Suggestions such as format .wmv or Divx are horribly problematic. Please do not use those routes.

If you want the best render out of VegasPro from the original footage - then the .mxf (which is a container) with mpeg2 video is your absolute best compromise. This would be the kind of digital intermediate that can be safely called as good as an archived original with min file space required. It would also be a practical play format on PC as it takes few resources , and then again it can be mastered into DVD or Blu-ray with no discernible loss.

If it is for archiving (and not portability) and if it is going to be kept as the master renderd file which will be used to be duplicated then yes MXF may be used.
But I wouldnt call that format 'portable' keep in mind that it produces around 13 GB per 30 minutes est. (depending on the preset and the number of audio channels it contains).

Also a note that (large) MXF files are not scrub friendly. Depending on your system if you skip the playback to another timecode the playback tend to get stuck. The the video playback has then to be restarted.

AVCHD seems most playback friendly to my experience.

VMP

You might as well learn about bit rates now that your interest is piqued. Download and install a utility to give you more information about your files so you're not left making generalizations and can use real data to arrive at reasonable conclusions.

Mediainfo will give you a lot of useful information about all media files. Slow down when you install and uncheck any crapware that might be offered that you don't want. Hint: You don't want any of it.

Bitrate-Viewer can give you insight into the distribution of the bit rates that will come in handy later on when you have more questions about the subject.

A sanity check.
If you determine the size of all your source files combined, your rendered output shouldn't be any bigger than that size. If your source is AVCHD, you can deliver at about the same or lower bit rate with decent quality. If you are seeing much larger files than the size of your source, you're either reading the files size wrong or you need a different render template.

Try

File / Render As:

The default is 16 mbps but you can increase it using Customize Template to 21.9 mbps. This will give you a single file that will play in many players.

Try rendering for Blu-ray using the Mainconcept or Sony Blu-ray templates that match the pixel dimensions and frame rate of your source. If you render to separate video and audio elementary streams. You can fit lots of vacation video on a Blu-ray.

Thx VMP,

Man, so much information in this 5 responses, it excites me and scares me at the same time! LOL.

1-BEFORE anything else, please let ask you: is it possible to attach PICs or even small videos with these posts?... because I don't see any options to do so?

How would I share a video with this group?... a link of the video in YouTube?

2- I agree that there must be something wrong with I am doing!... 36GB for only 5 minutes of video is simply outrageously large.

3- Now, (did I say I was a newbie? <smile>... You say "..sounds like an UNCOMPRESSED file render..."

I don't even know what you are talking about but let me explain. I took the MTS video files right out of my Digital Camcorder (1 year old) and imported them into VP. From there, to the Time Line. I also combined Pictures with the videos and even added a music track in mp3. The total size of the Folder with both videos and pics I imported into VP, is under 13GB! so I can't figure out how 13GB became an .AVI file 900GB <smile>.... there is got to be something wrong.

When you say "uncompressed," are you referring to the video file PRODUCED (outcome) OF the rendering process performed by VP12?....(.AVI in this case) or, are you referring to the video files (MTS) BEFORE entering VP?

4- You also say "...If you have a large video file (which is already rendered)..."
IN MY CASE, as explained in point 3, could my files be "compressed" (or uncompressed)? Sorry, but this term is brand new to me! <smile>

And I will stop right here before driving you nuts! <smile>

TheSearcher.

Hi,

Thx for wonderful info.

1- You say "... then the .mxf (which is a container) with mpeg2 video is your absolute best compromise..." You, know a newbie all you say sounds complicated. I do want the BEST possible output from the original footage - as you say.

Could you more or less give the STEPS to accomplish what you are saying?

i.e. To to FILE/RENDER AS / MAINCONCEPT MPEG 2 / HDV 1080.... etc etc

See what I mean?.... that would help tremendously. There are so MANY rendering choices I am lost. <smile>

Thank again

TS

Hi,

Thank you, thank you for tremendous amount of information. I will try your recipe below
----
Try

File / Render As:

Sony AVC/MVC (*.mp4, *.m2ts, *.avc)

----

Thanks for being so specific. Will experiment and will report back

TS




AVCHD 1920x1080-60i

Hi, thanks again for great info..

You say "AVCHD seems most playback friendly to my experience."

Can you actually guide me to use this specific choice you are referring to?

i.e. FILE / RENDER AS / xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx / yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy / zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


In (output format) - i see 24 choices. The list ending in XDCAM EX (*.MP4) and none of them have the word AVCHD...?..

Thx

TS

Sure,

1. Usually via YouTube or Vimeo. Or you could upload a small preview on drop box or some other server.

2. Indeed.

3 & 4. WIth uncompressed I meant the output file. That is the main subject here, your output file that came out of VP. A compressor like AVCHD/H264 Mpeg etc 'packs' / 'compresses' the file making it smaller, in this case it doesn't seem to be that 'compressed' hence the term 'uncompressed'.

The MTS/ input file that came out of your camera is probably 'compressed' with AVCHD. With the 'Mediainfo' tool john_dennis gave you you can check what the file actually is. After opening the program just drag the MTS file into the program, it will give you detailed info.

Then select View->Text.

You can then copy and paste the info here.
What camera brand/model did you use? That could also give us some more info about the MTS file.

According to that I or someone else can give you some advice on choosing the right preset. The output quality must be in balance with the input file. Rendering at much higher quality than the input/source file doesn't necessarily make the output file any better in AV quality.

VMP

THANK YOU, THANK YOU THANK YOU! (to you and everyone else!)

I followed the recipe and I got a very nice video and sound.

Did the the 5 minute test and it came down to 550MG!... That means 135 minute would be around 12GB which is microscopic in size compared to the numbers I was getting.

