync the video and audio, but if anyone can help me solve this problem in the camera in the first place, that would really speed up my workflow.
Thanks!

MacBook Pro 5,3
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 GHz
8GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M

I have a similar problem and that's how I found your question online today... The Mp4 file from my nx1000 was imported as it is on adobe premiere cs3.
The audio and video seem to have same starting and ending point, but the video alone is faster than the original as if it was stretched, and the audio has the normal speed but ends in the middle of the original sound track.
Knowing that I imported the file to a project with the same settings as video, 1080i 29.9fps... I tried again with 25fps and with a video card and without a video card... In vain
The only way I got it right, is unfortunately by decoding it on a software called procoder, to a different format (i chose *.mov), and it worked like a charm on my editing software. But of course I lost resolution... I did not buy the nx1000 so i can decode it and lose resolution for editing!
There should be an answer, I hope you found yours!

@DrMayhem - the user did provide a solution by using a transcoder.  It hopefully isn't the ideal solution, but it shares what they had tried and failed with and what they finally got to work.  That's a solid answer even if I hope there is a better one.

You are right. I managed to miss that. Sorry.


text:
How to make a video from a still image and an audio file?
I have an image file (png) and an audio file (aiff).  How do I combine them to make a video file that shows the still image and plays the audio file?
Target operating system: either OS X Lion or Ubuntu, using only free software, must be command-line driven (no GUI solutions please).  Thanks in advance!

I'm curious why you accepted my answer rather than Josh's more detailed answer that includes a how-to article. I don't mind the reputation points, but it seems like the other answer better addresses your question.

I do actually need the audio added to the video, so although I like the article, it doesn't solve my problem.  Even though your answer doesn't actually offer a ready-made solution, I prefer to accept one so as to boost my accept rating (making it more likely that others will continue to answer my questions).  Sadly this is a feature of StackExchange---it incentivizes askers to accept an answer, even if it doesn't completely answer the question.

I completely agree that you should make a point of accepting good answers, but when you do so is a matter of personal preference. I don't ask a lot of questions, so often like to give a weak answer 5-7 days before I accept it. AVP's traffic is light, and people don't seem shy about adding late answers, so it may not be a big deal.

I think ffmpeg is what you want, but you will need to dive into the docs to figure out how to make it do what you want.

To expand upon ObscureRobot's answer, use ffmpeg like so:
ffmpeg -loop 1 -f image2 -r 2 -i input1.png -i input2.aiff -c:v libx264 -c:a copy -shortest output.mp4

-loop 1 -f image2 -r 2 -i input1.png tells ffmpeg to loop input1.png forever, at a frame rate of 2fps. -c:v libx264 tells it to use x264 to encode the video, and -c:a copy tells it to simply copy the audio, without encoding. -shortest makes ffmpeg stop when the shortest input ends - input2.aiff in this case.

This article looks like it'll get you close.  Doesn't include the audio, but that honestly sounds easier than converting the images to video.
Excerpt:

ImageMagick and ffmpeg combined can be used to turn still images into
  video. Both ImageMagick and ffmpeg have been around for years, and are
  readily available as packages with most Linux distributions. The tips
  below allow you to convert images on the command line, which for a may
  appear to be time consuming, but once you know how to do it you'll
  find it much faster than using a GUI!

authors: حمودي العبيدي


text:
Optimal pace of speech
I am applying to a scholarship, where I need to answer some questions in a one minute long video. I would like to push as much information as I can, but I wouldn't like to make it over-crowded... so what is an optimal speech / time ratio? (how many characters, or sentences, etc for one minute?)
Are there some statistics like that? What is it like at ads from tech companies?

I don't know off the top of my head, but you probably want to be comparing to instructional media or news casters rather than advertisements.  The purpose of advertisements is very different from the purpose of a recorded interview, which is basically what this is.

Make sure you copyedit what you're going to say, get everything down to nice and succinct portions - get your message clear, and your communication clearer.

You will generally get the following guidance if you take courses on presentation skills (this list from write-out-loud.com)

Slow speech is usually regarded as less than 110 wpm, or words per minute.
Conversational speech generally falls between 120 wpm at the slow end, to 150 - 200 wpm in the fast range.
People who read books for radio or podcasts are often asked to speak at 150-160 wpm.
Auctioneers or commentators who practice speed speech are usually in the 250 to 400 wpm range.

So you'll probably want to aim for that 150 wpm range to be able to get a reasonable amount across, but not sound like an auctioneer

I agree with @DrMayhem. I had a job at a school for court reporters (stenographers) where I read court transcripts out loud at various speeds. The advanced students could transcribe up to 175 or 200 wpm. It wasn't that hard to speak at that pace. Some days, in some classes, we got up to 225 or 250 wpm. I could speak at that pace (but it was tough!) and the students could understand me.

One of the challenges I have (and many others, especially the Scots) is speaking too fast - a combination of naturally fast pace and sometimes nervousness - so I take conscious pauses for breath, to look at at least 3 faces in the audience, and to think where my hands/feet are. I'm by no means a natural speaker, but am getting there through practice and following simple guidelines like these.

Do you have the option to display your answer in text on the screen as you're saying it? You could probably speak faster: The viewers would be reading along anyway, so if you were unintelligible for a few words, the viewers would still get the meaning.
I agree with @DrMayhem about speech speeds, but I think you can get away with 175-200 wpm and not sound too rushed. You would have to be focused, though, and it might require a few "takes" before all 175-200 words were clear. If you do try to squeeze in more than 150 words, make sure you vary your pitch (like a musical note) so you aren't just monotone. Energy drinks aren't out of the question. ;-)
After writing all this, I just realize how much of this is a learned skill/art. I've been in theater and on YouTube for years and years, using my voice like an instrument. If you don't use your voice that way normally, and you don't have a natural knack for it, you might want to aim for 150 words instead of 200.


text:
Will remote shutter releases stop and start video?
I'm trying to figure out how I can remotely stop and start video from my Canon Rebel t3i.  Is this possible at all?
I know there are shutter releases that will snap off pictures, but will the same work when in video mode?
Thanks in advance!

What time of remote shutter release?

It depends on the camera in question and possibly on the abilities of the remote device, since there are several of those too.

I don't know much about physical trigger devices, so not sure if starting/stopping a video is possible with those.
However, you can use a "software" trigger that is included in the modified Magic Lantern firmware that is available for free for several Canon cameras (including the 550D).
After you install the ML firmware on an SD card you will have access to many video recording enhancements, so it might be helpful in general.
According to the manual you can trigger the start/stop of a video (or take a photo) by using the LCD sensor or the built-in microphone.
From experience I know that the audio trigger is more reliable than the LCD sensor, but it requires that you set the trigger volume threshold according to the sounds in the environment.
Here's more information on the risks of using the custom firmware, and here's
the Magic Lantern installation guide.

It depends on what type of remote you are using. Pushing the button on a wired remote such as the RS60-E3, the RS80-N3, or any of their many generic equivalents will function exactly the same as pushing the button on the camera's built in shutter release button. This applies to both half and full presses of the button. You can use the wired remote in any exposure mode, focus mode, drive mode, etc. It is exactly the same as if you were pressing the camera's shutter button.
If you are using a wireless remote such as the Canon RC-6 with a camera with a compatible infrared receiver, you are limited to shooting only in "Self Timer" mode.


text:
What are some software to create animated videos?
I am looking for software to create an animated video like this:

or an even better: http://vimeo.com/63457188.
It would be great if you could share more than one tips. Are there any such free apps out there?

Related - http://video.stackexchange.com/questions/8316/software-advice-for-producing-video-ads/8319#8319

Also Related - http://video.stackexchange.com/questions/8742/how-to-make-this-vector-animation/8744#8744

The animation that you refer to was probably made with Adobe After Effects. You can animate this kind of thing for 'free', if you don't value your time, using PhotoShop CS2 (free from Adobe) and the Quicktime player which will import image sequences and save them as movies.
But your hope for free software misses the point that the costly parts of animation are time and skill. More expensive tools frequently have built-in time savers. After Effects is certainly one of those. It won't save you, however, from having to get skill.

