WMV rendering secrets?

DAFenton wrote on 4/22/2004, 5:41 AM

I've been looking at video clips encoded at 293 kbps at WindowsMedia.com and they look outstanding, however when I render WM9 in Vegas the clarity is not nearly as good. I have to render at 500Kbs or higher to match WindowsMedia.com's 293 kbps.

What's the secret here, are vendors using hardware to render WM9?

peace,
-david abraham

Comments

farss wrote on 4/22/2004, 6:38 AM

Well part of the secret to encoding in any format that uses temporal compression is to reduce the amount that has to be compressed. For example a newsreader in front of a keyed still has very little motion and only in a small part of the screen. Take the same newsreader in front of a moving shrub with varigated foliage and the whole frame has motion so at a low bit rate it's going to look bad. Worse than that the chroma in a lot of the pixels is changing so even more bits are used up on that shrub!

Keyed stills rather than static backgrounds ensure the background just doesn't move, even a locked off camera can easily move one pixel with, you wouldn't notice it but the encoders have to resend the whole frame.

busterkeaton wrote on 4/22/2004, 9:48 AM

Also when you start with highest quality video, with proper lighting, the encoder will have less to do.

riredale wrote on 4/22/2004, 9:52 AM

You might also try downloading the "official" WMV9 encoder from Microsoft. I know you can encode WMV9 inside Vegas, but I strongly suspect you can get better results by using the official Microsoft stand-alone encoder product. It's free. I used it when making my 500Kb/sec clips for Chienworks site, and have been very pleased by the results.

danstine wrote on 4/22/2004, 12:27 PM

There is a bit more to rendering than just kbps :)

I actually started with Windows Media Encoder http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/encoder/default.aspx because the previous NLE didn't support WM9 video codecs, and I was rendering for a PocketPC.

Try the WME, start with the Wizard, then go through all of the property settings and display the help information. That will give you a lot of information about tweaking your renders for your intended audience. Keep in mind though, that the content of the media itself impacts some of your settings, and the only way that I've learned what I have is by experimenting and more experimenting. I've got to confess though, that testing on a PocketPC rather than my fast WinXP box has probably helped my learning curve!

Dianne

DAFenton wrote on 4/24/2004, 4:17 AM

I see, have you been able to get the same level of quality that WindowsMedia.com is getting at 293 kbps?

-david abraham

danstine wrote on 4/24/2004, 4:28 PM

Um, until I have the quality of equipment that matches what I suspect is used for the vids on windowsmedia.com, no I can't match them.

But, the more I'm learning about Vegas, the more I'm learning how to improve upon the quality I can get from my Sony DCR-TRV27 or my Olympus Camedia digital camera. Plus, most of the work I do is dog oriented, think fast moving, outdoors, lots of little green things in the background. But, I digress ...

Poke around on the .net, you can find a slew of examples, or take a look at some of our more humble samples:

http://www.crystalballmedia.com/samples.html - these were all produced with Vegas and the WMV by using the WME. If you log on to this site with a PocketPC, you get presented with the PocketPC versions.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0msme/id18.html - these were produced with the previous NLE and encoded with WMV. The "Brown Baggers" clips have a much friendlier background (indoor walls instead of outdoor greenery) for encoding for the .net, but it's obvious I have a need to learn about indoor lighting for video :(

Dianne

TVCmike wrote on 4/24/2004, 5:42 PM

I'm betting if you had the identical source material that you'd get exactly the same results.

All lossy encoders are finicky when it comes to high motion and/or high detail and/or high contrast portions. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and choose a higher data rate. After a while, you get a feel for what bitrate you might need based on the source material. Just keep experimenting and you'll find the right balance for you. Also, understand all of the knobs and levers on the CODEC settings fully before using or ignoring them.

DAFenton wrote on 4/26/2004, 5:48 AM

I undertsand all this, I'm just looking for someone on this board or at Sony has actually experienced similar quality at that bit rate, even if it is the result of better source media.

PGvids wrote on 6/4/2004, 3:27 PM

We use screen capture videos for software tutorials (web progressive download), and have had very good results with Windows Media Encoder 7 and 8 at bandwidth-saving bit rates like 32Kbps. Typical settings would be Windows Media Screen V7 for 16Kbps video, and ACELP.net audio at 16Kbits/s, 160000Hz, mono.
Attempting to duplicate these settings and the results in Windows Media Encoder 9 has been a bit frustrating - mainly with blurry and washed out video. Running WME9 in 256 color mode helped, but toolbar icons that look fine when rendered in WME8 are just a blur when rendered at the equivalent bit rates in WME9. Screen buttons are ghosted with white flares or shadows.
Any suggestions for optimizing A/V quality at low bit rates in WME9 would be much appreciated.