Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Video quality is horrible  (Read 1723 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« on: October 09, 2013, 01:37:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I strongly feel the video quality is horrible. When focusing in on faces it is OK, but anything with a lot of detail is horrible. It is like "youtube" and not like "vimeo". There are a lot of good quality videos on Vimeo. You tube quality is not acceptable to me.


I always enjoyed LuLa videos, but the on line streaming quality I see right now is not acceptable to me.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1835



« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2013, 01:41:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I think perhaps it may have to do with the stream speed your network can sustain or the device your are looking at it on. Michael & I did quite a bit of testing and were streaming off an iPad via Apple TV to a 60" HD set and it looked great. Certainly as good as the standalone video

Chris
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1835



« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2013, 01:55:35 PM »
ReplyReply

The quality does also depend on the vintage of the video. Some of the older Video Journals were shot in SD and look much softer. But the same quality as they always were.

I'd be interested on the specific video you found horrible and how you were looking at it

Chris
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 09, 2013, 02:54:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I looked at the video with Kevin Raber and Michael discussing the new home page. I also looked at the video sample on the new Capture One tutorial which I consider to buy. (I just spent something like 15 grand on MFDB equipment so I am bit more concerned about expenses than I used to be).

What I see is that the picture is fuzzy. I have no problems playing 1080P (not sure about the P) video on Vimeo. The Zacuto programming works great: http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012/revenge-of-the-great-camera-shootout-part-three

I am watching either on 24" Eizo desktop monitor or 170 cm wide projection screen in HD1080P at around 2.5 m distance. May be excessive but that is what I have.

I was quite happy with the older 720P videos. What I have noticed that close ups are quite good, but the image turns very fuzzy when focused out, so I guess it is compression effects I see.

One of the issues I have is that I buy the videos much for entertainment value.

An afterthought: I may be asking for to much...

Best regards
Erik


The quality does also depend on the vintage of the video. Some of the older Video Journals were shot in SD and look much softer. But the same quality as they always were.

I'd be interested on the specific video you found horrible and how you were looking at it

Chris
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 02:59:14 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1835



« Reply #4 on: October 09, 2013, 03:14:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah I thought you were talking about the new video service...

The Vimeo stuff is viewable in HD or not. Obviously it helps to switch on HD.

I just grabbed this off the C1 tutorial piece - looks oK to me
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 03:16:58 PM by Chris Sanderson » Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1835



« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2013, 03:20:49 PM »
ReplyReply

With your permission I will edit the title of the thread to Vimeo embedded video quality is horrible.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2013, 03:23:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I guess I may be wrong or expecting to much...

Best regards
Erik

Ah I thought you were talking about the new video service...

The Vimeo stuff is viewable in HD or not. Obviously it helps to switch on HD.

I just grabbed this off the C1 tutorial piece - looks oK to me
Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2184



WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2013, 03:32:10 PM »
ReplyReply

You aren't expecting too much, you are spot on.  What you are seeing is the difference between a high bitrate high res video and low bitarate low res.  The Zacuto (and many others obviously) video is at 1080p with a good bitrate of 3500.

The two latest Lula vids, at least as shown on the site (hopefully the purchased copies are MUCH better) are only 720p and a VERY low bitrate of under 1500 and under 1200 respectively.  FAR below the suggested standards for even web use.  I upload my 1080p vids at 8,000 for optimal quality.  Yes it means much bigger files and time but that's why I also just upgraded my internet connection to cut down on that.  

The overall quality difference is huge to anyone that knows and appreciates it like obviously some here do.

An example of better bitrate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXc4yufUbsw
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 03:47:28 PM by kaelaria » Logged

Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1835



« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2013, 04:29:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Bryan, I am not going to debate the quirks of bitrate & web video.

But to serve most of the world with middling network speeds, I always strive for a compromise between good quality and high bitrate. For me thare is nothing worse than having a video stutter, stop & start because the bitrate is too high.

Talking head video can comfortably be dropped to the bitrates I use without major quality compromise.

IMO
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2184



WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2013, 04:31:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion - obviously there are other ones out there or this thread wouldn't have started Wink

But you might have just said that instead of alluding to the fact that there is no problem or it's somehow Vimeo's fault Wink

Yes if you intended on keeping things very small, you did a good job.  But it doesn't look like production quality compared to those with better resolution and bitrate, that's not an opinion it's just numbers.
Logged

Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1835



« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2013, 05:05:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Let's be clear. The criticism is leveled at the embedded Web video. The title of the thread does not state that.

Here is a screen capture of the embedded web video at about twice its native 720P size.

