Nice idea, but as far as I know, Vegas doesn't have that rendering option. The only ones in that frame range are 25.00 PAL, NTSC 29.97, 50.00 Double PAL.

Now, since there is also the 15.00 fps which happens to be exactly half of 30, I tried it out: no jitter, but worse for it skips frames so it's chuga-chuga-chug-chug :)

I've been looking at the file's Media/Timecode/Chose custom time code where one can choose other besides the shown 30 fps, such as SMTPE Drop 29.97 or Non-drop 29.97 and others, but... I have to study this a bit more to see if its even relevant to output rendering.

I also don't want screw up the file's attributes, either, though I'm assuming it's event properties = not destructive to the original .mov file itself if I tweak something in there.

Any further advice/feedback appreciated.

Hmmm...

Maybe this is a useless topic for it seems that the .mov files I have all have varying degrees of jitter, even when playing in QuickTime (i.e. the Sorensen 3 codec-ed one mentioned earlier).

Does this mean that .move files in general are just not up to par for output rendering in Vegas? A .move is definitely not as detail-full as an uncompressed .Avie (just the file size is an indication). Maybe .mov is like .mpg, good for certain things, not for others.

Further feedback welcomed for as stated, I'm learning, learning, learning.

When rendering to uncompressed AVI you can type in any frame rate you want. You're not limited to the choices that Vegas shows you.

The other thing you can try is to set the project rate to 29.97 and playback rate to 0.999. Then drag the end of the clip to exactly 8 seconds. Turn off resampling and the source frames should almost exactly match project frames.

I'm guessing you're in PAL-land, so 25fps would be a more appropriate choice. Set the project rate to 25, the playback rate to 0.833, and drag the clip out to 9 seconds 15 frames. Turn off resampling and it will match 25fps.

.mov is just a container like .avi, it's all in the codec.

i've never had jittering mov's unless I made them that way. check the settings in the "custom" menu.

what settings are you using to render out as? The video s 1280x720, aspect of 1, 30fps, you're editing at 720x360, aspect if .9999, 29.97fps & what are you rendering to?

for best results the media should match the project or it all be the same ratio's.

Thanks for fps rate info, I'll look into it. Though I'm not in PAL, I live in the U.S. so it's NTSC

Since this NASA clip is important to me and since there's no sane way to post it here -- if anyone has the time and DSL or faster connection, I'd really appreciate the following::

---- Go and download and view it to offer a knowledgeable assessment on its original quality and most importantly, if it can be made to be rendered in a manner that would be part of a project to be eventually broadcast on U.S. TV.

If so, then one could advise me on specifics of what settings and so on to make it sing in Vegas since that's where all the editing work would be done.

Below is the URL and download info on the clip (it's the largest file version of that animation on that page) in both regular and torrent versions:

_______________

As to output: I want to have the entire project in the windscreen 16:9 look even though TV is 4:3 (so we'd have the black letterbox thing going on). That's why I'm using 720x360, though that's not compensating for the 4:3 (I figure I deal with that on final* output?)

* (As I said, I'm learning and most likely don't have the facts straight, so feel free to correct me on any erroneous assumptions.)

_______________

Here's the aforementioned clip location and info.

BLUE MARBLE: ANIMATIONS

-- lossless.mov rotate
-- hd_1280_lossless.mov.torrent

HTTP Feed
BitTorrent Feed
~ 28 min, with broadband
~ 11 hr, via 56k modem

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_detail.php?id=2434

Thanks.

I assume you are trying to watch this on your computer. Not a lot of computers can play an Uncompressed Video file in real time. Do you think that is the problem?

I rendered it to an MPEG and it played fine on my 1.8ghz laptop. I then rendered to a DV AVI and it played fine. But I know my computer won't play an uncompressed file in realtime.

Dave T2

Dave T2,

Hey, thanks for taking the time for this.

I can't get to this right away, but I'll try what you did and see what happens. What you say makes sense, though I can play uncompressed .avi -- i.e. in Media Player and Winamp. I don't know if that I have dual core D Pentium (2.8 ghz. x2), Geoforce 6800 XT vid card makes any difference to what your system is.

Either way, I'll have to pay closer attention to the quality of simple playback..

