text:
How do I get a totally white background without the subject being too bright?
I would like to do a product demonstration similar to the White Room's demonstrations done by Apple, such as iPad 2 Product Demonstration

What type of lighting is used to keep the whites extremely white, while producing a professional looking video? Is this done by saturating the room with light, then going in after the video and darkening the video?
What type of room setup is needed?
Suggestions on Video Camera?

Note that any shots of the iPads without hands (and even then it may be composited) has a very high probability of being CG

We do this all the time. All you need is a white wall and plenty of light.
The goal is to light the wall far brighter than the subject in front. You want it so that when the subject is properly exposed, the wall behind them is vastly overexposed/blown out, thus losing any details/texture on the wall.
It helps to keep the subject at a distance from the backdrop.
Here's the last shoot I was on using this technique:

The best results I've achieved were using a light grey cyc or background instead of actual white. They bring the exposure up to where it looks white but you don't have to use nearly as much light on the subject to make them expose properly. We just used kino's with diffusion on the cyc and kino's with less diffusion on the subject with a solid backlight. The 5D MkIII produced a fantastic and professional looking result.

What is a light grey cyc (dont know what that mnemonic stands for)

@eLouai - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclorama_%28theater%29  (I had to check too.)

I'd hazard a guess that they were either using a chroma key (green or blue screen) or a white wall studio to shoot in, and using a lot of lighting on the walls especially.
If it was blue or green screen, they would have used a few lights behind the subject on either side, but if they were in a white wall studio, they could have possibly used the reflected light off the walls to get the highlights from behind.
A dimmer, softer light source such as a soft box or umbrella from near and above where the camera is located is used to light their face.

The best how-to build for a white seamless background that I've seen yet is:
http://www.zarias.com/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space/
And part 2 of that how-to covers setting the correct exposure very thoroughly:
http://www.zarias.com/white-seamless-next-post-this-afternoon/
Depending on how you want to treat the footage, like Nick Bedford said, your camera and capture choices may be very similar to the choices you'd have if you were shooting green screen, which you can read more about over at Create a DIY Green Screen / Chroma Key.

Zarias.com not found

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there an easy method for detecting or marking the actual sample frequency?
Some time ago, I did a project where the solo guitarist was sitting in a different location. I uploaded rough down mixes to guitarist, who would load the files into his DAW software, record his guitar parts to separate tracks and send the guitar tracks back to me. It worked really well save for one thing: His tracks always seemed a teeny tiny bit off key. Not only that, but he also seemed to drift very slightly tempo wise. The drift became more noticeable on longer takes and that's where it occurred to me that perhaps his and my sampling frequencies were not in sync. After a little trial and error I was able to identify the drift between our sampling rates and subsequently, I would always resample his submissions to get the tracks in tune and sync with my tracks.
Edit: To be clear, the files were sampled at 44.1KHz at both ends. An example: One file is two minutes long. At the beginning of the file, the transient of the guitarists strum is right on top of my drums and bass. But over the course of 2 minutes, the strum consistently lags behind a little further each time. I know is isn't because my guitarist can't keep time--it's too consistent for that.  Looking at the last strum, about two minutes into the song, I see the transient of the drum and the guitar is now 200 milliseconds apart. There are supposed to be 44,100 samples every second so that's a lag of 8820 samples.  A two minute sample at 44,100Hz is 120*44,100 = 5,292,000 samples so relatively speaking, the lag is less than .17 percent. All things considered that might sound like a pretty good tolerance, but a .17 percent drift after two minutes is 200 milliseconds and very clearly audible.
I know that you can use external clock sources to sync up digital streams, but we didn't have that kind of equipment at our disposal. Besides, although two external clock sources would probably be spot on 44.1/84/96KHz, we'd still have to make sure.
In movie and video production, it is common to use a so-called clapperboard to annotate each take, and to synchronize image and sound. I wonder if maybe marking each take with a reference signal could perhaps help identify equipment that's not sampling the signal at exactly 44.1/48/96KHz. I know I could just add, say, a 1000 HZ square signal at the beginning of each take, but then I would manually have to look at the waveform to see if it is spot on. Are there better ways to deal with this kind of problem?
Is it a common problem or just a case of really bad hardware on my and/or the guitarists side?

Yes, sample clocks vary, and this can cause recordings on different devices to drift over time.
If you're trying to figure out the frequency at which something was recorded, you could do a bandpass filter around 50 Hz or 60 Hz (depending on which country you're in), and then analyze the hum which is picked up in the recording.  If you're in the US, the hum will be at exactly 60 Hz.  If you analyze it and get 60.1 Hz, then you know the sampling frequency of that device was 0.16% slow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_network_frequency_analysis
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/01/enf_met_police/

I like your suggestion. For once, the dreaded hum might actually turn out to be helpful, if only a little. On the other hand, I know that the frequency of alternating current from your local power plant is also prone to drifting.  AFAIK, it is pretty common for power plants to only guarantee the number of oscillations over, say, 24 hours.  So if they're falling behind or overshooting at the end of a 24 period they will simply increase or decrease the frequency to meet the guaranteed number.

Oh, and that's exactly what the links you provided talk about. So unless I happen to know what the drift was at any given time at the remote recording location, I'm really no better off, yeah?

The frequency is maintained within a few parts per million, and the correction is 0.02 Hz (0.033%): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_frequency#Long-term_stability_and_clock_synchronization

What file format are you passing back and forth?  The sample rate is stored in the file.  No need for a reference tone.
One of you is likely recording at a different sample rate than the other.  Probably one is recording at 44.1kHz, and the other 48kHz, or 88.2/96, etc.
Now, audio interfaces do vary in sample rate frequency.  44,100Hz can be 44,099Hz on one, and 44,0102Hz on another.  This won't throw your tuning off by any perceptible amount.  Given enough time, you can start hearing a difference.  However, if you are recording against a track already recorded, this isn't an issue.  The playback sample rate on his DAW while recording will be the same rate as the record rate.
So, if you put together a few parts and send him the files, and then he records a couple tracks and sends you the files, there should be no issue here.

I just added an example calculation above. I guess one of the things that make audio fidelity hard, is that our ears are very finely tuned to detect differences. Even though a lot of us don't have absolute hearing in terms of detecting notes, most people can tell when to sounds are just a few milliseconds apart. So even with your example of one device sampling at 44,099Hz and another at 44,102Hz, the relative difference is about .0068%.  For a five minute recording that means the length of the files will be about 20 ms apart and, depending on the sound material, beginning to become audible.

@Kim, thanks for clarifying.  Again, if he is playing back one of your tracks while recording, it won't be an issue, as the playback/record clock come from the exact same internal clock source.  If he records against nothing, and you record against nothing, and then you try to merge the files, you will get trouble.

your response and comment makes sense to me, yet this is what I saw. Stretching the guitarists samples upon import fixed minuscule key and tempo drift issues.

@Kim, so he is playing something back while recording?  Very odd.  what kind of hardware set up is he using?  I'm assuming he is recording on the same box as playing back?  If he has multiple audio interfaces hacked together with something like ASIO4ALL, then sync issues can occur with no external sync.  Other than that, I'm fairly stumped.  Sorry I can't be of more help!

I actually don't know what kind of audio interface or software the guitarist used, but I believe it was fairly basic.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

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


text:
Templates for video production?
I am planning to release short and basic videos on youtube. I would like to have a more polished look and feel so I am wondering if there are templates that you can use with, say, adobe premiere, that are complete with graphics, sounds, etc. Sorta like how a theme works with Wordpress.

Hi there, welcome to Audio.SE and thanks for your question! Unfortunately, we need to close the questions that aren't really appropriate for a recording site like this one, in order to keep the site on-topic. Please don't let it discourage you from asking future audio questions though! Consult the FAQ if you're curious if a question fits or not.

Reopened now that video production is in scope.

Take a look at http://www.premierepro.net where I'm sharing some project templates. If more people share their own templates there, it will become a great resource for free Premiere Pro templates. Everything you see on http://www.premierepro.net is free for both commercial and private use, and you can even download free sample chapters from the book "The Cool Stuff in Premiere Pro".
/jarle

The title designer of Adobe Premiere (CS3 at least) contains some templates for on-screen overlays which look quite good.
As for sounds, I dont't think there is anything included out-of-the box.

Video Hive has several professional assets with various degrees of specificity that you can integrate to your project for a reasonable price.

There are many companies which participate in the production of the templates of the video production. Our company provide better facilities than any other company to produce templates as well as audios and videos also. You will get all the facilities in one place.

video production services

This is entirely a sales pitch, and probably not good for the community unless you can better explain why your services are what the OP needs.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/


text:
Streaming with a Sony NX5
I recently obtained a Sony NX5, now aside from the fact that its pretty much a great camera in every way (afaik); it doesn't have a IEEE 1394 port. I assume this is probably related to the AVCHD format that the NX5 uses.
Regardless, I can't find an easy way to stream with it on to the Macs I've been given. Up to this point it's been fine as I've only needed to get the footage post-shoot. But next week I've got an event coming up and they want to use the NX5 to stream the footage from on-site to a synchronous event occurring elsewhere.
Their ambitions are high, but I figured if I can get the stream from the camera to the Mac, then I should be able to hook it up to the live stream.
Anyone got any pointers/hints/tips on how I can do this?

Analog to digital converter and then FW in to mac from there.


text:
Best rendering options for Sony Vegas 8 Pro?
I have a 20 minute video that needs to finish rendering at a maximum of 7 hours. The video format needs to compatible with Windows without Quicktime.
What the the best options to render the video?

I would go with a .mp4 format, if it is in HD, the AVCHD mp4 would be better compressed and better quality, but regular mp4 would be faster and compatible with more things, although I do believe that it is compatible with windows even without quicktime. I am not sure though if you can render AVCHD in sony vegas pro 8, I work out of both 9 and 10, but the AVCHD support may have come starting at 9, but I'm not sure. regardless, you should still have support for regular mp4 which would probably be the best option.