Synfig Studio is a free option. It's a free 2d vector animation package, similar to Flash. I haven't used it, so I can't vouch for how easy it is to learn.
Since Blender can pretty much do anything - provided you can work out how to use it - you could probably do this in Blender. Though it's not really purpose-built for 2d animation or motion graphics.
For some reason there aren't many other free / FOSS motion graphics tools out there. The Jah Shaka project was an attempt to get a FOSS tool similar to for After Effects off the ground, but the project went belly up. It may rise from the ashes some time in the future, they seem to have a comeback every few years and then disappear again, but you never know.
A low-price option if you have a mac is Motion. Only low-price if you already have the mac though.
Any of these options will require weeks at least of learning time (I've been doing it twenty years and still learn something every day), so unless you want to pursue it as a career your cheapest option would be to hire a freelancer.

This type of animation is known as motion graphics.  It is generally done with keyframe animation and vector graphics.  It unfortunately is not something that has many free tools available however and it does require developing a fair bit of experience and quite a lot of time to do well.
As Craig mentioned, After Effects is really the ideal package for this kind of thing.  Flash is also useful.  You may also find yourself using Illustrator for actually building some of the vector graphics.  You can use raster graphics instead (Photoshop) but the quality of zooms and rotations and such is not as high with raster graphics as it is with vector.


text:
why is a video file with .mts extension so huge?
I just recorded a 2 minute long video clip with my Sony camera. The output is an .MTS file, which is ~450 MB. What is the reason for that? Could you please recommend a (preferably free) app that I could use to convert it to another file format resulting a much more reasonable file size?

Related... http://video.stackexchange.com/questions/9228/how-to-convert-a-mts-file-without-loosing-the-quality-much

HD video is very, very large at high quality.  450MB for two minutes isn't actually that bad.  To put it in perspective, assuming you were shooting 1080P and 24fps, if there was no compression applied, that same 2 minutes of video would be 6 gigabytes of information.
The reason that videos you download or watch on bluray disks are so much smaller is that they are not source video, but rather highly compressed final output video.  When you compress video, a lot of quality is lost.  It isn't quality that the human eye can easily distinguish, but it is quality that impacts the quality of future encodings and the quality of edited results.
For best quality, you want to take those high quality, large files you captured, edit them to whatever the final output should be and then do a one time compression down to a final output format.  That final output won't be suitable for editing, but it will be perfectly suitable for viewing at a much smaller size.
If you have no desire to edit it and simply want the basic video to be smaller, using a free tool like Handbrake or FFMPEG will easily allow you to transcode to h.264 and a much, much smaller file size.  I recommend using two-pass VBR to maximize the quality you get for the size.

+1 for using Handbrake - great tool to convert video! It is a simple user interface instead of typing FFMPEG commands in the command line.

The output is an .MTS file, which is ~450 MB. What is the reason for that?

It is desirable to record and master in the highest quality possible, and only convert to lower bitrates for delivery (if necessary) at the final stage.
450MB for two minutes is 30mbps.  That's not particularly high for a capture bitrate; it's a typical capture bitrate for low-cost consumer gear.
It's a lower bitrate, even, than you may find on a movie available on blu-ray.

Could you please recommend a (preferably free) app that I could use to convert it to another file format resulting a much more reasonable file size?

You don't specify your target format or platform.  Do you simply want to share this with friends?  If so, uploading to YouTube will take care of all the conversions for you and save you from worrying about additional bandwidth of sharing it with others, as long as you can stand the upload bandwidth.  Putting on DVD?  I assume not as you would have said so, but the authoring software would be able to do this for you.  Converting to an MP4 or MKV for sharing with friends and playing back on the PC or on a mobile device?  Then you could use something like Handbrake.  However, doing video transcoding yourself when you don't know what you're doing can result in unwanted results - most transcoding tools, unless they're specifically designed for a particular target format or device, will require quite a lot of technical knowledge.


text:
Remove audio tracks from multiple MKV files
I've got a multitude of MKV files each containing two audio tracks that correspond to two languages. In each of the files, the English language is the second track and it's the only track I need for these MKV files. So how do I easily discard the first audio track in each of the MKV files.
N.B. My primary OS is Windows but if there really is no easy way to have it done on Windows, I could be interested in a Linux answer too.

I don't know Windows, but I have just gone through this in Mac OS X (Linux Applicable).
mkvtoolnix is your friend here, and is available for Windows.
I used the GUI to check (a sample of) my files to make sure the audio tracks that I wanted to keep and delete were in the same order in the files. Then I manipulated the options in the GUI to match what I wanted.
Finally, I used the "copy to clipboard" button to copy the command line output to the clipboard and massaged it into a bash script to run on a directory of the files I wanted strip the audio from.
I know it's quick and dirty (and maybe not to your liking), but you can probably use it as a starting point to massage into what you really want to do.
#!/bin/bash

for file in *.mkv; do mkvmerge -o "$file-noeng.mkv"  --language "1:jpn" --track-name "1:AVC-HD" --default-track "1:yes" --forced-track "1:no" --display-dimensions "1:1920x1080" --language "3:jpn" --track-name "3:AAC" --default-track "3:no" --forced-track "3:no" --language "4:eng" --track-name "4:ASS" --default-track "4:no" --forced-track "4:no" -a "3" -d "1" -s "4" --attachments "1" -T "--no-global-tags" "$file" --track-order "0:1,0:3,0:4";

done


text:
Transcription Methods/Times
I figured I'd leave a question here while I did the manual labor, but what do you find is the best way to transcribe footage?
I'm an editor and the first thing I like to do is create a script of people said, then piece together parts of their takes, and THEN get to the actual footage editing. That way I'm only working with what I need ahead of time.
Basically what I do now is load up the videos in VLC, and open a TextEdit (mac), then watch it through normally or double speed until I get to a part with the interview, then I mark that timecode on the TextEdit, and go watch through the interview in triple-quadruple slowdown, so that I can keep up with what they say and not have to constantly stop and start it back up.
With this way it seems like I'm doing somewhere around 5 minutes real time to transcribe a minute, which comes to about 12 video mins a realtime hour. And I was just wondering if there was a better way you guys already know about. I'm not sure I trust auto-transcribe-type things.
Do you think this slowing the vid down and having to go back 5 seconds only a few times when I can't quite tell what he's saying because it's so slow, is saving more time than watching it in real time, pausing, writing, going back and watching the next part?
Or do you know better ways? Seems transcribing is the most time-consuming part of my workflow.
Since VLC is opensource, would it be possible to combine VLC and a Text Editor...something like VLC on the top and the text editor on the bottom, and whenever you hit a certain key, it automatically puts the timecode in the text, and you can use VLC's shortcuts while typing? Etc?
Again, non-automatic preferred. For one, it could be wrong, and two, I'd like to get used to the footage.
Thanks
Please help?

Speech Detection
You havent mentioned what NLE you use to edit, however here is a method you can use to transcribe if you are using Adobe CS4 or later.
This method uses speech detection to automatically transcribe videos - a feature brought in with CS4. It then adds the the text into the metadata of the file.

Analyze speech to create text metadata

Select a file or clip.
At the bottom of the Metadata panel, click Analyze Speech, or Analyze (Adobe Premiere Pro).
Set the Language and Quality options, and select Identify Speakers if you want to create separate speech metadata for each person.
  Note: Speech Search can use any of several language-specific and dialect-specific libraries, such as libraries for Spanish and UK
  English.
Click OK.
The spoken words appear in the Speech Analysis section.

To retain the speech metadata, save the project.

Obviously this depends on the quality of the audio. Good clean audio will provide the best results. Its also worth noting that Premiere uses Soundbooth to process the detection, so if your audio wasnt up to scratch you could clean it up in Soundbooth, and then perform the analysis there.

VLC Scripting
I came across this article explaining how to take the current timecode from a video and add it to a text document for transcribing. The title of the artice states its a method for Linux. However I'm sure it would be easy enough to take the method and apply it to Windows or OSX.

