Help with codec settings ?

[Tafflad]

I am loading MP4 files into VD ( media info attached if interested)
After processing I would like to save as high quality Mpeg-4 for later editing in Sony Vegas

I have the x264vfw - H264/MPEG-4 AVC codec installed.

However I am unsure what settings I should be using for best quality output
I know I need to use HIGH profile

There are a number of other options:
Preset
Tuning
Convert to
Rate Control
Rate factor

etc.

Could someone familiar with this codec suggest what I should be setting these to ... video clips have a lot of motion, rest of relevant data I assume is in mediainfo file attached.

[newpball]

For starters I would recommend Full range when you record.

Second H.264 is not an editing format, if you are going to edit the video save it in an editing format.
For instance CineForm, Grass Valley HQX, ProRes DNxHD etc.

[Tafflad]

I don't understand the reply ? The media info shows what I get .. I have no option other than to alter codec ...I record at 1080p 60fps
I have no option for 'full range'

[newpball]

I don't understand the reply ? The media info shows what I get .. I have no option other than to alter codec ...I record at 1080p 60fps
I have no option for 'full range'

What's the brand and model of your camera?

[Tafflad]

Currently it is a Canon G16

[Tafflad]

I need to 'save' in a format that is going to be suitable for edit in Vegas ... the original material is what it is, I have nothing to change in the camera.
Currently been saving in Lagarith (as its lossless) ... just thought Mpeg-4 would have been better as ultimate output render from Vegas will be MP4 (AVC/AAC) in 30fps

If there is a better interim format to use as the VD output please advise

[hello_hello]

MagicYUV is the latest and greatest lossless codec. I don't use Vegas so I don't know if it'll use "system" codecs for decoding. If it will, give MagicYUV a try. I haven't used it for a while myself but from memory it's output file sizes are similar to Lagarith while encoding at a speed similar to huffyuv.

[pippas]

I need to 'save' in a format that is going to be suitable for edit in Vegas ... the original material is what it is, I have nothing to change in the camera.
Currently been saving in Lagarith (as its lossless) ... just thought Mpeg-4 would have been better as ultimate output render from Vegas will be MP4 (AVC/AAC) in 30fps

If there is a better interim format to use as the VD output please advise

In your situation, I would take the raw footage from the camera and convert it to Grass Valley HQX for editing. (You can find links to the free HQX codec and converter utility in the first post in this thread ).

Those HQX files will be larger than the camera files (typically about 4 times larger) but much smaller than Lagarith files.

Use those files to edit in Vegas. As intraframe files HQX files will be much easier to edit with than the original camera files - as newqball has already suggested.

When it comes to outputting from Vegas, you can frame serve to Virtualdub using this free program

To get a high quality output file using the x.264 VFW codec in Virtualdub, set the configuration to 'default' to start. Then use the 'single pass rate factor based CRF mode', and set the quality to 18 . Tick the Virtualdub hack box to maintain audio sync. That's all I do....

That should give you a high quality output AVI with linear PCM audio. You can than convert that to mp4 in a variety of ways, if you need to. I personally use mp4box to do that.

I have tried that setting with a Canon G16 sample I found online, and it looks pretty good.....although I didn't use Vegas to edit, I just used Avisynth and Virtualdub on the HQX file...

[Tafflad]

Thanks .... understand first part
Is there any benefit to the 'frameserving ou't compared to just using built in 'RenderAs' otpions ? is the VD X264 codec as an interim, going to give better quality MP4 (final file) than direct render form Vegas ?

[pippas]

Is there any benefit to the 'frameserving ou't compared to just using built in 'RenderAs' otpions ? is the VD X264 codec as an interim, going to give better quality MP4 (final file) than direct render form Vegas ?

Unfortunately, that's the unknown part!... I'm sure that Vegas has a reasonable mp4 output option (although you wouldn't ideally set it as 30fps as you mentioned above - at least not with a 60fps original)

(Actually as you are - like me - in PAL land, that should probably read 25 or 50 fps, not 30 and 60)

The best way to compare would be to output a file as mp4 from Vegas, and also take a short unedited 'HQX' clip from the smae footage and export that from within Virtualdub, using the x.264 VFW settings I described. See how similar they look.