The best rendering options greatly depend on what you're using the video footage for. Here's a few great options sorted by purpose:
YouTube - Videos uploaded to Youtube in 1080p

Sony AVC with the template 'Internet 1920x1080-30p'
MainConcept MPEG-2 with the template 'HDV 1080-24p'

NTSC Video

MainConcept MPEG-2 with the template 'DVD NTSC' (for burning to DVD)
MainConcept MPEG-1 with the template 'VCD NTSC' (for Video CDs)

PAL Video

MainConcept MPEG-2 with the template 'DVD PAL' (for burning to DVD)
MainConcept MPEG-1 with the template 'VCD PAL' (for Video CDs)

Blu-Ray

MainConcept MPEG-2 with the template 'Blu-ray 1920x1080-24p, 25 Mbps video stream' (For better quality video)
Sony AVC with the template 'Blu-ray 1920x1080-24p, 16 Mbps video stream' (For faster rendering)

Other

Video for Windows with the template 'HD 1080-24p YUV' (The most common file format for videos on Windows OS', but far less fast in rendering, and larger in filesize. I recommend using Sony AVC over this.)

All of these options will render a 20 minute video well within 7 hours, even on sluggish hardware. MPEG-1, MPEG-2 and Sony AVC wil probably require a seperate codec. These codecs are included in Quicktime, but also in other codec packs such as VLC.


text:
Is it possible to hook up an external mic to a Nikon D90 to get better sound for video?
I'm getting bad sound quality on video taken with my NIKON D90. I think the mic is bad so I need to know if it is possible to plug a microphone into it some how?

Cant you get a usb attachment for male end on a mic

Nope, it sure doesn't.  On that camera, its only got an internal mic.  Your options are:

Record sound otherwise and then sync up in post.
Buy a new camera like a D7000 that will take an external mic.
Use an actual video camera that takes an external mic.
Possibly tape some material to mimic a windscreen over the existing D90 mic, to help a little in some situations.
Live with the limitation.

No, you cannot plug in a microphone into the D90. There really isn't.
I would recommend you to buy a Zoom H1 which is a separate sound recording device that records sound onto SD cards. It is rather cheap, but has much, much better sound quality than the D90's built in microphone. Actually it' much better than the D7000's build in microphone as well. It is very easy to synchronize the video with the separately recorded sound. This is the way the professionals do it. Check out YouTube on how to synchronize video and sound in any program of your choice.

Unfortunately it can't.
If you can't afford buying another camera as suggested...getting an iSK CM-20 Super condenser mic and recording sound externally with it will give you a great sound plus it's an affordable solution. You will have to sync up the sound on post production.

Try using the Mini USB port available on D90. Use a Mini USB to 3.5 audio connector and plug in the external mic to it.
Should work. Give it a try.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Why use 35 mm film raw stock and camera?
I would like your suggestions and reasoning as this would be useful in making decisions.
Why are film makers still using traditional 35 mm film raw stock and camera equipment to produce feature films when there are digital cameras like red cam available which can produce up to 4 k image quality and can significantly reduce production costs ?

One big reason I can think of is rolling shutter and even the RED Epic exhibits this. Film cameras do not.

This is a debate that could go on forever. Both have pros and cons.
I think it is inevitable that Digital will overtake Film, and we can already see it happening in that article that ObscureRobot posted.
However, people will continue to use film as long as it is available simply because of its look. You can tell when something is shot on film because of its grain and general aesthetic.
Film is cinema as we know it.
I'd argue that this is probably the biggest reason. There are many others but I don't know enough about them to get into it.
I think if a filmmaker can afford to use film, they will.
This is probably the best argument for film: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/index.htm
^ Very informative.

Look is one thing, although a lot is done to recreate it in post. One of the reasons you don't hear too much about. Is the low power consumption and the ability to shoot in dificult climate. This was one of the main reason's for Jurrasic World and March of the Pinguins to shoot film. As Chard mentioned there are loads of pro's and con's.

@RemcoHekker one of the main reasons for Walking Dead too, they say. Humid hot in the woods. Still works fine. Another reason is the imposed economy of using film. Everybody better be on their best behavior when shooting film.

Some filmmakers continue to use film, but enough aren't that film cameras are going out of production.


text:
Editing a movie from DVD in Sony Vegas?
I often have a movie (commercial, encrypted DVD) which I would like to import into Sony Vegas for further editing. The goal is to make my own private "Director's Cut", mixing the movie with some other movie snippets from different source ("Making Of" from different DVD).
My usual workflow: I decypt the DVD with DVD Decrypter. Then I got a couple of decrypted VOB files and a few other files. If I open the VOB files with Sony Vegas 8.0, this approach usually works fine, I can just open the VOB file and have the movie on the timeline and can edit it, then re-render to my liking.
However, there are two problems with this approach:
1.) Sometimes, even though I open the VOB files in the right order, the movie parts from some of the VOB files are truncated down to a few seconds in the timeline.
2.) With Vegas 11.0, this approach does not seem to work at all: I can't even see the decrypted VOB files when I do File --> Open and the navigate to the directory with the decrypted VOB files in it.
How can I alleviate this? Is there a better approach? I wonder if if I could go via some lossless AVI intermediate that's easier to import into Vegas? I searched the net, but one problem is that there is a lot of outdated tutorials out there for this specific problem. Would really appreciate some help/ideas.
Software and versions I'm using:
DVD Decrypter 3.5.4.0
Sony Vegas 8.0
Sony Vegas 11.0
Windows 7

You should use Handbrake. If you rip the DVD using Handbrake, you will get a single file, which you can then import into Vegas.

Does Handbrake generate a lossless intermediate? (I do not want to just transcode the DVD to a lossy mp4 version and then again transcode a second time in vegas, introducing additional loss.)


text:
Is there any format for videos like RAW format for photos?
Like the RAW format for photos which stores the exact image information that is of great use for post processing, are there any similar formats for video?

Are you looking specifically for DSLR's that could shoot video in RAW (which, btw, do not yet exist, although there are rumors that the next Canon 5D might have RAW video capability), or are you looking for any video camera that can shoot RAW video, such as Red One which is a professional video camera system that has RAW video capability (and also costs many thousands of dollars)?

Yes there is but if you have to ask, you probably can't afford it :)
Digital video cameras for professional use can shoot in a RAW format with one file for each frame. The bandwidth required is enormous and requires fast hard drives or an output over a fiber-optic link. Pricing is several times that of a full-frame

True. And there's really no point unless you're going to print to 35mm for a cinema release.

There are actually quite a number of cameras now available or announecd for 2012 that will use Raw video formats. Some of them are not even very expensive.
REDCode: used by RED cinema cameras
ARRIRAW: used by Arri Alexa
CinemaDNG: Blackmagic Design, Digital Bolex, Ikonoskop, Weisscam, Kinoraw S35, S16, and S8p
Cineform: Kineraw
and more to come.


text:
What is the difference between an amateur and a professional camcorder?
It is known that professional photographers use SLRs & regular users use point & shoot camera. What kind of cameras do professional videographers use & whats the difference?

This site concentrates on the photography, so there may not be enough videographers here to give an authoritative answer. One thing I can say is that it is well documented that some TV shows have been filmed using DSLRs; I'd also suggest that SLRs aren't just for professionals.

Based on discussion on the meta site, questions about cinematography and video equipment are off-topic.  Recommend this be closed.

I see coward people downvoting your post because you have posted a question about video in the 'video' section. So, I will up vote you to help you take your points back.

@Altar: I think you mistake how this site works, and particularly the tagging mechanism. There is no "video section"; just a tag someone created. The existence of (or lack of) a tag has nothing to do with whether a question fits the site's defined topic. For that, see http://meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/28/can-i-ask-videography-related-questions

I'd regard this as off topic as it concerns video cameras not stills, but anyway a lot of professionals use the Red series of cameras:
http://www.red.com/
The most popular being the Red One:

(source: redoneutah.com)
Benefits over consumer level video cameras nicely mirrors the difference between DSLRs and Compacts, namely:

The ability to shoot video in raw, for example using the proprietary RecCode format. This makes contrast adjustments, post production and grading easier.

A larger sensor, the Red One has a similar sized sensor to a DSLR (same size as super 35 film) this allows better low light performance and shallower depth of field.

The ability to have interchangable lenses.

Higher resolution pictures (again to refer to the Red One it will output at 4k (4,096 x 2,304 pixels, which is at least four times full HD)).

Better build quality. All professional tools should be built to be packed up and shipped round the world and work first time on location.

There are other advantages specific to professional videography cameras, namely:

Higher framerates for [real] slow motion 24fps -> 1000fps (some consumer cameras do this, but not very well)

Wider range of inputs for mics etc.

Wider range of accessories, HD out for live monitoring etc.

Record to multiple data banks, HDDs, flash memory etc.

Another difference is that professionals will more often than not hire equipment as the cameras cost more than even the most expensive 35mm DSLRs, and they are typically only shooting for part of the year in intensive bursts. This also enables the use of specialist cameras (such as the Phantom 1000fps camera, which can only be rented, not bought).
It's worth pointing out that DSLRs which shoot video offer many of the advantages posted above, but they lack the modularity and flexibility of output that you get with a professional digital cine camera. They are also limited in terms of shooting time.

The Red One is brilliant for lots of things, but it's worth knowing that it suffers from rolling shutter artefacts and that the output is quite desaturated.

It seems rolling shutter is inevitable with high resolution output, though shooting at 100fps ought to mitigate the effects to a degree. I think most people operating a Red One will be planning on grading the film anyway so desaturated output is not a problem, especially if you short in REDCODE.

This answer is old and outdated.  It could probably stand on it's own if all mention of RED One was stripped from it, but I'll give the author a chance to update it first.

