Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Software Technical Help


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#41 Orky

Orky

    GP5 40mm

  • Members
  • 632 posts

Posted 26 November 2008 - 08:55 AM

Okay folks, this is likely an absolutely brain-dead question to ask but stay with me here, because I'm a bit out of it.

So I just recently opened up Windows Movie Maker for the first time, played around with it for a bit, and overall it seems to be pretty idiot-proof. But one thing that is bugging me is the way the sound files work. You can't place two files on-top of eachother like you can in TM - the file your trying to place on the other just pushes it left or right down the line. So, because I am often-times plagued by the horror that is the sound-bug and intend to start sound-synching in WMM as opposed to TM, I was just wondering if there is anyway I could get around this, or do I gotta' write down the times each sound comes up in the movie and individually place each file in audacity, linking them up into one "major file" and doing it like that? Because that method seems awfully complicated. So to recap, my question is - is there any setting or something you can check which lets you place sound files "on-top" of eachother in WMM? Thanks in advance!

(By the way, I know there is a way for you to record whatever sounds you computer is playing with audacity, but for whatever reason I can't get that to work, even with the most recent sound-card updates, so for me, that method ain't happenin')

- Orky

#42 Sparky

Sparky

    In the Shadows

  • Administrators
  • 720 posts

Posted 26 November 2008 - 12:02 PM

Hey Orky. From what i know the major flaw with WMM is the sound issue that you describe. I did find this 'cheat fix' on the WMM help site though. It might be better than nothing.

"Another way to create two audio tracks is to superimpose them. MovieMaker allows you to superimpose two audio clips using the same timeline track … though the method for doing this is not obvious. First, lay down your music clip on the timeline. Then, lay your second audio-track on the timeline AFTER the first one. To superimpose the two, you first have to move the second clip so that its starting edge touches the end of the first audio clip.

Posted Image

Now, pick up the second audio clip again and move it to the left. You’ll see a blue “triangle” form over the first audio track … that means they are superimposing.

Posted Image

Unfortunately, there is a problem with this method. If you try to “completely superimpose” both audio clips, (so they both start at the beginning of the movie) the second clip will try to jump in front of the first one. It’s really hard to get that second audio clip to start where you want it.
As you can see, running two audio tracks in Movie Maker 2 is problematic. However, in the program’s defense, MovieMaker is meant to be a simple video editor. If find yourself needing multiple audio and video tracks that run concurrently, you may be better served with a professional editing package like Adobe Premiere. Movie Maker 2 is meant to be an easy-to-use program, so they’ve simplified much of the interface to accommodate novice users."


Personally, i have had success using the akward method you described for creating a 'master track' elsewhere. One Last Breath was totally scorred this way using Mixcraft and a silent final cut of the finished movie. For any sound fx that need to be very specific (like gun fire) try JUST adding those into PP when exporting. Hopefull the sound bug wont hit because there is no other audio being rendered at that time.


To record sound straight from your pc in audacity is dependant soley on your soundcard. If you have a good enough sound card to perform this task, you will have a drop down menu as shown below


Posted Image


As you can see i don't have it because i cheaped out on my last sound card (a mistake i will never repeat). If you can do it, you will have source options in this box to record sound playing on your pc straight into Audacity.


Cheers

Posted Image



#43 Orky

Orky

    GP5 40mm

  • Members
  • 632 posts

Posted 26 November 2008 - 12:24 PM

Heya' Sparky, thanks for that, that does actually help me out, especially with the ambience files and such. My soundcard is older than my grandmother so I can't do the PC-to-Audacity thing (I do have a drop-down menu though, which has three choices ("Microphone" "Line-in" and "Rear-Mic", despite having only one (a microphone) plugged in), but I'm sure that method I was talking about is probably a lot less awkward to do than it sounds. Onto the WMM movie making I go!

Thanks again!

- Orky

#44 thebiz

thebiz

    Huge Member

  • Advisers
  • 3,269 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 03:53 PM

What output format, frame rate and perspective do most of you guys use when exporting your movie?

Which file format offers the best quality for the smallest file size? Which just offers the best quality?

Do various sites use different sizes and perspectives? For instance, the tmu player seems bigger than the tmo player and looks like it stretches things out. Is youtube and blip and the like all different perspectives or simply different sizes?


#45 Dulci

Dulci

    Staring Contest Champion

  • Administrators
  • 4,853 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 02 December 2008 - 04:15 PM

I just found this section on Vimeo about exporting files using various programs. Hopefully someone tech savvy can tell me if these instructions would be useful for uploading to TMU as well:



#46 Killian

Killian

    ...From the darkness, I return...

