I am working on canon hfg10 files at 7Mbps which are 1440*1080

now, I have to edit and upload to web, and I thought I would just keep the original resolution until the end, but If I do so, using the usual procedure of umcompressed intermediate (quicktime) and then use handbrake set at 1440*1080, the actual clip will show with black bands, and not full screen

is it advisable to render to 1920*1080 even when starting from 1440*1080?

the actual clip will show with black bands, and not full screen

Some programs always interpret Quicktime as progressive with a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio. I would suggest keeping your video 1440x1080 but trying a different intermediate format.

See if there is an option somewhere for "Allow Non-Square Pixels".

That will take care of the incorrect aspect ratio problem.

In handbrake, you need to select "anamorphic | none" to get full access to the pixel dimensions you might want. In the PC version of HB, this setting is found on the "picture" tab.

Coming out of handbrake, you absolutely want square pixels for internet distribution. Online services and embedded players are all over the map in their ability to correctly interpret flags for non-square pixel aspect ratios, there seems to be no uniformity across codecs for this flagging. For HDV-originated material at 1440x1080, the most common distribution is 1280x720 with PAR=1, or 1920x1080 PAR=1.

thanks to everyone for the replies!!

Can I also ask about rendering times? I have been following the method outlined in that famous clip (Sony Vegas to Youtube Tutorial - A Better Method - YouTube)
, and rendering to uncompressed quicktime and then to mp4 using handbrake

I have noticed that the 1st step take roughly 4/5 times the original lenght of the clip, and the 2nd step around 1 or 2 times.
this means that a 5 mins clip will take a total of 30/40 minutes to be finished and ready to upload.

now....for comparison, I have also tried to use his first rendering method ("Good Method"), and rendered straight to Mainconcept AVC with the settings that the video advises to use.

well, it took me 1.5 hours to do a 5 minutes clips!!! how is that possible? how can rendering be so slow!! please notice that I am rendering a two-cam straight 7Mbps footage without any grading, only added the sony levels plugin that's all (and obviously cross fades between cam 1 and cam2)

Is processor an older one? Have you rendered to AVC before with better results? I render 60 minutes of 1080 to avc in less than about 45 minutes I believe, I'm not sure on the exact time. This includes color correction and photos mixed in. I use an i7 980 at 4 ghz.

these are the specs. it's a vaio laptop I've bought a couple of yrs ago

Processor: Intel Core i7 (720QM) 1.6GHz 6MB (L2 Cache)
Memory (Maximum): 8192MB (8192MB) 1333MHz DDR3
Hard Disk: 500GB (1 x 500GB) 5400RPM Serial ATA Hard Drive
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit)

I am using Vegas pro 10 (32 bit)

the original clips were in 1440*1080 and I am resizing to 1920*1080 though so there is resizing

On my system I resize from 1080 to 480 even faster, 1 hour video takes about 20 minutes, maybe 30 at the very most. I think your processor is the issue. Personally I cannot imagine working on a laptop, but I know a lot of people do. I do it for a living however, so I must use a desktop.

thank you Jeff
do you mind sharing some tricks (if you have any) to fine-tune your computer for Vegas? you precessor is newer but your rendering times are gobsmackingly faster than mine...

It's all in the processor speed, nothing more, sorry to say. I overclock, but it does not add as much speed as one would think.

You simply cannot speed things up using an old mobile processor enough to make a difference. I assemble my own PCs, so I have tried everything in the past, but you simply have to increase processor speed to increase rendering times enough to even notice any difference.

You can fiddle with rendering settings, etc, but overall it's all about the CPU. Sorry for the bad news.