One of the big differences is manual control.
Many consumer video cameras don't let you disable automatic control of simple things like focus and exposure (or more often exposure compensation).
I think that lots of cheap video hardware would be very capable of capturing clear and beautiful moving images if only one were able to control it more precisely.
As an example, consider that David Lynch's Inland Empire was shot using reasonably inexpensive but highly controlable DV cameras, and it looks great.

Indeed, manual controls are the main difference. But obviously the more money you spend the better hardware you're going to get.

I don't do much in the way of cinematography myself, although it is a field that interests me, and one I hope to break into sometime in the future. I am primarily a photographer, and my first video camera will likely be a Canon 5D Mark III (once released.) The Canon 5D Mark II was one of the first DSLR's to add video capability, and combined with the advanced lenses available to such cameras, you can achieve some of those vaunted "cinematographic" effects.
As I can't offer any specific advice (hopefully another member will be able to answer and provide more useful information than I can), I can supply some very useful links. Here are a few that I have found helpful myself over the last couple months:

Cinema5D
Cinema5D's "Canon 5D Rig Review"
VideoMaker.com's "Learn" Site

Excellent general info about cinematography

Luminous Landscapes Video DSLR vs. Camcorders

Interesting article including info on how pros are starting to gravitate towards DSLR for video (particularly the Canon 5D Mark II), and what is missing from the DSLR (combocam) setup

Worth noting that like all tools, a professional will use the right tool for the job.

If you're shooting a cinematic feature something like the Red One would be a great tool for the job. However if you're shooting news footage you'd be an idiot to take a Red One - it's designed to be used by several people at once, and is optimised for the greatest creative control of the picture by having manual controls for exposure, depth of field and focus; while an ENG (Electronic News Gathering) camera is designed for one person to put on their shoulder and get the shot in the heat of the moment, with automatic settings that make it easier to do that.
A professional cinematographer will choose the tool that best suits the job. Are you shooting as part of a crew of hundreds, or is it you and the director? Is the result going to be seen in cinemas or on YouTube? Are you after a certain look, such as shallow focus or do you need ease of use? Are you strapping it on someone's helmet when they jump out of a plane? Do you want to shoot documentary footage while keeping a low profile? Is weight a consideration, say if you're using a gimbal or drone?

Honestly in this day and age the difference in "Pro" and "Amateur" gear is whether or not you're getting paid to use it. I know some amateurs with 5D mk2s and some serious pro shooters with 60ds.
Completely agree with the comments on manual control. But even without manual control and some semblance of exposure compensation you can get amazing results. It is not about the gear, but mastering what you have in your hands to tell the story.
I just spent the last week using an audio recorder that cost less than $200 but it was so much more intuitive than the $600 one I've been using. There is no difference in the sound at all. Mentioning that as an example... realizing you were asking about cameras. And in all fairness putting Flip Video footage on a large monitor - it doesn't stand up... but don't get hung up on "Pro" and Amateur"...  get hung up on stories.


text:
Is the Canon 550d ideal for documentary video production?
I'm confused as to go with the costlier body cheaper lens vice-versa,
I have a budget at around $1000, and i am looking at the canon 550d with the 50mm f 1.8.
I would like to get advice on the lens selection, the dslr will be used mostly for video.
Also is there a nikon alternative to the 550d?
Your answers are greatly appreciated.
Options:
Sony A55
Sony A580
Canon 550d
Regards

Depending on what type of video you're aiming for, the 50 mm might be too narrow... If it's outdoorsie things, it'll do fine, but if you are going inside in a cramped area, it might prove to be less than useful. Just a thought. Also, the best camera depends a lot on if you want 24 or 30 fps, and if 1080p is a requirement, or if 720p will suffice. I suggest you edit your questions to include this bit of detail.

Mainly indoors, low light. I prefer 24 / 1080p. Thanks for the reply

Normally, it is advisable to go with a better lens even if that means a cheaper body (due to budget constraints), as lenses make much more a difference than most modern DSLRs.
Since you are going for primarily for video, you need to consider audio as well. There is no built-in microphone that is good enough for serious documentary, so you have two choices:

Buy a camera with a mini-jack so that you can plug in an external microphone.
Buy an external sound recording device and record sound separately. Merge the sound track from your recording with the video track using video editing software.

The second option is more flexible and also more costly. As usual, you need to spend enough on a sound recording to get something good. Don't both using you cellphone's sound-recording function ;)
There are very few DSLRs which will autofocus while recording video. It is often a concern for people buying cameras for home videos but for anything serious it does not matter.
If you do not go with one of the sound options above, then you will have to worry about the camera recording the sound of autofocus. On the cameras I tried (Nikon D3100 and A55), it will make your sound track annoying to your audience.
Even if you do use external audio, the contrast-detect autofocus system used by the D3100 causes the lens to move back and forth while focusing. This is easy to spot in videos and just does not look right. The Sony Alpha SLT-A55 and its sibling the A33 are the only cameras that use phase-detection during video recording and avoid this particular problem.
If possible for the subjects you are documenting, you should use Manual Focus while filming. This will let you decide precisely on what to focus, when to change focus and how slowly to do it. It will take lots of practice to get right, so try it on squirrels or whatever animal you have roaming around where you live.
If you are filming things that move a lot or live-events (in which case retakes are not possible), then you may decide to rely on autofocus. You will occasionally end up with shots that are partially out of focus since sometimes the camera simply goes after the wrong thing. You can edit such parts out and move any relevant audio.

Thanks a lot for the insight, that's the reason I checked the 3100 off the list, I also will be doing some run and gun shooting. Having something like the zoom h4 is a solution but not really useful at unprepared shots.

If you're all about video, Nikon D3100 (my friend owns) shall give you exact video quality as Canon 550D (I own) as well as can save a few bucks. Additional money can be used to buy a better lens f.e 28-135mm than the kit lens. 50mm f/1.8 is a very good lens for its price but not sure a prime could suffice you need for video or not. I'd prefer a zoom lens for better video framing.

Thanks for your reply, What the 3100 lacks is external mic input, and the cont. auto focus in video is noisy, that is a complete no-no. Could you suggest any 3rd party zoom lens for video?

If I were you, I'd avoid using any 3rd party lenses. Lenses that are good for general photography should do good for video as well. I don't know if there's any specialized lens for video to be honest. After getting decided on a body, you'll also need to consider a few things (light/sharpness/focal length range etc) for deciding a lens.

Nikon hits both above and below the 550D (T2i), but not right at that level. There's the entry-level D3100, which is less expensive (and relatively new), and the recently-released D7000, which comes in at about $400-$500 more (but is very capable). At around the same price level as the 550D, there's the D90 -- but it was the very first video DSLR, so it's not quite up-to-date in terms of features or video resolution.
I'm not a video person, so I can't tell you anything useful about the video features of either camera except that the D7000 seems to be pretty much feature-complete. The D3100 doesn't seem to get very positive reviews for serious video (major rolling shutter effect and short recording time being the major complaints), and the D7000 is more of a competitor to the Canon 60D than the 550D/T2i. The D90, as I said, is a bit of a black-and-white vacuum-tube television compared to anything more recent.
(Rant Expurgated -- but it felt good while it lasted)

Hello, I am on a limited budget so can't really opt for the d7000. Thanks for your reply


text:
Bad video camera + little money = decent video quality
I have a Kodak Easyshare z950 camera. Previously I only used it to take some pictures while traveling. Now I want to seriously work with video. Not that seriously as in TV studio, but still I want to produce high quality videos.
It shoots HD720p which is pretty good. While I'm outside it looks well, but if I shoot inside, the footage I produce is grainy with lots of background noise.
I think if I installed some proper illumination it would be fine. The problem is my budget is very limited something around $50-$100. How do you get the most lighting with least amount of money? I thought about just buying the most powerful light bulbs in the store and using some aluminum foil as a reflectors. Any better ideas?
I also thought about waiting for spring and when it's at least 10°C I could shoot outside. Problem then would be the sound, because wind blows into the mic. Should I build some hard cardboard walls or something?

The difference in brightness outdoors compared with indoors is much greater than you'd think due to the way your brain compresses the dynamic range. If you've ever been on a location shoot that's been properly lit for video you'd see the difference - it hurts your eyes!
I'm afraid the point here is that you're not going to recreate outdoor lighting for that price range. You are better off trying to rearrange your shooting to make the most of natural light.
If you really need to shoot indoors, getting some work lights and using hard, direct (undiffused) lighting will give you the biggest bang for buck. It's a distinctive look that can work well.

Thanks for the answer.I will shoot outside if I fail to get some cool cheap gear for shooting inside.Any ideas how to get clear sound outside.Usually wind screws everything up ?

Regarding the part about your built in mic and wind noise/pops:
Cut a piece of high quality foam to the size of the mic opening on your camera, and use tiny strips of velcro to attach. I did this for an expensive Sony Camcorder, it works great, cuts the wind down and muffles pops. I actually bought a real foam mic windscreen (for less than $10) and cut it to fit on my camera top.


text:
How to get higher resolution and smooth exposure control when shooting movies with a Nikon D5000?
I have a Nikon D5000 and would like to use it to take video clips.
By default, when shooting video clips in the "Live View" mode, you can only use 1 MP of the camera's 12 MP, thus you get video clips in a crappy resolution. In addition, you can't use apertures smaller than f/8. Also Live View doesn't respect shutter speeds. Instead, it uses ISO adjustment to move exposure, and it does so in third-stop increments that can look "jumpy" on the LCD (and in movies).
How can I avoid all of these things? Is there a way to take video clips on the D5000 without being in Live View mode?
My information comes from this website: http://www.bythom.com/nikond90review.htm
Thanks in advance!