With the Canon sample footage I mentioned above, I can;t see any loss of quality in the edited version from Virtualdub as all.... There must be some of course, but it's absolutely minimal to my eye....

[Tafflad]

For DVD I normally set to 25fps ... for Internet many sources say to set to 23.976 as Youtube will transcode anyway and sets to that ....... I am using Vimeo more nowadays and they state for best quality uploads:

"look at the frame rate of your source … if it is greater than 30 then set frame rate to ½ of that
i.e. if frame rate is 60fps then set frame rate to 30fps (29.97)"

As my source is 60 fps ... I should use 29.976

I'll try the test - probably put results here for comparison.
Is there documentation here (or elsewhere) as to what each of the settings are in the x264vfw - H264/MPEG-4 AVC codec

[smrpix]

For your actual editing use an i-frame only codec such as Grass Valley HQX, Cineform, DNxHD, etc. You can even use DV.

Here's the thing -- it doesn't matter what you edit with as long as it's i-frame, so there's no reason to use large lossless files like Lagarith at this stage of the game.

When your editing is finished, link back to your original camera sources -- that is the best quality you will ever have -- and export from that relinked timeline.

Vegas is capable of using x264 (and all of its parameters directly) if you have the x264vfw codec loaded and export to an avi container. If you need mp4, you can easily remux with a simple ffmpeg command.* The only use for frameserving is if you want to interject avisynth commands between Vegas and the encoder.



* Sample ffmpeg command: -i mymovie.avi -vcodec copy -acodec libvo_aacenc -b:a 320k -ac 2 -ar 48000 -o mymp4movie.mp4

[Tafflad]

Regarding Grass Valley codec .... it installs 4 variants
Grass Valley C210
Grass Valley DV
Grass Valley HQ
Grass Valley HQX
Grass Valley Lossless

Should I be using HQx as per above post ... asking as Grass Valley site states it is the Lossless that will be 4 x the file size ( which is also mentioned)

I'll then go do some tests

[pippas]

Should I be using HQx as per above post ... asking as Grass Valley site states it is the Lossless that will be 4 x the file size ( which is also mentioned)

HQX files ( using the 'online (fine)' setting) will be about 4 or 5 times the original AVCHD or mp4 camera file size. Lossless will be about 50 times bigger....

Use HQX. The quality difference is minimal from lossless. The files are a lot smaller and easier to deal with....

[Tafflad]

OK have some files for comparison ........... welcome your feedback.
All from same source file (mediainfo attached)

#. Loaded file into Vegas cut to 15sec clip, and rendered as AVC 12,000,000 bps Sample A

#. Loaded file into VD, cut to 15sec clip, saved as HQx, then loaded that into Vegas and Rendered as before Sample B

#. Loaded file into VD, cut to 15sec clip, saved as Lagarith, then loaded that into Vegas and Rendered as before Sample C

#. Took HQx sample and loaded back into VD saved as X.264 VFW (settings as advised) "Sample D"

First obvious comments is that the X.264 VFW is 7.5 larger than the AVC files (would use 4GB per Hr)

Interested in what you concur from these samples.

What difference is there between loading original AVC files direct into Vegas compared to converting them to HQx first, is AVC not an I-Frame codec ? .. can understand if I am doing any work in VD first there would be advantages in saving as HQx. or is AVC not considered and 'editing format'

[poisondeathray]

I' m not sure what you're tying to show with those samples ?

You can use any bitrate, any quality or filesize setting with x264 . You can even use I-frame, low compression (faster editing) settings

The primary advantage of encoding to an I-frame intermediate such as HQX, cineform etc... is editing speed. Take your original video and try to scrub around on the timeline and compare that to doing it with HQX or cineform. It is "smoother" than trying to edit the original natively . The difference might only be perceptibly small on 1080p with modern computers - but it is there. But if you try it on UHD material, there is a big difference on today's computers. If you are familiar with online video games it's like "lag" or high pings. The reponsiveness is not as optimal . To an editor, that buttery smooth "feeling" is like eating chocolate.

