Quote Is there an effect that will at least reduce if not completely remove pixelation/macroblocking from videos? Would applying the Video Denoise effect help any?

The big question, what is the resolution of your original video.

Pixelation is usually caused by too low resolution in the original video.
Not many ways to improve a bad video. Just about anything you do will make the problem worse. Carl312: Windows 10 64-bit 8 GB RAM,AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB,240GB SSD,two 1TB HDs.

Hi,

Am I permitted to ask a related question here? I don't want to jump in before CM120884 has had a chance to have his/her question answered.

Matt .
PDR14; Win10-x64; i7-6700; 3.4GHz; 16GB RAM; plenty of HDD space; AMD Radeon R5 330.

Quote Hi,

Am I permitted to ask a related question here? I don't want to jump in before CM120884 has had a chance to have his/her question answered.

Matt

Yes, you are allowed. This is an open forum.

If you have something to add to the question, please post something. Carl312: Windows 10 64-bit 8 GB RAM,AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB,240GB SSD,two 1TB HDs.

Thank you. On anther forum I was effectively told to butt out, that only one question was allowed on each thread.

Anyway. The system I'm using is actually PD14, but the search brought up this thread as a suggestion so I hope you don't mind me using it. It maybe useful to other users. It may be that PD16 has some feature, or that the info helps.

I'm setting some cameras up to film my daughter's wedding in a few weeks time. Two of them are dashcams, which I want to zoom in on to get the framing I like. (Not the best idea, I know, but the most cost effective.) However, when I do so, the pixels are more visible, obviously. This I was expecting, but I was hoping that there might be a way of reducing the noticable pixilation, such as is often done when zooming in to a photo on some image editors. The edges are sofened without making the image itself less clearer. I recognise the difference between the systems and assume the same thing exactly would not work, but was hoping something similar might be available.

The video is taken at 1080p (there will be a manned camera that will stay at 1080p) and the dashcams will be cropped down to around, but not necessarily exactly, 50% (200% zoom), around 400-600p.

Matt .
PDR14; Win10-x64; i7-6700; 3.4GHz; 16GB RAM; plenty of HDD space; AMD Radeon R5 330.

I don't think, that you will get acceptable results. I don't know the photo effect, that allows a 200% zoom and just softens the edges and let the photo still clear.
Whats not in the picture or a video clip, you will not get it by post production.
Every (non optical) zooming and almost every filter makes a videoclip worse.
I don't recommend dashcams. They do not have a good quality by design. They are made for taking long shots. Not the quality is important, but the length of the produced clip. Better use cheap actioncams. Even better: Let some children do the job with the mobile phones from their parents. Really better: use cheap compact cameras.
Do it the best quality. If you have 4K or 4K-light or 2.7K, use it. If you have to stabilize the footage (and you will have to), you always have to zoom in.

But to answer your question:

1. You can play with BCC Beauty Studio (PowerDirector 16 Ultimate):
http://web.borisfx.com/helpdocs/?page_id=7901

2. You can split your clip into a picture sequence. Maybe you can use the filter, that you mentioned, on every picture by a batch process.

Hatti Win 10 64, i7-4790k, 32GB Ram, 256 GB SSD, SATA 2TB, SATA 4TB, NVidia GTX1080 8GB, LG 34" 4K Wide, AOC 24" 1080

Thanks Hatti.

Using any other camera is, unfortunately, not an option. The dashcams that I'll be using are actually reasonable quality. Their native res is 1080p and the quality of the full picture is just as good as (if not better than) the main camera. However there are two problems. The full view will be too wide for the shots of the couple, and it fisheyes to some extent at the edges. If I need a full wide angle, I can all but eliminate the fisheye, but the pixilation with the zoom is the problem.

Now. If I can't eliminate the pixilation from the zoomed view, is there a way to ADD pixilation to the non-zoomed view to make it similar to the zoomed view. This would make it less distracting - i.e. all of the film would then be pixilated rather than just the odd shots. In other words, make the good stuff bad, so the bad stuff doesn't look so bad.

Matt .
PDR14; Win10-x64; i7-6700; 3.4GHz; 16GB RAM; plenty of HDD space; AMD Radeon R5 330.

Are you kidding? It is your daughters wedding! You should get the best quality that is possible.
Of course, you can get a bad quality. Do a range produce with as less bitrate, as wished, maybe 4kbs will do. You will not see anything on the video, but so what! Who cares. Better all bad than some bad!

