@CubeAce

Hi Ray

Thank you for your response. I've now spent quite some time with the Main Concept encoder, and at first I assumed that either the program settings or the clip effects (or both) were responsible for the inability of the encoder to work reliably at 20fps. However, after trying out numerous permutations - including raw 20fps clips straight from a Reflecta/Wolverine scanner - I belatedly came around to the discovery that there was nothing much wrong with my clips nor with the various MC settings I was trying. What I found was that MC encodes reliably at anything at or above 24fps, but its performance becomes progressively less consistent below 24fps until at 20fps it rarely works at all. At 19fps and below I couldn't get anything out of it - not that that is an issue for me, I was just experimenting by then.

I mark this down to just another whimsical MEP foible...

Richard

@Richard-Curtis

Hi Richard

. . . . I mark this down to just another whimsical MEP foible...

There has been a long similar discussion before on the issue of framerates from captured cine video and IIRC the consensus was that 24 fps is the minimum you should be trying to export at, anything less is non standard.

For TV playback, 25 fps is the standard framerate for PAL TV and 29.97 fps for NTSC.

HTH

John EB

@Richard-Curtis

Hi Richard.

Thanks for getting back to me. I'm sure more than one person will find your reply useful.

I think you will find these are general codec limitations rather than a Magix quirk. Often finding older compatible codecs that will run with newer hardware is like looking for rocking horse droppings. Exceedingly rare.

I think John CB has done a lot of super 8 transferring. I may be wrong but if I'm remembering correctly I wonder what he does?

Ray.

@Richard-Curtis @CubeAce @Richard-Curtis

Hi,

Ray, to answer your question, my 8 mm and Super8 mm were digitized using a Wolverine at 1080 20fps. 8mm was filmed at 16 fps so I simply changed 20 to 16 under Speed. S8 was 18 fps, so changed from 20 to 18 fps under Speed. My projects are all 29.97, so MEP/VPX has to create more frames than at 25 fps, which could explain the difference in fluidity that Richard is seeing but I am not, or at least I am not noticing it.

Under Speed, I tried with "Interpolate intermediate images" off and on. I was surprised that the program could actually do this and fairly well. However, when on, either Neat Video or Mercalli (I don't remember which or it may have been both) did not like it unless first exported/imported. Neat Video is a must to clean up these files, stabilization, not so much.

Richard, did you do the same as I did? Or did you leave the transfers at 20 fps? If you left them at 20, then try using the correct fps but with the project at 25 fps to see if they are more fluid.

I want my videos to be playable by family and friends, so I don't export to anything unorthodox.

John CB

@browj2 @Richard-Curtis @johnebaker

Thanks John.

I think Richard may find those tips useful.

Ray.

@CubeAce @browj2 @johnebaker

Thank you all for your helpful comments. To respond to John CB, I remember we had a similar discussion regarding frame rates some months ago, when I decided to leave my frame rate at 20fps to avoid the intermittent motion I was getting after changing the speed to the camera's 18fps. BUT, that was on the timeline, and at the time I hadn't compared the results of rendering the two alternative frame rates at 25fps. I've been rendering from 20fps on the timeline to 25fps until I picked up this new issue, which is similar in nature to my earlier 20-18fps problem but fortunately not as noticeable. John CB and I have had a previous discussion along much the same lines as this - only, as John indicated above, that was more about Neat Video and Mercalli reacting badly when changing speed on the timeline.

So I've tried rendering 18fps to 25fps as John suggested - with subjectively better results than rendering 20fps to 25fps. The stuttering is still there but it is definitely less obvious to me than the 20fps render. In an attempt to get to the bottom of this phenomenon I resorted to counting frames rendered at 25fps from different timeline frame rates:

(* = inserted still frame)

• 20fps 4*1*4*1*4*1...
• 18fps 2*3*2*3*3*2*3*2*3*2*3*3*2*3...

Also, for interest: 20 to 24fps: 5*1*5*1*5*1...

And obviously, 20fps to 20fps is 111111..., which is really nice but unfortunately unattainable, it seems!

The 20-25fps and 20-24fps renders are intuitively obvious - but I'm not so sure about the 18-25fps render! It seems to me that the irregular insertion of still frames in this latter render acts in its favour; the stuttering in the others being more obvious as a result of the regular "beat".

So there it is. I prefer the 18fps render - thank you, John CB! - but the 20fps render isn't so much worse that I'm going to start all over again. As for my earlier comment regarding MEP's selection of codecs: well, in the circumstances I'm prepared to admit I was unreasonably critical!

Richard

@Richard-Curtis

Hi Richard

Did you try the export with the Speed, Interpolate intermediate images option turned on, this does not insert a duplicate image, it creates a new intermediate image at the points where a new frame is inserted - note you have to set this option for every video clip - select all then apply it.