  • Administrators
  • 2,752 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 05:47 PM

I just found this section on Vimeo about exporting files using various programs. Hopefully someone tech savvy can tell me if these instructions would be useful for uploading to TMU as well:


Looking at the Magix settings there, that would make a huge file size movie (I tend to export at Windows Media Export: Video: 768x432; 24.00 Frames/s; VBR Quality 90; Audio: 44100 kHz; Stereo; CBR 31 kBit/s, and even that makes over 100mb files (yeah, so they are 20-30 mins in length...), so god knows how big a movie exported in that quality would be... or how long it would take to render... I might try it and see...

UPDATE: Set my Magix to the listed settings and tried to export the first part of the Finale, just to see what a) the results are like and B) how big it will be and how long it will take... answer to b)2 is 4 hours and rising, and 10 minutes into the process the file size is already 25mb...

So, in answer to the question... yes, they will probably look great, but exporting will take hours and it's very likely that most people will time out before getting the file upped to the movie site. And, bearing in mind the issues the site tends to have with complex movies of large size over a certain length, I wouldn't recommend it for here, anyway...

Edited by Killian, 02 December 2008 - 06:07 PM.


#47 BiggsTrek

BiggsTrek

    They dug too deep

  • Members
  • 1,983 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 06:05 PM

One of the largest file size exports I did was also the quickest to render. It was a raw .avi file (no codecs involved) that I created (about 15 mins of footage) that came out at over a gig (might even have been 10... it didn't last long on my harddrive!)

[EDIT: I don't know nuthin' about .avi files, I've just had to deal with them a couple of times as certain contests required .avi submissions. I much prefer .wmv. The size of avi's can be drastically reduced with a good codec. Xvid works ok for me (DivX, not so much...)]

Edited by BiggsTrek, 02 December 2008 - 06:35 PM.

GodivaBanner02.jpg


#48 thebiz

thebiz

    Huge Member

  • Advisers
  • 3,269 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 06:08 PM

Whats the benifit of AVI vs WMV? Why is AVI so freaking big?

#49 Killian

Killian

    ...From the darkness, I return...

  • Administrators
  • 2,752 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 06:15 PM

I don't know if there really IS a benefit of AVI over WMV. According to Wiki, AVI is one of the older formats (which might explain why file sizes are so large in comparison with newer formats that support native compression, which AVI apparently doesn't).

Maybe someone with some more technical know-how can answer this one :)

#50 sisch

sisch

    on my second life

  • Administrators
  • 1,094 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 06:33 PM

I can't help you with knowing the difference between .avi and .wmv, I only know that the format MS exports best to is .avi - and it looks incredibly good (whereas .avi's made with Magix don't look that crisp anymore, but that might have to do with the codec? Magix uses).

I usually export my films in 1280x720 (TM, too; I've got a neat little .exe made by Hirsches (german community) that enables exporting from TM in that size) , 25.00 frames (TM uses 24, but the higher framerate doesn't seem to create any problems), VBR quality 90 (thanks to Killian for the tip), audio: 44100 kHz; Stereo; CBR 48 kBit/s. Of course the films are insanely big, but I think it's worth it, it looks so good!

I'm curius how big "Saving Grace" will be in the end..... :blink:

#51 thebiz

thebiz

    Huge Member

  • Advisers
  • 3,269 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 06:46 PM

Hmm, I thought TM ran at 10 fps..or was that just the overlay rate?

#52 BiggsTrek

BiggsTrek

    They dug too deep

  • Members
  • 1,983 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 07:10 PM

Hmm, I thought TM ran at 10 fps..or was that just the overlay rate?


That's the overlays. And I thought the hires output was at 30fps... (or so Vegas told me).

GodivaBanner02.jpg


#53 Jase180

Jase180

    Villain

  • Administrators
  • 1,522 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 07:12 PM

That's the overlays. And I thought the hires output was at 30fps... (or so Vegas told me).


While cutting Story of us in Magix, I noticed TM created extra frames and a few 1/2 frames. When I viewed the timeline in single frame, I was annoyed to find that some frames were 1/2 one scene 1/2 another.

thats how I got glitches. annoying as hell

#54 Killian

Killian

    ...From the darkness, I return...

  • Administrators
  • 2,752 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:10 PM

Yeah have come across that a lot as well when doing tidy-up cuts once I got the footage out of TM. Spent ages hacking out partial scenes but still missed a few (hard to spot unless you are going to spend as long as it takes going over a 20-30 min movie frame by frame, cutting and splicing to take them all out...)

#55 BiggsTrek

BiggsTrek

    They dug too deep

  • Members
  • 1,983 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:20 PM

Yeah have come across that a lot as well when doing tidy-up cuts once I got the footage out of TM. Spent ages hacking out partial scenes but still missed a few (hard to spot unless you are going to spend as long as it takes going over a 20-30 min movie frame by frame, cutting and splicing to take them all out...)


Likewise with the soon-to-released- UPM-2-2, loads of "stutters" between scenes thanks to TM's PP (all gone now, but tricky to remove sooo many).

