Rendering at Reduced Files Size & Maintaining Quality

Musicvid wrote on 2/12/2018, 5:33 AM

Use the Internet templates in Vegas.

You didn't say what BITRATE you are aiming for, but if it's below 10Mbps, Handbrake is generally better.

This is a well-travelled highway; no need to blaze a new trail.

JaySonic wrote on 2/14/2018, 10:12 PM

Thanks for your response. I am not attempting to 'blaze any new trails', but I would like to open up the discussion with those more knowledgeable thank myself.

Per my opening post, I have already looked into file reduction rendering, and as illustrated in the image, been able to significantly reduce 80mb to 5mb.

The issue, however, is that the WebM format is not cross browser compatible, so I'm seeking other codec suggestions.

Not sure what you mean by 'Internet Templates' but my output on the original 80mb video is:

Sony AVC/MVC mp4 : Internet 1920 x 1080-30p

Those settings don't even get me remotely close to what I'm trying to to. Aiming for an approx 1 minute video to be under 10mb (and again I will mention - cross browser compatible)

Former user wrote on 2/14/2018, 10:28 PM

File size is based on two things. 1: Program length 2: bitrate. Find a compatible Codec within Vegas (avoid exotic codecs like WebM) and reduce the bitrate until you get the size you want. You can actually figure it out mathematically if you are inclined.

NickHope wrote on 2/14/2018, 11:45 PM

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/faq-how-can-i-improve-the-quality-of-my-avc-h-264-renders--104642/

JaySonic wrote on 2/15/2018, 12:20 AM

You can actually figure it out mathematically if you are inclined.

Yes, actually, I would be ! I would rather know precisely what's going on, to get a thorough understanding. Have just started a Vegas course on Lynda.com and plan to digest everything they have regarding this software, so hopefully one of the modules will go into detail. Any tips on what sort of search terms I should be researching for ?

Nick, thanks for the link, I will investigate further when I am in front of the workstation. I'm in extreme learning mode for the next couple of months... but the title of that FAQ is "How to improve the Quality". And the article appears to be on Vegas 15 (as stated, I am on v14) I haven't encountered any quality issues using fairly standard render presets (ie projects that would be acceptable HD for YouTube transmission).

JaySonic wrote on 2/15/2018, 12:22 AM

and to be honest with you guys, I'm a bit perplexed as to why there are literally hundreds of rendering options...... trial and error is all well and good, but without understanding the concept behind it, I don;t know if I'm going to delicate days to trying each one.

3POINT wrote on 2/15/2018, 12:55 AM

Reduced file size and maintaining quality is contrary. Reducing file size (by lowering bitrate and or resolution) reduces also quality. We cannot decide for you which quality and file size will satisfy your needs.

NickHope wrote on 2/15/2018, 3:51 AM

Nick, thanks for the link, I will investigate further when I am in front of the workstation. I'm in extreme learning mode for the next couple of months... but the title of that FAQ is "How to improve the Quality". And the article appears to be on Vegas 15 (as stated, I am on v14)

Actually it's written for VP14, with an addendum for VP15 at the top.

I haven't encountered any quality issues using fairly standard render presets (ie projects that would be acceptable HD for YouTube transmission).

So please explain in what way exactly those settings didn't get you remotely close to what you're trying to do. What was the rendered file size?

and to be honest with you guys, I'm a bit perplexed as to why there are literally hundreds of rendering options...... trial and error is all well and good, but without understanding the concept behind it, I don;t know if I'm going to delicate days to trying each one.

For your purposes, stick to Sony AVC, MainConcept AVC, or maybe x264, which are all ways of creating the same thing (AVC a.k.a. H.264 video) and are discussed in that article I linked. x264 needs to be done outside of Vegas, but is more efficient in terms of quality per bit.

fifonik wrote on 2/15/2018, 4:06 AM

> 264 needs to be done outside of Vegas, but is more efficient in terms of quality per bit.

It's possible to install x264vfw and render into x264 avi directly from Vegas. This is not widely supported, however I think it is possible to remux it into mp4 with ffmpeg. This might be easier than all these frameserver stuff, but must be checked first.

fifonik wrote on 2/15/2018, 4:12 AM

2 JaySonic:

> Sony AVC/MVC mp4 : Internet 1920 x 1080-30p

> approx 1 minute video to be under 10mb

I do not think it is possible to get 1080-30p with bitrate 10mb/min in good quality (I believe you ment 10MB as mb == "milli bits" does not make any sense).

NickHope wrote on 2/15/2018, 4:24 AM

I've read that x264vfw (AVI) has compression features missing compared to x264 (MP4). I would definitely compare the output closely against a well done Mainconcept AVC render of the same file size before choosing that option.

fifonik wrote on 2/15/2018, 4:33 AM

> I've read that x264vfw (AVI) has compression features missing compared to x264 (MP4)

I used it long time ago in "avi era". When switched to mp4 I have not noticed any new options. Probably it's a good idea not to use some features for make such avi more compatible. This does not look like an issue if remuxing will be the next step. However, I absolutely agree that previous testing is required.

> I would definitely compare the output closely against a well done Mainconcept AVC render of the same file size before choosing that option

Right at this moment I'm comparing Mainconcept vs others again (I used to compare it a few yeas ago).

