Cristal Clear WMV videos with Vegas ... how? at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Windows / PC Post Production Solutions > What Happens in Vegas...

What Happens in Vegas...
...stays in Vegas! This PC-based editing app is a safe bet with these tips.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 8th, 2007, 01:50 PM   #1
New Boot
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 22
Cristal Clear WMV videos with Vegas ... how?

Any sugestion how to get cristal clear 1280x720 WMV videos?

I need files around 4,5MB per 10 seconds ...

Any sugestion on effects and render propriets?

Thanks,
Henrique Meneghelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007, 02:24 PM   #2
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 2,966
Have you downloaded Windows Media Encoder and tried? It is a free software.
__________________
What happens if I push the 'Red' button?
Steven Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007, 02:40 PM   #3
New Boot
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 22
Im using Vegas ...
Henrique Meneghelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007, 04:07 PM   #4
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 2,966
Render your file to an avi, then use Windows Media Encoder to pump out the wmv for you.
__________________
What happens if I push the 'Red' button?
Steven Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007, 05:15 PM   #5
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 31
Stephen, I had read somewhere (unfortunately couldn't find the reference) that Sony Vegas uses the same rendering engine for WMV as used by Windows Media Encoder. If that's the case, I have doubts that a render out to AVI from Vegas then a second render through WME would have any benefit, and could possibly make it slightly worse. Thoughts?

I have had very good results rendering from the default WMV 720p template. Have you or Henrique had different experiences?
Ian Hay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007, 05:15 PM   #6
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 2,963
The renderer in Vegas does take a hell of a long time to render WMV.
__________________
I wait for the day cost-efficient global shutter 60fps capable CMOS sensors emerge for use on major manufacturers' cameras. (Sony, Canon, etc.) Rolling Shutters are a plague.
Jack Zhang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007, 05:18 PM   #7
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
Posts: 326
4.5 megabytes per 10 seconds works out to a combined audio and video bitrate of 3.6 megabits/second. That's high enough to produce fairly decent looking .WMV files. There is nothing particularly special about Windows Media Encoder, it is just a front-end for the same Windows Media codecs that Vegas is using. If your clips have a lot of noise, detail or lots of motion, then 3.6megabits/sec might not produce the "crystal clear" video which you seek. On the other hand, if the video is free of noise and isn't a racing video or skateboard video, then it might work out well.

The final filesize of the video is determined entirely by the bitrate. There are two methods of encoding, CBR (constant bit rate) and VBR (variable bit rate), VBR will give you the best looking results. Try using 2-pass VBR with an average of 3.4 megabits and a peak value of 6.8 for the video and 128k for the audio.

John
John Cline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007, 05:27 PM   #8
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,259
All good advice above. I've used the Windows Media Encoder (WME) extensively, as well as Vegas output.

Pull out WME when you need a control that Vegas doesn't expose - such as wide screen flags, pixel aspect ratio, etc. WME has them all. Otherwise, as pointed out above, quality is the same.

Use John's figures to create a custom template and see how it looks to you.

Working on a tripod with good exposure is pretty important to getting maximum performance out of a streaming codec like WMV.
Seth Bloombaum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2007, 07:52 AM   #9
New Boot
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 22
Thanks for the adcive John Cline, I dont see 2-pass option with variable bite rate ... But I found one VBR where I can set the peak. Also, there is a field called peak buffer size (sec), default 20, what do you recomend ?
Henrique Meneghelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2007, 08:07 AM   #10
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wynnewood, Pennsylvania
Posts: 355
In my experience I find the default "Preview in Player" under Tools to deliver stunning, crystal clear clarity video (Cineform) which also by default pop up in my Windows Media Viewer as a temp file. All I do, if I want to hold on to it for presentations, is to save it on my HD. If you haven't tried this it's worth the experiment; I cannot get anything in Vegas this gorgeous in any other way.
__________________
Paul
Paul Fierlinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2007, 08:16 AM   #11
New Boot
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Hay View Post
Stephen, I had read somewhere (unfortunately couldn't find the reference) that Sony Vegas uses the same rendering engine for WMV as used by Windows Media Encoder. If that's the case, I have doubts that a render out to AVI from Vegas then a second render through WME would have any benefit, and could possibly make it slightly worse. Thoughts?

I have had very good results rendering from the default WMV 720p template. Have you or Henrique had different experiences?
My movies seems blurry, fuzzy ... I dont know if its my cam, but I think a FX-1 on a very good lightining could be doing something more crips, sharp, clear and with nice colours ...

Here is a sample of my movies now with John Cline settings + unsharpen mask and sharpen:
http://blog.nichecastle.com/sample.wmv

Without any effect:
http://blog.nichecastle.com/sample2.wmv
Henrique Meneghelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2007, 11:30 AM   #12
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,259
Handheld camera work is not the best beginning for web distribution.

The WMV will dedicate bits to whatever is moving in the shot. With a handheld camera, every pixel is changing in every frame.

With a tripod shot, only the subject is moving - she'll get more bits, therefore better definition.

I'd also suggest color correcting specifically for WMV, you should be able to get what you want.

Why this is all happening is simple - to get from the 25Mbps that your camera recorded to the 3.82Mbps of your samples you're throwing away 85% of the data. Welcome to web video!
Seth Bloombaum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2007, 02:15 PM   #13
New Boot
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum View Post
Handheld camera work is not the best beginning for web distribution.

The WMV will dedicate bits to whatever is moving in the shot. With a handheld camera, every pixel is changing in every frame.

With a tripod shot, only the subject is moving - she'll get more bits, therefore better definition.

I'd also suggest color correcting specifically for WMV, you should be able to get what you want.

Why this is all happening is simple - to get from the 25Mbps that your camera recorded to the 3.82Mbps of your samples you're throwing away 85% of the data. Welcome to web video!

Thanks, I will try use a tripod more often but will be hard to the kind of shot I do.

You said the WMV will dedicate bits to whatever is moving, will be the same with other formats? Any other format I could be using that will produce same size and better quality than WMV?

Will try play a bit with colour correction ...

What other editing softwares you guys recommend for internet? Im actually using Premier to export a High Biterate file than the web formats with Pro Coder 2. Quality is about what Im getting with Vegas but its too much time consuming usign 2 softwares to export.
Henrique Meneghelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2007, 06:06 PM   #14
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
Posts: 326
Perhaps it would be easier to make 960x540 progressive .WMV files. I suspect that some of the blurry/fuzzy issue is due to 1080i to 720p conversion. A single field of 1080i is only 540 pixels high, you are having to upscale that to 720, creating information that wasn't there to begin with. If you use 960x540, you are not having to do this. You also have a bit smaller frame than 1280x720 and can get much higher quality from a fixed bitrate.
John Cline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2007, 09:19 PM   #15
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 2,963
You get better vertical resolution in 720p. And using field interpolated 60p also helps because the human eye virtually increases the resolution.
__________________
I wait for the day cost-efficient global shutter 60fps capable CMOS sensors emerge for use on major manufacturers' cameras. (Sony, Canon, etc.) Rolling Shutters are a plague.
Jack Zhang is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Windows / PC Post Production Solutions > What Happens in Vegas...

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:28 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network