Rendering the video exploded the file size by TEN times!

ColeD wrote on 3/17/2022, 8:32 PM

I generally just want to know if I did something wrong here.

The original file (M4V format) was 736 MB. It was shot in 60 FPS and 3840 by 2160. I rendered it in XVAC S Long MP4 format after adjusting the settings to meet the aforementioned numbers. All I did was add some music and fade-in/fade-out effects--nothing else. The video ended up rendering to be 6.96 gigabytes.

Is this normal? If not, what was the better option to go with? I feel like this can't be the way it's supposed to be, so I'd like to know if there's a rendering format that retains the exact frame rate and resolution without expanding the file size so astronomically.

Back to post

Comments

Former user wrote on 3/19/2022, 6:15 PM

@ColeD I upload to YT & use the default 4k MAGIX AVC, I'm guessing some Vegas boffin chose that bitrate size to suite,

The bitrate for my 4k phone videos is roughly 40,000, again I'm guessing some Samsung boffin has decided that's correct,

Vegas's 4k MAGIX AVC produces files roughly 37,000, the rendered video on my 4k screen looks very similar to the orig, so i'm happy with that,

Sometimes i have to produce a smaller video to upload (on here, Boris's forum or FB) with a lower file size, so i choose 1920x1080 or 1280x720, then it's a case of what bitrate to choose, the defaults of those sizes might produce a file size that's too big, so i reduce the bitrate, there's a fine balance how low you can go with the bitrate before the video image looks rubbish,

Try render a 1920x1080 with a bitrate of 2,000, the file size will be low but video image will look rubbish, try rendering it at 4,000, the file size will be a bit bigger & it'll look a little bit better, try it at 8,000 it'll look better & the file size will grow with each increase, etc..

BTW, rendering at a higher bitrate than the orig media bitrate won't improve the quality, & increasing the size of a video & increasing the bitrate won't retain the video quality,

EricLNZ wrote on 3/19/2022, 6:15 PM

That's what I meant, my bad. In other words, there's no visual trade-off with the highest possible bit rate. Just a bigger file size and it takes longer. Is that correct?

Yes but not necessarily the highest possible bitrate. You reach a point where increasing the bitrate doesn't give any visual improvement.

john_dennis wrote on 3/20/2022, 9:11 AM

@ColeD @EricLNZ @Former user

There was a period in my life before I found something useful to do that I actually measured picture quality for all practical bit rates for various Vegas Pro render methods. Here is a sample:

A picture is worth a thousand words and a thousand hours.