That crappy 1mp resolution is commonly known as 720p, which is the highest the D90 can record at. The methods mentioned in the article for manually changing settings before entering liveview are the only things you can do, unless there is some firmware hack available that my quick google didn't find

Its pretty ironic that 720p resolution is being called "crappy" these days...the vast majority of HD TV is 720p, or at highest 1080i!! :D

At least for the resolution, the problem is one of data rate.  While it is easy enough for a camera to rapidly capture a few 12 megapixel images per second, video uses 24 or more frames per second.  The sensor and image processing hardware is simply not fast enough to deal with capturing 24 or more full resolution images per second.
Further, even if it was able to capture the higher resolution, there is nothing that can display that high of resolution.  4k screens are only about 8 megapixels in resolution and they are still fairly new (didn't exist at all at the time the D5000 was made).  1080p video would be nice, but that's still only using 2 megapixels of the sensor.
Also, it is not possible to shoot video when not in LiveView.  When you are looking through the viewfinder, there is a mirror blocking the path of light reaching the sensor and instead directing it to the optical viewfinder.  Since the light isn't reaching the sensor, it isn't possible to record or capture anything.  This is why the viewfinder goes blank for an instant when you take a photo, because the mirror has to swing up out of the way.
With LiveView, the sensor is left exposed and the image from the sensor is instead displayed on the screen so that you can see what you are doing.
As for the aperture, shutter and ISO issues, those are limitations of the camera software.  It may be possible to overcome them with a third party hack for the camera, but I don't know if one is available for your particular camera model.


text:
is there a movie recording tool for dslr connected to phones?
I have a 40D and I'm sometimes using EOS-MovRec to record movies. Since there is no firmware mod/hack for the 40d available I'm asking this question.
Is there a tool for the iphone/symbian/android to connect my DSLR and use it just like in
EOS-MovRec as a camera and record a movie?
Greetings

Try this link you will get some tips
http://dpexperience.com/2010/02/12/recording-audio-with-your-video-dslr-part-i/


text:
Does canon EOS 1000D support video recording?
I want to buy an entry level DSLR and EOS 1000D seems like a good buy but I have some doubts regarding it. Does it support video recording?
Do I need to install some software for the video recording to work? If yes, does that record the videos with sound? If no, how can I record video with sound on the Canon EOS 1000D?

It cannot officially record video, but there is an open source project to allow recording direct to a computer.
Source
Given that it doesn't support video natively then there won't be a built in microphone to record sound. If you went with the open source software you'd have to record the sound separately and sync it afterwards - which is not a straightforward process.

It should be said that trying to separately record sound and afterwards syncing it to the video is difficult. Unless one has done it before and has the equipment to record sound separately it would also be cheaper to pay more for a Canon 1100D, which does support video recording, IIRC.

@Unapiedra Thanks! One more thing: Does 1100D allow you to adjust focus when the shooting is on? I read that some cameras lock the focus once the shooting starts.


text:
How to create timelapse video using CR2 RAW files?
I also took a bunch of pictures to make a timelapse and I'm using Windows Live Movie Maker to create the video. However, it wouldn't recognize the CR2 (raw) format. I installed the Canon RAW codec but no luck. I was able to create the timelapse using JPEG images. Any ideas?
Also, the final video is created in wmv format - I would like to know if there is a way to output some other format such as H.264 using Windows Live Movie Maker?
Basically, I am looking for ways to create time lapse videos using cr2 canon raw files. I would like to use free software for accomplishing this. Any help would be appreciated.
thanks!

Picasa is free software that will do exactly what you're after. It can read a whole range of RAW file types and also creates timelapse videos.
To create your video, first import the folder of RAW files into Picasa and select the folder. Now:

From the menu: Create > Video > From Selection
The Video Maker screen will now appear. In the left-hand pane, make sure the Video tab is selected.
Under Transition Style choose Time Lapse
Set your frames per second using the Slide Duration slider (e.g. 1/25 sec for 25fps)
Set your other options and hit Create Video.

Couldn't be easier!

I don't have access to Windows Live Movie Maker at the moment, but one reason why you may be having difficulties is because, strictly speaking, CR2 (or any type of RAW) files are not images; they're just the data that is recorded by the camera when you press the shutter (so light levels plus details of the settings used and sometimes a little jpeg thumbnail image that shows what a typical image could look like when produced from this data). See this question for more discussion on this.
Looking at the online help for Windows Live Movie Maker, it seems that WLMM does not
 allow the import of RAW files, and so I guess you'll have to convert the images to something such as jpeg/tiff/png (See this answer for a guide to image file formats) first and then import these into WILMM to make your time-lapse. If it were me I would want to ensure that the same processing was applied to every image in the sequence, so although some images may border on being under/over-exposed, transitions from light to dark and vice versa are captured properly.
In terms of output, H.264 is not a file type, but a compression standard that can be applied to a number of different video "container formats" such as .mp4 or .mkv. This video on Vimeo provides some overview on how to export videos using custom settings from WLMM.

The version of Windows Live Movie Maker I have (2011 15.4.3538.0513) appears to import JPG, GIF, TIF, BMP, as well as NEF and CR2 formats.  Do you also have the Windows Live Photo Gallery?  If not, install it, and see if it will read the CR2 files.
As for movie formats, the old Windows Movie Maker output to AVI, but that feature seems to have been dropped with the new Windows Live version.  You'll have to convert the resulting WMV file using another program.


text:
Effects LEDs are uncomfortably bright - can they be dimmed? (Boss ME-70)
I use a Boss ME-70 multieffects unit and its red LEDs are uncomfortably bright. When I bend down to adjust a setting, it's like having a red laser shining in my eyes -- I can't even read the controls. I put black Pro-Touch labeler tape over the LEDs but that's a bit extreme. Anybody else bothered by the brightness and have a better solution?

Which LED's are you talking about specifically?

All the small circles (on/off lights).

You might try a few layers of clear and/or colored nail polish

interesting idea.  have you tried this?  what did you use it on?

I've dimmed over bright LEDs with a black Sharpie and a light touch. Works great.

You can also take some 400+ grit sandpaper and rough up the plastic a little. It will refract the light slightly and cause it to go dim.

No, I haven't tried this yet. But it SHOULD work, and it comes off with nail polish remover if it doesn't.

There are two real options.
You can either modify the pedal electrically (replace the resistor that is connected to the LED for a larger value - thuis lowering the current through the LED).
Or you can modify the front of the pedal to decrease the light. A very easy way to do this is to tape a little bit of exposed film (like 35mm back when camera's used film), cut a little from the negative and slap it on with some tape, easily removable and should dim the light nicely.

Tape a gel over the top. You can get cheap packs on ebay.
This would even allow you to adjust the level of filtration by combining them.

I don't think tape is extreme, or a sharpie. But then I would probably just replace the LED's or pop a wee voltage drop in there to dim them down if they were that bad - this probably is extreme if you don't do home electronics much :-)
Tape is probably most sensible - as if you get a gig where you really need the lights you can always rip it off again.

Good point about gigs where you need the lights. I saw Beardyman play a festival in bright sunshine, in which he had huge problems because he couldn't see the LEDs on his Loopstation.

You can buy some adhesives that will dim the led light for you.
For example, ThinkGeek has a set that will just dim the led and another set that will completly black-out it.

I've got this same problem on my audio interface on my Mac. I solve the problem by tilting it away from me a little bit. However, if you don't need to see the LEDs at all, I'd use some good ol' black electrical tape. It's easy to apply, and is removable. Then again, your labeler tape probably is as well.
Try putting tape on them in such a way that the tape is barely covering the LEDs, enough that the light peeks out over the edge, but also so that it shields most of the light. You can do the same thing with paint or nail polish, but it's more permanent.

The hardcore route for this is to open up the pedal and slap larger resistors on the cathodes for each LED but you'll void the warranty doing that :D. The nail polish idea (care of @todd), roughing the plastic with a little 400+ grit sandpaper, or clear tape (care of @Neil Fein) are all good options.
Or you could go with some cheap sunglasses.

I used some painter tape (I had some in blue, see https://amzn.to/3DpVKTD).
Cut 21x pieces of 12x8mm.
The blue tape mentioned above sticks nicely but you can remove it any time without leaving any trace. I also tested with eletrical tape (in white) but the painter tape in blue diffused those nasty lights better.


text:
Does a real "megapixel lens" exist?
Many of new model of lenses are defined as megapixel (i.e 1MP, 2MP, 5MP...).
My problem is that I did not find any difference between a standard lens and a "megapixel" one, in the focus quality.
I suppose that a difference should be remarked in the focus quality during the calibration step.
I'm working with several megapixel sensors, and I'm still looking for a megapixel lens that could fit with my sensors.
For example with a 2MP sensor, with a pixel size equal to 4um, the MTF should be at least 0.5 at 125 lp/mm.
My working distance is about 15m and the illumination wavelength is 850nm.

Is it just me, or would this be more appropriate at the photography SE site?

I believe this question is about video equipment, and as such is actually off-topic here, despite the migration from the physics SE site.

This is a misnomer, if not pure marketing corruption of terms. The lens doesn't do anything to the "megapixel count", that's determined solely by the sensor.
At most the lens might have the capability to resolve details to a level where a sensor of at least a certain element density is required to record them, but then you'd still not have a number of pixels as the size of the sensor as well as its element density determines that.

It's marketing silliness +1

Not quite silliness, if I am buying a lens for a 1/2" analogue camera with 240lines resolution I don't want to pay for one designed for a 1920x1080 HD chip

Pixel count almost exclusively refers to detector quality/cost, it is the number of seperate elements capable of recording an image.  The Modulated Transfer Function (MTF) is a quantative measure of the optical train in front of the detector.
It is important to differentiate between a monochromatic CCD and a CMOS sensor.  In most retail digital cameras now there will be a CMOS sensor which works in three colours simultaneously, which has the effect of dividing your pixel count by three, but allows one shot colour pictures.
Also just because there are micron sized detector elements in the image plane this does not mean that your optics is capable of focussing to that level of detail.  You need to consider the resolution needed in your image and set your pixel requirements accordingly.

