I always render a master from Vegas in XDcam mp4 format at 1920x1080p 29.97 fps at 35 Mbps. This encodes and resizes down to 720p beautifully in Handbrake, and unlike XDcam mxf, I get to keep both stereo channels.

John, if, after SCS were to read the valuable results carried out, what would you have SCS do?I assume that this must be sarcasm towards SCS and if so, I heartily agree. Silly me, expecting that they'd actually want to create MP4 rendering that was as good as a free tool designed by unpaid volunteers working in their spare time.

Having Handbrake produce far, far better results than Sony's encoder is like having Manchester United get beat by a bunch of guys who practice once a week after their night at the pub: they may be pretty fair football players, but they shouldn't be able to compete against dedicated pros who have only one focus in their professional life.

They sure shouldn't be able to win.

(My analogy above is inspired by years of reading "Andy Capp.")

For the most part, "unpaid volunteers working in their spare time" are fiercely independent, eschew politics and external controls, and if their product is used by others, it is seen as a secondary effect.

Not saying that the traditional corporate committee-driven development model is right or even efficient, just that it is.

< .... what would you have SCS do? >

My simple answer to Grazie's well-focussed question is, to enable us, once we have tweaked and saved our settings as a preset, to be able to:

Click (Render as / Output Format / Select preset / Click ....

and have top quality internet video.

Pete you got it.

John, no sarcasm meant at all. It's purely my wish - as it is always - to focus and distil all the good things done here and then to be clear as to what to ask of SCS.

As to the Manc analogy, remember it was my team, Southampton, that beat ManU 6-3 in 1997. Why? Mancs excuse was they couldn't see each other - the "grey kit" fiasco.

Oh well, it's worth watching again . . . If you don't like Soccer, or are a Manc, turn away now...



Grazie

(C'mon U Saints!)

What Handbrake...because it is the easiest way to use the x264 encoder via Vegas. x264 is the best AVC(H.264) encoder out there.

Curious that you did not mention what encoding settings you used for any of the codecs you compare. It's kinda important. You mentioned file size differences, which indicates encoding setting differences. While you will not be able to get same file sizes across encoders, you should be able to get very close.

The diffs between AVC encoders really only shows at lower bitrates. Exactly what is "low", i'll leave to personal opinion.

Here is an example comparison I once did at internet streaming bitrates.

Sony AVC 960x540p30 at 3Mbps high profile.
Handlbrake x264 960x540p30 1.8Mbps high profile, two pass, medium preset setting. Handbrake was fed a DNxHD MOV file at 145 Mbps setting generated from Vegas.

The x264 encode at 1.8 Mbps looked better than the 3 Mbps Sony AVC. It looked better pixel peeping on various frames picked out of the video and watching the video.

1.8 Mbps baseline profile happens to be the bitrate Smugmug streams files up to 960x540 in size. Youtube does not do 960x540 but I tested an 852x480 and it was about 1.4 Mbps.

I guess I should have called it "Why handbrake for my work?"

I record 90% sport events like figure skating which has fast motion, panning and lots of fast zooming. I use my HVR-Z5U and record in HDV 1080-60i because progressive just looks awful for fast motion. For daytime events I keep shutter speed at 60, gain between -3dB and +6dB, max iris is F4.8 and for evening events I go for -3dB to +9 or 12dB and I also allow a small iris of F11. As such, my source is HDV 1440x1080 @60i

I followed the tutorial for handbrake but got a bit confused. It is mentioned that Yadif is better for de-interlacing but I is not mentioned whether that is done in handbrake or I need to apply it as a FX. I also went the 1080p method in handbrake because 1080p is my target rather then 720p. Many of my customers like to watch the videos on their 50" and bigger smart TV with YT account build in.
I also noticed that the bit depth for the DNxHD template isn't mentioned; should it be 24 or 32?
I rendered the intermediate and followed again the tutorial to make a Handbrake template for YT. I rendered the intermediate file and ended up with a file that is similar in size and bit rate that I got straight out of Vegas 12 with the MC AVC codec.

Here are the links to a couple of test on a clip from a recent daytime figure skating event:







Please let me know what you all think. The render settings are mostly part of the video name. My "standard" currently is MC AVC 1080p, 20Mbps max, 10Mbps average, 2 pass but I must say I like the MC AVC 1080p, 12Mbps max, 8Mbps average, 2 pass with Yadif applied better. The files are all in the 280k size range except for the 720p using the Handbrake method which is way smaller, around 70k but it is not as good as the others.

