Just can't get a good AVI render :-(

Spirit wrote on 9/1/2002, 10:50 AM

I've got a simple 4-minute project made from a series of 20fps AVIs from a digital camera. I need to render the project (project is 15fps) as an AVI because that's the format needed to then render it to a web-friendly swf file...

But here's the odd part: I can render to wmv format and get a very good 5Mb file, but I just can't get an AVI file anywhere near as good quality - even if I go up to 55Mb ! I get masses of horizontal lines and a blurry effect.

I've tried all the codecs and various fps rates etc and they all make a slight difference, but none are even close to the wmv quality.

Is this odd ? Is there something glaringly obvious that I'm missing ?

thanks,
S

Comments

briand wrote on 9/1/2002, 9:44 PM

If the swf encoder really accepts any avi, how about uncompressed avi? It sounds like you're using codecs where you don't need to.

Spirit wrote on 9/1/2002, 11:04 PM

I tried that and got a 680Mb file . . . and not to bore anyone with details, but VV3 is on my good offline PC, whereas the swf encoder is on my web PC (because the app can't be put on an offline machine). The app is Wildform Flix3 btw, I love it !

briand wrote on 9/1/2002, 11:41 PM

Sounds like you just need a private network between the two machines. An ethernet starter kit can be had for less than $100 and run just between those two boxes, without messing with the web machine's net connection and without putting the offline box in Net harm's way.

Anything less than uncompressed avi is not going to look as good, period. Best I can offer after that is the Microsoft MPEG-4 encoder at 8000KB/s bitrate.

Spirit wrote on 9/2/2002, 12:03 AM

But isn't the disparity between the tiny, good quality wmv and the large, poor quality avi file odd ? Shouldn't the avi be able to at least get roughly equal, or don't avi files work that way . . . ?

Tyler.Durden wrote on 9/2/2002, 8:40 AM

Hi Spirit,

"I get masses of horizontal lines and a blurry effect."

Sounds like it might be interlacing and scaling artifacts...

You might take a look at your source properties and make sure Vegas knows whether it's 20fps, pixel dimentions, progressive or interlaced, and all that... and then you might check yer project/output properties for similar aspects.

HTH, MPH

Spirit wrote on 9/2/2002, 9:16 AM

Good idea. I'll go right back through the process again.

SonyDennis wrote on 9/2/2002, 11:11 PM

I agree with Marty that it might an interlace problem. Both your source and render should have field order set to "(none) progressive".

320x240x20fps, this isn't the Canon S110, it it? I've used mine to make a few streaming-sized videos that looked great, you should be able as well.

///d@

Spirit wrote on 9/3/2002, 8:53 AM

It WAS a problem with the render field setting :) thanks so much for this tip. The file still renders way bigger than the wmv (44Mb against 9Mb with the same settings) but at least it's now good quality. When I put it into Flix3 (and taking the fps down some more) it squeezes to about a 4Mb swf which is not too bad for an online 4-minute movie.

thanks again for the advice

ps: I'm using a Canon S300 which takes the same sort of 20fps AVI. Nice camera btw although like all this sort of gear after less than a year on the market it's now a generation or two behind !