How to generate a movie alternating between 3 clips

[WebMaximus]

Yeah, looks like you have to go to platinum. I'm surprised. Can you finish this within the trial period?


[Attachment 18470 - Click to enlarge]

Thanks for opening my eyes, can't believe I missed that one because I actually checked the comparison chart myself trying to find exactly this info.

Well...too bad since that means I would need to spend 65 Euro rather than 35 Euro only to be able to choose my own output format. IMHO I think that is a very "ugly" limitation put in by Sony. I have no problem with spending extra money for more advanced and special features but that I have to go to a Platinum version only to be able to choose in what format I would like to save my work...let me say I'm not that impressed by that decision...

Anyway I'll try uninstalling this basic version I'm running now and then download and install this Platinum version instead to find out if it will let me use a Trial version of that too and also to find out if that version indeed will allow me to save my output in any format I want using the codecs I want. If so I might at least consider spending the extra money because I really want this effect where I combine three clips into one and then have the output clip alternate between the input clips and as far as I can tell after all time I've already spent on this it seems this effect is very hard to accomplish using any other programs/tools. Of course I could go for some other payware software but I guess the price tag won't be much different maybe even worse.

[DB83]

Sorry. Could not see that selection from the two screen-shots.

[WebMaximus]

If you want to try h264 within Vegas then just select AVC/AAC (.mp4)

This should work well. I'd be curious to see a mediainfo report on your 7 sec 1GB clip.

These are the available templates I have under AVC/AAC



Choosing the first one (selected in the screenshot) results in a file with a m2ts extension and the other two result in a file extension called AAC. Personally I've never heard of those before but then again I guess that's because I'm a simple amateur

Here is a screenshot from VMS's explorer view showing my 7 seconds clip rendered using the HD 1080-60i YUV template where you see both the size and the other media info

[smrpix]

Your video is uncompressed, accounting for the file size. The Blu-ray 10Mbps should be more reasonable.

[WebMaximus]

Sorry. Could not see that selection from the two screen-shots.

Sorry, forgot to add the screenshots. Now we know why I don't have this customize button (need to go Platinum) but I added the missing screenshots to my post anyway if you want to have a look.

I'll now try to upgrade to the Platinum version and see what happens and will report back my findings.

Thanks a lot guys for all your input and help so far, much appreciated !!

[WebMaximus]

Your video is uncompressed, accounting for the file size. The Blu-ray 10Mbps should be more reasonable.

Tried that and you're so correct, using that template resulted in a file only about 8 MB instead. On the other hand my Windows doesn't recognize this filetype so to play back a movie saved in this format I guess I must either install some additional codec or find a way to convert from avc to some other format. Maybe I could do this by installing a codec pack like K-lite and then use VirtualDub for example to convert the file...?

[DB83]

When you sort out the render issue, might I suggest that you combine your original idea of PIP (quite easy to achieve with a NLE) and the alternative video.

Then you can have the alternative shot full screen with another alternative in the PIP window.

[DB83]

Sony SD YUV should also give you an uncompressed video which you can import into vdub.

Try NOT to install ANY codec pack.

[WebMaximus]

When you sort out the render issue, might I suggest that you combine your original idea of PIP (quite easy to achieve with a NLE) and the alternative video.

Then you can have the alternative shot full screen with another alternative in the PIP window.

That's a very cool idea once I like you say get this rendering issue out of the way

Since I don't really like having to spend an additional 30 Euro only to be able to save in any format I like I just started looking in to if and how I could convert avc files to avi files using the right tools and VirtualDub and looks like it might work but will have to do some more reading first.

If I manage to fix this I could stay with the basic version saving me 30 Euros but that depends how cumbersome and time-consuming it would be to perform this extra step. If I only was to do this one single time I would be OK with that but if I get this to work the way I want I plan to do lots of cool FSX movies mainly shooting approaches into different beautiful locations from different views.

[WebMaximus]

Sony SD YUV should also give you an uncompressed video which you can import into vdub.

Try NOT to install ANY codec pack.

Thanks I'll try that right away before spending any more time looking for how to convert avc files.

[DB83]

Expand the 'Video For Windows' option and let us see if we if we can pick one for you.

[WebMaximus]

Sony SD YUV should also give you an uncompressed video which you can import into vdub.

