Help Please: WMV to disk

ndar wrote on 9/26/2008, 1:08 PM
Hello. I recorded a FB Game and pulled all clips to timeline, slowed it down to 85%, then rendered to WMV file. Clips were all taken at highest resolution on new High Def Sony Cam. Render took 5 hours on a quad core 64bit pc and Vegas 8.1. Output is beautiful though. Now I go to DVD Arch and it wants to render again to MPEG2 taking another 5 hrs before burning to disk.
If I drag and drop the WMV file to DVD then I can see on PC but not on TV.
Obviously I'm new here but rendering to WMV seems to give me the best results on Vegas. Is the second render on DVD Arch to MPEG 2 necessary for viewing on TV? Is there a better way??
Thanks folks
.

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 9/26/2008, 2:13 PM
DVDs are standard definition MPEG2; there is no other option. Probably the reason that your WMV files look better is because they are HD.

If you want HD on a disc then you should probably be making a BluRay disc instead of a DVD.
Terry Esslinger wrote on 9/26/2008, 5:49 PM
Or you co;d play your WMV on the TV from a laptop
ndar wrote on 9/26/2008, 10:29 PM
Thanks for the help. In a way I wish I was making a mistake because I would love to replicate the source quality on a dvd. It's not that the dvd is "bad" looking. Just not as crisp and clear as the source output and the wmv version.
I guess I'll be upgrading to BluRay real soon.
Thanks Again
Laurence wrote on 9/26/2008, 10:34 PM
You can get really nice results with a regular DVD+-R burner and blanks using the AVCHD format (which will play in most Blu-ray players). Unfortunately DVDA won't do this format, but other programs like Ulead Movie Factory 6 Plus will.
ndar wrote on 9/26/2008, 10:54 PM
So if I understand you correctly, in some programs you can stay in avchd throughout the render burn process? I can see how that would produce nice results by how my raw footage looks out of the camera. Its nice to know most BluRay will play it. Ill look for that when I buy my first BR player. Thanks!
Steve Mann wrote on 9/28/2008, 9:58 PM
Notwithstanding that Vegas puts all of the renders and encoding into the "render as" menu, MPEG is encoded, AVI is rendered.
Chienworks wrote on 9/29/2008, 3:57 AM
Not exactly true. All output file types are rendered unless Vegas is able to do a bit-for-bit copy, such as DV->DV. Rendering is how Vegas produces the output frames.

Encoding is converting the rendered frames to the desired file type. Anything except uncompressed is encoded. This means that .avi types such as DV and DivX are encoded as well as rendered.
Steve Mann wrote on 9/29/2008, 8:34 PM
But, you don't *render* the MPEG or WMV file. The editor has to render the frames, then they get encoded to the final output format.
johnmeyer wrote on 9/29/2008, 10:35 PM
I think what Kelly is saying is that for most projects, there is some sort of rendering taking place AND also encoding. If you color-correct, those changes have to first be rendered, regardless of what file format it is going to go to. Then, that result gets encoded into some format.

So, I would argue that the Render As process almost always involves BOTH rendering and encoding. Even when you are starting with DV and ending up with a DV AVI file, if you color correct (or any other fX or compositing), Vegas will render, and then the result of that will have to be encoded, even when going to a DV AVI file.

The only time rendering is skipped is if nothing is done to the video other than cuts. The only time encoding is skipped is if Vegas can smart copy the result of a zero render situation, which currently only includes DV, and also some forms of MPEG-2.

As an aside, VirtualDub can smart render almost anything when you do cuts only, if you have the right plugins.