Hi all,
it's only about 2 weeks before sign up for uwol3 starts. There was some huge problems for someone to get their films converted in a proper quality and the upload site did not function properly last challenge. Is everything set for the next challenge?
It was said that the upload could be done to this site instead, which I think is good. And I think if bandwith and space allow, the file size should be extended to at least 70MB? The reason for this is that at least in the PC camp, some of the free convertions software out there can't compress (in a decent quality) a 3 min film under 50MB!?
I think this would be fair to contributers who don't afford to buy expensive software to do the compression job only.

Hey Per,

Meryem's away so I'm not sure what all is going on with being able to upload here.
Mat has got the uploader working great on his site.

I need to try a couple other hosting services and see if we can move the uploader there and get it working 100%.

I've been swamped with a few projects, the main one which was completed yesterday so I can get back to focusing on this.

Mat and I are just helping out so anything about file size etc, is all up to Meryem.

I'm looking forward to gettting started on UWOL3 myself!

hey Per
We seem to be fine and dandy on the uploader front as long as we get a host with no time out issues. Quite a few Uwolers have tested the system already with great success :)

One thing to think about though. File size = bandwidth = Cost
As the library of entries grows its going to also be a substantial server space needed.

One of the principal problems for PC'ers was getting a viewable 3-minute file to .mov without using Sorenson Squeeze. Which is a great program, but costs $499.

I now have a flash encoder (FlixPro8), as well as Vegas output options, but I still will have issues getting my file size to under 50mb in .mov.

Is it conceivable to submit Flash files or wmv? or are we stuck with .mov?

That's something Meryem will have to decide when she gets back.

Just a thought,

premiere elements 1 and 2 alows export in sorenson 3 in mov or wmv and you can find that program pretty darn cheap.

To save Server space removing the prior uwol challenges could help keep down the amount of hard drive usage. Perhaps just keep a record of the winners circle.

Maybe I see this a little differently than most but I am fine with the file upload limit and resulting video. I think this contest is about motivating people to create unique video projects. It certainly also involves the many technical aspects of that process but the focus seems to be more "What does the picture say...", not just "How pretty is the picture?". Someone said before somewhere that they could sell footage of the Titanic sinking, shot with a cellphone because the footage is immediately captivating.

Vegas does (to my humble eyes) a pretty good job of compressing things in quicktime format. I find that quicktime seems to dull the video image a little, pulling the colour out of it just a tad. My preffered filetype would be WMV, but I have no direct preference.

So the bottom line is...sure there are better possibilities but to work with what we have brings out the tech/artist in everyone involved and offers a level playing field.

Just my 2 cents.

Maybe I see this a little differently than most but I am fine with the file upload limit and resulting video. I think this contest is about motivating people to create unique video projects. It certainly also involves the many technical aspects of that process but the focus seems to be more "What does the picture say...", not just "How pretty is the picture?". Someone said before somewhere that they could sell footage of the Titanic sinking, shot with a cellphone because the footage is immediately captivating.

Vegas does (to my humble eyes) a pretty good job of compressing things in quicktime format. I find that quicktime seems to dull the video image a little, pulling the colour out of it just a tad. My preffered filetype would be WMV, but I have no direct preference.

So the bottom line is...sure there are better possibilities but to work with what we have brings out the tech/artist in everyone involved and offers a level playing field.

Just my 2 cents.

James,

Try d/loading the trial version of Sorenson Squeeze and you'll see the difference. Not that I care about the competitive aspect of the Challenge, but if you have Squeeze, your resulting compressed video is much, much better. That's why it's worth $499.

Take a close look at Per Johan's work, the detail in the compressed files is amazing. Personally, I now encode for the web with FlixPro8 VP6. It is marginally better than the standard Sorenson Squeeze, but only encodes in flash. And it is infinitely better than than Vegas-QTPro-Sorenson.

Hi all:

I used Media Cleaner to compress my file, and to get it to the 50 mb requirement it took so much out of it! I respect James' comment about it is content over quality that matters but I have to admit, I was so disappointed throwing something so degraded out there for the challenge.

I have not heard of Sorenson 3 Squeeze and am thrilled to get the good report about it. Ken, with all the money I am saving not investing in a HD(V) camera just yet, perhaps this is a better investment! (wink, wink).

Mat has brought up the subject of cost of the expanded bandwidth to handle larger files, would it be a bad idea if all contestants chip in some for that additional cost? Or does this open a can of worms.

Looking forward to UWOL 3, 50 mb or not.

Cat Russell
Spike Productions

Cat, the product is Sorenson Squeeze Suite 4.5. You should take it for a test-drive first. Your video will be heavily watermarked with their logo during the trial period, but you can see how well and easily it works. It will compress .avi to .wmv and .mov, which is great for the UWOL Challenge. I just encode to Flash only on my website. Flash is the most widely universal player at around 98% of machines. Then it's .wmv and .mov.

It's a super product, and the next time I have a spare $499... Here's the link

http://www.sorensonmedia.com/pages/?pageID=2

Downloaded the trial....gonna do some tests over the next couple days.

Hey guys

I'm using Sony Vegas 7.0e (new update) and having no problem with using it to get great images at the required size. Remember not to view your video at a larger size than you encoded it at or it will start to fall apart. I really hope the judges keep this in mind (I'm sure they know.)

I have great color, no artifacts and small text is crisp and clear.

This being the case I would hate for others to spend $499 on Sorenson Squeeze when Vegas seems more than adequate and will take care of editing as well.