Try NOT to install ANY codec pack.

Just tried this. I had to uncheck Match project settings in the Render As dialog though for the SD YUV templates to show up and I chose the one called NTSC SD YUV which resulted in a output file with an .avi extension. Tried playing it right away just for fun but didn't get any video but only audio. I then tried feeding VirtualDub with it and then re-saved the file using your favourite Xvid codec but in this case you're very correct about the bad image quality which in this case was not acceptable.

[WebMaximus]

Expand the 'Video For Windows' option and let us see if we if we can pick one for you.

Have a look at post #29

[DB83]

Ok. But is your Fraps source NTSC or PAL ?.

[WebMaximus]

It's NTSC ie 30 FPS, here's a screenshot of the properties of the original 7 sec FRAP clip



And I just tried for fun to compare the quality using VirtualDub right away instead both using Xvid and H.264 seen below

Rendered by Sony SD YUV

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/94801887/Rendered%20by%20Sony%20SD%20YUV.avi

Rendered by VirtualDub using Xvid

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/94801887/Rendered%20by%20VirtualDub%20using%20Xvid.avi

Rendered by VirtualDub using H.264

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/94801887/Rendered%20by%20VirtualDub%20using%20H.264.avi

[DB83]

I have a surprise for you.

Check the mediainfo report of the first clip. That will explain why your second clip has poor quality.

[WebMaximus]

I have a surprise for you.

Check the mediainfo report of the first clip. That will explain why your second clip has poor quality.

Hmm...not sure I'm following you now...?

[DB83]

Well somewhow you managed to render the Sony clip in Xvid.

That was then imported in to vdub and you then re-encoded that, again in Xvid, but at a higher frame size and bitrate. So in doing that you lost more visual quality 720*3xx blown up to 1920*1080.

The Sony clip should have been encoded as uncompressed. Well it was when I tried it yesterday.

[WebMaximus]

Well somewhow you managed to render the Sony clip in Xvid.

That was then imported in to vdub and you then re-encoded that, again in Xvid, but at a higher frame size and bitrate. So in doing that you lost more visual quality 720*3xx blown up to 1920*1080.

The Sony clip should have been encoded as uncompressed. Well it was when I tried it yesterday.

Ahh...now I see what you mean but that is not true and this confusion was caused by me naming the first clip badly. When I used the template you suggested to render the clip in Vegas this is how that file looks in MediaInfo...



...but since that file wouldn't play the video stream but only the audio stream I fed VirtualDub with it and then chose to re-save it using the Xvid codec for compression and that resulted in the file I called Rendered by Sony SD YUV...again a bad choice of name so sorry for the confusion.

I also tried doing the same thing but using the H.264 codec instead when re-saving the file using VirtualDub but same problem...the IQ especially during the panning around in the short clip is not good at all compared to when I compress the FRAPS original file directly using VirtualDub and Xvid or H.264.

[WebMaximus]

Another thing I'm wondering is why I had to uncheck the Match project settings setting for this NTSC SD YUV template to show up in the list? That to me indicate there's some incompatibility somewhere and maybe that's what causing the video stream to not play and for the bad quality when later re-saved using VirtualDub and Xvid or H.264 for compression?

[DB83]

So you encoded twice in Xvid ? The two clips have different properties.

Can you upload the fraps original ?

[WebMaximus]

No, first I opened the original FRAPS clip in Vegas I then I rendered it using the template you suggested (NTSC SD YUV) which as I understood it resulted in an uncompressed clip. This uncompressed clip would only play the audio and not the video so I then opened this uncompressed clip in VirtualDub where I then re-saved it/compressed it and I tried both using Xvid and H.264 but the quality was not very good regardless of what codec I used.

If I on the other hand open the FRAPS original clip in VirtualDub and then do the same thing, that is to re-save it/compress it the quality is much better both when using Xvid and when using H.264 so the way I see it it appears first opening the original FRAPS clip in Vegas and render it using the NTSC SD YUV template does something to the clip that makes it loose in quality.

Here's a link to the original FRAPS clip:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/94801887/A%20short%20test%20FRAPS%20clip.avi

[DB83]

Thanks for that.

What is interesting is that Vegas does not recognise the video codec. It just shows the audio stream. Neither does vdub for that matter. Later, I will install fraps as that will probably make a difference.

