WMV or MPEG-2? Quality?

i c e wrote on 1/9/2009, 1:02 PM
Hello everyone,
My first post here. I didn't know sony had a forum.

I am filming a video on my Sony HDR-Cx12 (I love it), loading it into the picture motion browser then converting before editing.
My question is, Can I convert to MWV and still get good quaility picture?
I am making a DVD that I will give out in South America where it will be veiwed on older non-HD TV's.
Working with WMV files is so much easier and fast than MPEG-2 files ( I have a very tight deadline!) but I don't want it to look crumy when I am finished, you know?
Ultamitly I will render as AVI but all the editing will be done before that.

Can any one help?


ice

Comments

Ivan Lietaert wrote on 1/9/2009, 1:25 PM
The rule of thumb is to keep the number of renderings as low as possible. If the final product is a dvd, the right way to go is to render to mpeg2. You can do that in Vegas yourself, or you can first render to dv-avi and then have DVDA convert it to mpeg2 when burning the dvd.
WMV is a format that is normally used for playback on pcs or for delivery over the internet.
Eugenia wrote on 1/9/2009, 1:26 PM
I think you have a few things mixed up. WMV is unbearably slow to edit on Vegas, mpeg2 is not. So if you care about editing speed, mpeg2 is much faster.

And if you are making a DVD, then mpeg2 it is again.
i c e wrote on 1/9/2009, 7:10 PM
Thanks for the anwsers.

I am sure I am mixed up but not about the WMV vs MPEG2 thing. MPEG2 In Vegas Platnum is unbearably slow and WMV is super fast and easy. Hense the question.

I think I have to go with MPEG-2. The resolution when converting in Picture Motion Browser is only 640x480.
Does anyone know the resolution is on most SD TV's (not LCD or Flat Screens) is? Approx.?

Thanx again,

ice
Ivan Lietaert wrote on 1/9/2009, 10:41 PM
Ice, make no mistake: for non hd resolutions, rendering to mpeg2 should be the faster than wmv.
Rendering to widescreen mpeg2 is 720x576.

Take your time to get familiar with the right workflow for your camera. Your camera is full hd (1920x1080), so you should never downgrade your movies to anything lower until the final rendering of the movie.
I myself am not familiar with the workflow details of this particular camera, but I'm sure other people on this forum will help you.
Keyan wrote on 1/16/2009, 6:46 AM
Actually, the resolution on that camera depends entirely on the recording mode selected. Assuming it is the same as my SR11, only HD FH is actually 1920x1080, HD HQ is 1440x1080 with a 1.3333 pixel aspect, and the other two options are SD 720x576 with two different bitrates.

Since this model is memory-stick only, I am going to guess that you are probably not using the HD FH as you can burn up an 8gig card in about an hour of recording IIRC.

Going up from a lower res, i.e. 1440x1080, will only take a LOT longer, and not really gain you anything.

Your best bet is to look at the info for the file (listed under the explorer box when you click on a file) and make sure you don't go lower or higher than the native resolution of the clip, UNLESS you are rendered for say a standard definition DVD, then you don't have a choice.

I have found that .WMV looks nice, but the rendering time is VERY slow.
ritsmer wrote on 1/16/2009, 7:41 AM
When you render to WMV using Vegas then the WMV codec seems to 'expect' Computer RGB - meaning that the result looks rather pale compared to the same video rendered to mpeg2 - so do not go the WMV-way.

If you use other Vegas/Studio versions than the last ver.9 you will see that WMV rendering speed slows down significantly from the second and following times you render to WMV after starting Vegas.