So if my target is a 1080p output/upload does the handbrake method bring any benefits? If the host like YT and Vimeo does another recompression/conversion wouldn't it be better to upload a file that has as much information as possible? If playback from the host is limited to 2000-2500kbps (it was mentioned by someone here in this thread) why don't we upload at that bit rate? It was also mentioned that uploading anything higher then 8000kbps file is an overkill but I got such a file when I followed the Handbrake tutorial.


Forgive me my confusion and I certainly don't want to offend anyone. I still seem to miss the point or doing something wrong or the Handbrake method doesn't apply here because my target is a 1080p upload?

" It is mentioned that Yadif is better for de-interlacing but I is not mentioned whether that is done in handbrake or I need to apply it as a FX."
If you are working in Vegas and deinterlacing, use the third party Yadif plugin. Why? Because it is better than blend or interpolate. (It was not yet available when we wrote the tutorial.)
If you are encoding in Handbrake with interlaced source, render an interlaced intermediate in Vegas and then decomb in Handbrake. Read the Handbrake Wiki and you will see that decomb is much more than just Yadif.

"I also went the 1080p method in handbrake because 1080p is my target rather then 720p. "
Then you don't need to resize, so no issue, right? Do your work in Vegas then.

"I also noticed that the bit depth for the DNxHD template isn't mentioned;"
24 bit is 8x3 channels. 32 bit is 8x4 channels (with alpha), same as any other codec that supports alpha.

"...ended up with a file that is similar in size and bit rate that I got straight out of Vegas 12 with the MC AVC codec."
Handbrake uses CRF encoding, which is more efficient than VBR. The similar file sizes and bitrates are a coincidence in this case, nothing more, and does not mean there are no differences between the two files. CRF encoding gives a different file size and bitrate for each source, based on quality metrics, not average bitrate. Again, if you want to learn more about this, the Handbrake Wiki and forums are going to be a better place to start, rather than seeking detailed answers on the Vegas forum.

Start here:
https://trac.handbrake.fr/wiki#DocumentationHelp

Based on everything you've said, I think you should stick with Vegas for this and similar work, and not concern yourself with small details that you're not differentiating. If the quality is right for you, then Vegas is the right choice for you. Why go to the extra steps if you're not seeing any improvement?

Postscript:
The 720p Handbrake version is the only one that plays without severe stuttering on my notebook. What percentage of your viewers' systems do you believe are capable of playing or even displaying 1080p at native resolution?

The target is a playable 1080p file that looks as good as the 1080p file I play on my computer straight out of Vegas and plays on all systems. My understanding was that Handbrake and the tutorial would give me that option; I guess I have to learn more and deeper about Handbrake.
Now if the host does recompress everything to be 2000-2500kbps streaming material then it shouldnt make a difference how big the bit rate is that is fead into the host system... that is just my simple thinking?
As to how many customers are able to resolve the full 1080p; that shouldnt be a question either because everything is played at 2000-2500kbps...right? So far, all the files I provided links for do play fine on my iMac via Wifi and certainly on my PC which has a copper connection.
Anyway, I will take the time and look into the Handbrake wiki and see if I can understand it and find a solution that would fit my needs.
Deinterlacing is very important to me because the source will mostly by HD or HDV 1080i because of the fast motion recorded and YT cant handle 60p anyway. Yadif certainly did a better job then Vegas alone but at the expense of increased render times beyond realtime. Something I can still accept as I could render overnight.

@ OldSmoke,

When it comes to Vimeo and when a person pays for Vimeo Plus they do have the option for keeping the original video file there for others to download. Non plus members can too but the original file will only be available for a week and then it is gone. Standard members can upload only one HD video a week. Also, standard members have to put up with ads. I definitely do not want ads with my videos.

So with my account I upload the original video, Vimeo will convert it to their limited bandwidth version which is why the lower bit rate and also to a standard definition version of 640x360 if I remember the number right and then to a very light version for portable devices.

If a person wants, they can download the original video that you uploaded with all of its 60p quality and high bit rate or they can download one of the lesser Vimeo versions to fit whatever their needs are.

The only downside to uploading a high bit rate 60p version in the first place is the 5 gig limit for weekly uploads. If you upload a lot of videos per week or as I do a couple of very long videos then that 5 gig limit might be a problem.

Just make sure that your client(s) know that the Vimeo version is for online viewing and that there is an original downloadable version they can use for the best quality viewing.

You can embed the Vimeo videos on your web site either exclusively or on both your website and Vimeo. You can prevent others from embedding your videos on their sites as well.

