Hello. I will be recording a deaf sign language conversation in high definition to enable me to analyze eye positions, etc. carefully. For publication, however, I would like to create 320x240 .mov files, but I have not been able to achieve this using my new Vegas Video Pro 9.0.
Specifically, what happens is that - with all the settings I've chosen so far - the result is BOTH letterboxed (sideways, not top & bottom) AND squshed sideways such that the subject looks thinner than he really is.
I plan to deliver the files in two main 'venues': (1) on a local computer (displayed on my laptop at academic conferences, clips sent to colleagues, etc.); (2) over the internet. Some samples of the latter can be seen at my website at http://www.vincentasl.info. As you can see, all of the videos on that website are embedded in PDFs, and (as may be evident from the window style chosen by Acrobat to display them) all are .mov files. (Most are built using the 512 KB option in Vegas 3.) However, I would also like them to be able to be displayed simply embedded into a web page with the <object> or other appropriate tag.
As to the format of the recorded files I'll be editing, I'll choose whatever works best, but so far I have been recording using Canon's VIXIA HV30 (the cheapest yet well-reviewed HDV camera I could find) in their 'HDV(PF30)' format, which their manual describes as "High definition video at 1080i specifications for recording with a progressive frame rate of 30 fps. You can use this setting to easily edit your recordings, for example to post them on the Web." (I don't understand what the 'i' would mean in '1080i specifications' if the recording is progressive; isn't the 'i' supposed to stand for 'interlaced'?) The result has been m2t files which my computer cannot play directly, but which my Vegas 9.0 is able to load and display.
I want the output for publication to have a small filesize for display on the internet, and the 4:3 ratio is adequate for showing a single signer (which my examples will nearly always be limited to), and of sufficient resolution to make most of my points. For years now, Vegas 3.0 has met all my needs perfectly until I suddenly encountered the need to record in high definition for better data analysis.
I have already engaged in a long incident about this problem with Sony Technical Support, all to no avail, apart from learning that I should use Sorenson Video 1 (referred to in Vegas 9.0 properties simply as 'Sorenson') instead of Sorenson Video 3, which results in huge files. However, the results have always been as I described. I understood from the experts I consulted (at Creative Cow, I think it was) that I could simply crop the high definition files to the aspect ratio I want but so far that has not turned out to be true. Or maybe it was true, but letterboxed and squshed.
According to Vegas 9.0, the test files I have recorded are 1440x1080x12 (what does the 12 mean?), and 'Upper field first', from which I infer that it really is interlaced after all, despite the use of the word 'progressive' in their description of the setting I chose. (It's true they say 'progressive *frame rate*, but what does the frame rate have to do with progressive vs. interlaced? And 1440x1080 works out to a 4:3 ratio even though the result looks wide (presumably 16:9) as displayed on Vegas. What's going on? Super-wide pixels? Does the term 'aspect ratio' refer only to pixel count?
All I really need to know is what settings to use, but it would be great to understand all this if anyone cares to provide a 50 cent lecture! I don't even understand what the purpose of Project Properties in Vegas is: after all, the properties of the initial recording are determined by the video camera, and the properties of the output are supposedly determined by what you choose when you render it.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Specifically, what happens is that - with all the settings I've chosen so far - the result is BOTH letterboxed (sideways, not top & bottom) AND squshed sideways such that the subject looks thinner than he really is.
I plan to deliver the files in two main 'venues': (1) on a local computer (displayed on my laptop at academic conferences, clips sent to colleagues, etc.); (2) over the internet. Some samples of the latter can be seen at my website at http://www.vincentasl.info. As you can see, all of the videos on that website are embedded in PDFs, and (as may be evident from the window style chosen by Acrobat to display them) all are .mov files. (Most are built using the 512 KB option in Vegas 3.) However, I would also like them to be able to be displayed simply embedded into a web page with the <object> or other appropriate tag.
As to the format of the recorded files I'll be editing, I'll choose whatever works best, but so far I have been recording using Canon's VIXIA HV30 (the cheapest yet well-reviewed HDV camera I could find) in their 'HDV(PF30)' format, which their manual describes as "High definition video at 1080i specifications for recording with a progressive frame rate of 30 fps. You can use this setting to easily edit your recordings, for example to post them on the Web." (I don't understand what the 'i' would mean in '1080i specifications' if the recording is progressive; isn't the 'i' supposed to stand for 'interlaced'?) The result has been m2t files which my computer cannot play directly, but which my Vegas 9.0 is able to load and display.
I want the output for publication to have a small filesize for display on the internet, and the 4:3 ratio is adequate for showing a single signer (which my examples will nearly always be limited to), and of sufficient resolution to make most of my points. For years now, Vegas 3.0 has met all my needs perfectly until I suddenly encountered the need to record in high definition for better data analysis.
I have already engaged in a long incident about this problem with Sony Technical Support, all to no avail, apart from learning that I should use Sorenson Video 1 (referred to in Vegas 9.0 properties simply as 'Sorenson') instead of Sorenson Video 3, which results in huge files. However, the results have always been as I described. I understood from the experts I consulted (at Creative Cow, I think it was) that I could simply crop the high definition files to the aspect ratio I want but so far that has not turned out to be true. Or maybe it was true, but letterboxed and squshed.
According to Vegas 9.0, the test files I have recorded are 1440x1080x12 (what does the 12 mean?), and 'Upper field first', from which I infer that it really is interlaced after all, despite the use of the word 'progressive' in their description of the setting I chose. (It's true they say 'progressive *frame rate*, but what does the frame rate have to do with progressive vs. interlaced? And 1440x1080 works out to a 4:3 ratio even though the result looks wide (presumably 16:9) as displayed on Vegas. What's going on? Super-wide pixels? Does the term 'aspect ratio' refer only to pixel count?
All I really need to know is what settings to use, but it would be great to understand all this if anyone cares to provide a 50 cent lecture! I don't even understand what the purpose of Project Properties in Vegas is: after all, the properties of the initial recording are determined by the video camera, and the properties of the output are supposedly determined by what you choose when you render it.
Thanks in advance for your help.