-
Sony Vegas Questions
A month ago I bought sony vegas movie studio 9 for %59.95
Now I see that they have come out with Sony Vegas HD/Platnium/Platnium Pro Pack.Should I upgrade for new features and bug fixes? When I looked at updates on sony vegas website it said Vegas HD was version 9.0c while all of the others are 9.0a/b
– The only thing I do is edit basic videos using crossfades and transitions. I don’t ever mess with the effects or audio stuff.I like my crossfades to mesh perfectly at 10-12 frames max. I only use two transitions (Soft Flash and Page Peel)
For weeks on end I was having tons of trouble with slow previews, looping frames, and other crazy stuff in windows 7 build 7100.
-I found the fix
No matter what file type (mine was wmv’s) always convert to uncompressed avi, then import the uncompressed file (now edit)No preview lag/pauses/slow downs – when using uncompressed avi (Use Project Settings & Match Media Settings)
Now for the question
I find that many of my files are in original wmv format at 960×540.It takes forever to render a 45 minute uncompressed avi at that resolution. What project resolution do you recommend for someone who only watches movies on their pc (no dvd burning). The movies are viewed on either a compaq CQ-60 Laptop 15.6″ 1366×768 or a Custom Built Gaming PC with a Samsung 226BW 22″ Monitor 1680×1050
I do all of my video editing on my Compaq CQ-60 433 US 4GB RAM 320GB HDD Laptop. The gaming rig is more a family PC.
-
3 Replies
-
Sony Movie Studio Platinum Pro Pack came out a while ago. The “Pro pack” is just added software. There is absolutely no difference in Vegas from the regular Vegas Movie Studio Platinum. What separates the Platinum version from the plain Movie Studio version is the ability to work with HD.
So the decision is really simple:
- If you are working in SD only then buy Vegas Movie Studio
- If you are working in HD then buy Vegas Movie Studio Platinum
- If you want bundled software (Sound Forge Studio, 3D transitions from NewBlue FX, and 1,001 Sound Effects) then get Pro Pack
As for your WMV files… yea they are tough to edit and I would not render them to uncompressed because it’s just too big a file size. Also 960×540 is an odd resolution. If you want to keep that resolution, then get the free Lagarith codec and create an AVI template that uses it at 960×540. This will at least create smaller files that are easier to edit.
Make your project resolution match your source media by using the Match Media Settings icon in the Project Properites like this:
This will allow you to work in the same resolution as your source. Then render back out to whatever format you want to use to watch them on your PC (WMV, MP4, MOV, etc.)
~jr
http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com -
Thank you for the information.
I am just trying to find a good resolution that fills the screen when I play back the file in wmp12 of windows 7. No black bars left or right. (WMP11 & 12 issue when viewing videos)
960×540 seems to do this perfectly, but it takes forever to render the file before I can even edit it.
Could you please tell me how I can make the file size smaller so that it renders faster while still completely filling the screen when I view it in Windows 7 media player.
My video library consists entirely of WMV’s, MP3’s, and AVI’s
No Mov’s, MP4’s, or FLV’s at all.So I have no use for VLC or the other players.
-
> Could you please tell me how I can make the file size smaller so that it renders faster while still completely filling the screen when I view it in Windows 7 media player.
Actually, smaller file sizes render slower because they require more compression. The only way to make renders go faster is use a codec that compresses faster (like DV or MPEG2) to get a more powerful computer. I did some checking on your Compaq CQ60 and CNET Reviews said it was “Slow performance compared with other entry-level laptops;“. This is not exactly the computer I would use for video rendering. Video editing and “entry-level” don’t go good together, and to have the slowest of the entry level is just worse. If you have a more powerful gaming PC then you probably want to use that instead.
Also rendering to an odd resolution (960×540) will slow things down even more because each and every frame has to be resized and at 30 frames for one second of video… that’s a lot of resizing.
I don’t know where your source videos are coming from but personally, I would not build a video library as such an arbitrary resolution.
~jr
http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up