Good night for now. will be back soon.

TS

Here is an Adobe PDF that walks you through the render screens for Sony AVCHD.

The PDF opens full screen. Use the Page Up / Page Down to navigate from page to page.

Use Escape key to exit full screen.

VMP

Thx again for your detailed explanation. That gives me a hint I should investigate those subjects.

My camera is a "Panasonic HC-V700 Camcoder." I got it Nov/12 and it is a lovely, versatile little thing I can put in my pocket ideal for when I went to Central America and wanted to keep it out of sight.

Denise's recipe worked wonderfully... very pleased with the results.

TS

Do you know which of these recording modes you shot?

1080/ 60p (28Mbps / VBR)
(1920 x 1080) / HA (17Mbps / VBR)
(1920 x 1080) / HG (13Mbps / VBR)
(1920 x 1080) / HX (9Mbps / VBR)
(1920 x 1080) / HE (5Mbps / VBR)
(1920 x 1080) / iFrame (28Mbps / VBR)
(960 x 540) / SbS (17Mbps / VBR)

Glad to hear TS!

VMP

Hi JD,


I made this short movie so that I can take better advantage of your knowledge. I used MediaInfo to extract the info, as you suggested




I would really like to find a few optimal render formats for my needs.


TS

Thx again, I will check it out.

TS

Looks as if you're willing to invest the time and effort to understand what you're getting into. Congratulations!

"[I]I would really like to find a few optimal render formats for my needs.[/I]"

That task is simpler than you probably think primarily because there is a whole industry that focuses on creating usable products that the mass market can use without a college degree in the subject area.

Now that you've presented the characteristics of your input files and you've identified your camera type, one can see that your likely camera setting was

(1920 x 1080) / HA (17Mbps / VBR).

The AVCHD render template that I pointed out before will deliver the output about as well as any template [I]at about the same file size as your source[/I].

As you look at the Mediainfo report, pay attention to the Maximum Overall Bit Rate : 18 mbps. This describes the upper limit imposed by the camera and the acquisition codec. The Overall Bit Rate : 5273 mbps describes the actual bit rate of the scene that you shot. Scenes without much movement don't need the maximum bit rate because of the compression used so it's below the stated 18 mbps maximum bit rate.

As you look down the page you'll see that the video and the audio both consume bits per unit time and these bit rates sum into the total. Other things embedded in the stream can take up space but let's leave that for much later.

Now, up out of the weeds. Average bit rate x time of the video = file size.

Some people use a bit rate calculator to predict the size of files. You can find one on John Cline's site. http://www.johncline.com/bitcalc110.zip

You should always separate the different stages of the process in you mind and in your discussions here on the forum. At the highest level they are:

Acquisition (camera, etc.) ----- Editing (cutting, coloring, titles etc.) ------ Delivery (youtube, DVD/Blu-ray, single file for player)

In your case AVCHD to AVCHD is not bad.

JD,


Thanks so much for your for your analysis. (1920 x 1080) / HA (17Mbps / VBR)
This is huge information because I was completely clueless as to what format to use.

I already produced the movie last night and I was VERY pleased with the results.

Just one more question: Now that you know my specs, what template or how would you change it to produce files for the web where size can be an issue? In other words, now that I have THE optimal template for best quality vs size, what variables can I play with to reduce the size substantially for purposes of the web?

Another one: Any resources (books, websites etc) you can point me to, where I can acquire more knowledge that help me understand the information you just gave me. I guess I could search for the "basics of video rendering" and I would find plenty I am sure... but I have the feeling you may know some good ones.

I will also check out the bit calculator

Thx again

TS

Everything you ever wanted to know about creating video for you tube in Vegas Pro.



It's easier now with the Render to youtube options in Vegas 12 and 13, but this tutorial contains lots of information that everyone should know.

JD,

Loved the video but it seems to be aimed at YouTube. Now, it is very likely that what works for YouTube will probably work for the web in general... But I am not sure of this...

The results of the template you gave me were so outstanding, and since you happen to know the specs of my tools at this moment still fresh in you mind (software and hardware), no better time to ask:

Other websites, i.e. Amazon.com / Customer reviews (which I love and use all the time for my purchases) require very small videos compared with YouTube. So I am wondering if you have a formula/template, or variation of the one you gave me, again, to reduce the size and maximize its quality for this type of a website?

I promise I will give a brake after this one.

:-)

TS

Video Compression is a fascinating subject. When you break it down, "raw" video is a gigantic data stream. Let's see... each pixel in an image needs a byte (8 bits) for each of the three primary colors. Then there are 1,920 pixels in a single line, and there are 1,080 lines in a single frame. And 30 frames every second.

An encoder takes that enormous data stream and cleverly throws away stuff that, to the human eye, can't be seen or isn't important. Or which hasn't changed from the previous frame. The encoder can deliver a file that is hundreds of times smaller than the original, yet still looks just like the original. Amazing.

The most common types of compression are DV (for old-fashioned standard definition video of 720x480), MPEG2 (a biggie and what DVD disks use), HDV (developed 10 years ago for tape-based HD camcorders), and AVCHD (most common HD format these days and compatible with disk or flash-memory-based camcorders).

Via the miracle of computer technology you can trivially do things with moving images that would have required a gigantic investment and a great deal of labor just 20 years ago.

"[I]Other websites[/I]"

File Render As

MainConcept AVC/AAC (*.mp4, *.avc)

Choose sub category Internet HD 1080p, Internet HD 720p or Internet 480p widescreen.

Use the Customize Template button to match the properties that a particular site requires.

Never thought about it like that riredale. I like your writing style.