VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16
Thread
  1. I have a Canon video camera. It saves files as .mts and generally look very nice. I do a fair amount of editing the videos, but certainly don't know much about file types.

    I use Sony Vega 9.0 and want to know, what do you think the best rendering filetype and options to preserve the video at best quality. I'm not overly concerned about file size (so, I don't need to use an xvid compression). Of course, I don't want 10 minutes of video costing me 3 GB of space.

    I've rendered at 6 Mbps in WMV before and it looks pretty good. Is there something better I should be using?
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poleary200 View Post
    I have a Canon video camera. It saves files as .mts and generally look very nice. I do a fair amount of editing the videos, but certainly don't know much about file types.

    I use Sony Vega 9.0 and want to know, what do you think the best rendering filetype and options to preserve the video at best quality. I'm not overly concerned about file size (so, I don't need to use an xvid compression). Of course, I don't want 10 minutes of video costing me 3 GB of space.

    I've rendered at 6 Mbps in WMV before and it looks pretty good. Is there something better I should be using?
    What is the camera? Does Canon make a 720p model?

    Rendering for what purpose? If archive keep the original file for best quality.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  3. Yeah, it is a Canon handheld. It records at 1280x720 at 30p. It looks great.

    I take all the footage and then put it together with a little music, cuts, etc. Thus, I don't really want to keep the MTS file. I want to keep the edited version rendered out to a 720p format. I'm just wondering what works best -- h264, wmv, etc. What bit rate, etc.
    Quote Quote  
  4. And yes, I do want it for archive purposes but I only want the edited rendered file...not the originals.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    What is the model number of the camcorder?

    And do you expect to edit the file again in the future or just make copies?
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  6. It is a Canon Vixia HF100. Records AVCHD.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poleary200 View Post
    It is a Canon Vixia HF100. Records AVCHD.
    There is no better archive format than the original file. It is already H.264 compressed.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  8. I hear you. However as I mentioned, I am taking the MTS files and editing them together using Sony Vegas to make my own video. Sony Vegas does NOT have an option to render as MTS. It does have options to rende to h.264 formats. However, I am wondering what the best options would be to preserve as much quality as I can. I don't want a 10 min file to take up 3 GB though (I am exaggerating there). So, I am asking for guidance as to what settings you would render from Sony Vegas to preserve as much of the original quality as possible.

    Thanks.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    I get you now.

    I haven't used 1280x720p/30 much. I usually do 1440x1080i/29.97 HDV so I have many choices in Vegas 9. 720p seems to be lacking templates.

    I set a 1280x720p/29.97 project and will experiment a bit later with a custom template.

    Maybe others have already done this.

    "Render As" options

    Click image for larger version

Name:	RenderAs.jpg
Views:	3090
Size:	30.9 KB
ID:	976

    You could use 720p HDV under MPeg2.

    "Sony AVC" options ... not many 1280x720p

    Click image for larger version

Name:	SonyAVC.jpg
Views:	226
Size:	121.1 KB
ID:	977

    AVCHD 1440x1080 60i will play directly on most Blu-Ray players.
    Last edited by edDV; 22nd Mar 2010 at 19:02.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  10. Yeah, that is what I am seeing too. I guess some general questions:

    Would you prefer h.264 over WMV? If so, what bitrate would you render in. I guess that is the thing that is really driving the file size. Is there a level that has good quality but doesn't crush on file size. I'd like it to look as close to the MTS file as possible.

    Thanks for your help so far!
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poleary200 View Post
    Yeah, that is what I am seeing too. I guess some general questions:

    Would you prefer h.264 over WMV? If so, what bitrate would you render in. I guess that is the thing that is really driving the file size. Is there a level that has good quality but doesn't crush on file size. I'd like it to look as close to the MTS file as possible.

    Thanks for your help so far!
    I have questions for you. Why is small file size important? Why 720p/30 and not 1440x1080i/29.97?

    Best quality for archive of course would be uncompressed, Cineform or lossless Huffyuv/Lagarith but the file size would be large.

    Since you are using progressive 720p, AVC/WMV/VC-1 are options for tight compression.

    MPeg2 would be better if you plan to re-edit.
    Last edited by edDV; 22nd Mar 2010 at 19:30.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  12. I don't know to be honest. The camera shoots in 720p (1280x720). So, if I went to 1440x1080, wouldn't that be be some type of upconverting?? Is that possible.

    Small file size isn't too important. Maybe I'm just over complicating things and just need to try some setting and see what I prefer?

    Once I edit it, I don't plan on re-editing.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Normal mode for AVCHD is 1440x1080i. The HF-100 also has a 1920x1080i FXP mode.

    30p mode gets 1280x720p

    Progressive avoids interlace issues but the motion is a bit jumpy.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  14. Hmmmm....in your opinion then, I am shooting in the wrong mode. I just thought 720p would be better than 1080i since it is progressive. I guess not?
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poleary200 View Post
    Hmmmm....in your opinion then, I am shooting in the wrong mode. I just thought 720p would be better than 1080i since it is progressive. I guess not?
    Pro and con.

    Interlace has higher resolution at a given bit rate 1080 (60i) vs 720 (30p).
    Interlace has twice the motion sample detail (60i) vs. (30p).

    Progressive 1920x1080 60p would be ideal but requires ~2x bit rate vs. 1080i (60i) and over 4x vs. 720 (30P).

    Progressive 30p shoots full frames. This makes computer display direct without deinterlace and makes high compression for internet distribution more direct (no deinterlace required).

    Progressive 30p will appear more motion jerky on a large HDTV vs. (60i). HDTV sets automatically deinterlace 60i to 60p/120p/240p etc.

    24p has even more issues.

    Not to say 30p and 24p shouldn't be used. If you use a tripod to minimize camera motion, 30p and 24p can work fine.
    Last edited by edDV; 22nd Mar 2010 at 22:38.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!