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

Henrique Meneghelli · November 8th, 2007, 01:50 PM

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,

Steven Davis · November 8th, 2007, 02:24 PM

Have you downloaded Windows Media Encoder and tried? It is a free software.

Henrique Meneghelli · November 8th, 2007, 02:40 PM

Im using Vegas ...

Steven Davis · November 8th, 2007, 04:07 PM

Render your file to an avi, then use Windows Media Encoder to pump out the wmv for you.

Ian Hay · November 8th, 2007, 05:15 PM

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?

Jack Zhang · November 8th, 2007, 05:15 PM

The renderer in Vegas does take a hell of a long time to render WMV.

John Cline · November 8th, 2007, 05:18 PM

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

Seth Bloombaum · November 8th, 2007, 05:27 PM

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.

Henrique Meneghelli · November 9th, 2007, 07:52 AM

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 ?

Paul Fierlinger · November 9th, 2007, 08:07 AM

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.

Henrique Meneghelli · November 9th, 2007, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Hay

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

Seth Bloombaum · November 9th, 2007, 11:30 AM

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!

Henrique Meneghelli · November 9th, 2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

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.

John Cline · November 10th, 2007, 06:06 PM

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.

Jack Zhang · November 10th, 2007, 09:19 PM

You get better vertical resolution in 720p. And using field interpolated 60p also helps because the human eye virtually increases the resolution.

November 8th, 2007, 01:50 PM	#1
Henrique Meneghelli 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,

November 8th, 2007, 02:24 PM	#2
Steven Davis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Richmond, VA Posts: 3,065	Have you downloaded Windows Media Encoder and tried? It is a free software. __________________ What happens if I push the 'Red' button?

November 8th, 2007, 04:07 PM	#4
Steven Davis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Richmond, VA Posts: 3,065	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?

November 9th, 2007, 08:07 AM	#10
Paul Fierlinger 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

November 8th, 2007, 02:40 PM	#3
Henrique Meneghelli New Boot Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil Posts: 22	Im using Vegas ...

November 8th, 2007, 05:15 PM	#5
Ian Hay 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?

November 8th, 2007, 05:15 PM	#6
Jack Zhang Inner Circle Join Date: May 2005 Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada Posts: 3,053	The renderer in Vegas does take a hell of a long time to render WMV.

November 8th, 2007, 05:18 PM	#7
John Cline Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico USA Posts: 333	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

November 8th, 2007, 05:27 PM	#8
Seth Bloombaum Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,420	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.

November 9th, 2007, 07:52 AM	#9
Henrique Meneghelli 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 ?

November 9th, 2007, 11:30 AM	#12
Seth Bloombaum Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,420	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!

November 10th, 2007, 06:06 PM	#14
John Cline Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico USA Posts: 333	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.

November 10th, 2007, 09:19 PM	#15
Jack Zhang Inner Circle Join Date: May 2005 Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada Posts: 3,053	You get better vertical resolution in 720p. And using field interpolated 60p also helps because the human eye virtually increases the resolution.