Could it be sharper? - Yes

Does it need to be sharper to communicate effectively within a tutorial? - No
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2184



WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2013, 05:40:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think you realize how many different ways people view websites and videos.  I get the impression you believe people are just clicking play in the little window on the site and that's it?  Do you realize many people then hit the full screen button, Or are on mobile devices that will automatically fullscreen videos?  Do you realize that will cause Vimeo and YouTube and Blip etc. to pull the highese res file for the display it's on?  So when someone is viewing on a screen that cam handle 1080p vs 720, it automatically LOOKS like it.  It's obvious.  Sure if one were to just watch in a little embedded rectangle in a browser it looks fine, it's not even at 720p that's a gimmie.  You need to be aware of ALL the various options people use.  In your case you cause your videos to look substandard by not providing a higher quality option from the start.  When people have a slow connection, most services will automatically throttle by serving lower res renders.  YouTube for example, if you upload a 1080p original will then make several resolution versions behind the scene and serve what is most appropriate.  You are NOT causing anyone to have a poor experience by providing a high quality original you are simply making the option available to those that can use it (an ever increasing number).
Logged

Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1835



« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2013, 08:47:19 PM »
ReplyReply

OK Bryan. Duly noted.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
remko
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44


« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2013, 03:33:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Chris,

I purchased and downloaded the C1 Pro video and the quality is indeed below what I would expect from LL.

Just to be sure as a comparison, I started up one of the Lightroom 3 video's - as that is the only one I have on my laptop at the moment as I am traveling. And that video is miles ahead in sharpness and contrast. As old as it is, it is superior to the C1 Pro series.

IMHO the quality is lacking too much. I do inderstand your remark about finding a nice balance between file sizes for download and viewing quality. But I think this time the balance is a bit off. Esp related to the amount of work you all have put into this, but also related to the price we pay for this vid series.

I have watched a couple of the vid's of the C1 Pro series already and the content and the discussions are great though.

EDITED: It was not my intent to add anything to the discussion between you and Kaelaria. When I bought the video on 9 October and made myself comfortable for a first and entertaining look (which it was), it struck me how bad the image quality was. So I started looking for a setting to raise it (like going from 360p to at least 720p) but it is not there or I could not find it. It was then I started looking on the forum and read Erik's remark. Last night, watching the vid, I decided to leave a remark to give you some feedback.
My MacBook has a small 11 inch screen and I always look vid's full screen. I do hope the video quality will standup looking full screen on my 27 inch screen at home.


cheers,
Remko
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 04:01:10 AM by remko » Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1835



« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2013, 09:51:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I am a bit puzzled and concerned about your comments. Can you tell me if the downloaded video files you have that are poor quality are from our legacy store or from the new Luminous Landscape player app via Purple?

I will investigate at my end and specifically compare the LR3 & C1-7 tutorials and let you know what I see.

Chris
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
remko
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44


« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2013, 10:55:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I am a bit puzzled and concerned about your comments. Can you tell me if the downloaded video files you have that are poor quality are from our legacy store or from the new Luminous Landscape player app via Purple?

I will investigate at my end and specifically compare the LR3 & C1-7 tutorials and let you know what I see.

Chris

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your reaction, I appreciate it!

I downloaded the files directly after purchase, so I guess that is what you mean by legacy store? I am not using any app, just QT on my laptop.

I found that especially when just one person is shown - instead of all three - on the C1 vid's is when the quality is lacking. Finding an analogy with still images, it is as a photo has been cropped way too much so there is a severe lack of resolution. Hopes this helps a bit.

I am on holiday at the moment, but will try to watch daily if there are any more questions or suggestions from your side.

cheers,
Remko
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1835



« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2013, 11:00:02 AM »
ReplyReply

My guess is that you refer to Kevin's close-up which is occasionally out-of-focus.

He's a jumpy bugger and I lost him at times in shallow d-o-f when he sat back. But if that is the shot you refer to, it is camera operator error - the shot is front focussed (hands are sharp...)! My apologies.

Chris
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 11, 2013, 02:52:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Chris, the video looks great to me.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 11, 2013, 03:20:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I am the original poster and I feel that I have to back pedal on the issue. I guess that my viewing habits are on the extreme side. I went back to some stuff I liked and they are not as good as I remembered either.

I still feel I would much prefer better videos, but we also have the small question how much I would be prepared to pay.

Anyway I bought a subscription. I used to buy most videos from LuLa, so I guess that I am spending in excess of 100 $US a year anyway. Personally, I like the Reichmann/Schewe show and I miss some of the actors in some of the shows. Eric Chan makes a nice replacement and so does the gentleman hiding behind the camera. Of the other actors I remember Bill Atkinson and Ray Maxwell specially well. Charlie Cramer and Jack Dykinga seems to be some very nice people, too. A gentleman I miss is Steve Cossack, what happened to him?

Best regards
Erik

Hi,

I strongly feel the video quality is horrible. When focusing in on faces it is OK, but anything with a lot of detail is horrible. It is like "youtube" and not like "vimeo". There are a lot of good quality videos on Vimeo. You tube quality is not acceptable to me.


I always enjoyed LuLa videos, but the on line streaming quality I see right now is not acceptable to me.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

remko
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44


« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2013, 04:09:35 AM »
ReplyReply

My guess is that you refer to Kevin's close-up which is occasionally out-of-focus.

He's a jumpy bugger and I lost him at times in shallow d-o-f when he sat back. But if that is the shot you refer to, it is camera operator error - the shot is front focussed (hands are sharp...)! My apologies.

Chris

Well, that is what I was thinking last night, there seems indeed to be a very thin DOF and that certainly adds to the effect. No need to apology, Chris, you did a great job on these vid's.

cheers,
Remko
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad