Actually, let me ask the question this way.

slacy wrote on 7/24/2006, 12:32 AM
I wrote earlier about a DVD that looked horrid on a laptop but good on a TV. While I learned a lot from the ensuing discussion, I probably should've just asked the following question.

If you had a two-minute presentation to displayed on a projector powered by a laptop, what compression/format/settings would you use? The presentation is mostly floating and fading text, some screen captures of web sites, VO, and no video whatsoever.

Should I just render this to Quicktime, using Sorenson 3 as the compressor, a resolution of 720x486, and a frame rate of 60? I realize this may be a hugely ignorant question, but the number of options I have is downright dizzying.

My goal is to get the cleanest, smoothest-moving text with no trace of fuzz or jaggies.

What say the experts?

Comments

busterkeaton wrote on 7/24/2006, 12:51 AM
Sorenson is a great compressor, but there is probably no reason to leave Vegas for this.

You could render to avi and have the presentation play out at DV size and rate, 29.97 seconds and it looks better than a DVD. Two minutes of avi, is small enough that if you are transferring to the laptop you are presenting on, you can do it on a DVD. Heck, two minutes of avi fits on a CD.

Render to avi. Burn a data DVD, not a video DVD. Transfer the avi to the laptop's hard drive. Play from the hard drive


If you don't have enough space on the hard drive, try rendering to WMV or to mpeg4. Just use a high enough bit rate so that it looks good to you.

I don't think there is any reason to go to 60fps, but you can. However, everyone in the room will be quite familiar with watching 29.97 video.
busterkeaton wrote on 7/24/2006, 12:54 AM
An easier answer is why are you compressing at all.

2 min is pretty small and if the laptop doesn't have room for that, you may be running system bottlenecks anyway that might mess with your playback
slacy wrote on 7/24/2006, 1:04 AM
I mentioned 60 fps because I thought it might be more effective at rendering moving/floating/fading text.

Anyway I'll make a test AVI to your specs right now and see how she looks.
slacy wrote on 7/24/2006, 1:07 AM
Why am I compressing at all? I don't have a good answer for that. I guess I'm so used to compressing that it didn't occur to me that I needn't do so this time.
busterkeaton wrote on 7/24/2006, 1:12 AM
Yeah, then you should be good to go. If your laptop is fine, the file should present just like the rendered file plays back in Vegas.
slacy wrote on 7/24/2006, 1:21 AM
Hmmm. The DV AVI doesn't seem to handle the text and graphics very gracefully. Edges are fuzzy, resolution seems compromised. It looks nowhere near as sharp as it does when playing on the timeline.

Color me confused.
slacy wrote on 7/24/2006, 1:53 AM
When I render a high-rate WMV at my laptop resolution, 1200 x 800, it looks great. But when I render an avi at 720 x 480, it looks like garbage.

Can it be that when using a laptop to project a presentation, you have to render to a custom resolution ... in the case of this laptop, 1200 x 800?
busterkeaton wrote on 7/24/2006, 2:00 AM
Dunno.

Were you showing the video at "full screen?"


DV is known for being not a great codec for titles, and you may be running into the standard issues. The colors and fonts you use will definitely have an effect. You could try to render an uncompressed AVI and see if anything changes. Uncompressed files are huge though.

This article talks about these creating titles for DV. Try a high-rate WMV at 720-480 and see how it looks. Did you create these titles in Vegas? or Did you import them and if so, what size did you import them?
slacy wrote on 7/24/2006, 2:22 AM
Yeah, I used the Vegas titler. I'll try a 720-470 high-rate WMV to see if it will up-res gracefully to 1200 x 800.

Thanks for your insight, busterkeaton. Sure is comforting to have a wizened voice to banter with late at night.

One last thing. Given that I have a lot of moving graphics, what should I do in Vegas to ensure the smoothest movement. A little motion blur? Some supersampling? Again, there are a lot of options here, and I'm not sure which ones provide the best bang for the buck.
busterkeaton wrote on 7/24/2006, 2:50 AM
I don't think you want a file to uprez.
I was just wondering if the wmv codec handled motion and color better than dv at high bit rates.

You should make the file whatever size you need it to be. If you are displaying at 1200 x 800. You should go ahead and render to that.

I would test a small segment and render with motion blur and supersampling. You may need to run several tests. This will definitely hit your render time.

Also that link I posted about DV and titles is oriented towards broadcast which has a narrower colorspace than video on a computer.