Hi Folks,
I have put up a short video file on my own website and would invite any who are interested to download it. It's in Windows Media Player (WMV) format and if you're Windows XP you should have no problems running it.
The video is short and shows a single (semi transparent) paramecium slowly rotating along it's long axis. In my opinion the video illustrates the three dimensional nature of the animal far better than a 2D photograph can (mmmm... with the possible exeption of some of the contributors to this forum). A contractile vacuole can be seen working (typical star shape at about 8 seconds).
The video was taken with an Olympus SP-350 through a Carton VSHLB-4 20X achro. Colour balance is a little off and I'm working on that aspect. The full video is about 10 minutes long - this is just a very short excerpt.
The bad news is that the file is 7.5 Mb (no problem if you're broadband).
*UPDATE* Thanks to some great help from Rik I have reduced file size to just 1 Mb (still WMV file till I've sorted out a licence for Quicktime 7).
I am keen to get feedback on this vid so please do take a look if you have the time. Click the following link to play the video:
http://www.tal-handaq.co.uk/paramecium_vid.html
Bruce
Paramecium video
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
Bruce Williams
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: Northamptonshire, England
- Contact:
Paramecium video
Last edited by Bruce Williams on Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23622
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Bruce,
I'm not quite sure what sort of feedback you're looking for, so here's a collection.
1. Windows reports that the dimension is 1280x720, but that apparently includes a wide black border. The actual image content seems more like 742x594. It would work better without the black border.
2. The movie played smoothly with Winamp (v5.23), with the Windows Media Player (9.00.00.3349), and with IrfanView (3.91). It played but jerked badly using the Imagen Media Player (2.4.3). It did not play at all through the QuickTime Player (7.1) or the Camtasia Player (2.0.4), which apparently do not handle the .wmv format.
There may be an important issue lurking in here, depending on how you intend the movie to be used. My general experience is that the QuickTime, Camtasia, and Imagen players all provide much better press-and-drag capability to "play" forwards and backwards under mouse control, compared to the other players. What I'm describing here is being able to press the mouse button while over the time slider, then smoothly and continuously control which frame is displayed by just moving the mouse. Personally, I'm very fond of being able to do that, so I strongly prefer players that support it. Unfortunately, that seems to preclude .wmv's, and on many systems, you have to download & install the player first. DivX-encoded .avi's are supported by Camtasia and Imagen, but only .mov's by QuickTime (as far as I can tell in quick testing right now).
I've posted out a few different formats that you might see for comparison. http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=166 links to a .mov file at http://www.janrik.net/MiscSubj/Uplookin ... edLoop.mov . http://www.photomacrography1.net/forum/ ... php?t=5101 includes a link to http://www.janrik.net/MiscSubj/ClickBee ... oscope.wmv . At http://www.photomacrography1.net/forum/ ... php?t=5112 , there's a bit more discussion of this, and a link http://www.janrik.net/MiscSubj/ClickBee ... oscope.avi which reproduces the .wmv as a DivX-encoded .avi . Maybe something in these will give ideas or at least some more data.
3. I agree completely that the movie gives much better impression of 3D shape than any still I've ever seen. The stills are great for suggesting shape to people who already know and just need to be reminded. For people new to the organisms, I'd go with the movie any day.
4. Selecting frames from a movie is an excellent way to obtain moderate-quality stills of an organism that moves unpredictably. Around 8 years ago, one of my kids did a science fair project that required characterizing the vacuole distributions in a bunch of individual paramecia, over 100 of them as I recall. It was tedious but not difficult to get the required images using video recording and playback (analog tape back then). Clicking a shutter at the right times would have been a lot more challenging.
Does this help?
--Rik
PS. I seem to recall that Thomas Ashcraft investigated a variety of formats, including H.264-encoded .mp4's. You might search through the postings to see what's relevant there, for example at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=161 and followups.
I'm not quite sure what sort of feedback you're looking for, so here's a collection.