Hasta la later.

it must be the file/codec that's causing it to judder full screen. i can run uncompressed AVI's at 1920x1080x32 or 1600x1200x32 several minutes in length no problem. This one runs perfect as long as it's in a window (even if the window is my screen res) but stutters full screen. :/

anyway... it's also worth noting that certain video cards have hardware rendering support for some codec's. ATI 92xx & above can render render HD files hardware accelerated as long as they're in certain codecs. Not sure about nvidia cards, but thsoe won't help in vegas at all.

is this going to be on DVD? If so you can edit this as a 720x480 wisescreen project & the dvd player will automaticly letterbox it for you. Most media players on PC's will automaticly letterbox for you too, If it's for VHS, then you'd want to put the letterbox blacks in, but you still want to do it at 720x480. 720x360 is a legit format & it will still show up full screen.

Thanks for reply. I'll have to look into my nVidia see if it can be tweaked to handle this. As to DVD or VHS output, probably both so I'll have to start thinking about output size. Media files/events can be 720x360 and kept in ratio as long I think ahead about the final output (x480).

Now since we're talking about resolution formats, let me ask this:

Is Working Bigger Actually Better?
__________________________

I'm not shooting for HD, but is there any advantage in working in proportionally larger, i.e.1280x720 (yes, I know more pixels and file real estate to render and so more CPU intensive), and then reducing the final down to 720x480?

Having worked in graphics and still images, I know that one will lose pixels and so data, but one can get a bit more tweaky with details in larger format, which can show up even in the reduced version.

Or maybe in video-land, it's sort of like the "Evening News in HD!" hype (we have that stuff here in Los Angeles, CA USA):

--- OK, fine, so it's shot in HD, but if one only has a regular TV, would one really notice any difference of the same footage if it were shot side-by-side in HD and non-HD?

I don't have an HD TV or a wide screen, so I really can't tel whether the news is any sharper/clearer or not.

But since I'm now on the creation/producer/editor end, I might as well find out if working larger format or HD would make any difference to most viewers (most people on this planet don't have HD).

Let me know what your experience and views are. No rush on this, I've got stuff to do for the next day or so but will be back.

if you're final delivery format is SD then I'd use 720x480. just because then everything will edit faster (don't forget to render that earth as DV AVI to speed up editing). i've edited stuff in HD TGA sequences/uncompressed AVI's & it runs fine for very simple cuts/etc but right now vegas is aimed towards DV editing & it performs best with that.

if you wanted HD output you can always change the project settings to HD & then replace the SD files with their HD origionals.

OK, I'm back and I've read over the posts and tried various rendering modes but still come out with jitter and getting a bit confused, so let's take a step back so I can do this right:

A) If this jitter is a pre-rendering hardware issue, what should I look for to fix or alter and where?

B) The above with or not withstanding, what format should I turn the original .mov into so it's an editable non-jitter work copy in Vegas? (I've tried DV and MPG-2 renders and it, still crappy looking).

I haven't had such issues with working on 40 sec. 5 MB .wmv files converted to uncompressed and vice-versa and so on. It just seems to be the .mov codec that seems to throw things off.

_______________________

Sorry to be so dense, but again, I'm trying to learn.

I am realizing more and more how many codecs there are and how confusing it can get (too bad video isn't as simple as .wav and .mp3 and their Mac counterparts). Video has far more ways to store far more data, hence more variations to contend with.

So I'd appreciate a step-by-step here -- some kind of "Solution for Dummies" approach :)

Thanks for your patience.

if you render it to DV (progressive scan) it shouldn't jitter at all. unless other DV footage jitters.

I did some test renders of various types, incl. a 60 fps to DV and I got a non-jitter result. That said, I realized I forgot to mention some critical details about what I wish to do with this clip, and these factors have direct bearing on why we got jitter:

--- Partial Use 3D Alpha Pan/Crop: To get the effect of flying over the curvature of the planet and having it partially in "night", I have to do some major squash and tweak. Too bad one can't post images here for I could show what I mean.

--- Slow Speed: Here is probably what's messing it up: This isn't a 3 Stooges movie, so having the Earth rotate at the speed of the original .mov would look unnatural. So I have to slow it down to 25% or less. That's sllllloooooowwww.

Naturally, there just aren't enough frames for this to be done smoothly (my guess is that Smart or even Force Render can't fix a 75% drop in speed).

So maybe I'll have to come up with some different way to pull of this particular view, i.e. what was my first approach: just use some decent still image of the Earth and pan/zoom across it.

I suppose I just got excited that I could maybe pull off a more "big studio" effect when I found the .mov about which we have been discussing all along. I certainly can't afford to buy anything from some video clip co. on only a disability income. The NASA clip is a public domain freebie, so up my financial alley :)

I'm sure that there is some fancy pro studio or fx house that would be glad to sell me something similar to what I'd like to create for a few hundred thousand USD or more - lol.

So I have to get inventive and find ways around this dilemma. A dilemma, for this over-the-Earth part is central to the overall artistic concept of my mini-movie thing (ultimately to promote a book I also have in the works).

