Captures Only In AVI ????

most1edbabydaddy wrote on 3/26/2004, 10:38 AM

I was wondering...Does Vegas 4.0 only capture in AVI? We all know how large AVI files are. Would I have to use a seperate program to capture in a less bulky format... OR is there something that I don't know about how to do it in Vegas? Could someone share with me a better way of doing it.

Thanx

Comments

Jsnkc wrote on 3/26/2004, 10:46 AM

Nope, for Vegas it's only AVI-DV, around 13GB/hour. But why would you want any less quality than that. You can always render to a smaller format if you need to.

Chienworks wrote on 3/26/2004, 12:36 PM

If you're planning on doing any editing at all then you don't want to capture in any other format. Trust me; you might think you want to, but you really don't.

Jsnkc wrote on 3/26/2004, 12:42 PM

Exactly, in the video world you want to start with the highest quality video possible, then edit or render out to whatever format and size you need. If you capture at a 56k wmv file and then want to put it on a DVD...well lets just say it isn't going to look all that good!

Rogueone wrote on 3/26/2004, 12:43 PM

Chienworks is right, and I'll second it because I've done it before. Trying to render in Vegas from either MPEG-1/2 will result in such long times you might as well walk away from your computer for 3 days!

rmack350 wrote on 3/26/2004, 11:28 PM

DV25 is about 3.5 MB/second no matter what file format it's in. That's by definition. Doesn't matter if it's AVI or MOV.

Rob Mack

TalawaMan wrote on 3/27/2004, 12:22 AM

In regards to AVI being better quality... I recently posted in another thread the question:

...So I set up a project with SMTPTE bars and render it in both AVI and MPEG2 (quality best, NTSC DV) and the MPEG2 file looks better that the AVI yet is almost 20x smaller. This is perplexing, should the AVI be better quality?

Anybody able to repeat this result, have any insight as to why this is?

TheHappyFriar wrote on 3/27/2004, 4:04 AM

I did it and the AVI looks better. Remember, outside of Vegas you don't use the Sony DV Codec (which is better then the MS one). I also rendered with the Matrox DV codec ant it looks just as good.

TheHappyFriar wrote on 3/27/2004, 4:06 AM

I setup a computer for the place I used to work for to capture all I Frame mpeg-2 with an ATI AIW card, but that was because they refused to get a DV adapter for their DVCPro. It looked as good as DV (at about 10mbs, I-Frame only, 720x480 from DVCPro footage) but was a LOT slower to edit on the timeline.

Chienworks wrote on 3/27/2004, 4:52 AM

Some codecs handle some times of images better than others. DV can handle fine details and diagonals better than MPEG. MPEG can handle strong colors better than DV. Color bars are strong color without fine detail, so it's conceivable that it compresses to MPEG better than to DV.