1. Windows reports that the dimension is 1280x720, but that apparently includes a wide black border. The actual image content seems more like 742x594. It would work better without the black border.
2. The movie played smoothly with Winamp (v5.23), with the Windows Media Player (9.00.00.3349), and with IrfanView (3.91). It played but jerked badly using the Imagen Media Player (2.4.3). It did not play at all through the QuickTime Player (7.1) or the Camtasia Player (2.0.4), which apparently do not handle the .wmv format.
There may be an important issue lurking in here, depending on how you intend the movie to be used. My general experience is that the QuickTime, Camtasia, and Imagen players all provide much better press-and-drag capability to "play" forwards and backwards under mouse control, compared to the other players. What I'm describing here is being able to press the mouse button while over the time slider, then smoothly and continuously control which frame is displayed by just moving the mouse. Personally, I'm very fond of being able to do that, so I strongly prefer players that support it. Unfortunately, that seems to preclude .wmv's, and on many systems, you have to download & install the player first. DivX-encoded .avi's are supported by Camtasia and Imagen, but only .mov's by QuickTime (as far as I can tell in quick testing right now).
I've posted out a few different formats that you might see for comparison. http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=166 links to a .mov file at http://www.janrik.net/MiscSubj/Uplookin ... edLoop.mov . http://www.photomacrography1.net/forum/ ... php?t=5101 includes a link to http://www.janrik.net/MiscSubj/ClickBee ... oscope.wmv . At http://www.photomacrography1.net/forum/ ... php?t=5112 , there's a bit more discussion of this, and a link http://www.janrik.net/MiscSubj/ClickBee ... oscope.avi which reproduces the .wmv as a DivX-encoded .avi . Maybe something in these will give ideas or at least some more data.
3. I agree completely that the movie gives much better impression of 3D shape than any still I've ever seen. The stills are great for suggesting shape to people who already know and just need to be reminded. For people new to the organisms, I'd go with the movie any day.
4. Selecting frames from a movie is an excellent way to obtain moderate-quality stills of an organism that moves unpredictably. Around 8 years ago, one of my kids did a science fair project that required characterizing the vacuole distributions in a bunch of individual paramecia, over 100 of them as I recall. It was tedious but not difficult to get the required images using video recording and playback (analog tape back then). Clicking a shutter at the right times would have been a lot more challenging.
Does this help?
--Rik
PS. I seem to recall that Thomas Ashcraft investigated a variety of formats, including H.264-encoded .mp4's. You might search through the postings to see what's relevant there, for example at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=161 and followups.
-
Bruce Williams
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: Northamptonshire, England
- Contact:
Hi Rik,
Thanks for your comprehensive and hugely helpful feedback on this one. I really do appreciate the work you put into checking out the format. I'm totally new to video format conversion (as you will have figured) and your advice really is most enlightening.
Yes I took the video with a view to capturing a few stills images having failed dismally to take a non-blurred photo of this continuously moving critter (I guess I'm gonna have to investigate the use of flash).
My digital still camera outputs at 640X480 in Quicktime Movie format (.MOV) and I used Premiere Pro to crop a 10 second test example off the original (approx) 10 min video.
I was looking for a format that would retain the original 640X480 size (assuming that would give the best quality) and still keep the file size down to manageable proportions. Frankly I was overwhelmed by the huge choice of available codecs/formats. Premiere Pro offered hundreds of codecs to select from but unfortunately the MOV codecs all reduced the image size to no more than 320X240. The one I selected (WMV) was the first that "appeared" to give a reasonable image size -so thats the one I used. To be honest I had not realised that there was a black border to that particular WMV codec.
What I'm ultimately hoping to achieve is streaming video at 640X480 (or better) but for this first step I'll be pleased to produce a video at close to the original quality in a compact file format that is universally playable. I'll have a look at the material you mention and then take another shot at editing the video along the lines you recommend. I definitely agree with you about the value of press-and-drag.
Thanks again for your help.