*Kopf schüttel* <- thats german for "I cannot understand"

Hatti Win 10 64, i7-4790k, 32GB Ram, 256 GB SSD, SATA 2TB, SATA 4TB, NVidia GTX1080 8GB, LG 34" 4K Wide, AOC 24" 1080

Hatti, unfortunately, some of us don't have the extra cash to spend on anything and everything we would want. I would rather give her a low quality video than have the baliffs at the door. She DOES understand.

Thanks for your comments.

Matt .
PDR14; Win10-x64; i7-6700; 3.4GHz; 16GB RAM; plenty of HDD space; AMD Radeon R5 330.

Quote Hatti, unfortunately, some of us don't have the extra cash to spend on anything and everything we would want. I would rather give her a low quality video than have the baliffs at the door. She DOES understand.

Thanks for your comments.

Matt

Have you thought about moving the dash cams in closer to the wedding?

They might be good for the overall shots of the guests.

I have done weddings, I used two cameras with flash, I am only one person, the second camera was used as a backup camera in case my main camera failed. (It never did).

You can do many shots of the couple before the wedding or after the wedding. The ceremony is the most important to photograph in real time. Everything else can be done before the wedding, Setup sessions for the couple and some of the guests before the wedding ceremony.

You only get one chance to photograph a wedding, there is no 'do over'.

Wedding can be a lot of fun to photograph. You can never take too many images at a wedding, I was using film at the time. My average number of shots was three or more rolls of 36 exposure per roll. So over 100 shots at each wedding.

Good Luck! Carl312: Windows 10 64-bit 8 GB RAM,AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB,240GB SSD,two 1TB HDs.

Hatti's smartphone reccommendation is a good one.

It may be possible that the future groom or the best man or his relatives have a better camera or smartphone that can be used in the wedding too. They do sell a 3-piece clip on lens kit for a smartphone with a telephoto for $5 at 5 below that just might do the trick for you.

Thanks Carl.

I assume by 'closer to the wedding' you mean closer to the bride, groom and vicar. I had considered that, but the cameras would then be somewhat intrusive. They will be behind and either side of the vicar pointing towards each of the couple and towards the guests. The shots are supposed to be of each of the couple when they speak. Having the cameras closer would make them more obvious which I don't what them be. They are also having a wedding photographer taking stills. I may be using these in a montage during the signing of the register, where I don't have a video camera.

Thank you both for your comments. They're much appreciated.

Edit:

Tomasc, your post came in while I was messaging this. I will certainly look into this. Thank you.

Matt .
PDR14; Win10-x64; i7-6700; 3.4GHz; 16GB RAM; plenty of HDD space; AMD Radeon R5 330.

Quote Thanks Carl.

I assume by 'closer to the wedding' you mean closer to the bride, groom and vicar. I had considered that, but the cameras would then be somewhat intrusive. They will be behind and either side of the vicar pointing towards each of the couple and towards the guests. The shots are supposed to be of each of the couple when they speak. Having the cameras closer would make them more obvious which I don't what them be. They are also having a wedding photographer taking stills. I may be using these in a montage during the signing of the register, where I don't have a video camera.

Thank you both for your comments. They're much appreciated.

Edit:

Tomasc, your post came in while I was messaging this. I will certainly look into this. Thank you.

Matt

Yes, closer to the wedding means where the couple and vicar are standing. You might ask the vicar what his policy is on cameras at the wedding.

People at a wedding expect the wedding photographer to do his/her job, Cameras are expected to be present. Of course, you don't want one blocking the view of the couple saying their vows.

I have been at weddings where Flash is not allowed by the Pastor. You solve that by doing a simulated wedding before or after the ceremony with the Pastor present. Everybody gets dressed up as if the actual ceremony. Carl312: Windows 10 64-bit 8 GB RAM,AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB,240GB SSD,two 1TB HDs.

It's more to do with aesthetics rather than permission. The vicar is happy for the cameras to be there, but I'd rather they were not obvious. The main camera is at the back and I'd rather not have the cameras visible in its frame. The wedding photographer will, undoubtedly, be moving about, but there's little I can do about that. There are other minor considerations which also make it difficult to move the cameras to a better position.

I'm more-or-less happy with the positioning, it's the quality I was concerned with. If there's no way of enhancing it, I'll have to try something else.

However, I will consider Hatti's suggestion re smart phones and bitrate reduction.

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

Matt .
PDR14; Win10-x64; i7-6700; 3.4GHz; 16GB RAM; plenty of HDD space; AMD Radeon R5 330.