Manual
In regards to your current method. It depends on how many times you fall behind. when I have transcribed video I have done it at full speed but I havent bothered to fix errors while I'm typing. Usually I'll go back and fix it up later - and being that they are just for editing purposes they dont need to be totally correct.
You might also want to have a loot at Adobe Prelude CS6. Its an ingesting and meta logging program. One of its features is that it lets you add markers (and name them) in realtime as you are watching the video.

Hey thanks OrangeBox I gave you the bounty. I'll check out the VLC scripting article thanks so much! I use FCP to edit. And I have no idea how you can keep up with full-speed speech...I can barely keep up with half-speed...

Well, no need to worry about. Transcribing footage is something very easy now-these-days. What you have to make sure is that just write down all your audio in chronological order and he time codes of when each section begins and ends. Try to include punctuation and how phrases are expressed, so your are as close to the video as possible.
If you are seriously very much keen, then you should go ahead and try to use the real transcription symbols, which can indicate pauses and overlaps in speech.


text:
Transferring old metal particle Hi8 tapes
Recently I was playing a Hi8 tape from 1998, when I tried rewinding and rewatching a part (stopping the tape, before rewinding).  The part of the tape I had just watched was highly distorted and black and white.
So, I've learned the hard way that old metal particle tapes are prone to being erased, when watched.  Presumably, the 'MP' on the tapes stands for metal particle?  These tapes have been stored in a safe place.  How many years before this problem arises with MP tapes?
Is there a better alternative than playing these tapes into a capture card?  If not, I realize that I only have one chance to capture this video.  If this is the only option, I'll expect to capture until the read head becomes too affected by residue, and then stop and clean the head, and repeat.  Any advice would be appreciated.

You do need to play the tapes onto a capture card, yes. And the sooner the better. You don't just get one attempt, but you will get a slight degradation of quality every play, so you are best off aiming to do it in one pass if possible.
I recently captured about 50 tapes from the late 80's to the mid 90's and I did about half of them then cleaned the head then did the other half. Degradation wasn't noticeable, but I just thought I should do it just in case.
As to how long you can store them - is the safe place shielded from EMF, heat and humidity, then they can last for years, but due to the nature of magnetic tape, the magnetic field strength of particles affects adjacent particles, so quality will degrade no matter what.
When configuring your capture, set it for the highest quality you can afford - as there are utilities which can clean up some noise and speckle once the signal is digitised.

I knew about gradual degradation with each play.  Unfortunately, I apparently do have only one attempt because the tape appears to be ruined if I try and replay it.  I actually haven't tried doing the obvious and cleaning the head, yet, but I'm guessing the tape I've played already is ruined.  The camera can still play other tapes.

If the read head is covered with metal particles from damaged tapes, can it damage tapes in good condition?

Definitely - give it a clean before you start if you think there is contamination of the read head.


text:
How to stop and start a key frame on a specific time on After Effects?
I am new to After Effects. When I set my first key frame on my image, it would move to that specific co-ordinates. Now I want it to stay there and then move again to the next. What I did was create a new key frame for that. Problem is, it goes to the first then straight away to the next. I want it to stay put on the first key frame for about 5 seconds then start moving on the next. How can I do that?

One thing isn't quite clear about your scenario.  You say that it moves to the first key frame, but for movement to happen you would need a key frame at the start of the video to tell it where to start.  Are you "waiting a certain period of time and then moving" or are you "moving from your first keyframe to your second, then wanting to wait a while before moving to your final position"?

I understand your problem as follows:
There are three timepoints: T0, T1 and T2.
At T0 you place the image in an initial position.
At T1 you place the first keyframe (position: x1, y1).
And at T2 you have the second keyframe (position: x2,y2).
You want it to stay at T1 for several seconds before moving on to T2. The easiest way to achieve this is to make a new keyframe at a timepoint several seconds after T1, but before T2. Let's name it T1a.
Now the image will move to x1,y1, stay there until keyframe T1a and then move to position x2,y2.

Simply select your first keyframe(s) in the timeline and copy them. Move to the correct position in your timeline (+5 seconds) and paste.
To avoid any confusion, when I refer to the 'first' keyframe, that is the one at the start of the desired 5 second hold. This would work anywhere in the timeline in that case. Select any keyframe you want to hold at and copy & paste it 5 seconds along in the timeline.

@AJHenderson The way I read it, sounds like what I have was correct. Duplicating the first frame 5 seconds along will create 5 seconds of no motion, matching that first frame position before animating to the (what was) second frame. If it is at the start of the timeline, you don't actually need the first keyframe - he could simply move that +5 seconds  along (to where the duplicate would be placed) and no motion will happen before.

ah, yeah, I see what you mean.  The question is ambiguous since he mentions the first key frame being what he wants it to stay at but also mentions it moving to there.  I'll ask for clarification in the comments on the original question.

@AJHenderson added some clarification to 'universalize' my answer.

You can change the second keyframe to a hold type. This will cause the image to stay at position 1. At time 2 it will jump to the second position. No moving will be visible. If you want the movement to be visible you need to use the solution presented by the other answers.
You might want to research use of the velocity graph. Look up adobe TV.

It sounds like your understanding of key frames is just slightly off, but almost there.  Key frames in After Effects (or any key frame based animation system for that matter) indicate that at a given time, the value of a given property (the key framed property) should be at the value you specify for that key frame.
You have told After effects that you want it to start at a given value A, move to another value B and eventually move to another value C, but you haven't told it that you still want it to be B for a while.
You simply need to add an additional key frame at the end of the time period that you want the value to stay the same.  This way, the system knows that from the start of reaching the coordinates to the end of the time it spends at those coordinates, it won't move.  Then, after the second key frame for position B, it will start moving to C.
You have A...B...C, but you need A...B....B....C.  In other words, rather than saying start at A, then move to B, then move to C, you want to say start at A, move to B, stay at B for a while, then move to C.


text:
Best way to stabilize footage?
I'm working with footages that are shot handheld. The shakes are not too aggressive but they're still noticeable.
For the longest time ever I've been using Final Cut Pro's stabilization function to stabilize these types of footages, but the outcomes are always less than ideal.
What's a good way to deal with this?

Because software stabilization methods cannot compensate for the shifting parallax of a shaking lens, they will always produce less than ideal results.  In my experience, FCPX's stabilization is just as good as other software packages (I have experience with Shake and After Effects as well), and they all basically work the same way.
This is probably not the answer you want to hear, but the best way to stabilize footage is to shoot stable footage in the first place.  Software stabilization is really just analogous to fine grit sandpaper; It's a good final step to add polish, but you'd never use it from the start.
Physically steadying a camera can be expensive, but that's why audiences have learned to appreciate stable shots -- they associate stability with quality.  But of course you know this, or you wouldn't be asking.
But there are good, reasonably priced ways to physically steady a camera.  Where I work, we have dollys, sliders, shoulder mounts, tripods, brushless motor gimbals, camera cranes, clamps, arms, and pretty much you name it.  But in my experience, the most versatile, portable, practical, and cheap piece of kit that we routinely use is a monopod.  It doesn't allow for all of the fancy movements of the other stuff, but nice ones will at least let you do a fluid pan.
Sorry this doesn't help with footage you've already shot, but I hope it helps with future projects.

especially weird is the combination of rolling shutter + motion stabilisation in post, giving the effect that everything is randomly stretchign like jelly.

yeah, and motion blur looks weird after software stabilization.

The stabilization tools in After Effects are very advanced and usually yield a far better results than Apples and Sony Video products right now. If the budget is there I would always recommend using After Effects for this purpose.

Motion 5 has more robust image stabilization tools. But ultimately, this issue is best fixed when you're shooting, not in post-production.