The 2nd advantage is stability. It's not much of an issue these days, but sometimes editors will crash or have various other issues with long GOP formats. I-frame formats are always more stable

[pippas]

#. Took HQx sample and loaded back into VD saved as X.264 VFW (settings as advised) "Sample D"

First obvious comments is that the X.264 VFW is 7.5 larger than the AVC files (would use 4GB per Hr)

Not quite sure how you managed to achieve sample D?..... The first 3 samples are 1280x720 at 29.97fps, with AAC audio, and a video sample rate of about 12Mbps

'Sample D' is 1920 x 1080 at 59.94fps with a video bit rate of 92.8Mbps ! On top of that the audio is now PCM. So all those differences account for the huge increase in file size....

Taking your 'Sample A' file, and using the following workflow ....

1) Convert the original mp4 file to Grass Valley HQX, using their AVCHD2HQ conversion utility That will provide an HQX video file, with a linear PCM audio file.

2) Open the HQX file in Virtualdub (Vdub).


3) Use a simple Avisynth script to title and fade the clip, and open that script in Vdub.

4)Output from Vdub using vfw x.264 codec, set as a single pass CRF option, with a CRF quality setting of 18. (All other x.264 parameters use the default settings).

5) Export the audio from the HQX file by using the 'save wav' option in Vdub.

6) Convert that audio to AAC using the Fre:ac portable audio converter (takes only a few seconds) Audio saved as m4a

5) De-mux the avi file in Mp4box GUI

6) Take the h.264 video file from that process and mux it with the AAC audio m4a file, again using Mp4Box GUI.


Attached is the final version of your 'Sample A' processed using the procedure described above. As you can see, the file is a bit smaller than the original, but looks very similar, quality wise......It would probably look even better if it had been processed from the original 60fps camera file.....


I can't see how you managed to get a video bit rate of 92.8Mbps by using a CRF quality setting of 18 in the Vdub settings?......

[Tafflad]

I' m not sure what you're tying to show with those samples ?

You can use any bitrate, any quality or filesize setting with x264 . You can even use I-frame, low compression (faster editing) settings

The primary advantage of encoding to an I-frame intermediate such as HQX, cineform etc... is editing speed. Take your original video and try to scrub around on the timeline and compare that to doing it with HQX or cineform. It is "smoother" than trying to edit the original natively . The difference might only be perceptibly small on 1080p with modern computers - but it is there. But if you try it on UHD material, there is a big difference on today's computers. If you are familiar with online video games it's like "lag" or high pings. The reponsiveness is not as optimal . To an editor, that buttery smooth "feeling" is like eating chocolate.

The 2nd advantage is stability. It's not much of an issue these days, but sometimes editors will crash or have various other issues with long GOP formats. I-frame formats are always more stable

I had (wrongly ) thought that I should use x264 for the files I then onwards process in Vegas .... seems I would be better using HQx .. so I'm happy to do that.

The second part was it was suggested I visually compare Vegas AVC codec using both same file compressed with AVC and HQx .... as HQx should be better in an NLE.
The samples were to try and confirm this.

I can't see any difference between AVC direct into Vegas or when run first through intermediate conversion with HQx .... the resulting output file seems the same ? (I may be wrong)

If I use VD ... I will in future use HQX for the output when that is going into Vegas ....... the main question seems to be is there any benefit to always converting files to HQx before editing (even if no other work in VD)




The question I suppose is more of a simple one

[Tafflad]

I can't see how you managed to get a video bit rate of 92.8Mbps by using a CRF quality setting of 18 in the Vdub settings?......

I simply loaded the HQx files back into VD, set video compression to x264 and set audio to direct stream copy.



The rest of your post puts far too many steps in the process for me ......... I don't have that level of experience.