John EB

@johnebaker

Hi John

I have to stabilise virtually all my raw cine and videos because the subject matter is largely steam railways, which is very unforgiving of dancing subject matter. I invariably used a tripod - or at the very least a monopod - during filming, but I find stabilising still very necessary. The problem, about which John CB and myself exchanged posts some time ago, is that interpolated frames largely destroy any attempt to stabilise a clip - and not just in Mercalli. I tried stabilisation in other programs to which I had access at the time with the same unfortunate results. That was, now I think of it, the main reason why I elected to keep my clips at 20fps as originally scanned instead of correcting them to 18fps - and the reason why I'll probably have to continue to do so

Richard.

Hi Richard

. . . . . interpolated frames largely destroy any attempt to stabilise a clip . . . . .

I believe that one recommendation for this was to use a 2 step process - export the project at the new framerate as MXV (or AVI if you want to archive the project at the higher framerate) and then import the MXV/AVI file and stabilise.

. . . . I invariably used a tripod - or at the very least a monopod - during filming, but I find stabilising still very necessary . . . .

If you are still recording video with a modern digital video camera and need to stabilise, if the in camera stabilisation was active when on the tripod, it can 'hunt' causing the image to 'wobble', the same goes for the monopod depending on how still you can hold it - try turning the camera stabilisation off.

John EB

@Richard-Curtis

Hi Richard.

I have found over time that sometimes a work flow method that did not work previously will sometimes work better in a new program or worse depending on what has been done internally to the software and how capable the machine is.

As much as I admire all attempts to preserve detail and keep as much as possible to the ideal of the original footage form those that endeavour to do so I often wonder how much of such pursuits becomes an act of chasing rainbows.

First, any attempt to alter the original is more artistic than trying to create a flawless copy which is an improvement. We are trying to please our 'eye' and what our brain is telling us is correct.

This can become heavily equipment and software dependent. First projectors, then CRT monitors, then LCD and now OLED. Different manufacturers have slightly different colours to their pixels. Different monitors have different refresh rates. Frames can be dropped by web browsers or resolutions dropped dependent on the connection. Our brains get trained to pick up flaws based on our own equipment and an 'experienced eye'. Memory is imperfect. Changing to a new monitor can either be a wow experience or show up a previous undetected flaw in older work. Its the same with audio.

So while I still try to do the best I can my main concern is the preservation of the original material as I know whatever I do now I will hate within two years time or sooner ,and just maybe by then there will be something out there that will let me have another go with better results or I will have worked out a better workflow that gives better results.

Even then I realise that if I share these images, the person at the other end will never see it as I do.

I think what I'm trying to say is none of us give up trying but just because something didn't work before it doesn't mean it won't work now or a slight change in workflow may yield better results.

Have you tried first doing a straight copy to an uncompressed AVI file to get a more common frame rate first as John EB suggests and then apply Denoise and image stability to the AVI file?

Ray.

@johnebaker

😉😊😊

@johnebaker @CubeAce

Hi John, Ray

1. I believe that one recommendation for this was to use a 2 step process - export the project at the new framerate as MXV (or AVI if you want to archive the project at the higher framerate) and then import the MXV/AVI file and stabilise...

https://www.magix.info/us/forum/mep-2020-tk2-bug--1231673/#ca1486331

You'll need to flog through this thread to find the relevant bits (and please ignore my infamous "Take" issues, which I know you're tired of hearing about!), but I venture to say that both John CB and I were encountering the same problem at that time. You'll note that we both tried your idea - no joy. John's summation is relevant:

"We did the test of adding interpolation, exporting, importing, applying Mercalli, and the result was the same as adding interpolation and doing Mercalli."

I think that for cases when the camera is on a tripod and no stabilization is required, for S8 film, turning on interpolation will help. For handheld shots, interpolation off, Mercalli on."

In my case I always need to stabilise, even with a tripod, whether at 18fps or 20fps.

2. If you are still recording video with a modern digital video camera and need to stabilise, if the in camera stabilisation was active when on the tripod, it can 'hunt' causing the image to 'wobble', the same goes for the monopod depending on how still you can hold it - try turning the camera stabilisation off.

No longer an issue - the last time I used a video camera was around 20 years ago. I'm only editing these days.

3. Ray, I fully agree with your views on preserving the original material in case some useful editing facilities come along further down the line that don't exist right now. In my case I keep all the original Reflecta film scanner and Goko sound film editor files on HDD, but I'm still steeling myself to turf out the Super 8 films from which they were derived.

I recall there was a school of thought that advocated the "natural" look in cine photography (Lenny Lipton?), but believe me, it doesn't work in railway photography!

@Richard-Curtis

I understand your reticence completely about getting rid of any original material. For me it is about 10" reels of quarter inch tape which has master copies of work I did in studios in the 70s. About 450 of them. I had my tape machine revamped by a specialist company about fourteen years ago and it cost three times more to replace the tape heads and have the electrical components replaced than when I bought the machine. Even so it is still cheaper than buying a new machine. The tapes themselves are at a precarious stage though so all of them need digitizing before it is too late. I have recordings of tracks from artists that at the time were not famous. Mixes and arrangements that were never released. Some recordings that now may even be lost and the ability to reproduce the originals no longer possible. (some were from 18 inch 78s that used specialist broadcast record players.)