Here are my settings in Vegas:
Save as type: Quicktime 7 (*.mov)
Click the Custom Button and under the Video tab:
Frame Size: Custom (428x240)
Video Format: Sorenson Video 3
Compressed depth: 24bpp color
Quality: 100%
Data rate: Basic
Target rate, KBps: 325

The results of this is 18MB per minute of video which brings you in under 60MB for a 3 minute clip. You could raise the Target rate setting until you max at 60MB for your total clip.

Hope it helps. Looks flawless for what I see here.

-Jonathan

Thanks Johathan,
This is very helpful information.

Do any others have any tricks to share with their NLE's?

Meryem just send an email stating that the file size limit for UWOL-3 will be 60MB. I think this is good news to us in the PC-camp, which have struggled previously with the 50MB limit :-)

Hey guys

I'm using Sony Vegas 7.0e (new update) and having no problem with using it to get great images at the required size. Remember not to view your video at a larger size than you encoded it at or it will start to fall apart. I really hope the judges keep this in mind (I'm sure they know.)

I have great color, no artifacts and small text is crisp and clear.

This being the case I would hate for others to spend $499 on Sorenson Squeeze when Vegas seems more than adequate and will take care of editing as well.

Here are my settings in Vegas:
Save as type: Quicktime 7 (*.mov)
Click the Custom Button and under the Video tab:
Frame Size: Custom (428x240)
Video Format: Sorenson Video 3
Compressed depth: 24bpp color
Quality: 100%
Data rate: Basic
Target rate, KBps: 325

The results of this is 18MB per minute of video which brings you in under 60MB for a 3 minute clip. You could raise the Target rate setting until you max at 60MB for your total clip.

Hope it helps. Looks flawless for what I see here.

-Jonathan

Jonathan,

I'm just running a test render using your settings (I'm using Vegas 6d though - so QT6 instead of 7).

If this works then 'you are the man'. Previously I was rendering an AVI from Vegas - then converting to Sorenson 3 using QTpro. This would not only save a step, but also render a better product.

Result.

Shoot! While my 2:35 file looks real good. It comes in at 74.5 MB. Must be the diff between QT6 and 7... But thanks for posting. I'll try tweaking the settings.

Just bring it down to 280-300 for the bitrate. Tweak to the proper level. More importantly what do you think of the image quality compared to Sorenson Squeeze or the workflow you were using before? I would think you may get a better result with version 7 but do let us know if the image is acceptable with version 6...

Per Johan - With the above setting except a lower bitrate (200-250) I was able to output from Vegas at even 40MB for 3 minutes with very acceptable results. With this workflow I think everyone should be happy regardless of the MB limitation.

-Jonathan

Jonathan,

I'm just running a test render using your settings (I'm using Vegas 6d though - so QT6 instead of 7).

If this works then 'you are the man'. Previously I was rendering an AVI from Vegas - then converting to Sorenson 3 using QTpro. This would not only save a step, but also render a better product.

Result.

Shoot! While my 2:35 file looks real good. It comes in at 74.5 MB. Must be the diff between QT6 and 7... But thanks for posting. I'll try tweaking the settings.

tweaking the bit rate can make a huge difference, as jonathan suggested. have you tried that yet, ken?

if we can get some ideal settings for quality v. size for *both* the PC and the Mac--then i'll see if we can get a wrangler to make a sticky for us...that would solve a lot of heartache and make things a lot easier for future players.

if you folks experimenting can fix on the ideal settings for PC, can someone e-mail the results to me directly?

Well,

By taking it down to a bitrate of 200, I got it to 22MB per minute. The quality is not too bad but I'd be reluctant to go any lower. I think I would just target a slightly shorter film (of course you have to get your credits in too).

One thing for sure the workflow is nicer, by just rendering right out of Vegas.

Thanks Jonathan. I might look at the Vegas 7 upgrade.

Your welcome. I hope others will chime in on their MB per minute results from Vegas or other NLE's for that matter (along with corresponding settings.) It seems like a more practical solution than $499 for something that only does renders. Just my opinion.

And another suggestion to all who have the option... Always maximize the size of your file where possible by using every MB toward quality. If you are submitting a file that is smaller than 60MB you are loosing out.

-Jonathan

Well,

By taking it down to a bitrate of 200, I got it to 22MB per minute. The quality is not too bad but I'd be reluctant to go any lower. I think I would just target a slightly shorter film (of course you have to get your credits in too).

One thing for sure the workflow is nicer, by just rendering right out of Vegas.

Thanks Jonathan. I might look at the Vegas 7 upgrade.

Just a note for those using Vegas 7.0e. I am getting much better results with .mov Sorenson 3 at the target 20MB per minute than I have been able to get with .wmv files. I was surprised at this so just thought I would pass it along.

-Jonathan

oh happy day! this may just be the equalizing answer we have been looking for!

thanks for all of your help with this, jonathan.

I've just used Jonathan's video settings to render my UWOL#3 entry. The video quality is great.

Just getting a weird effect in the audio. I've lost the low frequencies and the high frequencies sound like they have a slight 'phaser' effect on them. Any ideas.

Here's my work flow:-

Recorded audio 16bit on Canon MV940
Clips edited in Vegas.
I added an extra audio track that I'd recorded 16bit on the XL2 last month.
Rendered to .avi (sound was fine)

Opened .avi
Rendered to .avi using Jonathan's settings (sound altered)

Grant

Problem solved. It was a audio compression artifact. I tried various methods of audio compression and eventually setted for muLaw 2:1 compression. It meant that I had to reduce the video bitrate from 325 to 310 but that didn't alter the quality too much.

UWOL3_gks_BetweenLandAndSea.mov has now been uploaded...

No sharks for me!