A special note on subscribing to Vimeo. They make it easy to see the $9.95 a month price but not so easy to see the better lesser yearly price of $59.95. So if you decide to become a Plus member look carefully before you click. I think the monthly rate is either $9.95 or $9.99. I cannot remember which.

Anyway and as for me I am using Vimeo now because it automatically creates the HD, standard definition videos and so on for me. No need for multiple uploads to my site. And the original file is still there for downloading as well.

I hope this helps with your needs.

https://vimeo.com/channels/cocccm

[I]"Please let me know what you all think."[/I]

All the clips played out just fine on my lowly i5 office PC, no stuttering.
I really couldn't pick any significant difference, maybe I'd notice [I]something[/I] if I took the trouble to check the clips on a 1920x1080 monitor.

Things is there's nothing in the content that's going to stress an encoder, large blocks of the frame are identical and the fast moving subject far from fills the frame and doesn't have much detail.

What did grab my attention is it looks to me like you're crushing the blacks. There's no detail in the skaters pants and it is quite hard to make out his face. I appreciate dark skinned people against white are a bear but in this case I'd risk clipping the whites (ice) to get a better exposure of the face.

Bob.

"What did grab my attention is it looks to me like you're crushing the blacks. There's no detail in the skaters pants and it is quite hard to make out his face. I appreciate dark skinned people against white are a bear but in this case I'd risk clipping the whites (ice) to get a better exposure of the face."

Looks fine on both of my monitors. Your office PC monitor apparently is not calibrated properly for video or there is a setup issue with the drivers making the video look wrong on it.

I've seen settings in driver software that can make general use viewing fine but mess-up video viewing if set-up wrong.

I think you would definitely notice a difference if you took the trouble to check the clips on your 1920x1080 monitor.

[I]"Looks fine on both of my monitors. Your office PC monitor apparently is not calibrated properly for video or there is a setup issue with the drivers making the video look wrong on it."[/I]

For watching content from YouTube you do not want your monitor calibrated to video levels. The player expands the 16-235 levels to 0-255 as it expects the monitor will be setup that way.
I just checked this monitor and blacks below 5,5,5 are toast but that's pretty typical of these old TFT displays. I tried adjusting the display to lift the blacks however even getting the black pants to display as grey I can still see no detail in them.

I've now tried viewing those videos on my 1920x1200 IPS monitor which has no problems with the blacks. Now I can just see the difference between the black gloss belt and the matte black trousers depending on how the light hits them however there's little to no detail in the trousers themselves and they read to my eyes very close if not the same as the absolute black of the top and bottom bars. Maybe it's just a personal thing but I always like to preserve detail in the blacks. That said now that I've watched several of those videos processed in different ways when a few details do reveal themselves in those black trousers there's some nasties in there but now I'm really pixel peeping, no one is going to watch this frame by frame.

Bob.

Sorry, the bitrate numbers were given in the context of 720p uploads to Youtube, the tutorial recommendation, and I didn't realize you wouldn't upfactor those numbers for your 1080p resolution choice. I should have stated that. I also see Youtube has dropped its avg. bitrates yet again since I last tested.

So while I've already pointed out that an average bitrate is not a terribly important factor in considering quality and playability, especially over streaming download. here are the numbers, in order of full resolution playability on my 2009 core duo notebook with Flash 11 and 7Mbps connection, probably somewhere in the middle of your larger audience's system playback capabilities.



However, I still agree that you should continue to use Vegas for this work, and stick with your gut instincts. However, equating rendered stills with high motion video, equating avg. bitrate with both temporal quality and online playability, and equating average outdated home computers to top-shelf HT systems, are not very convincing selling points if you're trying to draw others into adopting your point of view.

Best of success, your camera work is good, if a bit underexposed.

BTW, it's an oversimplification to assume that Handbrake just uses Yadif for decomb. It's a complex process, all user definable, in almost unlimited combinations. Caution: EEDI2 and MCDEINT are s-l-o-w:

"

@musicvid10
I apologize again for my un-knowledge of all the features that Handbrake offers, I am new to it and try to understand how it can help me in my work to achieve a better quality and playable 1080p stream. All I had to rely on is the tutorial that was supposed to provide the "magic" but I didn't see it. Now I am trying to figure why it didn't and how it can. I looked at the help website that is part of handbrakes help function but I don't see all the switches you describe for setting the various de-interlace methods.
I do appreciate the time you take to teach and old dog new tricks and I have no intention to pull anyone onto my side. I don't even know what my side is in this case now as I have not given up on the Handbrake method yet. How would I go about keeping the 1080p and reduce the bitrate? Should I select Avg Bitrate instead of RF?