Thanks for the answer. The sensors I'm working with, are all CCD B/W. All the CMOS sensors that I found are rolling shutter, that is not suitable for my application

The lens is related to the angular resolution, while the megapixel rating has to do with the capturing device, i.e., CCDs etc. I haven't done the calculations, but it may be that it is not the angular resolution that limits the resolution in digital images, but the the image capture technology. So the lenses from the different cameras may be similar.


text:
Quality Full HD Camcorder - DSLR or dedicated one?
I am a passionate photographer and currently own a nikon d80 with a handful of lenses, all Nikon Nikkor ones.
Unfortunately, that camera has no video recording capabilities.
I have missed so many professional and family occasions in which a movie would be key.
my main doubt is whether to go with a new dslr or buy a camcorder. I am not a professional video editor but occasionally work on Premiere.
Here are my ideal requirements:

possibility to capture various light and shoot conditions (I.e. sunsets, wide angles, decent zoom)
a good support for long recordings. A meeting may take 1.15hours. I won't like to swap the cards.
good builtin microphone with support for external ones, better if wireless
1080p HD recording with quality and vivid colors

I found good camcorders from 150$ but wouldn't mind spending more if most of my ideal requirements are met.
What would you do if you were in my shoes?
Thanks a bunch!!

The Canon 5D mark 2 opened the world to the abilities of DSLR shooting video. But if you read the real world discussion, you will find that taking amazing video with it is a serious challenge. And it takes only about 15 minutes of video at a time, so your 1 hour++ is simply not feasible.
The 5D mark 3, just announced and $3500, doubles the video time to about 28 minutes.
Things like auto focus are a ton easier with a camcorder.

In my experience (I consider myself an "amateur" at best),

decent zoom will get you to DSLRs or a more expensive camcorder (maybe in the prosumer line). most $150 camcorders only have digital zoom.
your second req is going to get you into a dedicated cam. Like Pat said, the capacity just isn't there for continuous recording on DSLRs.
your third req is going to keep you from either. Most onboard mics are awful. DSLRs have adapters that expand your inputs to XLR or 3.5mm. Camcorders are hit-and-miss with ports, though, you can usually find a model with a 3.5mm input. I've considered downgrading from my Panasonic DVX-100B and going with a cheaper HD camcorder and an external recorder for audio (such as the Zoom H1 or H4).

If you have to have the 1.5hrs of continuous shooting, you'll have to go dedicated. Otherwise, it's more of your personal preference and/or price limit.

Here's my two cents. I work as a professional photographer, have a background in film and video production, and own both DSLRs and camcorders.
When I was making the decision to go from NTSC to HD, I chose to go with Nikon DSLRs. I've been a nikon guy for years, mainly because of a large accumulation of Nikkor lenses, and was waiting for Nikon to catch upto Canon. I ended up with a D7000 (720p) and a D3S (1280i). Lens flexibility has been awesome. Camcorders rarely come with quality glass at the $150.00 price point, and they're rarely interchangeable. When they are, it's not nikon mount, so you're looking at an additional glass investment if you want that option.
Camcorder CCDs are typically 1/3" to 1/2". Nikon's F-series has full (35mm) frame CCDs. This results in significantly better color, resolution, and the biggest selling point for my money, DEPTH OF FIELD CONTROL. Awesome production value.
I've had good luck with Sennheiser external mics; some have a hotshoe mount & they plug into a minijack on the camera. Builtin mics on DSLRS are crap, and audio control is minimal, so you may not be able to manipulate audio as well as you need to. To solve this problem, I use an H4N.
I've not run into long recording time issues. I've alays found a way to swap cards..if I get the 128gb cards, you've got some decent recording time. While I've not researched them, I've heard that Canon has external hard drives to which you can record via HDMI. I've not seen these for Nikon, but that could solve your issue without a problem.
For my money, these capabilities, plus the ability to use a single tool for stills and motion sold me on the dslr concept. I'm hooked now,
Good luck!

Buy a Panasonic GH1.  This is a $500-ish (with lens) DSLR that is known far and wide for its ability to achieve cinema-quality (or Canon 5D quality) via a free software hack.
As they teach you in beginning videography courses, if the audio doesn't sound professional, the video doesn't look professional no matter your camera.  So buy a lavaliere mic and clip it to your subject.


text:
For time-lapse videos, what software should one use?
I have the following starting position:
I have a GoPro Hero 2 and have done some timelapse series. I took them and stitched them together with the software that go pro provides. This all worked well.
The Problem:
As soon as i want to watch these videos somewhere else, I can't. The software uses some codec apparently belonging to GoPro and obviously most common players won't play anything.
I already tried to convert the video to a wider accepted format(codec) but I wouldn't get anything I could watch. It either only used the first view pictures and then went black or
the video was entirely black.
The Question:
Now my question is should I use an other program or is there any easy way to convert my current work into a format(codec) that is wider spread. What software would you suggest to use in such a case. This is only a hobby project so I'm not prepared to spend unreasonable amounts on fully fledged software suites.

So I finally got time and dug around. I unearthed multiple options to do a timelapse video, but the one I found best is actually the following:
The answer is so simple, I just didn't know a time-lapse video could be created with VirtualDub.
Here is how you do it and you can install and use your very own and wanted codec: manual
You can then work on the time-lapse movie with a video editor of your choice.

Well, I just think that Dr Mayhem answered it the best. This is because with VirtualDub, you don't have the opportunity to do much more than just putting a series of images into a movie. With GoPro Hero 2 you also have the option to do a bit more than that to make a good time lapse. Thus, converting it to QuickTime or anything else would probably be the best option in most cases. The point of SE is to give the questioner an answer, yes, but it is also a place where other people can find answers to their problems... You decide which answer should be accepted, I just thought Mayhem's was better.

there is now right answer to this question so i just used mine because it suited me best

Ok. Then you choose that. :)

You should have the option of export to QuickTime - which is pretty widely used. And even if you don't like those format options you can convert to something else easily from there.

I can see the option of output it in mov (btw Quick Time is a software, not a format ;-D ) but I can't access it, would i need to install QuickTime ... I'm on windows.
Since I don't want to reconvert again though, this is only half en option. It is a perfectly valid option but i seek something else. What I don't get is why they couldn't use any standard avi codec since avi is at least a standard container and would be supported by most players if they had chosen a standard codec.

Yes, the option in GoPro is export to QuickTime. Mov is a standard - not one of my preferred ones, as QuickTime is a buggy, bloated POS, but most video editing software will cope with it perfectly well.

I did upvote now for your answer

I agree with your view on QuickTime and I won't have it on my pc.


text:
Exported MOV from Flash Pro with alpha channel doesn't retain transparency
I have an animation I've exported from Flash Pro CS6 as a MOV file with an alpha channel (ignore stage), and I want to do some editing in AE CS6. When I go to import the MOV as Strait-Unmatted, I do get a transparent background, however when I scrub the playhead with transparency grid toggled, a black background appears behind my animation.
I've tried a number of methods found here and elsewhere on the web including keying out black with luma key, but results were undesirable. Is there a way to get rid of the black behind my animation in AE without effecting the rest of my animation? Or is there an export setting I'm missing in Flash Pro?

Seeing as this appears to be a bug, my only suggestion is to export it as a PNG sequence. At my work we always transfer from Flash to AE as a PNG sequence, as we find MOV notoriously unreliable and buggy.
If you need to retain an audio track, try exporting that separately as a WAV or MP3 and placing it on your timeline in AE.

Sometimes you can pick number of colors for output like 256, if the option doesn't have a + symbol after it, it doesn't actually output the matte properly.
Or at least I've had a similar problem when outputting stuff with a trasnparency in AE

In AFX import MOV with options: "Premultiplied - Matted with color" and select black or white color

The only success I've had in AE with regard to rendering a video that has a transparent background is to render it as an FLV file. The other outputs I tried (various MPEGs, MOV, AVI) always pulled a background into the export regardless of the fact I had the transparent background toggle on. (Reminder: also render as RGB+Alpha).
There should be a toggle button to click as to whether or not you want the original video to be in the background of an effect or on top.
With regard to creating a PNG sequence, you'll end up with a PNG image for every frame in your sequence......just sayin' I tried it once.....but only once......I ended up with THOUSANDS of PNG images. I deleted them all and started over because there was no way I was going to assemble all of those. augh!)

Assembling a PNG sequence in AE is very straightforward, though - it is often the simplest way.


text:
kind of equipment used in this video
In the attached video, the camera films the crowd from above. How is this achieved? What kind of equipment is the camera equipped with?

I don't know, maybe a wescam? Something tells me this isn't really a relevant question, although I'm sure someone could guesstimate a rig setup.

possible duplicate of What is this strange second camera?

As Jared said, probably not the most relevant question. But if I wanted to get a simmilar kind of shot I'd put a GoPro on a boom pole.

yep. its just a wide angle lense. a gopro would've looked better though, no black matting on the corners (although some people like that effect).


text:
Panasonic SDR-H100 Multiple Program Files
I have a Panasonic SDR-H100 camcorder. When I shoot videos, with stoppages, i.e. many clips, the videos are put into two different program folders within the sd_card folder on my SCHD. I was wondering if there was a way to ensure that those video files are put into the same folder?

If the camera is following DCIM standards, then there should be a 4 digit ID number appended to the end of a 4 digit prefix to form the filename.  The standard is that when a folder is filled (the counter reaches 9999), a new folder is created and the counter starts over again at 1.
While there does not appear to be a way to combine these folders on the camera itself, it should be possible for you to simply copy the files in to the same folder on your PC as long as the names don't overlap.


text:
How to lay one video over another
I have two video clips. What I need is for the first video clip to play behind the second. I need to be able to choose the offset since the two videos are not exactly in sync.I need to adjust the position of the second clip on the first. (It should be at different places at different times).What would be the right software to do this. Also are there any blog posts about this?