I don't have any indication from your post as to what subject matter you are recording and how much experience you have with video production. I'm going to assume that you are recording live action and from a distance. The best you can do is put the camera on a tripod as close to the action as you safely can, zoom it wide as possible, and keep the camera as steady as possible.
The unfortunate truth is that ultimately the best way to get steady footage is to record steady footage. Beyond this, however, there are plugins in many non-linear editors to fine-tune the stabilization. I've had decent results with the stabilization plugin in Sony Vegas. Some folks use After Effects.
What I do is I record lots of footage, use short clips where they're the most steady, throwing out pretty much all footage that's even slightly shaky. Usually, I can tell the story well enough without the shakier footage.

since your answer seems to be so close to mine, maybe you could propose edits to mine?


text:
Shutter slower than video FPS
I'm trying to shoot low light video on my RX100 m3 and I want to make the best of it. So it would make sense that the ideal setting (in many cases) would be to open the shutter for as long as it can be open for that frame.
So if recording at 25 FPS video, then you would have the shutter open 1/25 seconds. That way you get max light in.
However I notice my camera doesn't mind having the shutter way slower than that number, I guess that means that it actually spills same information onto several frames?
If I set it to 1/25 does that mean absolute maximum. OR does the camera perhaps need a few milliseconds between each frame and therefor 1/25 for 25 fps video is too slow?

"If I set it to 1/25 (shutter speed) does that mean absolute maximum (or lowest setting)?"
Yes, if it was a non-digital video camera. This rule applied to the old non-digital (film) video cameras where you cannot set shutter speed lower than the frame rate.
Meaning that one celluloid was exposed for the full 1/25th of a second. Assuming 25fps.
For digital video cameras each frame can be blended with the other. This technique allows you to film in low light situations at the expense of motion blur. It can be used to create what some called a dream like sequence.
You should just view this as another creative control that you have to managing low light situations or adding motion blur to your videos.
See example below:

Any ideas on the second part of their question about determining at what point this starts happening?  It seems like one of the main parts of the question was trying to determine what the slowest they could go without overlap is.

@AJHenderson That second part, I would assume no, it does not need to a few milliseconds between each image. But then I remembered the rolling shutter effect. Each image is never recorded instantaneously like a CCD sensor (Most video cameras are now CMOS sensors). So there is a few milliseconds taken for that as it scans from top to bottom, and I noticed the effect is more evident for full frame sensors as opposed to the smaller sensor sized cameras. I don't know enough to answer that with any conviction. Need to read up on some technical specs to find out.

Fair enough. I wasn't sure either. I know that the light Wells need to be emptied and this takes time but I'm not sure how long.

Fredrik has a Blog with some more info and examples: http://m43photo.blogspot.ca/2010/02/gh1-video-recording-at-slow-shutter.html?m=1 .

I don't know this model, but in general video cameras don't use a physical shutter, but an electronic one. The aperture is always open and 'shuttering' means limiting the exposure time through blanking. So a setting less that the frame rate is effectively 'off'.
As for 'spilling the same info onto several frames', that's only true if there's no motion in the shot. If there is, adjacent frames capture different images -- different moments in time. What shuttering can do is limit the blur caused when there's motion during an exposure. It effectively freezes the action.
In any case, assuming they're synchronized, lowering the shutter speed matters only until you reach the frame rate. After that it should have no effect.


text:
Invalid DICT array size (83::2) in After Effects

What does the error "After Effects error: invalid DICT array size (83::2)" mean?
Is this a serious problem?
How can I fix it?

This in essence is a font system error.
If your system was working fine and then after installing some fonts you are getting this error, I would uninstall the fonts in question.
Fonts that have special characters in their internal font names (not the fontfile name) like accents, umlauts or trademark signs will cause this issue and need to be removed.
The update to After Effects CC 12.1 should fix this error. http://blogs.adobe.com/aftereffects/2013/09/after-effects-cc-12-1-whats-new-and-changed.html


text:
Will Canon 600D be able to do these?
A few days ago I watched Chris Nolan's Following and thought to myself "I can do something like this".
I have found out that Nolan used Bolex for the film. He still uses film cameras and is against digital cameras.
I would like to create shots that are reminiscent of La Haine , Following and the older films like Death on the Nile etc.
I found Canon 600D for about 550-600 dollars ( and various versions with different lenses) .
Is it good for a filmmaking beginner? I want to create old-film style setups. Maybe some car interior shots. Timelapses. 4:3 videos.
Which lens should I use for old film looks? Do you recommend cheap tripod and external mics? I'm open to any help.
Also: Whats the difference between IS and DC lens. DS is much cheaper.

IS pretty much universally stands for Image Stabilization, but DC stands for different things depending on what manufacturer you're looking at.  With Nikon, it stands for "Defocus Control".  Canon doesn't actually use DC as a descriptor, but some resellers of canon lenses use DC to mean "not IS".  Sources:  http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/22457/whats-the-difference-between-the-lenses-ef-s-18-55-dc-iii-and-ef-s-18-55-is-ii  https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9580/~/what-is-a-dc-lens%3F

Yes, DSLRs are a good starting point for doing movie type projects.  The use of interchangeable lenses and the shallower depth of field offered by larger sensors than found in most consumer video cameras allows for far more artistic options.  This is why DSLRs are very popular with the amateur film making community.
It should be noted, however, that they are not without their drawbacks.  All but the most recent DSLRs (including the 600d) lack auto-focus while shooting video, so you will have to either focus before shots or manually adjust your focus during the shot.  (If you move up to the 650d instead and use STM lenses, it IS able to auto focus when shooting video.)  Focus peaking can help with this by providing highlighting of the most in-focus points in the image, but it requires the use of custom firmware software like Magic Lantern.  (I've personally used ML, but it isn't without some small degree of risk to your camera.)
Additionally, DSLRs suffer from something known as a rolling shutter.  On a high end video camera, the entire image for each frame is captured at the same time, thus quick pans look crisp.  On a DSLR however, the sensor is scanned line by line when shooting video, so fast pans result in a "jello" effect (which is well documented with numerous videos demonstrating the problem on Youtube).
It is also worth noting that you do still get what you pay for in quality.  A near bottom of the line consumer DSLR, particularly with a dirt cheap kit lens that comes with it is going to have much more marginal quality than anything professional.  Even a higher end entry level model like a t4i (650d) or better yet, a mid-range model like a 70d will have far superior quality.  Similarly, replacing the kit lens with something like a 50mm f/1.8 prime or other better quality lens will result in a substantial improvement in video quality.
It still won't be anything near Hollywood level though.  About the closest you can get to Hollywood quality for under $7,000 is a 5D Mark iii running ML and shooting RAW footage on high end L optics, but even at $3,500 for the camera body and $1,500 to $2,500 for the lens, the quality still ends up being noticeably lower (to the professional eye) than a professional video camera like an ARRI Alexa (which costs $50,000+), but it is close enough to raise eyebrows in the professional community.
That all said though, DSLRs (even the basic models) still offer more bang for the buck in terms of artistic control than almost any consumer level camera, just so long as you also realize they are harder to use for video than a consumer camera, which can handle more for you, but gives you less options.

The question reads like: how I get the best quality out of a given setup/financial scale. just keep in mind, that you get what you pay for - so don't expect fancy 4K-movies out of this ;)
The first two things I would suggest to buy are microphone and tripod. Why? If you want to do a silent film, you can use the internal mic - otherwise I would strongly suggest to use an external one, because the internal one might catch too much noise during quality and characteristics.
holding the camera with your bare hands can always cause movements within the movie, so a cheap tripod is better than none. if you buy one, just keep in mind that you might move it during the shot, so it should be moved smoothly.
also don't forget that Autofocus (as used in a DSLR) might not work during filming, so you've to pull the focus.
I would strongly oppose to use a certain lens for a certain style of picture - just try to get the best quality out of the setup and add the "style" in post processing. if you have motivation, passion or the faith not to change something of the style in post processing, than you might buy a lens/filter to archive this.
if you consider buying a Canon EOS, you might have a look at magic lantern for an alternative firmware with an movie making aspect.

