D. Eric franks
Forum Replies Created
-
I’m not certain what the render end of things does, but I do know that in the Preview window, there’s often a big difference between Preview mode and Best (Full) mode, especially where it concerns deinterlacing and (as I suspect in your case) conforming different frame rates to the output. So, just for example, if you are using 60i source in a 24p project, any issues you might have might not reveal themselves until you pop the Preview window up to Best (Full). Another way to see where you might have problems is to zoom in to the frame level, where you’ll see that the frame markers on your clip do not match up with the frames on your timeline. Not necessarily a problem (indeed it’s usually not a problem, since Vegas handles this conversion automatically), but the app does need to make a decision about where the last frame in a 60i clip is on a 24p timeline and it may be a frame before or after where you want it! You can also see this when you drag your clips around: sometimes they won’t want to butt up against each other and will either leave a gap or a one-frame crossfade.
I always render out Best and check out my projects at Best (Full) in the Preview window in the final stages, just before encoding.
______________
Film will only became an art when its materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper.
— Jean Cocteau —
https://videopia.org -
Bitrate for bitrate, 25Mbps AVC will be higher quality than 25Mbps MPEG-2. Still, the MPEG-2 disc is “true HD,” which is defined by resolution alone.
There are a couple of AVC options in Vegas: Do they all crash? Do you have the 9.0a update? (9.0 had a Main Concept AVC bug.) Finally, one workaround is to render out to an uncompressed intermediary. I often transcode to QuickTime (MOV) using the Animation codec (or PNG, but that’s a lot slower) and then render that out to AVC. It’s an extra step, extra hassle, requires a ton of disk space, but, meh, it works and it’s not like I have to sit around watching Vegas render or anything.
__________
Television has done much for psychiatry by spreading information
about it, as well as contributing to the need for it.
— Alfred Hitchcock
https://videopia.org -
Deinterlacing can happen three ways:
* None: glue the two fields into a single frame (this is what happens by default when you upload to Vimeo/YouTube or whatever).
* Interpolate: toss away one of the fields, duplicate the other (at the cost of half of your precious HD resolution).
* Blend: combine the two fields into a sort of average.It does affect the look of the video, however, I have three cautions:
1. When you see interlacing on a single, still frame (esp. one with fast motion), it is NOT necessarily a sign of a problem, unless you are trying to pull a still frame out. When the video is shown in all of its full-motion glory, it might look fine.
2. In Vegas, toggle the Preview window to display “Best (Full)” and Shift+B to render a section of video to see the results. Lower quality previews usually won’t reveal what the deinterlacing is doing.
3. It is often recommended to use Interpolate for fast-moving objects and video (like sports) because this will produce a sharper image and use Blend for other types of productions (like a drama), because the video will be a little softer. I’m not going to disagree with that and say it’s wrong, but, honestly, the “right” method is the one that looks best to you.I have a video that actually shows all of this in action here: The Joy of Interlacing.
__________________
The difference between writing a book and being on television is the difference
between conceiving a child and having a baby made in a test tube.
— Normal Mailer
https://videopia.org -
I know how it’s supposed to work:
(1) All DVD-video is 720×480 with a screen aspect of 4:3 or 16:9.
(2) Same pixel resolution, different pixel aspect ratios: 4:3 uses 0.9:1 PAR, 16:9 uses 1.2:1 PAR.
(3) The encoded video has a software flag/bit somewhere up front in the header that tells the DVD player (software or hardware) which one of those two screen aspects it is. I guess because of the great variety in encoding/authoring apps and great variety of players, this doesn’t always come out right.
(4) Many movie-theater movies actually have a 2.4:1 aspect. Converting 4:3 and 16:9 for comparison gives you 1.33:1, 1.78:1 and 2.4:1 screen aspects.
