Carlton Rahmani
Forum Replies Created
-
PS Here’s a link to the video, itself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtswF50n7rQ
On the DVD, the quotation marks on the ‘epigraphs’ are basically clipped off. The beginning of some of the instructors names are clipped off as well.
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
I went ahead and updated to 9e, did a couple of test renderings of my project. . .no problems.
Just to let you know.
-
Here’s one perspective:
https://www.theonion.com/articles/highdefinition-television-promises-sharper-crap,866/
-
It could be several things, depending primarily between the length of your video, the effects and other adjustments you’re using, and how much RAM you have on your computer. Its specs.
I was using Vegas 7 on my old laptop (only 2Gb), and while it worked well with shorter videos with not a lot of effects, it worked fine. But longer videos, or those with a lot of stuff going on, would result in a shutdown.
From what I know, it’s just the computer’s defense from overheating.
If you’re using a laptop, try and elevate it so there’s no direct surface contact. Or, better yet, get one of those cooling-mat/laptop fans. I’ve even put my laptop outside in December or so to help keep it cool while it was rendering. All of this helped.
Give it a try. Let me know how it works. If this doesn’t help, I’d recommend rendering your video in segments–preferably uncompressed as AVIs–then clipping and editing these all together into your final rendered project. You MIGHT have a slight quality loss–I’ve done it without anything being too noticeable–but at least you’ll have a finished product! -
Thanks for the advice everyone. From the word that I’ve gotten from some of you (and with your reputations/experience), I think I’ll be safe going up to 9e–hopefully I won’t be bugging for knowledge about how to downgrade back to 9c (because I haven’t had many problems up till now, even with jpegs, etc.).
But my point wasn’t to start any controversy in this forum. I AM a Vegas fan (for all sorts of reasons), and want to stick with the software. However, I can also relate to Stevens gripes/warnings; I look at it as friendly advice more than anything else. Yes, I’ve checked out forums for other NLEs and see that they all have their problems. . .but one of the things I love about Vegas–and this is coming from my experience with V7–is its durability and reliability. It’s a flexible program that doesn’t need a lot to do a lot, and I saw that with 7 (which I’d be using if I could). And I was impressed with how the effort and concentration Sony put into the program, and the reviews it has received.
But as an aspiring professional it’s hard to maintain strict loyalty in a market dominated by people looking for Avid or FCP pros, while also having to account for Vegas’ limitations and quirks. For instance, having to explain to my client why certain scenes in her video’s rough cut were missing or black (because that’s where the stills were). (And yes, I’m still a newby who has a lot to learn, but that doesn’t mean that I’m not accountable to others, already. . .)
As for Premiere, I’ve never really taken it too seriously (based on what I’ve read from most reviews), but I DO appreciate the fact that it’s more-integrated into other aspects of the Adobe Creative Suite, and that can be a serious advantage.
Ultimately, I like Vegas and want to stay loyal to it. And I’m definitely adverse to the mac/fcp platform, despite its prominence in the field. One of the reasons why I’ve actively stuck with Vegas rather than switch to mac/fcp (when I had the opportunity) is in defiance of its prestige in the market, based on the supposition that macs are what ‘creative-types’–i.e. those who work with media–use. It’s a personal goal of mine to prove that you don’t need to stick with the ‘industry standard’ (just because it’s a matter of speculative consensus) in order to produce something worthwhile. And I DO want to stick with it. But I have to be practical when it comes to brand loyalty and any limitations that come with it.
I’ve been very happy with Vegas so far; I just want to continue to feel that way in sticking with it.
Viva Vegas!
-
Do you know what year the awards were? I’m asking because the 2009 awards–where K. West became infamous–were what made me appreciate HD. I mean. . .watching Lady Gaga’s performance of “Paparazzi”. . .it all made sense! (Yeah, I know. Cheesy. Oh well.)
-
Eric,
I just checked out a(nother) forum–is your TV a Samsung?–and one guy stated that he put it in ‘game mode on’ and that put it back to 60Hz for when he wants to watch movies. Give it a try (and let me know how it goes). Other than that, beware of retailers and the crap gimmicks they’re trying to pawn.
-
You SHOULD be able to select back down to 60Hz if you want. Check your manual. I’m saying this because the sales demo (at a retailer that will be unnamed) guy was switching back and forth to show us how much ‘better’ the crap looked. Give it a try, or return your TV for one that will.
-
I think I know what you’re talking about, somewhat, at least when it comes to framerates. . .
Personally, people keep talking about that ‘film look’, achieved somewhere between 24 fps and the types of lenses used–i.e. those with shallow depths of field. Actually, it’s something I think is distracting when used in video, since there’s a certain conspicuousness to it–as if the videographer/producer, focusing in and out on various subjects, are trying to advertise how filmic everything is looking.
But, worse than that, and on the inverse, is the way a lot of the new flatscreens have this 240-Hz function (or whatever it’s called) that really cheapens the appearance of whatever movie they’re playing. Retailers (that will remain anonymous) love to boast of this on their home theater displays, but to me it looked like crap before I even knew that there was anything different going on. It looked like cheap video shot in the 80s. . .like a soap opera. -
The reason why I asked the question, mostly, is because I was working on a couple of projects whose interlaced properties became apparent while editing. I managed to figure out how to adjust things so the fields synced together. . .but, regardless of that, my question became “Why are people still shooting on interlaced cameras/using interlaced media?” particularly since just about everything these days works with a progressive scan.
That broadcasters still use interlaced, to me, is a curious matter. First, every now and then you can see a video/commercial/etc. on youtube (or the likes) where the interlacing is just bad and distracting. . .you’d think that they, being major media, would take care of the matter–like by rendering a progressive version–before putting it online. But, if even that becomes an issue, Why are they still shooting interlaced. Etc. . .
Meh. . .mostly just curiosity, and I’ll stick with progressive, unless otherwise dictated. .