How about a monopod? Will it be more comfortable and flexible? I  want to shoot a car interior scene. Camera will be placed in back seat in the middle. I would like the at least half of both front seats to be visible . Do I need a higher lens for that?

a monopod impies that you have to hold the camera all the time, just adding some stability. I would place and secure a tripod at the floor of the car and hope that the picture stabilization of lens might do it. for the lens I think that the default one might be enough - but this depends on the distances


text:
What parameters should I select to get a high quality voice .wav file?
I'm trying to generate a high quality .wav voice-over using Microsoft Speech API. What should be the values of following parameters (they are part of this constructor):
int samplesPerSecond,
int bitsPerSample,
int channelCount,
int averageBytesPerSecond,
int blockAlign,

to guarantee high quality audio?
The .wav file will be used latter to feed FFmpeg, so audio will be re-encoded latter to a more compact form. My main goal is keep the voice as clear as I can, but I really don't know which values guarantee the best quality perceived by humans without waste resource for nothing.

A standard for WAV is 48K / 16 bit mono, or stereo if there's ambiance or presence you'd like to preserve. The last two parameters are a consequence of those choices and you can calculate them based on your selection. Then any compression you might apply afterward will have a good starting basis.
If all you're after is intelligibility, a lower sample rate may be just as good. 22K / 16 bit mono is good enough for many voice purposes. I personally wouldn't use a lower bit depth, but you can experiment with 8 bit to see if it's acceptable.

Thanks a lot for your reply! I'm after high quality, mean not just intelligibility. I have seen people that select 88200 instead of 44000 (here and here). Do you know if is human perfectible the different between those two sampling values after apply a standard compression to the .wav file? How can I calculate those last two values you said are calculable from the first three?

You mean 44100, I think, which is adequate. There's no evidence that rates higher than required by the Nyquist limitation have any beneficial effect on the result, and if there were, it would be undone when using a lossy compression algo like MP3. The block align is the product of channels and bytes, so for 16 bit mono it would be 2, or 4 for 16 bit stereo. Average bytes per second is a hint to players and is a function of bit rate, sample depth and channels. For mono, 48000 samples x 16 bits per sample divided by 8 bits per byte gives 96000. 44100x16/8 = 88200 etc.


text:
Should I use Magic Lantern as a beginner?
I'm getting a Canon 600 D. I will also get a 32 gb class 10 sd card. Do you think I shoujld get another card and install Magic Lantern into that?
I really want to create time lapses.

As someone who just went through the transition of using Canon firmware to Magic Lantern firmware, no. It depends ENTIRELY on what you know. For instance, do you know what shutter speed, ISO, and aperture are? Do you know what effect shooting "wide open" or with a high ISO has on your shot? Do you know how to correctly set your white balance and get correct exposure?
If you're a beginner and you're not familiar with these terms, you may at first be overwhelmed; that's totally normal and OK. But, it is my strong suggestion that you get to know these things and work with the standard Canon firmware before moving to Magic Lantern. Film making is hard enough as it is, no point in making it more difficult on yourself. Once you have a strong grasp of the basics, you can better appreciate/utilize the features that Magic Lantern gives you (recording formats, focus peaking, settings logs, RGB parade, hotkeys, wider range of ISO/aperture values, etc.).

I would disagree with Scott on this.  I think ML is great for starting out doing video for a beginner, but you need to be sure to read the ML forums to learn about the features it offers you.
DSLR video is not easy.  It is far more complicated than shooting video on a consumer camera and getting good results requires skills you don't have yet.  Magic Lantern provides tools (such as focus peaking and zebra) that will help you considerably as you are learning to shoot video on your DSLR.
Yes, there are a TON of options in ML and so it can be easy to get overwhelmed, but that is why reading their tutorials and forums, and also why asking about the use of certain features here on Video Production is a great option.
Particularly since you mentioned time lapse, Magic Lantern also provides intervolometer functionality for capturing time lapse sequences as well.

The intervalometer bonus is a good mention. I know for me, personally, I was so overwhelmed by pre-production, production, and post-production that to add on the complexity of ML would of probably killed me, haha. You have to learn a lot as a beginner film maker and ML at that time was too much for me. Now, however, it's a god send.

@ScottJamesWalter - yeah, the trick is to look for specific features rather than trying to learn all the bells and whistles, because ML gives you an orchestra.


text:
Can I use any audio recorder for filming?
I've been trying to find an affordable mic for 600d DSLR. There's Rode VideoMic Go and Zoom H1 . But I still find these a little above my budget.
My question is: Can I use something like this
http://gadgetgrocery.com/image/data/Sony%20Recorders/Sony%20Digital%20Voice%20Recorder%20PX333%205.jpg
or a better one ( or even use ipad) to record audio then sync with video?
Do I absolutely need to plug a proffesional mic into the camera?
Edit: I will be using the camera for short film sequences. Some car interior scenes. I need an okay audio quality.

Need to know more. What kind of content are you going to be shooting? What's your budget? Is this a hobby for you or are you trying to do something professionally? Please be specific because audio is a varied spectrum.

The answer to the question "Can I..." is "Yes." But without knowing what you expect or why you're asking, there's no way to know if your results will be satisfactory.

I guess it really depends on your production and how high of quality you want. You will hear countless times, if you stick with this hobby, that audio far outweighs video when it comes to importance. This is somewhat counter intuitive because the video is much more obvious an impact than the audio. For this reason, however, purchasing the best audio solutions one can afford is usually the best solution (depending on your scenario, of course).
Recording inside a car is a whole new can of worms. They're incredibly noisy, especially while operating. For this reason, sound engineers will often entirely reconstruct car scenes specifically by recording sfx, foley and performing ADR with the actors. Hopefully you can think of some creative ways to use your car while it's not operating because it's incredibly difficult to capture usable audio.
Essentially you're asking the question that every beginner videographer asks: "what's the cheapest, all-around best audio solution I can get without having to think too much." It's a fair question, but one that doesn't have the best answer. I don't think a small palm recorder/ipad is a good idea. What I might recommend is a combo solution. I would pick up a wired lavalier mic (atr-3350) for $20 dollars and plug that directly into your camera for portrait shots, and then I might pick up a camera mounted shot gun mic (Azden SMX-10) for $80 for wider shots and you'd have a good universal, cheap solution.
It's worth noting that plugging microphones directly into Canon cameras is often not the best audio solution because of the low quality preamps and AGC found on the camera which results in adding a "hiss" to your audio. You can clean this up in post but it does degrade the audio slightly. Something to look out for, and something that you can kind of fix with Magic Lantern software you asked about earlier.
When you say "exterior sounds" I assume you mean dialogue (correct me if I'm wrong). For outside characters tend to be on the move, so having them attached to your camera (a la wired lavalier) is a bad idea. You never want to leash your actors to your camera for obvious reasons. Additionally, clothing will rub against the mic and create unusable audio. If you're not in motion, the only thing you need to worry about is wind. A few little dead cats for your lavs should solve that problem (while making them more noticeable). However, the ultimate solution to outdoor dialogue is a shotgun microphone on a boom pole. But, that is probably out of your budget, so a cam mounted VideoPro mic will do "well" as long as you get it close to your subject.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I might try to get Rode VideoMic instead of Azden ( it's lot more expensive here ) . How good does that lavalier mic record exterior sounds?

@CatwithaFez I edited my original answer with some more information.

There are two key things for audio when shooting video that you MUST have.
First, you need to have good audio/video sync.  Whatever recorder you use, must be able to produce good, solid timecode that will match up properly with your video, otherwise you end up with drift, which can be very hard to adjust for if the clock is inconsistent on your audio recorder.  Sometimes cheaper audio devices may not have good clock sync as they aren't worried about exact pitch, but just general content.
Second, you need the audio recorder to actually provide better audio than your DSLR.  A device with a cheap built in mic isn't going to provide substantially better audio than the DSLR.  It might be slightly more isolated from noises of you adjusting the camera, but it still is going to pick up lots of room noise and other artifacts that will be a general pain for you.  It is best to get a device with a better microphone than your DSLR has that can be placed in a better spot for picking up good quality audio without extraneous noise.
External inputs aren't critical, but solid timecode and the ability to record clean, targeted audio without noise is.  External inputs make this easier to achieve and allow for more upgrades in the future, but if such products are outside your budget, you don't have to get them now.

