John Gregoriades
Forum Replies Created
-
Thank you, John.
Your suggestion about using 1920×1080 is something I can follow. But I have each leg in different worlds: Both NTSC and PAL, and am wondring if HD is the same on both, or do these continue to have the NTSC and PAL distinction. If there is still a distinction, what would be the HD equivalent for PAL?
The other issue is that if the present photos on a 1.33 ratio, are resampled into the 1.78 ratio you suggest, how would that work? I imagine that one would resample for the height (1080) maintaining the original width/heighth ratio, and the result by Vegas would be black (letterbox) on either side of the wide screen?John23GR
-
Thank you, John
Your reply was very helpful.
I did some testing (don’t know how valid it was.) Took an original picture 368×2736 (10MP) and using Paintshop Pro resized it at two levels: 75% and 50% (2736×2052 and 1824×1368) maintaining its native 180ppi. (Note the 50% reduction results in dimensions which are 16% greater than the rule of thumb of twice the video resolution of 1574×1152 for PAL.)
I rendered all three in-a-row on the timeline to MPG2 via Vegas, and played the result back on Windows Media Player.
The original (10MP) was over-digitized, jaggies etc. present. The 75% had smoothed out the jaggies, and was the best looking. The 50% was still good, but had started losing some of the sharpness in comparison to the 75%.
Do you think that a 2736×2052 (5.6 MP) pic – which is 3.5 times the horizontal dimension of the PAL video, too much for Vegas? Would the rendering take a significantly longer time? Any other problems to worry about?
Thank you again.John23GR
-
Thank you both, Jeremy and Enrique. You have some very clever ideas. Unfortunately it will be too much work (and guesswork) and since this series of captions was done by somebody else, (and it involves a goodly portion of 1600+ photos,) I simply can’t take the time to resolve it. I was hoping for some “magic” but I guess there is not. Many thanks again for your replies, and helpful suggestions.
JohnJohn23GR
-
Many many thanks!
Now the next question (or should I re-post the question because it is different?)
Anyway, here it goes:
My friends who sent me the .jpg photos used PICASA, and created individual titles (descriptions) for many of their photos, which when played as a PICASA slide show, appear below each photo.
Is there some magic by which these “titles” can be made to appear, using Vegas?
JohnJohn23GR
-
Thank you, John.
My version of Nero seems to have a defective NeroVision, but I discovered an old CD which came with a camera. It is ULEAD 7 SE (which I guess is a limited version of ULEAD) and I tried it. Its best two compatible outputs are “NTSC DV” and “NTSC .MPEG2” format. Which is likely to be “best” for use in Vegas?John23GR
-
Thank you, John.
I tried this but that particular control is grayed out. Once I did get it to be “live” (but I don’t know what happened and I lost it again.)John23GR
-
Found the problem. It was “hidden” in DVD Architect 3. I looked at File/Properties/Disk Properties/Video Format. It was set for NTSC. I changed it to PAL and it worked fine. Thank you all for your tolerant support.
John23GR
-
I agree there must be a solution, but it seems to escape me.
All I can do is start from scratch, and follow through. Can the problem be in a wrong setup of DVD Architect, instead of Vegas?John23GR
-
Thank you all for your help. I did everything suggested. But unfortunately the wiggly results remain unchanged, unimproved. I guess Vegas (7) is not able to handle DVD-PAL well.
John23GR
-
I did a series of tests with only 3-4 .jpg photos, full size and reduced by 50% with the “default” variable bitrate. The wiggles were still there, including the Vegas-generated title (not overlaid, simply ahead of the photos.)
These were rendered as MPEG2: DVD-PAL.
Then I rendered the same as MPEG2: DVD-NTSC. The Wiggles were gone and the resulting DVD looked normal as it should.
The problem seems to be in rendering to the PAL format.John23GR