:1eye:

GodivaBanner02.jpg


#56 sisch

sisch

    on my second life

  • Administrators
  • 1,094 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:33 PM

Well, Magix says that movies exported from PP have 24.00 frames per second, MS has 25.00 - though you can get that up in their export thingy to 29.95, if I'm not mistaken (never tried it and don't know what it does to the movie, really).

I think I've encountered the problem with half-scenes in TM, too - it makes for very un-smooth (?) transitions.
But exporting it at 25 frames looks exactly the same (at least to my eyes).

Oh, and overlay framerates in TM is 12, not 10?

Edited by sisch, 02 December 2008 - 09:44 PM.


#57 Killian

Killian

    ...From the darkness, I return...

  • Administrators
  • 2,752 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 06:02 PM

Reading back on Sisch' Saving Grace thread, I've seen and experience some of those issues myself when doing the Finale.

Magix is limited to what your system can handle at once, so there are a few ways to tweak a bit more out of it, even with a low end system (and here I'm talking Athlon LE1600 2.21Ghz chip, 4gig of RAM and a Geoforce 7800 gfx card, so hardly the Rolls Royce of systems; more like the Reliant Robin :P)

In order to cut down on the problems you're having, I can recommend you try the following out (some of them are a real bleedin faff, but might just save your sanity):-

1) Make sure you are real-time rendering at a lower setting when editing (half rezz or lower); it won't look as good in the editor, but while you're working on it it will not use as much resource, and you can easy pop the settings back up at the end, right before you do your export, to check how it looks;

2) Use lower rez footage in your edits (not great, I know, but needs must when the devil plops in your saucepan... or something);

3) Assign more system resource to Magix when its running (warning: this could make your system unstable, so be warned, and don't try to have more than Magix and maybe a browser and one other low resource program running at the same time (i.e. don't try this if you want to run MS, Audacity, TM, Magix and other stuff at the same time (though quite why you might want to, I'm not sure)). Start Magix; cltr-alt-del to bring up Task Manager; go to the Process tab; find "MovieEdit.exe"; right click it; select Set Priority and select "Above Normal" (try this setting first and run it in a bit before trying "High"). Close everything down and reboot your PC, then run Magix again (be aware that this is the XP version of accessing Task Manager; got no idea how Vista handles it, I'm afraid, so don't ask);

4) Edit and export smaller chunks of working footage (i.e. no more than 5-10 mins tops); complete work on that chunk, then render it out in a format that is slightly higher rezz than you want the end product to be. Do this with all your working footage (stacked overlay scenes for chromakeying, soundtrack, VOs, etc etc), until you have X number of completed chunks.

Once you have them all done, open a new blank project and import all the previously rendered files into that. Save it once you have everything in, then export THAT file at the rezz you want the final product in. Because Magix isn't handling umpteen different overlapping files, sounds, etc, all at once, it should have an easier time dealing with the less complex (i.e. less elements being rendered individually) combined film strips at the same time.

Hopefully some of this might be of use. To address the others who have expressed some concerns, please remember that Sisch pushes the envelope of everything she does, so whilst she might be experiencing issues with the editor, most of us mere mortals won't have a problem using it at all :wink:

#58 sisch

sisch

    on my second life

  • Administrators
  • 1,094 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 09:57 PM

Hehehe... pushing the envelope... :D - I guess you're right!

Thanks for your detailed tips - one thing I will definitely try out is the "lower rez when working on it" - sounds good, and I never thought of that myself!

I tried to assign more resources to Magix - didn't make a big difference (if not to say none at all) - probably because I'm playing around with 1280x720 material.
Which brings me to lowering the quality or size for the whole film - that's the one thing I won't do, because I want the endproduct in the big format - I want to be able to play it on our homecinema screen, which is 3,85m across - we've got a projector!

If worst comes to worst, I will export in little chunks - but as quality gets slightly worse with each render, I'll try to avoid that. Mind you, the "getting a little worse" might be totally unimportant and only visible to me, but.... erm... you know me. :biggrin: Perfectionista on the run....

Thanks for the great tips! :)

#59 Killian

Killian

    ...From the darkness, I return...

  • Administrators
  • 2,752 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 10:09 PM

Most welcome, Madame :)

I think the biggest issue you have is purely down to the resolution of your footage, which your rig is struggling with a bit memory-wise; I would say try and keep an eye out and whack another 2-4gig in there as soon as you can, as that will help enormously.

#60 Norrie

Norrie

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 772 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 10:17 PM

I think the biggest issue you have is purely down to the resolution of your footage, which your rig is struggling with a bit memory-wise; I would say try and keep an eye out and whack another 2-4gig in there as soon as you can, as that will help enormously.


Ooh, kind of disagree with you there Kilian. Rendering is little to do with memory, and all to do with CPU. Otherwise "Real Time" (an oxymoron in regards to any MS OS) would suffice.

I'm curious to know if Magix is utilising both cores? I suspect not. *looks for mad scientist smiley*

I thinking bad programming, before bad machine.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users