(5) So the 2.4:1 screen aspect still needs to be mashed into one of the two standard DVD-Video formats in #1, which necessarily means black bars top and bottom. 720×480, 16:9, PAR 1.2:1 with 56-60 pixel bars top and bottom, for example. But it could be anything and plenty of movies have been made at other screen aspects (see also, Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.).When you are seeing a movie with black bars all around, it’s probably a 2.4:1 cinematic movie on a 16:9 DVD-Video that is being played back at 4:3. Ugh. Usually, you can see the encoded video black bars top and bottom (with a little noise in them) and see that it’s different from the side black bars that will be perfect computer-generated black from the background of the player. Again, plenty of reasons this can happen, especially when ripping clips off of discs (possible to rip a scene and miss the 16:9 bit flag in the header of the file? Just wild speculation).
Anyhow, more info on screen/pixel aspect ratios here and in my book, of course.
__________
The difference between writing a book
and being on television is the difference between
conceiving a child and having a baby made in a test tube.
— Normal Mailer
https://videopia.org -
That is funny Julie: I also like a nice big prominent time display, except I do a deep orange background. That was actually the second bug I checked after DL’ing the v9a version and I’m happy to verify that it has been fixed.
-
Dunno if v9a will fix your issue, but I just ran a quickie test of the MainConcept AVC 2-pass VBR and it worked. Nice!
-
I can’t say for certain, but it looks like a normal frame rate conversion and interlacing “issue”. One comment, however, is that I wouldn’t worry about what the video looks like on a still frame. Smooth playing video (and even film) often looks blurred when you look at individual frames. In fact, if you clear those individual still frames up so they are sharp and clear, the video will become MORE choppy, so it might be impossible to fix choppy video vs. blurry stills. (more on interlacing, including a video demo here “The Joy of Interlacing“)
Now, besides getting the right settings, one thing you can try and see if you like it: right-click a clip and select Properties and select “Disable resample”. If you are having frame rate conversion problems, this will clear it up as far as the stills go. Again, this’ll make the video more choppy, but it’s your call on whether you like it or not.
The right settings are the ones that match your source footage and, if you are lucky, your distribution format. I haven’t kept up with what YouTube’s “native” HD format is, but 1280×720, 24 fps, progressive (i.e., 720p24) is how I’ve been working for a while now.
_________
Perhaps it sounds ridiculous, but the best thing
that young filmmakers should do is to get hold of a camera
and some film and make a movie of any kind at all.
— Stanley Kubrick —
https://videopia.org -
Pretty sure there’s a “known issue” with Vegas v9 and MainConcept AVC, at a minimum with the 2-pass VBR, which I can verify does not work on my machine anyhow.
-
Oh, what format are you rendering out to? As I lamented in another thread, I haven’t figured out how to predict whether WMV will screw up my render or not (re: black bars, squashed, whatever), but I always get what I see in the preview window when rendering out to QuickTime or MP4 (via Main Concept’s AVC).
-
I’ve always had issues with WMV and pixel aspect ratio (PAR) and have never been patient enough to figure it out. I did just verify that you can render 2048×1080 with a square PAR using Main Concept’s AVC (MP4) in Vegas v8 and it worked just fine, so you might try that.
OK, for viewing on a PC, we’re done, provided you started with square pixels and a 16:9 screen aspect image. Sounds like you are talking about an academy aspect 2.4:1 screen source, which (whether it’s 2048×1080 or 1920×1080) will not have square pixels. The conversion of 16:9 square PAR source to 2.4 “cinematic” aspect is about a 1.33 anamorphic squeeze, so that should look right (i.e., 2048×1080 1:1 pixels will yield a 16:9 screen aspect, 2048×1080 with 1.33 PAR gives you a 2.4 aspect screen).
(As an aside, I noticed Vimeo will display 2.4 aspect video or even vertical aspects, but you don’t gain any resolution, so I’m not sure how popular it is.)
On a television, the situation is easier, since you are much more limited in what formats you can display. Basically, you’ll want to output 1920×1080 with letterboxing top and bottom. To do that, just take your source, open the Track Motion tool, lock the aspect ratio and adjust the size until the video spans the entire screen left-to-right, leaving black bars top and bottom.
Make sense? I wrote a little bit about this peripherally recently which may help:
Pixel Aspect Ratio: The More Things Change_________
…and that’s the way it was.
— Walter Cronkite
https://videopia.org