My son has some interest in history so they may benefit him but ideally I would have liked to release them but some of the companies that may have held copyright no longer exist may or may not have transferred rights or may not have even had copies of the things as they were demo tapes and I have no idea who got copies or retained them and I have no idea how to go about such things. We all have our problems 😉😓.

Ray.

@CubeAce

Hi Ray

Your life project is certainly of a great deal more moment than my modest Super 8 and Sony 8mm efforts, and puts my pathetic little issues into perspective😄. It's interesting to discover how diverse our motives are for getting into this editing thing. I'm sure that you, like me, couldn't have imagined 40 years ago that we'd ever be employing the kind of technology available to us today. I distinctly remember, back in 1980-81 or thereabouts, reading a magazine (Movie Maker?) that informed its readers that home video would never take off because, unlike film, it can't be edited by cutting the required lengths out and gluing them together. As you said, new techniques do come along eventually. Unfortunately, so do new problems...😉.

Richard

@Richard-Curtis

Hi Richard.

Indeed back in the day when us dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was using purely analog gear and a 16 track analog tape machine using 2" tape that cost as much as a medium cost graphics card does today, I never dreamed that the cupboard sized 'computer' I saw printing out a paper copy of the Mona Lisa using text lettering would be superseded by my phone,🤣 or that a 35mm film camera would have less resolution than my phone.

I was also an assistant film editor at one time working with a hand cranked Steinbeck editing table.

Thankfully I never had the urge to take home any 35mm film cans with me although I did have a full black and white copy of The Railway Children at one point. I can't even remember how or why I ended up with that. I do remember leaving it behind in the last house move.

What has happened, as with cars, is the expense of doing such things tumbles all the time. Capabilities do eventually increase and rescue of old material that was once irretrievable becomes possible.

I did two archiving projects back in the 70s. One was for some nitrate based film that we eventually put a layer of transparent film either side of to stop it from breaking up and flaking while we optically transferred it to a more modern film stock. The other was at the sound recording studio where we removed the clicks and pops from the original 78 rpm discs of the Ovaltineys wartime broadcasts by just cutting them out with a razor blade. Both jobs took months of work and cost a fortune.

If I were you and the film stock is still in reasonable shape I would still hang on to it or donate it to a national film archive where eventually it may even be professionally remastered and be a part of their library. That's how everything else got there. 🙏😉

Ray.

🎼"We are the Ovaltineys, Little Girls and B-o-oys!"🎼

That's it! No more!😂😂😂

Richard

@Richard-Curtis

That's the one. 👍

Unfortunately you will never hear a full broadcast of most of them again as a lot of the songs had what we would now call politically incorrect lyrics and references to toys such as Gollys (abrv).

Those are the ones I had to work on. The master 78s were not with Ovaltene but at the Irish guards regimental headquarters in London as part of the British armed forced overseas broadcast unit if I recall correctly. (I might not as I traveled around London a lot at that time).

I have the full Ovalteney broadcast of the night before Germany invaded France and the first Christmas eve after the start of WWII as well as one other full broadcast. Apart from dubious foreign accents of some of the adult characters, most of the child parts were played by adult child voice overs. I used to work with one who was a friend of the studio owner I worked for. I wish I knew her full name. I just knew her as Jinney which I assume was some form of nickname.

All that for a thirty second TV advert. After which the advertising agency paid for a full orchestra to play the theme all over again. You may remember the TV advert. A small boy sitting cross legged in front of a radio with the original theme playing which slowly transferred into the modern re recorded version along with a more modern family still drinking Ovaltene. It was shown on the run up to Christmas quite a few years back. It's the only Ovaltene advert I've seen since.

Still, enough reminiscing. Hang on to your super 8s!

Ray.

@Richard-Curtis

Hi Richard

. . . . I distinctly remember, back in 1980-81 or thereabouts, reading a magazine (Movie Maker?) that informed its readers that home video would never take off because, unlike film, it can't be edited by cutting the required lengths out and gluing them together. . . .

They were out of touch - I can remember my grandfather cutting and splicing Standard 8mm cine film in the kitchen back in the late 70's, - there were many DIY splicing kits on the market both solvent and tape based.

As @CubeAce has commented, hang on to the Super 8's, however do ensure they are stored correctly to avoid going brittle or sticking together.

John EB

@johnebaker

Hi John.

I think you misread Richards quote. I think they were talking about being able to edit video footage. Perhaps they were referring to VHS tapes? Certainly cutting a tape that was helical scanned would have been challenging at best.

Ray.

@CubeAce

Hi Ray

. . . . I  think you misread Richards quote. . . .

Oops - in the case of VHS it was possible with a few challenges and 2, preferably 3, VHS recorder/players - used to do the same with audio best one I did was Cream's Badge - always thought the ending was very limp so added the Mellotron section to the end with a fade out.

John EB

@johnebaker @CubeAce @Richard-Curtis

Hi,

My recollection of editing VHS in the early 80's was having 2 machines to make copies. Recording from one to the other was linear, so just had to play/record sections in order.

Here is a photo of me splicing 8 and S8 film 2 years ago:

The cement splicer would only do S8. The tape splicer has a changeout piece for 8 and S8.

The cement, purchased in the late 70's, was still good.

John CB