I'm confused Spot, if he's going to DVD shouldn't he render as mpeg2?
Randy

No. If Zippy had stuck to one thread, this next question related to his other thread would make more sense. But the short answer is, to render an MPEG 2 from a timeline is simply silly. Long renders, lower quality MPEG. render to an avi first. Whether you are working with Vegas, Premiere, FCP, Liquid, MSP, whatever. It's never a good idea to render straight to mpeg2 from a raw timeline.

I can't believe I haven't heard this before, so one should render a project to NTSC DV from the timeline and then render it again to a saved mpeg2 to import to, say, DVDA?
Randy

Its too opened ended to give one answer fits all.

For example I first render to AVI for archival purposes using 'print to tape' so I have a copy on DV tape, playable that way from a digital camera, etc.. I then turn around take the rendered file, starting a new project using the just credted file as the source to render as MPEG-2 which becomes the source for any DVD project. This way you're not re-rendering, Vegas simply converts from AVI to MPEG and it flys. If you have a fast CPU, pretty much in real time. So if your rendered project runs 40 minutes it only takes about 40 minutes to render a MPEG-2 from the originally credited DV-AVI version.

Also I NEVER render from the timeline. I render to disk, that way you have backups ready to archive.

Thanks BB,
Archives aside, if I capture DV tape and edit it (and say add transitions, color corection if necessary, text media etc.) is it better to render to NTSC DV before rendering to mpeg2?
TIA,
Randy

Well, I will be different.

I always render to MPEG-2 from the timeline. Takes about 2.5 times (on average) with a 2.4 gig machine using 8,,,CBR. Quality has been good, but that is user subjective...

We burn to DVD (via ULEAD) utilizing Vegas 4 - MPEG-2 with some custom settings.

There's nothing wrong with rendering from the timeline to MPEG-2 if a DVD is your destination format. As long as your render settings are set to the highest quality all around, there should be absolutely no quality difference between rendering to MPEG-2 from the timeline versus a DV file. If, however, one is going to have multiple target formats, then a render to DV first is useful. That goes for any NLE app.

DELETED

K...well....all I can say is, if you look at MANY websites, including ours, you'll see the difference in quality in rendering from an avi to rendering from a raw timeline.
Adobe, Avid, Ulead, FCP, Pinnacle all recommend the same thing. It's a scaling and processing issue. Search here on the Sony forums, find the same answer not only from many folks, but from Sony engineers as well.
Better still, take a few minutes and render a complex file from a raw timeline, then render it from an avi of the same raw timeline. Aside from speed, you'll see quite a difference. Because the load on the CPU is lesser, the instructions are fewer, etc. Go ahead and render from the timeline, it's not only slower, it's a lower quality render. If it's a high motion section, the loss is significant. It's not a secret, it's not something that we exclusively do, it's something that's done by most authoring houses. Rather than take my word for it Zippy, how about doing things the 'hard way' and learning for yourself? Then you aren't questioning who's right or not, you have your own, educated opinion.

DELETED

"Just remember the foot you step on today is connected to the ass you will be kissing tomorrow."

None of us want to kiss you zippy.

>>None of us want to kiss you zippy

You speak for yourself!

Zippy sounds like a nice boy to me LOL

Spot is right on the money in this issue. It is better to render to .avi first then render to MPEG.

J--

Zippy, are you admitting to being an a**? ;o)

Jeez, I've been reading this forum daily for almost two years and I thought it was just a convenience if you're going to different formats or archiving. I always passed up those threads because all I do is DVD and PTT. Although I've always been happy with my DVDs I'll be anxious to see the results!
Hey, I hate to drag this over to this post...but while you guys are here, will you please check out the post I started yesterday, w/ the header, "Renders cause quality loss?". I'll leave this alone if I can just get a couple more people tell me that I just have to deal with soft focus whenever I do slo-mo.
TIA,
Randy

Ok, I think we need to take a step back and make sure we're on the same page. Are you saying that using the "Render As" command from the file menu and selecting MPEG-2 and doing the custom settings and having it save that way, or are you talking about simply playing back from the timeline and capturing that?

