Maybe someone can break this down for me. I'm not a video expert by any means, but I landed a side gig where I edit and produce a short web show. They've given me .m4v files. These are from their live video broadcasts which I then use to edit and produce a news/highlight show. When I watch the source files in VLC the picture is too narrow. So I change the setting in VLC to use a 16:9 aspect ratio and it looks fine. I guess 16:10 looks good too, but I'm guessing 16:9 is the right one? I've checked in Handbrake and video ratio is 768x564. My math tells me 768x432 looks proper. The second problem when watching the files is you can see 'lines'. As if you watched a CRT tv up close. It's kind of like pixelation but in long horizontal lines, noticeable around objects moving, people, etc. I'm sure someone knows what I'm talking about. So I turn 'deinterlace' on in the playback settings of VLC and it looks much better. I use iMovie to do all the editing. Video pros, I know it's rudimentary and I plan on upgrading my computer whenever the new 15" Macbook Pros come out so I can step up to Final Cut or Premiere and dive deeper. But in the meantime, I need to convert these files into an .mp4 file compatible with iMovie that has a proper aspect ratio and is deinterlaced....I assume. So please tell me if I'm right so far. And second. What's the best program to do this in and how? I'm about to use Handbrake to give it another go. I've already spent 2 hrs doing test conversions and it hasn't worked out. I just realized these options in VLC to make it look watchable. I'm guessing there's a reason with professional video productions that the file came as it is, and maybe there's something else I'm missing out on in the process. TIA.
16:9 is the standard HD and/or Widescreen ratio. The lines you are talking about are called interlacing. All you have to do is de-interlace through whichever video editor you are using. Adobe After Effects is the best program for video editing, hands down. Compositing is a bit tricky and is easier in Sony Vegas or Adobe Premiere but After Effects is significantly more powerful; you can do more; etc. That being said the conversion progress can be done in-editor, do NOT convert before you import the video files. You will lose quality every single time you convert/export.
Thanks for the help. I would've replied the first time I read this but I was thisclose to running out of time there. Ok well deinterlacing has worked so far until now. I've got a new episode to work on and new video to go through. This particular bunch (same event from the same source) look interlaced, but deinterlacing them in Handbrake and MPEG Streamclip have done nothing. Any idea why this is the case? Back to what you mentioned about After Effects: I thought this was more for special effects for bits here and there. Can you use just this to do full on editing? I am a total noob and still figuring things as I go.
Premiere is about 1000x better for actual video editing. I use after effects for exactly what you listed, goofy fun stuff. Generally with video editing I use my PC and premiere. Premiere has a similar look to final cut but I think it's much faster than final cut, then again I've used final cut maybe twice...
A lot of people I know do work solely in After Effects. Premiere and After Effects are supposed to be the 1-2 combo for video editing and video effects. I just figure if you have After Effects, you can essentially have two tools for the price of one. Simplicity-wise I use Sony Vegas Pro. Easiest program ever to composite with. I agree though if compositing is the ONLY thing you will ever do, then stick with premiere; its designed for compositing-only in mind.
Thanks for the advice, I'll look into it when the time comes...but I'm worried I won't actually have much time to experiment because as soon as I'm done it's probably time to start on the next video. Seems like Premiere is the industry standard so I'll try that first. As for After Effects, is it as fast as Premiere as far as using resources? Seems like After Effects would be heavier just by nature. Back to the question, anyone else have ideas about the interlacing? My guess is the original interlaced video was converted to another format so it's 'burned in' so to speak and the software technically doesn't see anything to deinterlace.
To each their own I guess. I like premiere a lot more for straight video editing... Premiere is lighter on its feet for me, and for multi-track editing and video transitions premiere seems to be much better than after effects.