It is not clear to me what you mean by laying "one video over another." This could mean you want to show both simultaneously in the same frame. One way to do this is using a split screen. Another is to superimpose each over the other then reduce the opacity so you see both images. Yet another is to superimpose each over the other but use a mask on the top layer so only portions of the bottom layer are exposed.
Summary of possible overlays with links to examples.
1) Split Screen
https://vimeo.com/22564317
2) Double Exposure
https://vimeo.com/42863351
3) Compositing
https://vimeo.com/44747735
You will need an NLE that is capable of rendering multiple video tracks at once. Sony Vegas Movie Studio would allow up to 4 video simultaneously, while Vegas Pro will allow as many as your computer can handle (on my 3 year old quad core this can be up to 9 SD tracks or 5 HD tracks). Other NLE video editors to check out would be Avid, Adobe Premiere, and FCP.
Once you know which one of the effects I listed above fits your situation, you will be able to find tutorials on YouTube specific to the NLE you are using. For instance, here is a tutorial I found on YouTube by searching for "how to use split screen on vegas movie studio".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnsWKDXIxJA


text:
Trying to help a west coast fan in an east coast world
So my friend wants to hear the west coast announcers during the playoffs - while watching the game on tv. Problem is that the tv broadcast is delayed a few seconds. Does anyone know of a work around? I have computers, recorders, att u-verse and an am radio.
I could run the am broadcast through something and delay it to match the game somehow. Ideas?

"I have computers, recorders, att u-verse and an am radio"
Then there's nothing you can't accomplish! (-:
Google shows plenty of examples. This was the first hit for "audio delay software free": http://www.fountainware.com/Products/AudioDelay/index.htm


text:
Panasonic's AVCHD video format: questions about quality, compatability, conversion
I've just bought a Panasonic Lumix TZ25 to replace my sadly defunct Lumix TZ3. This new camera is excellent, but I'm a bit confused over the video recording formats available. The user manual states:

This unit can record motion pictures in either AVCHD or MP4 formats... AVCHD records high definition  quality images suitable for viewing on a large format TV or for saving to disc. MP4 is a simpler format best used when extensive editing is needed.

Is AVCHD superior to MP4? The way Panasonic describes it, that's the impression given. Yet surely MP4 can provide the same high quality?
Can an AVCHD video be shown on an Android tablet? My wife has an Asus Transformer and would is trying to view some holiday recordings on it but so far without any success - we're assuming there's a compatability problem?
Assuming that AVCHD is superior to anything else, is there any software out there which would convert AVCHD to a more widely used format but without discernible loss of image quality?

The AVCHD vs. MP4 is just a choice of a container format. When all other parameters are the same, choosing AVCHD or MP4 depends on the use you intend to give to the movie clips that you record. If you plan on doing editing, then MP4 is better because it has the index tables that video editors need to find frames fast using random access. If on the other side you plan to just streaming these clips over to a TV or computer then AVCHD is best as it is a transport stream, so players will have to do less work to play the clip from start to end.
Note that a utility like ffmpeg can easily convert between AVCHD and MP4 without any loss of quality, so really the choice you make isn't irreversible.
What determines image quality is the picture size and the recording bitrate, not the container format. I went to the site that has the specs for your camera and found it offers the following recording options:

[HD Video]

1920 x 1080 pixels, 50i (FSH: 17Mbps / AVCHD) (Sensor output is 25p)
1280 x 720 pixels, 50p (SH: 17Mbps / AVCHD) (Sensor output is 25p)
1920 x 1080 pixels, 25 fps (FHD: 20Mbps / MP4)
1280 x 720 pixels, 25 fps (HD: 10Mbps / MP4)

[STD Video]

640 x 480 pixels, 25 fps (VGA: 4Mbps / MP4)

So for best quality you should pick the largest picture size at the largest bitrate. Looking at the above list the best choice is the FHD format, which is 1920x1080 at 20Mbps, and that option is only available in MP4.
The second and third options are at 17Mbps. At that level you have two options, 1920x1080 and 1280x720, both recorded in AVCHD.
Note that I'm not including frame rate in my decisions, since it appears the sensor in this camera can only record 25p.


text:
What is this strange second camera?
I don't know is this is the correct place to ask this but ...
I've watched several "making of" of current movies and noticed a thing i cannot explain.
What is this strange "secondary" camera you can see near the main camera?
Image:

Reference:  (5:52 and 6:50)

That is a specially built enclosure called a Sound Blimp, for a still camera, which renders it completely silent, so they can shoot stills without clicks and beeps disturbing the filming.

Thank you ... I almost thought it was some kind of depth camera to help in later 3Difying the movie :)


text:
focal length vs shutter speed vs fps
I'm confused about the relationship between focal length and shutter speed, and the relationship between shutter speed and FPS. Can somebody explain in more detail here? What I read is that shutter speed=1/(2*fps) at least, while shutter speed=1/focal length.
Edited
If i have an ip camera of 640x480(sensor width =3.6mm), focal length from 5 to 50mm, need to record 30fps, what is the best shutter speed to be use?assuming that the object distance to camera is 60ft.

Are you doing stop motion, or video?

I need to record a video with moving object. the object must not be blurred by motion blur.

Shutter speed and focal length are completely independent parameters, focal length determines angle of view (how much scenery you get in your shot). Shutter speed determines how long each part of the image sensor is exposed for, and therefore it determines the brightness of the image, and how much blur is caused by moving objects.
The quantity that most commonly relates the two is camera shake. It is often advised that to avoid camera shake the shutter speed must be 1/focal-length. This is presumably where you've gotten this equivalence from. The rule is a guideline only and depends on your technique and degree of enlargement in the final image. A better guideline is shutter-speed = 3/focal-length

FPS, or frames per second is the number of images per second recorded by your camera. It is related to shutter speed in that shutter-speed + latency < 1/FPS. If each frame takes more than a 60th of a second to expose, then you are not going to be able to cram more than 60 exposures in a second! There is a nonzero amount of time required to recock the shutter mechanism (if necessary) and readout and store the image, which is the latency. In stills cameras not designed for continuous readout the latency can increase as buffers become full, causing the maximum obtainable FPS to drop.
The formula shutter speed = 1/(2*FPS) relates to a shutter angle of 180 degrees, which is a concept from film cine cameras whereby the film can only be exposed for a maximum of half the intra-frame time, because of the rotating shutter. This rule is still obeyed by digital filmmakers to ensure "cinema like" motion to the image, compared to if shutter speed = 1/FPS which gives more fluid "TV like" motion.

Remember also that generally-speaking, the longer the focal length, the slower the lens and thus the slower your shutter needs to be.


text:
Recommendation to Shooting Long Videos
I'm seeking recommendations on how to shoot a long lecture by a guest speaker that is coming to town. I currently own a Canon t4i. My main question is what do I need to avoid my camera from spazzing out during the lecture. What SD card might I need? Will the battery run out? How to avoid that?
Thanks

The biggest trick you will run in to is the 4GB file size limit and the 30 minute record time limit.  You will need to monitor the recording and resume several times or use a third party software like Magic Lantern to overcome the limitations.  As for battery, there is a DC adapter available that you can buy if battery life is a concern.

Does this camera stop recording at those points, or merely split the recording into several files?

Using a second DSLR and alternating between them would allow you to edit together continuous coverage, swapping memory cards as you go. Have both cameras on power adapters, not batteries. Don't buy, rent.

AJ Henderson is correct, as far as power, finding a way to plug it to a constant circuit would be the best option. Bring an extension cord, and a surge protector (pref: low-noise) :-)
As far as video capacity... there should be some way you can stream the video out in real time to a close by laptop or something (with lots of HD space, and 7200rpm recomended too).. Since video can fill up space FAST, getting an external drive or two would definitely do the job... again def. get 7200 rpm and you can get 500 Gb fairly cheap these days... I recommend ...


text:
Calibrate Graphic EQ without SPL Meter
I have a graphic EQ connected to my amp which I want to calibrate for a flat response. I've read somewhere that you can't calibrate a EQ by ear using test tones (different frequencies at same volume) but I'm wondering if I can connect my laptop to a mic and run a dB meter program on it in order to accurately depict the sound of the test tones. Using the dB meter, I can then set my EQ properly so that all the tones sound the same.
Will this technique work? I dont need perfect calibration, I just want it to be reasonable calibrated.

Do the speakers sound bad/wrong without the EQ?  If you only need reasonably calibrated speakers, your ears are probably sufficient to to direct your EQing.

It sounds good now... I'm just wondering if it would sound better if the speakers produced the same sound as the "artist intended".
So will my technique of using the mic and test tones work?

If you know the curve for the mic you're using, then you should at least be able to determine what response you have now, which would tell you if you need to make EQ changes. Doing it band by band might be a bit tedious, but you won't do it often, so...
The gold standard is something like an Ivie sound analyzer, which uses "pink noise" as the sound source, and one or more calibrated microphones as pickups. You can monitor the acoustic properties of the room, from different positions, and see changes in EQ reflected in real time across the entire spectrum.
They're too expensive for casual use, but you may be able to rent one, or hire someone who owns one for a nominal fee.

Gold standard? This is a home stereo, not a studio setup.
I dont have the curve for my mic (its pretty old) so I'm stuck with my ears.


text:
Calibrate EQ Using Speaker SPL Graph
I have a pair of old speakers that I want the EQ calibrated for, and I found their manual with its SPL graph. However, I'm wondering if the graph is even accurate now (the speakers are around 15 years old). I'm also wondering how the read the graph, since there's more than one line and I don't know which one to use when calibrating my EQ.

What do you mean exactly when you say "calibrate a speaker"? What is your exact goal?