ATM the Magix/Mainconcept for me looks like the worst choice.

3POINT wrote on 2/15/2018, 4:53 AM

I sometimes have to make HDrecordings for distribution on normal CD`s. I render my archive file with SAVC internet template. This file I use as source for Handbrake where I set down the quality to range of 25-28. With this setting I get (depending on amount of motion) very small output files with acceptable quality.

fifonik wrote on 2/15/2018, 5:03 AM

Less that 1400 kb/s for 1080-30p? Really?

Even youtube recompress to similar bitrate only 720p, not 1080p.

I would not consider to download torrent with so low bitrate for something like 720x400 :)

JaySonic wrote on 2/15/2018, 7:44 PM

Thanks to all for the responses - a lot of what is being discussed is over my head, so I'm keen to go into further detail to understand what some of you are suggesting. Since there seems to be no 'ultimate answer', I guess I will just start going through some of the presets myself and making rendered comparisons to determine what's going to work for this application .

It's a shame that WebM is not browser supported across the board, because the results are exactly what outcomes I hope to achieve - and that is a massive file reduction with only limited quality degradation.

EDIT: Link removed - no longer relevant to discussion

john_dennis wrote on 2/15/2018, 11:32 PM

This won't give you a one sentence answer. It will probably confuse you even worse until you really think about it for a while.

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/analysis-of-rendering-to-a-target-bit-rate-vs-constant-rate-factor--109452/

Video_flaneur wrote on 2/15/2018, 11:33 PM

Jaysonic,

If you are planning to host the videos on your own website server and use the HTML5 <video> element to play them (as you have in the sample page above), be aware that there are many limitations. Many mobile devices will not play the videos no matter what format they are in. Try loading the page above to a tablet or smartphone and see what result you get. If your aim is to host podcasts, then mobile devices are pretty important delivery devices. Embedding videos/audios from YouTube, Vimeo etc onto your website overcomes this problem, but of course comes with its own set of problems.

Good luck with your venture. Many of us out here are waiting for mainstream technology that allows us to host our own short videos on our own websites and plays them across most client devices.

fr0sty wrote on 2/16/2018, 12:08 AM

You aren't going to get the compatibility you want with various systems and browsers using any other codec than H.264 (Magix/Mainconcept AVC in Vegas) or x264 (handbrake) mp4 files for decent quality HD video. So, spare yourself the experimentation time.

The other codecs are there because some offer quality far above H.264, though file sizes are also bigger. Those are used as either intermediates (if you decide to convert your video to another format before editing to make the video edit smoother), proxies, or archive files. There are also codecs that are designed to not only be higher quality, but also easier to decode. There are codecs needed for DVD and Blu-Ray. There are codecs optimized for online use.

JaySonic wrote on 2/16/2018, 12:30 AM

This won't give you a one sentence answer. It will probably confuse you even worse until you really think about it for a while.

My world has been constantly in confusion for the past three weeks since starting out with Vegas, so I'm becoming well conditioned to the pain 😉 . Thanks for the links, I'll add it to my study list.

JaySonic wrote on 2/16/2018, 12:45 AM

Embedding videos/audios from YouTube, Vimeo etc onto your website overcomes this problem, but of course comes with its own set of problems.

... and it's not a universal solution anyway. Web sites hosted in China will not serve embedded YouTube (any Google services actually), since there is a censorship policy on over 2,000 popular services we take for granted.

Just as much a challenge is that the most popular browsers in China aren't even the big ones we know, such as Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Opera etc, but one called UC (70% marketshare), as well as Baidu. So for an all-round solution, cross-browser compatibility is a deeper hole than first thought.

JaySonic wrote on 2/16/2018, 2:33 AM

UPDATE: Here are some comparisons between two Vegas render outputs, and a Handbrake render (as .mp4) See attached image.

Asset duration is approx 1 minute, and started at approx 100 megabytes.

Perceptible quality of the smallest output looks quite acceptable, but I will create a side-by-side project over the weekend for a better overview.

I don't really understand how bitrate comes in to play, but have also included a screenshot of the properties file.

Thanks to @fr0sty @3POINT @Musicvid for the Handbrake suggestion

fr0sty wrote on 2/16/2018, 1:26 PM

There's a few things you can do to get better quality at lower btirates...

Your bitrate is how much data per second is being allocated to the video. The lower your bitrate, the more compression that is applied and the lower the resulting quality is going to be. For 1080p video, I see you are at 24mbps (roughly 2400 kbps) bitrate there. 24 megabits per second at 24 frames per second gets you about one megabit per frame. That is about a 13x reduction from uncompressed raw 1080p, which clocks in at around 13mb per frame. You can get away with around 14-16mbps (1400-1600kbps, roughly) bitrate and still have decent quality for 1080p video, at least for web delivery. One of Vegas' main Blu-Ray presets encodes at 16mbps.

Also, you can shoot the video at 24 instead of 30 frames per second. This matches the frame rate of film, helping to give it a film like feel, and by dropping 6 fps, you gain more data to give to the remaining frames while still staying in the same bitrate. It is possible to convert 30p video to 24 after it is shot, but not recommended for optimum quality. Always best to shoot the video in the frame rate that you plan on delivering in.