If your QT file was at 80 Mbps and you had problems uploading it because of file size, you will have the same problem with an MPEG at 80 Mbps. The files will be approximately the same size.

My QT file was 220 Mbps, approx -- ProRes 422 HQ. An MPEG-2 at 80 Mbps is the equivalent quality, according to Amazon.

60 Mbps isn't high enough, Cornico, but thanks.

If you select ATSC (which is a Transport Stream (TS) ) You change that to 80 Mbps. Select include audio and match the audio settings.

Wow, John, I learned a lot from that little video! I see you modified a blu-ray preset, didn't know about those system changes that allow you to change its fundamental nature. Woohoo, you've just added more life to Vegas for me. Let us all know if you do make tutorials -- we need them.

Here's another way to skin that cat, rendering separate elementary streams for video and audio, then muxing them together with tsMuxer. If you really value your audio you might want to send PCM.

Thanks again, John. Two questions about settings. In Project settings, I've heard that 32 bit is better, but don't recall which one to pick, video or full. Any thoughts? And in render settings, what do you think of two-pass render? Takes longer, but higher quality? This is for Amazon, so looking for highest quality.

Changing the Pixel Format in Project Properties from 8 bit to 32 bit is unlikely to improve your output unless your source video was acquired at > 8 bits and you maintained that through every step of the edit chain. I would leave it alone.

Two-Pass render is useful for allocating bits when the bit rate must be constrained to fit on a media such as DVD. At 80 Mbps you are unlikely to see any quality improvement, but if you have a lot of time on your hands or you need to heat your house in the cold Vermont winter then go ahead and check the box. A computer running 300 Watts doing a render will add about 1024 BTU/hr of heat to your room.

"This is for Amazon, so looking for highest quality."

Which one of these video do you think looks the best?

Video A or Video B

I would carefully read the "Non-transactionalAccess License Fee  for Prime Subscription Access" section of the DLA.

"Amazon will not be obligated to pay for any Hours Viewed for any Title in excess of 500,000 for all territories in any given annual period, which annual period will be prorated based on the portion of the calendar year which the you have the applicable Title available for Prime Subscription Access (the “Payment Cap”)"...."for any Title, the Payment Cap will be reset to zero at the start of the each annual payment period,"

If you do not make something that makes the payment lower limit, you will never get paid. If you make something that touches the hearts of >500,001 viewers /mo, you stop getting paid. Sure that is a large range, but making something that "hits" is the point of the work. Why let Amazon dictate what you are going to get when something "Hits.?" They reset the counter each month because hits/view swing wildly once something is out.

Thanks, Astar, good to know about Amazon. This is my first film, and I'm more interested in getting it out there than in making a bundle, as I'm working on the second and would like to build an audience. The first film is a two-hour drama about compassionate health care in rural Vermont -- doubt I'll come anywhere near 500K (unless Bernie likes it....). I'm curious, sounds like you have alternatives to Amazon for wide release. I'd be interested to hear more!

Thanks for the comments, John, the film was in 8-bit (the old Convergent Design recorders), so yes, it seems neither will improve quality. Can't watch the posts, internet too slow to download right now! (Guess the reindeer are using Google maps....)

Hey, Astar, just did the math, that's $6250 a month max, or $75,000 a year max. I suppose that if I ever hit those numbers (which I seriously doubt), then I can take the movie out of Prime for the following year and see whether people are willing to pay for it...

Spoiler Alert!

"Can't watch the posts, internet too slow to download right now!" 

I posted an 80 Mbps MPEG-2 version of a video and a 30 Mbps AVC version of the same video so you could compare the quality. When I put them back on the Vegas timeline and do difference there is little measurable difference. My rationale was that you may find uploading AVC to Amazon fits your situation much better than MPEG-2 at 80 Mbps because of your apparent Internet connection limitation. That's why I led with an AVC solution in this post.

Thanks, John. I found a place in Burlington with an upload speed of approx 600 Mbps, so got the MPEG version up in four hours. Whew!