Considering that most cuts with dialogue aren't over a few seconds, drift isn't the bigger concern for someone looking to make short films, imo. I feel like if you're shooting continuous audio for interviews, news, concerts, etc. then it's probably more of an issue. I could be wrong, however, as I am not terribly experienced.

@ScottJamesWalter - well that depends on how long of scenes they are doing I suppose.  If they are dubbing, yeah, it will just be a few seconds and can match up manually, but if they are shooting several minute scenes, then it is going to be a pain to have to resync multiple times in the scene.  Much easier to sync to a clapper at the beginning and maybe one at the end and not have to worry about it the rest of the time for the entire scene.


text:
What do I need for Noir lightning?
I'm new to film making as I have just purchased Canon 600D.  I also have a tripod. What else do I need to get the low-key lightning often found in Noir films?
From the film Whisperer in Darkness : http://aleatoriclove.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/whisperer_in_darkness.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img42/8990/whisper3.png
How do I achieve this look?

Check out this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsmVL7SDp5Y

The big thing is to use harsh direct lighting.  Normally in lighting, you are trying to diffuse light to soften shadows, but in this kind of look, hard and dark shadows is actually what you want.  On a budget, place a couple of unshaded lamp bulbs out to light the scene.  The brighter the lamps, the darker you can get the shadow.  Note that you will also want a room with fairly dark walls so that light isn't reflected in to the shadows or you may need to use guides to keep the light directed towards your scene.
If you want a slightly less dark look like the second link, you may also want a base of dim diffused soft light.  If you are using something to direct the direct lights towards the scene and away from the ceiling, you can accomplish the diffused lighting by pointing a light at the ceiling and blocking it from hitting the scene directly.  This gives you a large surface area for the light being reflected in to the scene which makes it very soft and should fill in the shadows just enough to keep detail in the darker parts of the image.
I also highly recommend checking out the link Scott Walter posted in the comments on the main question as it is a fantastic tutorial that shows what you are getting from each light.

Can I use this led bulb ? : http://images.hepsiburada.net/assets/Hirdavat/300/Hirdavat_2336654.jpg and this 100 whalogen projector ? http://images.hepsiburada.net/assets/Hirdavat/80/Hirdavat_2787012.jpg   also this : http://images.hepsiburada.net/assets/Hirdavat/80/Hirdavat_2786865.jpg

Work lights are a great approach to cheap high intensity lamps and should work fine for the main lights.  Just be sure to keep them away from anything sensitive to heat as they will put out a lot of it.  The LED bulb I'm less sure about.  It depends on what spectrum of light it produces.  Some LED lamps don't work well with video because they produce light on different spectrum from the ones that cameras recognize, but as long as it is dimmable and produces proper light for the camera, it could be used for the low intensity diffused light source possibly.

One more question: How many of that work light do I need? ( for example: exposing a clock ) . Can I use these outdoors? (okay, this is actually 2 questions)

2 Minimum, probably no more than that either.  You will also need the ability to rope in the light they produce a bit (things to block some of the light from reaching your scene) since worklights tend to overly flood and aren't dimmable, so it will take a little work to get just the way you want.  Shadows are your friends, but work lights tend to throw light everywhere.


text:
Can I shoot in 16:9 then change it to 4:3?
I'm trying to get the old film look with Canon 600D, so I will be shooting in 640*480 25 fps. But what if I shoot in 16:9 at 24 fps, will I be able to get the same 4:3 after editing? (The reason I'm asking this is films are 24 fps, 600D doesn't have 4:3 at 24 fps)

If you are going for an old film look don't lower the resolution, thats not getting you any closer to the look and limits your possibilities in post.
The only good reason to shoot at a lower resolution is to save storage space. You can always downscale.

Of course you can set your project up so that it will output a 4:3 video. However, keep in mind that there are only two ways to achieve this:

Nr. 1 You crop the video, which means you will lose stripes of the video at both the left and the right side.

Here's an example:

Nr. 2: You resize the 16:9 input video so that it fits in the 4:3 output video. I wouldn't recommend this though, since the video and everything in it will be deformed, which looks completely aweful.

So if this is your input:

It will result in this output:

Both options result in a quality / information loss. How about shooting in 4:3 at a higher framerate? You could easily lower the framerate in editing to achieve your desired effect ...

I'm thinking about the number 1. Is the result of that same as if I shoot in 4:3 ?

The resulting video will have an 4:3 aspect ratio, yes. It will most likely look like you shot your video in 4:3. However, while filming, you'll have to remember that you will lose said stripes at both sides, so you can't have e.g. a person stand in the very side of the 16:9 video, since this person will figuratively be cut in half during editing.

I guess I will have to use 4:3 at 25 fps.

@CatwithaFez Just so you know, Magic Lantern allows  you to film with crop marks so that you can film in 16:9 with a 4:3 crop mark so you can see what will be cut in post.

When you shoot 4:3 on a DSLR, it simply crops off the edges for you at the time of filming so that you can save disk space by not capturing video that you are going to throw away.  There is no reason not to shoot in 16:9 and then crop in post.
Shooting in 16:9 at the correct frame rate is the highest possible quality for your situation.  Adjusting frame rate in post results in a loss of quality if it isn't an exact multiple (and even then it can be argued it does due to the shutter speed used).  The one thing you have to keep in mind when shooting is where the edges will be when cropped though.  I recommend using the center.  You can either measure it out and place board tape on the screen (like masking tape, but less residue) or you can use something like Magic Lantern to overlay guidelines for you to use while shooting.

One more thing: Do you recommend using 480p for the old film look or just use 108p at 24fps then crop it 4:3 ?

@CatwithaFez - depends if you are looking for the old film look or the old TV look.  For the old film look, the quality was actually pretty high, but the color mapping was different.  For video, both the resolution and color mapping were different as was the interlacing.  If you want it to have an older look, it is going to need more than just the 4:3 and 480 scan line resolution applied to it, but that's really another question entirely.


text:
Can I use brand names in my short film?
Okay, there are two brands I want to use in my short film project:
First one is Ford Focus. The car will be shown explicitly but I can cover the logo with something. Is it okay to film your own car and talk about its model like this : " Yea, its a Focus." ?
And theres another relatively unknown cologne  of one known market . Can I use these without worrying?


text:
After Effects - Audio Spectrum with Circles
I have a music video I'd like to make with 4 quarter-circles at each of the four corners of the screen. I would like them all to to "pop out" together (in sync) along with the music, without any audio waves. How would I do that in After Effects?

Import your audio and use the Convert audio to keyframes option on the layer (right-click->Keyframe Assistent).
Then create an expression for the value that you want to modify based on the audio spectrum. In that case you probably want the radius or scale to be affected.
The simplest way to do this is to use the "expression pick whip". Just alt click the stop-watch icon to get the expression control menu.

Then click on the pick whip icon (marked above) and drag onto the left, right or center channel slider of your earlier generated "Audio Amplitude" layer. Now the values of the keyframes are 1:1 mapped to the chosen property of your circle object. Now you can do some math to the keyframes to amplify the animation or to reverse the direction.
F.e. you can do things like shown below, be aware that I chose to use the 2D size value as shown in the picture above, hence I have [temp, temp] at the end. If your property only has one value it will have only [temp] or with 3 values [temp,temp,temp]. You can also of course have separate values for each dimension.
Amplyify times 10:
temp = thisComp.layer("Audio Amplitude").effect("Left Channel")("Slider")*10;
[temp, temp]

Amplyify non uniform:
temp = thisComp.layer("Audio Amplitude").effect("Left Channel")("Slider");
[temp*5, temp*10]

Reverse direction:
temp = thisComp.layer("Audio Amplitude").effect("Left Channel")("Slider")*-1;
[temp, temp]

Easy In:
temp = easeIn(time, thisComp.layer("Audio Amplitude").effect("Left Channel")("Slider"), thisComp.layer("Audio Amplitude").effect("Left Channel")("Slider"));
[temp,temp]

The little "play" icon next to the whip offers you a lot of math expression functions to use here.


text:
How to remove a part of a moving object from a video?
I have a video in which I want to remove part of an object in every frame and then render the video again. I have tried photoshop and after effect. Both of them work somehow, but they degrade video quality significantly. Is there any other options to do it with a good quality?