_______________________

If you have any additional thoughts, I welcome them. But from my limited perspective here, I think it's kind of a lost cause as far as using this particular clip as fodder for some wow-effect. Though...

I could actually turn the "jitter" negative into a positive and make some a sort of slow-motion strobe sequence. (Yup, them creative gears just keep cranking. We pauper folk ain't no other choice :)

_______________________

And last and certainly not least, once again:

I truly appreciate you all for having hung in with me on this, however doomed this particular idea may seem to be at this juncture.

Take care.

i JUST found something yesterday that could help you out big time:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/celestia/

you can do animations of realistic movements of anything in the solar system, probley more.

it can't do HD, but you CAN make an avi file (any codec you want) at any FPS, but you can also have it take as long as you want. IE you can render out a movie of the earth taking 24 hours for rotation. Or longer. :)

can't do much more slow mo then that!

there's also www.orbitersim.com. more complex but as close to the real solar system as you'll get on a PC in your home.

Hey, thanks for the Celestia referral! I've gotten it and bookmarked their forum so I can figure out some things. Also uses NASA's Blue Marble imagery, so up my alley.

As to what you mentioned about rendering sllllllllllloooow overnight, I'm guessing that you're saying that the more frames one packs in, the slower the render/output speed in case doing the velocity thing in Vegas doesn't give the desired resullts, right?

Or maybe not what you're saying - lol. Correct me on this if necessary..

that is what i'm saying. instead of taking a 30fps video at "normal" speed you can jsut get a 30fps video at "slow" speed. so instead of taking an earth rotating 1 time every minute & slowing it down, you actuatly get a slowed down one.

OK, I think I know what you mean but still a bit confused, so let's make a feasible example:

-- Let's say I take that 8 sec..mov (one Earth rotation), and I want to slow that down to 90% slower, or @10% speed.

Q-1: Would that mean that I have it render at 10x30 fps - 300 fps? Doesn't make sense and I doubt that Vegas would dig it - lol.

Besides, that would just increase the frames per second. However:

Q-2: Would one then re-render at 30 fps and then resulting clip would be running at 10%?

The other issue also is that if the source file has only so many frames, Vegas probably would insert intermediate frames to smoothen the inter-frame action, but would the result be good enough?

An analogy: no matter how one wishes turn a compressed .jpg into a full-info bmp or other uncompressed app. native format file, if the information isn't there or is sparser such as in a .jpg, no upgrading file format will improve that.

In other words, even if my odd and most likely ignorant 10% calculation scenario above were feasible, it would still result in a choppy/jittery video, especially with a compressed file, .mov or otherwise.

300 frames of source frame 1 followed by another 300 frames of frame 2 and so on do not make for smooth motion :)

______________________

Again, correct my mis-perceptions here. And if possible:

--- Please give me a similar example, ie. @ 10% speed with so I would be able to go experiment with this slow-down render thing by imputing actual figures and choosing the right options in the rendering dialog boxes.

Reply at your flow. Thanks again for your patience and help.*

..........................

* PS: Your username fits you well: the generosity of a kindly monk. You wouldn't be part of Robin Hood's clan of humanitarians, would you? Well, in either case, Friar, you are helping the poor here (though I'm not a pauper in spirit or creativity, just pocket book :)

it's got nothing to do with fps, it's with how fast you want the earth to rotate. if you wanted 8 seconds to be 1 revolution of the earth then you could render out 1 rotation taking 8 seconds. if you wanted it to take 5 minutes to rotate the you could render out 1 rotation taking 5 minutes. check the readme, you can change the speed of the "universe" in that program, pretty much as fast or slow as you want.

TheHappyFriar,

Not sure whether you're referring to Vegas or Celestia, but either way, I think I have this thing solved in and as Celestia. I'm going through the User Manual (.doc version that has "click here" demonstrations of facets of the programs in real time) and this thing is a trip!

Just been playing around with Earth, spinning it around like a beach ball, changing ambient light, watching the Milky Way pass by , all just with my mouse.

It's almost kind of eerie for one feels like some Q character from "Star Trek: The Next Generation" able to play with planets and galaxies like some Olympian god.

Short version: Mission Accomplished.

One way or another, I'll get Celestia to do just about exactly what I want , then I'll render it and start working on the result in Vegas. So we can put this thread and subject to rest. Finally.

Thanks again very much for the Celestia referral, take care and all the best to you.. NRN.

~ Soniclight//Philip

ok, so oyu figured out what i couldn't explain with the manual. Good stuff! :D