To give a flat EQ response, better than what I can achieve using my ears and test tones but without buying expensive calibration equipment like the guy below said.
I'm also wondering why there are several lines on the graph (as opposed to one on places like this: http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/build-a-graph.php)

Well, calibrating EQ for home speakers is not a common practice. However it seems that the easiest and cheapest way to do it is just play some music through them and record the output. Then you could use one of the free audio software (e.g. Audacity) to import the recorded audio and get the frequency spectrum graph. Using this graph you might get a general idea of salient frequencies.
And now regarding the graph you see.. You're right, usually the frequency response is represented with one line in dB/Hz units. However in your case there are actually 6 different graphs in one picture:

Regular frequency response (one of the 3 bottom lines with no comments near it)
Frequency response of 2nd and 3d harmonics distortion (the ones wit 2nd HD and 3rd HD comments near them)
What seems to be a phase response (the 3 graphs on top). This one is pretty unusual, especially for home speakers.

Frequency response is going to vary at different levels of signal being sent to the speaker.  The graph is useful for assessing general speaker quality, but you will probably get the best adjustments by doing it by ear.
If you really wanted to do a high quality job, you would need a pink noise generator, a real time analyzer and a 31 band equalizer.  The way that a professional PA is "calibrated" is to play pink noise (a broad spectrum noise with a known frequency distribution), and then use the Real Time Analyzer to examine the SPL(sound pressure level or "volume") of various frequencies in the room from the primary listening location at the typical overall SPL and adjust the 31 band EQ to make a curve that fits the desired sound when the noise is subtracted out.

Correct but doesn't seem useful in this specific case.

fwiw, pink noise is a full spectrum noise with equal power per octave, instead of equal power per frequency (white noise).

@JoshP - thanks, I couldn't remember the exact difference, I just remember that pink noise is generally preferable to white for calibration.  I think it was because it leads to a more natural sounds, but I don't really recall because it was something I was told years ago by a guy I know that runs a rather successful production company.


text:
Canon EOS 550D video
Hi Im using a Canon EOS 550D & for some reason when ever i try shoot video it stops recording a couple of seconds in. I'm using a Scandisk  Ultra SDHC 4 32GB card, i've tried formatting before hand but it still does the same thing.
please could you assist
Thanks

It's not the same camera, but it's almost certainly the same problem.

With a bit more searching you might have found the question Why does my Canon DSLR stop recording video automatically?

The reasons for an automatic stop are either reaching the 30 minute limit (thank you European Union video camera tax that ends up impacting what's available to most of the rest of the world), hitting the 4gb file limit (file system limit for the OS on the camera), the sensor is overheating (high usage + temperature) or the buffer is being used up (memory card is too slow).
Based on your description of the problem, the first two do not sound like the issue, however you could either be hitting an overheat or a buffering issue.  A class 4 card is a bit slow for recording HD video, but I'd still expect more than a few seconds, particularly for a SanDisk card which should actually be giving you speeds for a class 4 card.  (Some less reputable manufacturers routinely sell cards marked faster than they actually test in the real world.)
I'd first try getting a faster card and if that doesn't work, I'd make sure you are using the camera in a cool area and see if that gives a longer run time.  It's also possible there could be something wrong with the camera that is complicating things, but a slow memory card is most likely the problem.


text:
what hardware can I use to connect a Laserdisc player to my laptop?
I have a Windows 7 Laptop (Sony VGN-Z12GN) and a Pioneer DVL-9 Laserdisc player.
I want to digitize some of my Laserdiscs.
I have some experience with video transcoding (Virtual Dub, Sony Vegas), but I have absolutely no idea how I to get the signal from the Laserdisc player into the laptop in the first place.
What kind of hardware is necessary and most useful for this purpose?
I somewhere read that I can use a TV card for this, but as I described above, I have a laptop.

The best quality output that your LaserDisc player has is S-Video, so you will want to get a capture device that supports S-Video input.
Your laptop has three inputs that could be used.  You have 4 pin firewire, ExpressCard34 and USB2.0.  The USB solutions are the cheapest, but also generally the lowest quality.  Either a firewire based external adapter or an ExpressCard34 internal adapter should work about equally well depending on build quality.  The data rates supported are much higher and the quality should be superior, but it's also going to cost more as that moves more into prosumer and professional territory.
Unfortunately, I can't tell you much in terms of capture devices.  Most of the tech has moved on to being HD focused at this point and finding products that are still made to capture high quality SD video seems to be trickier now than it used to be.

Thank you. Just a note: Laserdisc contains an analog, composite signal. The S-Video on the DVL-9 is only included because the DVL-9 can also play DVDs. So I think composite to firewire or composite to ExpressCard34 should be sufficient from what I understand.

The DVL-9 may have a high quality composite decoding system, so I wouldn't completely give up on S-Video. You won't really know until you try it, and S-Video input shouldn't increase your cost much.


text:
Digital video cameras optical zoom vs lenses
If you read at digital video cameras specifications, you will probably read that camera has 20x optical zoom or even greater.
If you compare this camera with my Nikor 18-200 lens, the lens itself is much bigger then digital video camera, but digital video camera has bigger optical zoom. How this is made, and why my lenses are so big in compare with digital video cameras?
Term digital video camera is referencing to devices which is used for recording video in first place.

Your facts mislead you. Lens magnification and size have nothing to do with video or stills. They have to do with sensor-size.
Your DSLR has a large sensor and requires a large lens. The digital video camera you refer to has a small sensor and requires a small lens. You can very easily pick some random examples to show the opposite! Take a Canon Powershot SX50 HS, for example, which has a 50X optical zoom and a Sony NEX FS100U which has a sensor larger than your Nikon and will require an even larger lens to achieve the same magnification. This makes it impossible to get the kinds of zoom seen on small cameras without the lens requiring its own transport mechanism!

There are a few things that can be going on here.  First, the wider the lens can get, the less telephoto it has to be able to go before being a high multiplier.  Say your lens was able to do 10mm instead of 20, it was a pretty small change on the short end, but would be twice as large of a x multiplier.
Multipliers are not used in professional lens measurements for exactly that reason, it doesn't say much of anything about the actual extent of the range that can be covered.
Second, the size of the sensor is critical to the size of the lens.  If you have a very small sensor, it is easy to use smaller optics since you are resolving to a smaller circle.  You see a little bit of this when you see the effect that APS-C camera's have on the MM equivalent of lenses designed for full frame cameras.
So the combination of these factors results in a little point and shoot being able to have a significantly high multiplier for the zoom, but really it is shooting very wide and on a very small sensor (which also means a very large depth of field and very little if any background blurring.)  A larger camera, like a DSLR, on the other hand has a much bigger sensor and typically doesn't go from ultra wide to super telephoto in a single lens, so the multipliers are smaller.
One final point as to why we don't see lenses for a very wide zoom range on DSLRs very often is that zoom lenses are a trade off.  The wider the amount of zoom, the more compromises have to be made in the image quality of the optics.  Prime (non-zoom) lenses almost always have the best image quality due to their simpler design and then short zoom ranges generally (though not always) have better image quality than their wider range of zoom counterparts (at least within a similar price range).


text:
How to dynamically add texture to an object in a video and get a new video?
I have a video in which there appears a wall at some point. Having that video as input and a photo (that could be new in each interation), I want to get a new video in which the texture of that wall would be changed with the photo.
I mean, my program must get as input the same base video every time, and a new photo.  It should generate the new video with my photo as the wall texture. Of course, I could prepare/mangle the video before the process, get whatever info I need to do that texture change dynamically, etc.
My questions is, what technique/software do you recommend to accomplish this? I'm a newbie in the field and want some direction/light from some experts so I can then dig deeper.

If I understand you correctly, this is traditionally done by compositing programs such as Adobe After Effects.  You could track the wall and then replace the wall with an image but it's going to be a lot trickier if anything is moving in front of the wall.  (You would need to make a rotoscope mask to tell it where not to render the image.)  You could then simply change out the image that is being applied to the wall.

Thanks! Yes, things could be moving in front of the wall. How can I do such things automatically? I mean, passing the same video and a new image every time and get a new video with the image in the wall. I don't know much about Adobe After Effects, but do you think that it allow me make this on a server without any human intervention?

No, you would need very specialized software to try and do it automatically.  You might be able to rig up something to automatically call After Effects to do it, but it would take quite a bit of time to do.  It's also completely off topic for AVP because that's a programing question at that point rather than a video production one.  It's likely not going to be possible to do what you want without a lot of effort and specialized development.


text:
Video compression for Beginner, where to start?
I'm interested in video, but I know very little about it.
I love to make videos with my camcorder or GoPro, edit them afterwards and upload them.
The thing is, I know how to do this, but I don't know how it works. When I have to choose the presets in Adobe Premiere Elements 9, I have no idea what all those things mean. Neither do I know what settings are the best on the camcorder and GoPro. I don't know in what filetype I should export or upload the video.
I want to learn very much about video.
My question: where and how do I start?