Regards,
Bruce
Thanks for your comprehensive and hugely helpful feedback on this one. I really do appreciate the work you put into checking out the format. I'm totally new to video format conversion (as you will have figured) and your advice really is most enlightening.
Yes I took the video with a view to capturing a few stills images having failed dismally to take a non-blurred photo of this continuously moving critter (I guess I'm gonna have to investigate the use of flash).
My digital still camera outputs at 640X480 in Quicktime Movie format (.MOV) and I used Premiere Pro to crop a 10 second test example off the original (approx) 10 min video.
I was looking for a format that would retain the original 640X480 size (assuming that would give the best quality) and still keep the file size down to manageable proportions. Frankly I was overwhelmed by the huge choice of available codecs/formats. Premiere Pro offered hundreds of codecs to select from but unfortunately the MOV codecs all reduced the image size to no more than 320X240. The one I selected (WMV) was the first that "appeared" to give a reasonable image size -so thats the one I used. To be honest I had not realised that there was a black border to that particular WMV codec.
What I'm ultimately hoping to achieve is streaming video at 640X480 (or better) but for this first step I'll be pleased to produce a video at close to the original quality in a compact file format that is universally playable. I'll have a look at the material you mention and then take another shot at editing the video along the lines you recommend. I definitely agree with you about the value of press-and-drag.
Thanks again for your help.
Regards,
Bruce
-
Bruce Williams
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: Northamptonshire, England
- Contact:
Hi again Rik,
Very interesting morning thanks to your recommended reading/viewing. Have decided to invest in Quicktime 7 (with H.264 video codec) but was anyway able to tidy up the WMV conversion, reducing file size from 7.5 Mb to just 1 Mb in the process. The link in my first posting now downloads the 1 Mb file.
So thanks again for your help.
Bruce
Very interesting morning thanks to your recommended reading/viewing. Have decided to invest in Quicktime 7 (with H.264 video codec) but was anyway able to tidy up the WMV conversion, reducing file size from 7.5 Mb to just 1 Mb in the process. The link in my first posting now downloads the 1 Mb file.
So thanks again for your help.
Bruce
Neat little video, havent seen a live Para for ages!
Funy tho, when i tried to play it with the default player(Real) it crashed the PC(Same with Windoiws Media at times)but after a reboot it plays in Iview fine, no problem. Such a neat little program that is!
Funy tho, when i tried to play it with the default player(Real) it crashed the PC(Same with Windoiws Media at times)but after a reboot it plays in Iview fine, no problem. Such a neat little program that is!
Canon 5D and 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | Apex Practicioner monocular microscope
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23622
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Bruce,
I remembered another important reference: see http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=463. That's where Thomas Ashcraft shows us an example where the h.264 codec in QuickTime gives significantly lower quality than the DivX codec, at same file size.
You mentioned that you're new to video format conversion. Lots of us are in the same boat -- maybe everybody, for practical purposes. It seems the environment (networks/codecs/players/computers) is changing so fast that only recent experience matters much when it comes down to the details.
I think you've seen the major issues by this point: image quality versus file size, compatibility (wrapper and codec formats versus player software versus operating system & hardware), and capability (can you drag the time slider, how freely can you resize, can you grab individual frames from the player?)
I'd love to find a solution that retains high quality in small files, plays smoothly both forwards and backwards, has a bunch of size options (1/2X, 1X, 2X, full-screen), avoids quirky hardware (like video overlays that don't act like ordinary windows), and is easy to load (or already present!) on everybody's computer. Unfortunately I don't know anything even close.
As with still pictures, it's best to do your editing in a high quality master format, retain that for future use, and reformat to lower quality and smaller size for general posting. At other sites, I have seen some people routinely post out several formats such as .mov, .avi, and .wmv. That way the viewer can just click on whatever type worked last time (and hope that it still does!).
Please share whatever you learn. This area is still a morass -- perhaps with more info we can figure out how to get around better.
--Rik
I remembered another important reference: see http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=463. That's where Thomas Ashcraft shows us an example where the h.264 codec in QuickTime gives significantly lower quality than the DivX codec, at same file size.