If it's the latter, then I fully agree. There's no way short of simple cuts that any machine can handle it. My apologies for the confusion if that's the case. If it's the former, I have never seen a difference. Not once. Again, just a clarification of the procedure and what we mean by rendering from the timeline might be helpful.

TVCMike,

I believe we are talking a one-step process vs a two-step process.

One-step process is to choose "Render As" and send the timeline straight to mpeg.

Two-step process is first, "Render As" avi. Close project. Open newly rendered avi file and "Render As" mpeg.

Just to insure that I've understood correctly, the only way to render for DVD Mpeg without losing quality is to first render as .avi, and then render as .mpg. I've always assumed the render to mpeg was lossless, but it does make sense that processors have a much easier time if they don't have to add all of the effects and compress the video.

Hi buster :)

Well, here's what I'm really concerned with. I'm assuming (but my assumption is technically sound IMO) that there are two stages to the rendering process. The first stage is for the software to actually render each frame and associated audio. That means to take the original source, apply any effects per the timeline for that frame to the video and audio, and then send that frame to the encoder. The second stage is for the software to actually take that frame and encode it into the destination CODEC format.

I think this is where the confusion comes in. My interpretation of what folks like yourself and Spot are saying is that rendering to DV ensures that both of the stages I described in the previous paragraph actually happen, whereas rendering to MPEG-2 somehow impairs the ability of the first stage to occur. My contention is that rendering to DV is the same thing as rendering to MPEG-2 because the first stage (processing) should be happening regardless of what will happen in the second stage (encoding).

As far as I can understand, all you're doing by first rendering to DV and then rendering the DV to MPEG-2 is repeating the second stage of the process that I listed above and incurring additional overhead in time in requiring interaction with the files. Or, in essence, every render option save for the native format that was worked with is utterly useless from a quality perspective.

Maybe I'm still misunderstanding you. Maybe my assumption about the two stages in the render process is incorrect. I'm not trying to prove myself right or you wrong, but I want to understand the technical basis for which this claim is made. I would appreciate the input from one of the Sony developers at this point if they happen to be watching.

If you have a timeline with effects, color correction ,transitions etc.
Render to avi first then bring it back as a rendered avi , then render that to mpeg.

Not even taking into account any quality issues---- its a time saver! much less render time.
my unsolicited opinion

There is absolutely no reason i can think of why rendering in two steps would give a better result than one step direct to MPEG rendering would. In fact, rendering to DV .avi first imposes a 4:1:1 colorspace compression on the process that might not have to happen when rendering the project directly to MPEG. Indeed, strong color contrasts on sharp edges (such as titles) could look much better rendered direct to MPEG than going through DV first. Granted, this probably applies to a very tiny portion of the video being rendered. But, there still is no reason that a two step process would produce better results.

If any of you have some rendered evidence to the contrary it would be instructive for you to post it and your reasons why it's better.

I don't believe there is any possibility that the processor is getting "confused" by having to do both steps in a single rendering. During a one-step render Vegas will produce finished frames which it will then pass on to the MPEG encoder to process. The only difference between one-step and two-step is that these happen concurrently rather than being stored in a file first ... and that on a one step, the frames can be processed as uncompressed 4:4:4 images as compared to compressed 4:1:1 that results from the two-step process. So, why should two steps be better? I don't think they can be.

Of course, aside from technical quality issues, there may be human efficiency issues at stake. If you plan on rendering to several different finished formats (MPEG-2 for DVD, WMV for web, DV AVI for print to tape), then by all means it could save you a lot of time to do one render to DV first, then perform subsequent encodes to the other formats from this DV file. The quality overall should still be as good except for the hard color contrast cases mentioned above, and the time savings from having the 'rendering' already done when encoding to other formats is significant.

risce1, but, what is the total time for both renders? Doesn't this combined time exceed the time it would take to do a one step render straight to MPEG?

Rember, you're not comparing the one step rendering time to just the MPEG encoding step of a two step render. You need to compare it to both steps added together.