Compression is a very complex field that you can get in to either a little or a lot or anywhere in between.  There are companies whose only job is to do high quality compression for major releases.  Part of the trick is that there are different compression algorithms, different storage formats, different codecs and each codec has its own set of settings.
Starting at the most broad, we have different algorithms.  A compression algorithm is a particular approach to trying to reduce the amount of information that needs to be stored to reproduce a signal.  Examples of compression algorithms are things like MPEG, MPEG-2/H.262, MPEG-4, MPEG-4 AVC/H.264.  It defines how to simplify the information and what kinds of patterns are being looked for in the signal.
Then, similarly broad, we have storage formats.  These are either physical formats such as Bluray disk or DV tape or file formats such as WMV, MOV, M4V and simply store information that is either raw or more likely compressed with a compression algorithm via a codec.
A codec is a particular implementation of a compression algorithm.  It is an encoder/decoder.  With standards based codecs, it is not necessary for the same exact codec to be used for decoding as is used for encoding, though proprietary codecs do exist that require the same codec to be installed for playback to function.  Part of the complexity of compression is that each codec makes it's own implementation of even standard algorithms and has it's own settings available to adjust how encoding is done.
Often, the better the codec, the more control it gives over how compression is performed.  Since settings differ from one codec to another, the impact of settings can similarly differ.  There isn't really any substitute for experimentation when learning how a codec behaves, but some key terminology stays consistent between different codecs and even different algorithms.
The most obvious, significant and consistent one is probably VBR (1 and 2 pass) and CBR.  Almost any motion based compression has these options.  CBR is Constant Bit Rate.  It means that a certain amount of data should be used per second every second regardless of the amount of activity or difficulty of compressing.  In motion based video, it leads to really high quality when things are relatively still, but quality suffers during times of high motion.  It also gives very easy to estimate file sizes.
VBR, on the other hand, stands for Variable Bit Rate and as the name implies, the bit rate can change based on the difficulty of compressing the current scene.  Typically a target bit rate and a maximum bitrate are give.  The target is what the codec will try to average out to and the maximum bitrate is the level it isn't allowed to exceed at any time.  1 pass VBR will attempt to do so with no prior knowledge of the video being encoded.  2 pass VBR on the other hand makes a pass through the video to determine the characteristics of the video so that it can properly spread the data rates around to achieve the best possible quality with the allotted bandwidth.  The downside is that it takes roughly twice as long to encode.
Another relatively consistent concept is keyframes.  Many compression work by only actually storing full images occasionally.  The rest of the frames are approximations based on the previous full image.  Keyframes can determine how often those full frames are used.  More advanced codecs will even allow for the actual sequence of frame types being used to be controlled.  (For example, with MPEG-2, I, B and P frames are the 3 main types of frames.)
When using non-standard formats, resolution is also an option for compression.  It can greatly reduce the amount of information that needs to be stored, but also greatly reduces the quality it is designed to be played back at.  When trying to figure out the best compression for the web, it's important to consider both the bitrate and the resolution.  Trying to store too many pixels with not enough bitrate will result in compression related artifacts, but storing too few pixels will result in a universal loss of resolution (but less artifacts).
While each codec can have guidelines for approximating bitrates needed for various resolutions, there unfortunately isn't much substitute for experimentation.  A video of watching paint dry is going to take substantially less bitrate than Uncle Billy Bob's shaky footage of a high speed soccer match.  In general, for motion based compression, the amount of motion in the scenes determines how well it compresses and you can develop a feel for it with time working with a particular codec.
As with your other question, if there are any more specific topics you are stuck on, feel free to ask here or to check a particular format on Wikipedia or similar for much more in-depth information than can easily fit in a Q/A format.


text:
Live-video beginner, where to start?
I'm part of the multimedia team at a conference, where I'm responsible for the live-video.
I know what cable to connect, but I've got no idea what kind of signal it is and when something doesn't work, I don't know how to fix it.
I've heard things like NTSC/PAL, BNC, DMX, but I have no idea what it stands for or what it is.
I want to learn about this.
Where/how do I start?

There are two main concepts that I think are key here.  The first is learning about signal paths and what the functions of each piece of equipment does along the way.  The second is understanding the signals themselves and how they work.  In video, this can be particularly important since many signals are actually the same on different cables.  In both cases, I think the best way to get started is to research each individual device and signal.
For signal flow, simply looking at how things are wired up should help you start.  You've normally got something similar to a camera that runs in to either a video switcher or a time base corrector followed by a switcher.  From the switcher, there are feeds to the preview and production monitors as well as an output that most likely goes to a Distribution Amplifier and from there it goes to the outputs which are probably projectors.
If you understand the purpose of each device, that is the first step towards understanding where problems may be coming from.  For example if one camera's signal is bad but the others are fine, check the camera and cable.  If all the output has the same problem, it may be the switcher or something between the switcher and DA (or the DA itself).  If only one projector has a problem, then either the DA, the cable from the DA to the projector or the projector itself has a problem.
The second part is understanding signals.  This is more in-depth and many video guys don't get this deep in to things.  Again, Wikipedia searches on either the cable or signal type are a great way to get detailed, accessible information.  To talk about the ones you specifically mentioned.  NTSC and PAL are actual video standards.  NTSC and the Japanese version NTSC-J are 29.97 frame per second interlaced (every other scan line is updated) formats.  PAL is the equivalent of NTSC that the rest of the world uses and is 25 frames per second, interlaced.  They are both analog, standard definition formats.
BNC is a type of coax cable connection.  It is a twist lock connector that can attach the cable securely and is generally used for professional video.  It also used to be used for old school Token Ring networking (on computers).  BNC cables can carry a very wide variety of signal types including Composite, Component and SDI.  BNC refers to the physical medium and not the format of signal passing through it.
DMX is a lighting control protocol that works over either an XLR or a 5 conductor wire similar in connection to XLR cable (but with 5 pins rather than 3) or a standard RJ45 cable (network cable).  There are also various wireless implementations of DMX.  It supports 512 addressable channels with 256 possible values per channel.  It can be used for controlling either robotic or fixed lighting.  With fixed lights, one or two channels is used per light. (Dimmer and possibly color selection)  For robotic lights, any number of channels may be used and each channel controls some different value such as gobo selection, x axis movement, y axis movement, strobe settings, dimmer, color, prisms, etc.  Additionally, some devices may use 2 channels to give finer control over a single axis.
There is also far more information available on Wikipedia in a fairly friendly and accessible form assuming you have a fairly basic understanding of electronic concepts.  That is how I have picked up the majority of my knowledge.  You can also learn fun things like the fact that VGA is identical to the analog feed in DVI which is also a component RGBVU feed.  Also, the digital signal on a DVI-D cable is the same as an unencrypted digital signal on HDMI.
Identifying the keywords to search for is probably the biggest trick, but if you know the cable name for example, you can likely find what the signal type is.  Also, if you ever end up stuck on a particular signal or cable, feel free to come back here and post a question and someone would be happy to point you in the right direction and provide you with details about the particular signal or device.
Oh, one other term that might be worth searching is Gen-lock.  It's a clock signal that is how the frames of video signals from higher end cameras are synchronized. Most modern video switchers can correct for time base shifting automatically now, but for minimum lag in display, if the video cameras support gen-lock, then using it to have them sample together can be helpful.


text:
How To Get The Webcam To Record From Guitar Rig Directly
i am trying to figure out how to get my webcam to record directly from Guiat Rig. Currently i have to manualy sync the audio and video.
i have the focusrite scarlet 2i2 audio interface. If possible i don't want to use a mic.
When i see the recording sources in webcam I see either the laptop mic or the line in from focusrite audio interface. I choose line in from focusrite. The guitar recording happens but the effects from guitar rig don't get recorded.
Please suggest.

The focusrite scarlet 2i2 has no inbuilt mic, you need to connect an "external mic" to it, or connect the guitar lineout to it. If you have effects pedals, just connect the last 1/4" connector n the chain to the input of the Focusrite.
Please update why you are having sync problems. Anyway don't not rely on a webcam to give synced audio/video. I would say that if you record video & audio from different sources, almost always you have to sync audio with video. Professional gear have a "sync clock" that makes it automatic but this is expensive. At less expensive level you have to work "hard sometimes" with sync. Having a good program like Final Cut Pro or Adobe Premiere helps.
Apart from the discussion of how to fix this (Zoom Q3HD Video Recorder) to the guitar, this is a very practical audio/video recorder, you can even connect external input to it.

Thanks Sergio, Something has just got me worried a little and this is offtopic from this thread but , i have bought the focusrite audio interface and worried that there may be some issue with the bass. I connect the left right out from  focusrite to a Y connector and connect this to 2.1 speakers I find that the woofer is not producing any bass. The focusrite also has a headphone out at front but i am not sure if a headphone out can be connected to a 2.1 speaker or not. If it can be i would like to check the bass by connecting it to the 2.1 speakers to check if Y connector is at fault

@silverkid, a cable cannot cut out just some frequencies. So if any sound comes thru to the speakers, the cable is working. Veeeery tiny changes in tone you can improve with better cables but not the whole bass disappearing. I would connect like you do, you can also connect to the phones if you want. I would say your problem is in the 2.1 speaker, check for a bass volume knob, they often have to be able to calibrate/adjust the proportion of bass in the whole sound from the 2.1 system. Post the model and we can be more specific.

did 2 things - 1. connected the 2.1 speakers to android phone - woofers are fine. 2 - connected the headphone out of focusrite to 2.1 speakers to check the bass again bass and woofers are fine. so the problem of base has to be either left right out or the Y connector. I am using audio drivers of focusrite. which has a control panel with buffer setting which can be increased or decreased . thats all no other settings

@silverkid, what audio software do you use for the focusrite? is there a mixer or a EQ function?

I am using audio drivers of focusrite. which has a control panel with buffer setting which can be increased or decreased . thats all no other settings

@silverkid, maybe an eq in your OS? By the way, is it focusrite drivers running or OS's drivers?

its the focusrite drivers. Problem Fixed. Sergio surprisingly the poor quality cables and connectors were causing the problem. A direct cable fixed it. i think i was making unnecessary joints.


text:
Video recording using external microphone and smartphone
My plan is to record gameplay (using fraps) and myself using a Galaxy S + microphone. I then want to glue them together into one video - picture in picture kind of thing.
My concern is for the part where I use my phone (filming myself): do I have to put the audio and video together in an editing software? Or is the phone smart enough to match the sound that the external mic captures with the image?
Thanks a lot in advance. Also, feel free to recommend a good (~40$) microphone.
Cheers,
Adrian

If the microphone is hooked in to the phone, then it should be an input to the camera app and it should record both at the same time.  If the microphone was not linked to the camera app for some reason but was recording separately, it isn't that hard to sync, just clap on camera and look for the spike on the waveform and align it with the clap.  I wouldn't expect it to be a problem though.