[WebMaximus]

OK, that's weird but it's probably as you say because you don't have FRAPS installed because I don't have any problem opening this clip in Vegas nor in VirtualDub.

Before downloading Vegas I tried a freeware video editor called VSDC and I must say I don't really understand all this with codecs etc because when I saved a FRAPS clip in that editor using the same codecs I use in VirtualDub (Xvid and H.264) the quality again was very poor but when using the very same codecs with VirtualDub the quality is very good and that puzzles me how come the result is so different depending on what software you use when the very same codecs are used.

Reason I came to think about this is I hope it won't be the same thing with Vegas but considering Vegas as I understood it is considered to be one of the best out there surely you must be able to save your clips both with a reasonable filesize and still a decent quality. Would feel very strange if I was able to have a better quality/size result using a freeware software like VirtualDub.

[WebMaximus]

Just noticed there's both a 32 and 64-bit version of Vegas 12 Platinum and I'm not sure which one would be my best pick?

I'm running Win7 x64 so for that reason the 64-bit version would feel right and to be able to make best use of my hardware but I know in some other situations although you're running a 64-bit OS it's still recommended to go for 32-bit software for compatibility reasons etc and maybe this is such a situation thinking about all codecs and stuff...?

[DB83]

This is a quick 'n dirty encode of your fraps clip using Xvid under Vegas.

It is quite a high bitrate, neccessary for the large frame size. Even so the final file is only 14% of the original.

The sound is untouched but there are savings possible.

Compare that to your effort using vdub.

I'll do a h264 sample later.

[WebMaximus]

Hurray, hurray, hurray...it's working

Downloaded the 64-bit version of Vegas 12 Platinum and finally I had the customize button to click on in the Render As dialog where I was able to pick Xvid and this resulted in a 900 MB file which is a 10 minutes short testflight taking off and landing in Helsinki.

Considering it's size I fully understand if you guys are not into downloading it but for anyone interested I attach a link to the clip. I noticed when watching it I missed bringing back the focus 100% in one situation when changing views but this was only a simple test and I'm thrilled I finally was able to see an actual result!!

Now next thing will be for me to see if I can find any way to produce the same thing in Vegas 11 using some of the default templates and if I can't find a suitable default template convert it myself using VirtualDub because 65 Euros is much more than I was planning (or willing) to spend but if this is the only way doing it maybe I will.

Here's the link to the video

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/94801887/Test%20using%20Vegas%2012%2064bit%20and%20Xvid.avi

[DB83]

As for the 64 bit question, I would have thought that a properly written 64 bit version of a program will perform better than a 32 bit version in a 32 bit PC.

Someone with more knowledge would be able to confirm, or otherwise, that the 64 bit program would also perfom better if it can access the extra memory, if your system has it, whereas a 32 bit program is limited to 3 gig.

But do they actually sell both versions separately or are both included in the 'box'

[WebMaximus]

This is a quick 'n dirty encode of your fraps clip using Xvid under Vegas.

It is quite a high bitrate, neccessary for the large frame size. Even so the final file is only 14% of the original.

The sound is untouched but there are savings possible.

Compare that to your effort using vdub.

I'll do a h264 sample later.

Thanks, looked pretty good but I guess having a test where I pan around the view that fast isn't the best example since I don't think I'll do any clips with that fast movement. MS Flight Simulator X in itself is known to be very hard to get smooth and still keep a good IQ.

Just posted my result after trying Vegas version 12 and finally I got it to work and I think the quality was very good so I'm more than happy. What I'm not equally happy about is that the price for this version not only is 65 Euro but on top of that VAT will also be added and I'm not 100% sure how it works when you buy a download over Internet but the VAT in Sweden is a whopping 25% meaning I would have to pay over 80 Euro for the Platinum version and that is some serious money and far more than I was planning to spend on this.

Oh well...for the time being I'll just enjoy the good feeling finally having this work and dream about it until tomorrow

[DB83]

I will pass on the 10 min clip. Off course, frankly speaking 900 meg for 10 minutes is horrendous for Xvid although it is, if my math is correct, only 25% of my sample.

What I would do now is experiment with other codecs such as h264 as you should be able to reduce that file size significantly and retain that visual quality.