You mentioned that you're new to video format conversion. Lots of us are in the same boat -- maybe everybody, for practical purposes. It seems the environment (networks/codecs/players/computers) is changing so fast that only recent experience matters much when it comes down to the details.
I think you've seen the major issues by this point: image quality versus file size, compatibility (wrapper and codec formats versus player software versus operating system & hardware), and capability (can you drag the time slider, how freely can you resize, can you grab individual frames from the player?)
I'd love to find a solution that retains high quality in small files, plays smoothly both forwards and backwards, has a bunch of size options (1/2X, 1X, 2X, full-screen), avoids quirky hardware (like video overlays that don't act like ordinary windows), and is easy to load (or already present!) on everybody's computer. Unfortunately I don't know anything even close.
As with still pictures, it's best to do your editing in a high quality master format, retain that for future use, and reformat to lower quality and smaller size for general posting. At other sites, I have seen some people routinely post out several formats such as .mov, .avi, and .wmv. That way the viewer can just click on whatever type worked last time (and hope that it still does!).
Please share whatever you learn. This area is still a morass -- perhaps with more info we can figure out how to get around better.
--Rik
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23622
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
-
Thomas Ashcraft
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:56 am
- Contact:
Rik wrote:
"I'd love to find a solution that retains high quality in small files, plays smoothly both forwards and backwards, has a bunch of size options (1/2X, 1X, 2X, full-screen), avoids quirky hardware (like video overlays that don't act like ordinary windows), and is easy to load (or already present!) on everybody's computer. Unfortunately I don't know anything even close."
Hi Rik and all,
Yes, this is a dilemma which will hopefully sort itself out soon.
Right now I am in dialogue with the curator of the micro*scope site
http://starcentral.mbl.edu/microscope/portal.php
and they are going to be adding movies to their fabulous photo collection.
The current world repositories of microbe movies seem to be at http://protist.i.hosei.ac.jp/Movies/htmls/indexE.html and http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research ... index.dsml These two places are very useful but their archives of movies are in small format, look outdated on the screen now and are still kind of large as downloads.
And if I remember right the Micscape site has movies but has some sort of proprietary player that doesn't work for me.
As I write this, I just don't know what to advise the micro*scope site curator as to what format to go with that will last into the future.
I wish I could find more dialogue on these issues that would relate specifically to microscopy video. Am still looking and listening for info.
Tom in New Mexico
"I'd love to find a solution that retains high quality in small files, plays smoothly both forwards and backwards, has a bunch of size options (1/2X, 1X, 2X, full-screen), avoids quirky hardware (like video overlays that don't act like ordinary windows), and is easy to load (or already present!) on everybody's computer. Unfortunately I don't know anything even close."
Hi Rik and all,
Yes, this is a dilemma which will hopefully sort itself out soon.
Right now I am in dialogue with the curator of the micro*scope site
http://starcentral.mbl.edu/microscope/portal.php
and they are going to be adding movies to their fabulous photo collection.
The current world repositories of microbe movies seem to be at http://protist.i.hosei.ac.jp/Movies/htmls/indexE.html and http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research ... index.dsml These two places are very useful but their archives of movies are in small format, look outdated on the screen now and are still kind of large as downloads.
And if I remember right the Micscape site has movies but has some sort of proprietary player that doesn't work for me.
As I write this, I just don't know what to advise the micro*scope site curator as to what format to go with that will last into the future.
I wish I could find more dialogue on these issues that would relate specifically to microscopy video. Am still looking and listening for info.
Tom in New Mexico
Have you been on there site?rjlittlefield wrote:Cyclops, can you provide a link to the Iview player? I presume that's some small free thing, but when I went looking all I could find were big packages with free trials followed by mandatory licensing.
Thanks!
--Rik
http://www.irfanview.com/
As far as i know its still free. If not I coud possibly email you the program, its quite small.(I have version3.95)
Canon 5D and 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | Apex Practicioner monocular microscope