Hi,when i burn a dvd using vegas and dvd architect i get the black bars at the top and bottom of my tv screen,my tv is widescreen so these bars are making the picture "more widescreen" if you know what i mean,my skinny kid looks not quite as skinny anymore !!! When i burn the same project in Pinnacle Studio i don't get the bars and the screen is filled correctly,so i presume it most be settings in vegas or dvd architect.I want to sort this because i'd rather edit useing vegas.
I'm using a widescreen tv and a widescreen camcorder,Sony DCR-SR90.

Make sure Vegas and DVDA settings for the Project comply with what you want. PAL/NTSC Widescreen.

Grazie

Hi,Grazie,when i'm in vegas pro 8 and try to render my project there's no "pal widescreen",just "dvd pal" or "dvd pal architect widescreen",ie seperate video and audio stream/files.I'm in europe so need pal widescreen,what settings would you use,ie render settings in vegas and settings in dvd architect.
Thanks for replying,Paul.

VP8:
File | Properties - template PAL DV Widescreen
On render as....
Save as type: MainConcept MPEG2, Template: DVD Architect PAL Widescreen video stream
(also render sound as ac3)

DVD Architect:
File | Properties - disc properties, Video Format: PAL Widescreen

Should get you through. Good luck

__________________
Tim

Hi,thanks,TimStannard,i'll try that tommorrow,also i just found a similar question with a similar answer from Grazie where when using vegas he renders to avi first,then when using architect burns to mpeg2. Would this also be ok ? If so is there any advantage or disadvantage doing it that way.
Thanks again for replying.Paul.

As far as I know the only advantage of rendering to avi first would be that you then have a completed version suitable for encoding in a variety of ways in a variety of programs (for example if you want to use a different DVD authoring package with an alternative mprg encoder, or you want to make a DVD and a wmv and a divX etc. or if you might want to "edit" it in DVDA.

If you only want to make a DVD and use DVDA then quality-wise it makes no difference.

But it's a quicker process to render to MPEG2 (no intermmediate render to avi)

__________________
Tim

Ah yes i understand now,thanks very much.

Paul?

1/- I render to MPEG2 Video Stream in Vegas

2/- I render to AC-3 Audio Stream in Vegas

3/- I then import these 2 files into DVDA I then author menus and buttons in DVDA

4/- I then burn to DVD from within DVDA

Sure, I may have tweaked my workflow, however please supply a link to where I said differently?

Also, I don't understand your "he . . burns to mpeg2"? I render a MPEG2 and finally burn a DVD? There is a big difference here. Well I think so? If I had made a mistake using the terms - happens! - I apologise.

The main advantages for me are:

First Generation/Level Editable Product: I then have a finished video that is totally editable - I really don't like the idea of editing MPGE2 (?) Maybe others don't mind?

Colour Grading at full FPS: Often I have used some heavy FX-ing which could include Colour Grading, Glow, etc. Having produced a finished MASTER AVI provides the advantage of allowing me to see just how these areas work at full fps. I have found that some of my more "enthusiastic" FX-ing have slowed down MPEG rendering so much, that I now just create an AVI and move on.

CPU Intensive Previewing: Along the same lines, and using 3-D compositing, Generated Media events and inserted long text crawls all make a major hit for the CPU. Having an interim master AVI provides a complete final "preview-able" product. Going to an AVI first really removes any doubt that the next render to MPG2, has to go perfectly. In any event, once I have produced an AVI, my rendering to MPEG2 is done in something less than real time. Meaning, a 10 minute AVI will then render to MPEG2 in just over 9 minutes.

Collecting ALL that hard work!: Often I render to prerenders OR render to new track/s for the same purpose of full fps. Now, having a completed AVI bangs home the "true" fps look of the video in one retrievable file.

So, for these reasons - I could think of more, don't worry I wont - I just do this AVI mastering as a matter of course. NOT rendering a master AVI, I have wasted creative & render time on attempting to render directly to MPEG2. I just HATE seeing that render bar slowing down to almost stop and I can't do anything, ANYTHING about it!!

Disadvantages? I tell you what, now that I use this workflow, I don't waste time on trying to determine just where I've done something stupid, I can get to the issues very quickly, re-edit and render-up JUST that portion. Don't fancy doing that in MPEG2 rendering?

Disavantages? Because I am a bit of a thug, when it comes to pushing and pulling Vegas about, and throwing all sorts of methods and so on, starting with a master/finished/completed AVI identifies a potential compositing error I've made.

At the end of the day, it is all about ones own personal preferences. I have taken timeout to explain mine and give reasons and these are mine. Simple cut-and-shut straight edits with little colour grading and little "noise" then a direct to MPEG2 render should suffice and be quite fast. However, personally, I would still make an AVI master!

Regards,

Grazie