The problem is that your source is compressed, reompression is a big problem. However also how you comporess is a problem just slapping some compression on has this effect on things. You need to work on your compression settings quite a bit.

What is going in the place of the part of the object you are removing?  Is it a static shot?  What do you mean by the quality being degraded?


text:
Adobe Audition CS6 Crashing
I am running Adobe Audition CS6. Each time that I try to work in my project, it continues to crash due to a “fatal error”. I have reset the preferences, but it continues to crash. I am running windows 7 professional. Here is the Log, the last entry in the log looks to be the culprit.
 Ticks = 107781      <1556> <AuLog.Error> <5> Unhandled exception caught in aui:ErrorManager::ExecuteFunctionWithTopLevelExceptionHandler()

Thanks
J

An und handled execption is never a good sign. That means its either a bug in the application, in that case there is usually not much you can do other than sending Adobe a detailed report about the crash. Another possibility can be a malfunctioning driver or a hardware failure.
Maybe you have recently installed something or updated a driver? Reverse that installation and see if the problem persists.
Also check your RAM, something that is the cause for a lot of random crashes is corrupt RAM.
You can check the health of you RAM with a tool like memtest86+. Best to run it over night as it needs many iterations to really ensure healthy RAM.


text:
Is it feasible to manually implement chroma keying?
I have a weak computer (Atom N270 & onboard, 2006 Intel graphics) and it's super slow to do video editing on modern resolution videos, preferably 720p and up.
I was wondering if I could manually do chroma keying without software to make it easier. Is it possible? Could I replicate what the software does manually, like, for example, painting sixty pixels into a square instead of using a fill brush in a single click? Chroma keying the entire video one frame at a time and composing a video format, or use some set algorithm to do it faster?
I believe everything made easier can be done manually in segments.
I mean it's hard to sit and wait like 2 hours to chroma key a 10 second video on these weak specs. I need to see if there's a way to ease the chroma keying process on weaker hardware.
The modern chroma keying software features are too demanding for a 1.6 GHz Atom N270.

No you wont be faster, but you could use a different method. As in a different application. Really it comes down to what your bottleneck is. If the bottleneck is the interplay between you and the computer then sure. What you can do is expand the video to frames as a prepass. This takes time but is essentially unsupervised. Likewise you could preprocess the mask somehow (use a half size proxy image for example), and use that as a basis.
The problem is that it might not be economically feasible. Since:

you need to learn a new software, as well as find it. Test it etc.
You may need to write portions of it yourself, atleast scripts.

You still dont get fast enough to get your investment back. I mean its still cheaper to buy new hardware, if you plan to do this more than 3 times in a row. I understand that your circumstances may be special and you havent got the money.
But on that note, we are actually doing what is essentially chroma keying on the graphics card of a raspberry Pi and it works at 15 frames per second on a full hd image. So i doubt its the hardware computation per see. Possibly its a IO problem.

No, you couldn't do it faster than the software does it.  The software, if it is any good at all, should be much faster than you could possibly do it.  That's why people use the software.  If the software runs slow, then the same steps would be needed in your manual process and the manual process (whatever that is supposed to mean) would also be just as slow.

in any case even if you could do it, you can not, you would still need to upload that info to the computer. This uploading would be slow.

When you're talking about manually extracting a matte, you really should be looking at "rotoscoping" software, and not limiting yourself to chroma keying.  Mocha is built into after effects and is a good tool for this purpose, but if your machine's too old to run it, you should research whatever rotoscoping software was state of the art when your computer was new.  Rotoscoping is a tedious process, and it's nowhere near as convenient or quick as chroma keying, but sometimes (such as perhaps in your case) you don't have that option.  I'd recommend watching some tutorials on it to decide if that's a direction you really want to take.


text:
After Effects - How to avoid annoying gradations if I render a mp4?
I created a light in After Effects. My preview works as expected:

But if I render my composition as a mp4 file, I get these strange gradations errors:

I've tried every option in the comp settings, but the error still appears.
What I can do to get rid of it?

Interesting question. I was always thinking that was a upload problem.I did a little research and I found  this explanation by Grayscalegorilla. Maybe that will help.

That's called: Banding. About Color Banding from Wikipedia:

Colour banding is a problem of inaccurate colour presentation in computer graphics. In 24 bit colour modes, 8 bits per channel is usually considered sufficient to render images in Rec. 709 or sRGB. However, in some cases there is a risk of producing abrupt changes between shades of the same colour. For instance, displaying natural gradients (like sunsets, dawns or clear blue skies) can show minor banding.

In your case I assume that this is a compression issue. Movie containers like: mov, avi or mp4 only can have 8bit, but the preview is in 16bit or 32bit. If you render a image format that supports 16bit or 32bit (preferably exr, tga, tiff) instead of a video you should see no difference to your preview screenshot.
The simplest way to avoid banding is to add grain to your video.

One option is to use generated grain shipped by default with After Effects. Just typing Add Grain in the Effects & Presets window and apply this effect to your final comp. Note: A Intensity value of 0.37 or 0.4 should be enough to remove the banding and makes the effect not noticeable.
Another option is to use scanned film grain from real cameras

or and make your white slightly impure

Thanks @joojaa! Do you mean a little bit more greyish?

no off color as in little bluish yellow or

@joojaa Yes can help, but depends on the footage you have and how much you can influence the appearance of the video. The advantage of adding grain is that it helps in all cases.

sure but you can combine it with grain to minimize grainyness.

@joojaa You are right. Thanks! Combining both techniques makes sense. I will update the answer as soon as I can.

you guys are awesome in it worked even tho it effected a little bit on the quietly but its a price ill pay to get redof banding

A downside to this technique of course is that noise and grain adversely affect how well it will compress, so that you'll need a higher bit-rate for the same quality. It's still the best solution, but that's something you may need to consider.


text:
How do I alter just the framerate of a VP9 webm without affecting anything else?

I wish to change just the framerate of a VP9 encoded webm file.
The source file has a framerate of 1000 FPS, and I'd like to change it to 30 FPS, without affecting the video/audio in any other way.
I'm a completely blank slate at video encoding/editing. No prior experience/knowledge
Google had no answers for me

Questions:

Is there a way to do it? I'm using Ubuntu 14.04
Will lowering the framerate mean lowered CPU usage?

This has come up before for other codecs / containers.
This DOESN'T work in ffmpeg without transcoding, since ffmpeg unfortunately isn't set up for messing with timestamps on non-decoded frames.
I think you should be able to do it with this (untested):
mkvmerge --default-duration 0:30fps  in.webm -o out.webm
Where 0 is the track-id of the video track.  Check the man page for mkvmerge for more details.  Note that it says that --fix-bitstream-timing-information is only implemented for h.264 currently, so your output will have a vp9 stream that probably still says it's 1000 fps, but the container will have frame timestamps at 30fps.  Players almost always use container presentation-timestamps, though.
If there is audio with the video, I assume it's the right length for the video being 30fps?  Otherwise that's a big stretch needed...

I did not know that it was possible for a video's metadata to show 1000 fps but be 30 fps instead. Maybe that's what is happening in my source video? Is there a way to check?

Well some video codecs can store an FPS in the bitstream, separate from the timestamps in the container.  A quick google found this link that might help explain why there are multiple layers of things.  http://www.pitivi.org/manual/codecscontainers.html.  edit: and here's a link that looks better, in more detail.  https://library.rice.edu/services/dmc/guides/video/VideoFormatsGuide.pdf

There must be a good FAQ for stuff like this somewhere?  Anyone have a link that makes a good boilerplate answer to give to confused beginners?