@farss
I am glad all the clips played well on your system but it seems that slightly older systems don't fair so well when it comes to full 1080p streaming. I am not sure if that is a bit rate issue as that seems to be limited by YT but rather a hardware and connection issue at the end user. That would suggest that YT and the Internet is not ready for full 1080p high quality streaming.
As for crushed blacks the final rendered clip has all the details but I must say there aren't many to start with. The fabric has hardly any wrinkles as the pants are made from elastic fabric which also is deeply black and matt. I may have left my camera on a profile that crushes blacks a bit, it's a preset profile in Z5U called Film Look 1 which I usually use outdoors.
I can see your point about the footage no stressing the encoder far enough, I'll see if I cant something more "stressful".

I see that you missed an important point early in the tutorial; that "the [Vegas method] produces satisfactory, and in many cases excellent results for Youtube, [and] works best with video that . . does not require deinterlacing or resizing before uploading to Youtube."

I've made a note to give additional emphasis to that point in the next version of the tutorial, and also make mention of the availability of a third party Yadif plugin in Vegas, although we still have nothing near Lanczos resizing capability, a real problem when working with DSLR footage. With the dozens of small changes that have occurred over the past two years, the tutorial is in need of updating, and has already created some minor confusion for viewers who may tend to take every point as literal truth, rather than in a larger context, the passage of time being one such consideration.

To your last question, you and I have no control over the bitrate at which Youtube will process our video. Uploading RF20 or ~3x the delivery bitrate are reasonable starting points, without wasting a lot of encoding time and bandwidth. Again, regarding CRF vs. Bitrate encoding metric, which are not related, there is a mountain of discussion over at Handbrake, starting here:
https://trac.handbrake.fr/wiki/HandBrakeGuide

"That would suggest that YT and the Internet is not ready for full 1080p high quality streaming."
No, many, if not most power users here will claim full 1080p progressive download (not "streaming") playback on their HT systems and fast connections. That suggests that average outdated home computers and connections are the limiting factor, and one that must be honored if you are to reach most of your target audience. That's a point I've made from day one.

I'm afraid I've exhausted my value to this thread, so rather than any more redundancy, I'll urge you to experiment, and believe in the solutions that are already working for you. Best.

@musicvid10
No I didn't miss that point as mine does require de-interlacing and also a change of pixel aspect ratio from HDV to HD; I haven't tried uploading 1440x1080 but I doubt it will work.
I have rendered the clip again using handbrake but at an avrg bit rate of 5000kbps; I left all other settings as is. The file is half the size but that isn't so important, the question now is if it plays back on your system too. The quality is still acceptable to me for that kind of footage. Yes, there is the magic! It is much better then what I can get from MC AVC at the same bit rate!
I know that we do not have any control over the bit rate to which YT is encoding the uploaded footage and we also don't have any control about the bit rate it is streamed at. Therefore my question is why does it stutter on one system and not on the other? Is it end user hardware related, connection speed related or....?? I am still new to all this as I usually deliver DVDs and BluRay but more and more customer would like to view it on their smart TVs, computers, tablets and smart phones.

"Therefore my question is why does it stutter on one system and not on the other?"

Hundreds of factors unrelated to average bitrate alone, that you will need to dig out for yourself. There is no magic bullet, only the relative experiences of others to go by, I'm afraid.

Your uploaded 1080p 5000Kbps ABR did not improve playability on my system, but may have affected motion detail slightly, both as expected.

Sorry, I'm not going to be available for field testing your uploads, although others here may have more time available for that.
I can say that there have been no comments of stuttering with the tutorial itself, which was of course produced precisely following the directions.
;?)

>You can embed the Vimeo videos on your web site either exclusively or on both your website and Vimeo. You can prevent others from embedding your videos on their sites as well.

Vidmus, I am a Vimeo Plus user but an not aware how to embed Vimeo videos on my web site exclusively. I currently have them both places. What do you do to make it exclusive to your website?

/jerry

Here is my last try as I don't understand why I am loosing so much detail when I use the Handbrake method as described in the tutorial. I rendered a DNxHD 1080i instead of 1080p out of Vegas and let Handbrake do the resizing and deinterlacing to 720p using the SLOW setting all other settings are as per the tutorial.



Is this the result I should expect using the Handbrake method? Does it now playback nicely? If the answer is yes to both, then my conclusion is that YT isn't ready for 1080p and that one has to expect some loss in detail due to downsizing 1080p to 720p at the gain of playability.