In simple terms the Sony AVC/AAC codec in Vegas seems to do a good job .... so there seems no reason to change from that as the 'output' method.
I will use HQx any time I use VD ............ and as per the comment above (#18) if you guys think it better I convert all video to HQx before editing in Vegas I am happy to follow that recommendation.
I will download the converter so I can do this conversion without needing to use VD

[poisondeathray]

HQX, cineform - those are in the category of "visually lossless". There are differences, but you need to look frame by frame, maybe even zoomed in to see them. For most people, the differences are negligible for general usage scenarios

If you need truly mathematically lossless, then you can use a lossless codec like lagarith. But note, vegas doesn't handle YUV lossless codecs as lossless - they get converted to RGB. If the operations you did in vdub converted to RGB anyways (e.g. deshaker or some other RGB filters), and you used an RGB lossless intermediate, then you're no worse off

If I use VD ... I will in future use HQX for the output when that is going into Vegas ....... the main question seems to be is there any benefit to always converting files to HQx before editing (even if no other work in VD)

As mentioned earlier - the main "benefit" is editing speed, low latency, and perhaps stability. The "negative" is very minor quality loss (negligible in most cases, or you can use a higher quality setting), larger filesizes (more intermediate storage space required), and time required to convert . Some people choose to convert, others choose to edit the native camera files. Definitely , if you have an older computer, most people would choose to convert

In simple terms the Sony AVC/AAC codec in Vegas seems to do a good job .... so there seems no reason to change from that as the 'output' method.

Sony or Mainconcept AVC (those are the 2 options for AVC in vegas by default) both do an ok job, if you give it adequate bitrate . x264 will give you higher quality/compression - on average it's about 20-30% better in most scenarios. x264 is the "gold standard" for AVC encoders in general usage scenarios

[Tafflad]

I just downloaded and installed .. AVCHD2HQ conversion utility

It fails when I try it .... "Codec cannot be used"
On the web site notes it says "This software requires that EDIUS v3.0 or later," as you did not mention that, is there some workaround to get it to work ?

[pippas]

The rest of your post puts far too many steps in the process for me ......... I don't have that level of experience.

It's not difficult, so if it comes over as such that's my fault for not explaining things very well... sorry about that....

[pippas]

I just downloaded and installed .. AVCHD2HQ conversion utility
It fails when I try it .... "Codec cannot be used"
On the web site notes it says "This software requires that EDIUS v3.0 or later," as you did not mention that, is there some workaround to get it to work ?

I'm using the converter here without Edius being installed. IIRC, not all the options will work without Edius, but converting to HQX should. I don't think the previewer will work for example..

Try re-installing the codec after the converter is installed. Something at the back of my mind makes me think that has helped, when Edius is not installed.........

[Tafflad]

Sony or Mainconcept AVC (those are the 2 options for AVC in vegas by default) both do an ok job, if you give it adequate bitrate . x264 will give you higher quality/compression - on average it's about 20-30% better in most scenarios. x264 is the "gold standard" for AVC encoders in general usage scenarios

Which sort of turn things full circle ... back to post #1

Is there any guide or recommended settings on how to use this ......... there are a whole load of option.

[newpball]

Taffled, what are trying to accomplish?

You have an H.264 source that you want to edit in Vegas right?

Then either edit it directly in Vegas or use an intermediate edit format.

[Tafflad]

The rest of your post puts far too many steps in the process for me ......... I don't have that level of experience.

It's not difficult, so if it comes over as such that's my fault for not explaining things very well... sorry about that....

Didn't mean it to be a complaint at you .... but it does involve 6 steps and 3 extra pieces of software ... but in any event for me it fails at step 1
(details in post#21)

[Tafflad]

Taffled, what are trying to accomplish?

You have an H.264 source that you want to edit in Vegas right?

Then either edit it directly in Vegas or use an intermediate edit format.

As discussed earlier the Canon files are AVC in MP4 container

I have up until now been editing direct in Vegas ......... the question for me is for files that I will not be processing in VD, should I continue to edit directly in Vegas ... or should I be converting to HQx

Files that I will process in VD .. I will in future save as HQx

[newpball]

As discussed earlier the Canon files are AVC in MP4 container

That's H.264.

[poisondeathray]

There is nothing wrong with editing directly in vegas - If you've been doing that without any issues or complaints, then continue to do so

There is no benefit to converting to another format , quality wise . In fact you lose a bit of quality when using HQX (but neglibile)

The benefit is editing fluidity. Especially on older or slower computers, they will benefit substantially from converting to an editing intermediate . And in some cases, it might be more stable to use an editing intermediate such as HQX

[Tafflad]

As discussed earlier the Canon files are AVC in MP4 container

That's H.264.

I appreciate that, just wanted to be clear.