To answer your question: you could say that the ACTUAL fps of your video was the real time interval between the frames that the camera recorded.  If you play it back at a different FPS, time in the displayed video will be sped up or slowed down.

oh, and also, how did you determine it was 1000fps?  mplayer shows 1000fps for some variable-frame-rate files, just as a placeholder.  Unless you did something weird, or there's a bug in something you used (certainly possible since VP9 is still new), it's highly unlikely you really have a video that will play at 1000fps.

also see http://askubuntu.com/questions/370692/how-to-change-the-framerate-of-a-video-without-reencoding


text:
Avidemux output to youtube
Youtube recommend this encoding setting for videos. I'm is not an expert of encoding, I just use avidedmux to sync external audio with video, and compress the mix. There are a lot of options in "MPEG4 AVC" and I can't match it with the youtube's recommendations.
What options should I select in avidemux (for video and audio) to match youtube's recommendations?

also: see http://video.stackexchange.com/questions/12396/youtube-compression-why

avidemux's dialog box for x264 settings is pretty bad.  It's been years since x264 added presets from ultrafast to veryslow, but avidemux still makes you manually choose all the cpu-time vs. quality options.  It doesn't even have a checkbox for more recent (but essential) options like mb-tree, or psycho-visual optimizations (AQ and psy-rd).
I honestly can't recommend avidemux (2.5.4 in Ubuntu 14.04) as a frontend for x264.  It's pretty essential to have something with a slider for slow to fast presets.  I made a test encode, and the important settings default to on, which is good.
It doesn't matter too much what you use for youtube, as long as you use enough bitrate for it to look good.  (CRF 18 is usually visually transparent, you could go CRF 16 to be on the safe side.)
There aren't any settings that will make youtube use your encode untouched for even one of its standard resolutions, instead of doing a transcode.  The encoding guidelines, are all stuff that's on by default in avidemux.  Except the GOP of half the framerate, which makes no sense anyway, and is a horrible idea.  They're going to xcode the whole video anyway, so using a 1/2 second GOP size is just going to hurt compression.  Same for only 2 b frames.  I'm sure their decoder can handle the max consecutive B frames h.264 allows.  (which is probably 16, since that's what x264 allows.)  x264's default setting of 3 b frames is apparently good.  I think with that one, they're just making sure that mis-informed people don't disable b-frames and worsen the rate-distortion (quality vs. filesize) tradeoff of their encode.

Update: newer versions of avidemux seem to be much better, and does have x264 presets.  And is all-around better at handling inputs in modern formats, too.


text:
Why does video rendering begin at the top left corner of the screen?
Why is the top left corner of the screen considered to be (0,0) and not the bottom left like in a graph?

Welcome user10646 :) Please start with the tour: http://video.stackexchange.com/tour and please add the software you are using to the question, because not every rendering software starts at the top left corner.

Cinema 4D starts from the center and spirals outwards unless you change the default behavior.

Probably because TV and CRTs scanned from the top left.  Video cards store the screen buffer in this order, too, so scan-out from the screen buffer in left-to-right, top-to-bottom reads sequentially increasing memory addresses.  Addressing video RAM as a 2-dimensional array
extern int32_t screenbuf[480][640];
screenbuf[0][0] = RED;
would modify the top-left pixel.  My theory is that this led to graphics APIs using coordinate systems with 0,0 at the top left, even device-independent APIs (not 640x480 or whatever), because that choice mirrors direct addressing of video RAM.  (and saves one subtraction every time a Y coordinate has to get mapped to a memory address.)
As some comment point out, not ALL graphical coordinate systems have the origin at the top left, but it is extremely common for graphics APIs as well as UIs, and for example window coordinates in the X Window System.

There is no real reason, it only depends on the preference of the programmer, because it is mathematically irrelevant calculating the pixel first on the top, bottom, left or right.

I had another think about the TV/CRT thing, and realized that video cards scan out in sequential memory order, so video RAM layout matches the 0,0 = top left convention.

Interesting - I assume it's because of consistency and optimisation. Certainly that's real time dependend, but that's my guess...

Yeah, designing the graphics hardware to only need to fetch sequential memory addresses to feed the RAMDAC is an optimization.


text:
BT.1120 Video Standard Specifications?
I have a camera that states this under the video output specification.
Ive tried finding out what it means but can't does anyknow know ?

this is my question, when i signed up here, the facebook didnt work and created a new account rather than linking it to my existing stack accounts.

This is a document from the ITU :
http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BT.1120-8-201201-I/en
that specifies Digital interfaces for HDTV studio signals.
This kind of signal is commonly carried on an HD-SDI physical layer.


text:
Can't Import Video with Alpha to Premiere
This is really annoying. I've heard a lot about how Apple have removed a lot of different codec uses including the most needed Quicktime RGB+Alpha one in After Effects. I can no longer import videos with an alpha channel into Premiere. I've tried ProRes 4444 but that didn't work either. All I get is "The importer reported a generic error."
I've tried restarting the project, restarting my computer, reinstalling premiere and so on. This is absolutely crucial to my business and must be fixed soon. Does anyone have a work around to this?

Only Prores 4444 supports alpha channels, see the manual:

The Apple ProRes 4444 codec offers the utmost possible quality for
  4:4:4 sources and for workflows involving alpha channels.

It seems to work for me, using the Animation codec with "Millions of Colors+". I'm on a Mac using Adobe CC. Here are the steps I took:

Export your AE comp using Quicktime Animation codec with Millions of Colors+ selected.
Import the file into Premiere CC
Right click on your footage and select Modify > Interpret Footage
Select Conform Alpha PreMultiplication to: Premultiplied Alpha
Press OK
Drag your clip into the timeline

With this you should be able to drag another clip beneath it, and see it through your original clip, as shown below (Intepret Footage settings are also shown):


text:
Post processing - image stabilisation
I own a Panasonic HC-V130. Recently I've read an article about image stabilisation in a computing magazine. Can this be achieved without a special camera?
I am using too much zoom to hold the camera still - causing the image to bounce up and down. Can I correct some of this shaking using software after? If possible can anyone suggest a few pieces of software that can achieve this - if possible a free one.
I use windows 8.1 and Ubuntu 14.04 (Linux).

Welcome user3258396 :) Please explain what you've read. I assume you are read about automatic hardware image stabilization, but you are asking for software - bit confusing. Please add more context to the question. So far I understand your question I'd suggest to use Blender or Fusion via wine.

I mean where a video has been shot and say I am walking in the picture whilst shooting or I am using too much zoom to hold the camera still - causing the image to bounce up and down. Can I correct some of this shaking using software after - much like removing redeye or adjusting contrast? I'm talking about using no special hardware for shooting the video. Just that camera mentioned above and my PC after for post processing.

Possible, but in order to get a solid answer might be a good idea to add an example shot or a better description of your issue to your question.

look here: http://video.stackexchange.com/questions/15930/how-to-remove-little-camera-movements

Adobe premiere and After effects have a stabilizer plugin with that does what you want. These are commercial applications.
The free Da vinci resolve lite also has a "stabilize option" (but I have never tried personally)

The answer seems to be yes it can be done. Thanks all! :-)

Search for youtube video with "adobe warp stabilizer" and you will see the plugin in action.

FFMpeg's vid.stab filter works well.  You have to run it as a 2-pass process: detect, and then stabilize.  If you're going to do more with the video later, after stabilizing, output to a lossless format and then point your other tools at that.

Adobe warp stabilizer, Mercalli pro, Mocha AE, Vegas Stablize, these are all either part of the NLE or separate plugins that work to stabilize a shot. In my experience, Mercalli is by far the best, and has simple options that you can customize depending on the type of stabilization.
With that in mind, I've found its really important to shoot at a higher frame rate and higher shutter speed to minimize motion blur as that is usually what makes post-processed video stabilization look wobbly among other things like shear. Up and down movement is probably the simplest to correct, but any footage that involves movement forward/backward / pans will have to be broken up into sections, or may not be stablizable due to the motion (will look weird) and too much would be cut off in the crop.