Vegas 6 Rendering Quality

Discussion in 'Video Encoding' started by Bradyarch, Dec 21, 2012.

  1. Hey guys, I have wanted to make sweet Youtube videos for a while now, and I've been messing around with render settings on my Vegas 6. I don't have any better of a program. I am worried, though, that because Vegas 6 is so old, it can't render in beautiful quality, but I'm determined to find the best quality I can find for render settings. I'm recording with Fraps. I want my Vegas-rendered video to look as good as it does directly from my Movies folder (but in Youtube).

    I appreciate all the tips I can get! Let's figure this out together. I'd greatly appreciate it,
  2. ETAdmin

    ETAdmin Administrator Staff Member

  3. Thanks for the suggestion, but that's for Vegas 10.
    I figured out how to make the video look great on my own computer after rendering it with Vegas 6. When I view the video that Vegas created for me, it looks seriously spectacular. But when I upload it to Youtube and put it in 720p, it looks terrible. Like seriously much worse than the video that is directly from my computer. How do I prevent this? The sound is also terrible quality but not on the original video.
  4. ciarlo2006

    ciarlo2006 Site Contributor Well-Known Member

    There is no way to prevent it, blame Youtube :)
    Thalmor Wizard likes this.
  5. raffriff

    raffriff Moderator Staff Member Site Contributor

    Try this method. After downloading and reading the Vegas 6 manual, (pg 308-309) it appears that this method will work with Vegas 6 [edit: and later versions too]. The results will be the best possible for YouTube.
    • Add video filter "Sony levels - Computer RGB to Studio RGB"
      (EDIT new versions use "Broadcast Colors" plug-in, "Studio RGB" option checked)
    • Render intermediate (losslessly compressed) file:
      • File, Render As...
        • Output Format = QuickTime
        • starting Template = 3 Mbps Video (or highest available bps)
        • (EDIT pixel format = 8 bit, not 32-bit! 10-bit maybe, need to test)
      • Customize Template...
        • Frame size = same as project
        • Frame rate = same as project
        • Field order = Progressive
        • Video format = Avid DNxHD (free download from AVID)
        • DNxHD codec , Configure...
          • level = 709
          • alpha channel = none
          • resolution = same as project
          • 8 bit only - not 10 bit (EDIT need to test 10 bit w/ latest Handbrake)
      • if you see a "Video Hinter" option, turn it off
      • audio = uncompressed 16 bit / 48 kHz
    • Compress intermediate file in Handbrake - setup here (Normal profile, Web Optimized, RF=17)
    The above was adapted for Fraps users from the advice in this video: Sony Vegas to Youtube Tutorial - A Better Method ("Method 2" in the video), from this post on, and from my own experience (except I'm using Premiere Elements)

    Also: disable any "film grain" effects if your game has them - they don't compress well at all. Blur effects help compressibility sometimes, but they kill frame rates, so might as well disable those as well.
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2014
    Waddle, kool123 and Bradyarch like this.
  6. I tried this. It looks very good when I open it myself from my hard drive in Quicktime. Hopefully Youtube keeps it looking that stellar. I was just going to post when it was up but it has 212 minutes remaining and it's already 32% complete. If this works, I'll be very grateful, but I'm going to need to learn to be patient for it to upload because that's by far the longest upload time I have seen yet.
    Also, the compressed file is 463MB for a 21 second video... Shouldn't the compressor make it smaller than that? I've no experience with HandBrake so forgive me if I'm heavily mistaken.

    Thank you so much for the huge reply though, raffriff. You seriously did a ton to help me out, I'm hoping it works not only for me but for all your long research. I'll keep you posted. Feel free to reply to the above until I get my video on Youtube.
    ciarlo2006 likes this.
  7. ciarlo2006

    ciarlo2006 Site Contributor Well-Known Member

    For a 21 second video, that is a very large filesize.
    Thalmor Wizard likes this.
  8. Thalmor Wizard

    Thalmor Wizard Moderator Staff Member Site Contributor

    463MB is massive in Handbrake for just 21 seconds of video. Instead of rendering in QuickTime format, why not render in Windows Media Player (.wmv) format ?
  9. raffriff

    raffriff Moderator Staff Member Site Contributor

    For the intermediate file, 463 MB (22 MB/s) is normal. The final Handbrake compressed size should be much less - probably 1/20 of that.

    Thanks for your feedback. Please let us know how it works out.
  10. I thought so too. I think I had the wrong video though. That was pre-Handbrake. The Handbrake'd one, with RF 17 and Web Compression, is actually 35.4MB.

    35.4MB is the actual size (I had it wrong) so I think we're good on that. I agree with your question, why not just Handbrake the file rendered as WMV9? I'm going to try that as well.

    The Handbrake file was indeed 35.4MB, so definitely much less. Almost 1/20 haha. But here's the videos side by side:


    The audio quality in the new is AMAZING compared to the old one. As is the video quality. It's not perfect yet, but it sure is very good if the viewers have the skills to put it in 1080p. I think I'm going to try the WMV9 render in Handbrake... do you think this is a good or bad idea? I like the Quicktime render for sure, but it's hard to view full size on my computer because since the video is the size of my computer screen, opening it up in Quicktime is hard to see because the Quicktime window makes it even bigger and cuts some of it off.
    Thank you guys so much again, this has been a HUGE improvement. I knew there was a way to make it look good, even with the very outdated Vegas 6 ('cause there's no way I'm about to buy Vegas 11 for the price it is since Vegas 6 does everything I want and more).
    raffriff likes this.
  11. Do you mean that using a film grain effect in-game will lead to a larger final file size? Or that it gets ugly during compression?
  12. ciarlo2006

    ciarlo2006 Site Contributor Well-Known Member

    Larger size, longer render time.
  13. Okay, thanks. I can work with that. :)
    ciarlo2006 likes this.

Share This Page