stupid question about rendering to 1440*1080 at DVinfo.net

Federico Perale · April 26th, 2012, 11:01 AM

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?

Eric Olson · April 26th, 2012, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Federico Perale

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.

Chris Medico · April 26th, 2012, 11:42 AM

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

That will take care of the incorrect aspect ratio problem.

Seth Bloombaum · April 26th, 2012, 02:49 PM

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.

Federico Perale · April 27th, 2012, 08:50 AM

thanks to everyone for the replies!!

Can I also ask about rendering times? I have been following the method outlined in that famous clip (

)
, 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)

Jeff Harper · April 27th, 2012, 09:09 AM

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.

Federico Perale · April 27th, 2012, 09:18 AM

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

Jeff Harper · April 27th, 2012, 09:25 AM

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.

Federico Perale · April 27th, 2012, 09:28 AM

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...

Jeff Harper · April 27th, 2012, 09:58 AM

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.

April 26th, 2012, 11:01 AM	#1
Federico Perale Major Player Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: London Posts: 410	*stupid question about rendering to 14401080** I am working on canon hfg10 files at 7Mbps which are 14401080 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 14401080, the actual clip will show with black bands, and not full screen is it advisable to render to 19201080 even when starting from 14401080?

April 26th, 2012, 11:42 AM	#3
Chris Medico Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Efland NC, USA Posts: 2,322	*Re: stupid question about rendering to 14401080** See if there is an option somewhere for "Allow Non-Square Pixels". That will take care of the incorrect aspect ratio problem. __________________ http://www.LandYachtMedia.com

April 26th, 2012, 02:49 PM	#4
Seth Bloombaum Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,420	*Re: stupid question about rendering to 14401080** 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. __________________ 30 years of pro media production. Vegas user since 1.0. Webcaster since 1997. Freelancer since 2000. College instructor since 2001.

April 27th, 2012, 08:50 AM	#5
Federico Perale Major Player Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: London Posts: 410	*Re: stupid question about rendering to 14401080** 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)

April 27th, 2012, 09:09 AM	#6
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	*Re: stupid question about rendering to 14401080** 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.

April 27th, 2012, 09:18 AM	#7
Federico Perale Major Player Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: London Posts: 410	*Re: stupid question about rendering to 14401080** 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 14401080 and I am resizing to 19201080 though so there is resizing

April 27th, 2012, 09:25 AM	#8
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	*Re: stupid question about rendering to 14401080** 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.

April 27th, 2012, 09:28 AM	#9
Federico Perale Major Player Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: London Posts: 410	*Re: stupid question about rendering to 14401080** 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...

April 27th, 2012, 09:58 AM	#10
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	*Re: stupid question about rendering to 14401080** 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.