wut is the best setup for rendering a video i need the best quality possible
I got a question about that, whenever I try to turn a video into an uncompressed AVI, instead of staying at it's current size and quality, the file gets gigantic and looks no better. How do I solve this problem?
What I mean was, if the picture isn't better then why would I want to keep a file so huge and how do I keep it from doing that?
(Very) General rule of thumb: the less compressed, the easier to edit and the better the quality of subsequent encodes. If it's the final product, then you can compress as much as you want and get your desired level of image quality.
What are you saying that I should turn all my compressed files into uncomrpessed avi files, edit them, then compress them again?
If you are going to render within a project then I advise using uncompressed. This avoids the large generation loss associated with repeat trips through the DV codec. Remmber DV is very compressed, 7 to 1 I think, with very poor colour resoloution.
Currenly I render in Vegas 6 at NTSC DV Widescreen, progressive, 720x480, pixel ratio 1.2121 (my sources are photoshop images in 720x480 pixel ratio 1.2121).
And get a 11gb file for 46 minutes. Then I use DVD Architect to burn the thing. It gives a pretty good result.
But I'm wondering if I would get a better result by rendering at avi uncompressed and let Architect take care of the encoding? (so the question would be is Architect encode better than Vegas... or wich order is better).
I would think any change would be negligable, it's only with repeated encodes that changes become noticable.
In the real world not many of us can afford the space needed to work on umcompressed files that avoid any gen loss except on small projects.
I suppose i might work on uncompressed video for a project that i had filmed on very good quality cameras and was going to make me mega bucks and maybe be for cinema screening but apart from that i would stick with the dv codec for most editing work.