Slideshow settings - what about this ?

Spirit wrote on 6/16/2002, 8:02 AM
I'm trying to get a good slideshow setting happening, but am having difficulties - as it seems many people do with VV3.

I've tried using a frame rate of 0.25 fps with a 4 second hold on each pic and no transition. On a 320x240 project I'm averaging on render to wmv 50K per pic. The quality is still very good.

Any comments about this method or suggestions as to how I might retain quality AND have transitions ?

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 6/16/2002, 8:51 AM
The problem you're facing is that transitions require a fast frame rate, however, more frames require more bytes in the output file even if most of the frames are identical. At a constant bit rate, having more frames per second also reduces the number of bytes that can be used for each frame and that reduces the quality.

Your 50K/picture, 4 seconds each, works out to 100Kbps. This is extremely low for video. While many people will have their own opinions of what acceptable quality is, you will probably want at least 10 times that rate to get a good image at a frame rate fast enough to show transitions.

One thing you can do to increase the quality in your situation is to enable 2-pass encoding and to set the video quality to the maximum setting. Vegas will use the first pass to analyze the video and will help it to handle the still sections between transitions more efficiently. It will then be able to devote more bits to the transitions and save bits during the static sections. It will take a lot longer to render though.
Spirit wrote on 6/16/2002, 11:38 AM
Thanks Chienworks.
I suppose my dilemma is that 80% of what I do is targeted at the web so 50K per picture is still unacceptably high. I have been using Flash5 to handle these things, but it's rather tedious to create slideshows with transitions. VV3 is a breeze in comparison.

If only I could have the beautiful GUI and ergonomics of VV3 with the file sizes of Flash (Yes, I know they're completely different beasts).

I'm waiting for my copy of FlashMX to arrive this week :) and apparantly that has a "slideshow template" so I suppose I'll just wait and see.....
Chienworks wrote on 6/16/2002, 7:31 PM
Stick with it and keep working on the Flash. If your destination is the web, then Flash is definately the way to go. Avoid video unless you actually want to show something moving. :)
Spirit wrote on 6/16/2002, 7:39 PM
It's just so tantalising though ! I can create a perfect preview in VV3 in about five minutes with 100 pictures. To do exactly the same thing in Flash will take me about three or four hours .... I'll have to think about this for a while. Maybe VV4 could exploit this functionality to compete a little more briskly in the web market ?

Funny too that 10 seconds of "slideshow" in VV3 is about three times the file size of 10 seconds of motion video ...
SonyDennis wrote on 6/16/2002, 9:39 PM
> Funny too that 10 seconds of "slideshow" in VV3 is about three times the file size of 10 seconds of motion video ...

Huh? What format / templates are you comparing here?

///d@
Spirit wrote on 6/17/2002, 7:40 AM
Thanks for your interest.

I did an approximately two minute avi multimedia 15fps 320x240 "best" - 9.4Mb

I then did a slideshow with 8 pics with the same specs + transitions and got a 47Mb file !

Later I knocked in back to about 400K, but that was at .25fps and no transitions which sort of defeats the purpose.
SonyDennis wrote on 6/17/2002, 11:01 AM
OK, format = AVI, what kind of template are you creating (codec, quality, interleave, etc.).

I can't see how content could have that drastic of an effect on rendered file size.

Why use AVI and not WMV, RM, or MOV?

///d@