I have an MPEG that Windows Explorer reports is 3,940,599,808 bytes or 3.66 GB. More like 3.67 but Explorer is close enough. Especially compared to what Vegas 5 and DVDA 2 report. They both tell me that it is 3.85GB in size and when I drag it onto the menu in DVDA the disk space used jumps up to 4.1GB! I kow the disk estimates in DVDA have been screwed up for a long time but I wasn't aware of the error in each programs explorer.
So anyway I send an email to Sony support asking them about the error. Here is the reply I get from Kimberley:
"Thanks for writing. Please see the article at the link below:
Title: Unable to render a file larger than 3.9GB.
URL:
http://www.custcenter.com/cgi-bin/sonypictures.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=507&p_created=1020315600 "
The contents of the link:
"Question
Unable to render a file larger than 3.9GB. When I render a project in my Sony Pictures Digital application, I can only render up to 3.99 GB worth of data, and then I'm told I can't render any further. Why?
Answer
Under Windows 98, 98se, and ME, (as stated in my original email I am using XP) your drives can be formatted as FAT (File Allocation Table) or FAT32. The largest a single file can be on these operating systems is 4 GB. You can reach 4 GB rather quickly with digital video renders. (no s**t) For instance, NTSC DV AVI files take up about 3.5 MB per second of video. Under Windows 2000 and Windows XP the operator has the ability to format their drives as FAT, FAT32, or NTFS (New Technology File System) (hmmmmm). NTFS has no file size limitation other than the maximum amount your hard drive can carry."
Not even close. So I type a reply between the little lines and send it back. As usual I get one of these:
"Your reply did not process correctly. Please REPLY to this message and
enter the text between the specified lines. Your message has been
included below.
[===> Please enter your reply below this line <===]
[===> Please enter your reply above this line <===]"
I have yet to send a request to tech support and get a solid solution in return. Common responses are " We can't duplicate that problem here" or silly knowledge base links like the one above. Add to this wait periods sometimes stretching on for weeks.
Not really looking for an answer anymore although I am curious. I just wanted to share my frustration.
So anyway I send an email to Sony support asking them about the error. Here is the reply I get from Kimberley:
"Thanks for writing. Please see the article at the link below:
Title: Unable to render a file larger than 3.9GB.
URL:
http://www.custcenter.com/cgi-bin/sonypictures.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=507&p_created=1020315600 "
The contents of the link:
"Question
Unable to render a file larger than 3.9GB. When I render a project in my Sony Pictures Digital application, I can only render up to 3.99 GB worth of data, and then I'm told I can't render any further. Why?
Answer
Under Windows 98, 98se, and ME, (as stated in my original email I am using XP) your drives can be formatted as FAT (File Allocation Table) or FAT32. The largest a single file can be on these operating systems is 4 GB. You can reach 4 GB rather quickly with digital video renders. (no s**t) For instance, NTSC DV AVI files take up about 3.5 MB per second of video. Under Windows 2000 and Windows XP the operator has the ability to format their drives as FAT, FAT32, or NTFS (New Technology File System) (hmmmmm). NTFS has no file size limitation other than the maximum amount your hard drive can carry."
Not even close. So I type a reply between the little lines and send it back. As usual I get one of these:
"Your reply did not process correctly. Please REPLY to this message and
enter the text between the specified lines. Your message has been
included below.
[===> Please enter your reply below this line <===]
[===> Please enter your reply above this line <===]"
I have yet to send a request to tech support and get a solid solution in return. Common responses are " We can't duplicate that problem here" or silly knowledge base links like the one above. Add to this wait periods sometimes stretching on for weeks.
Not really looking for an answer anymore although I am curious. I just wanted to share my frustration.