Empty events in project media

Where did you get these files from? Were they from a camera that records to DVD? How did you import them?

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

How are you importing them into Vegas? Are you using File | Import | DVD Camcorder Disc? That is the proper way to import but I've also read about problems with some DVD's using this method.

There is a tool called Womble that will convert DVD .VOB files to .MPG files. It's not free but it does have a free trial and it's worth the money if you decide to use it. I would download the free trial and convert the VOB's to MPG's and see if it works.

BTW, going from VHS tape to DVD to editing and then back to DVD will not give you the best quality if there is rendering involved. If you have a lot of VHS tapes to digitize, it is much better to purchase a device like the Canopus ADVC-55 that will create DV AVI files which will have much higher quality.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

I've double checked the file sizes that Vegas will import in import camcorder dvd and it they are too small vegas will not import them. At least in a a separate file. Yesterday it imported sizes as small as 72 meg which may be about a minute and a half. Today the smallest size I checked was about 135 meg. Most people are not interested in V tape so will not be concerned. Sony should publish this information somewhere.

Thanks I sincerely appreciate the information. There is always an opportunity to learn more.

Hope to see you
http://seniorobserver.blogspot.com, http://billswar2.blogspot.com

[doyal gudgel] "Do you mean we are capturing files off the disk in dv avi format?"

No. I'm talking about capturing the VHS tape. You plug the VHS player into the Canopus ADVC-55 and Vegas sees the ADVC-55 as a DV camcorder and captures the VHS tape to DV AVI which is 5x better quality than DVD MPEG2. Then you edit your video in Vegas and when you're ready to make a DVD to render the final output to DVD MPEG2.

[doyal gudgel] "To maker a playable dvd we still have to burn as a mpg So how much better is that ? "

Because you are editing the higher quality DV footage instead of the lower quality MPEG2 footage. If you edit lower quality MPEG2 when you render it again to DVD MPEG2 you loose even more quality.

[doyal gudgel] "where and how is the improvement? When I import the dvd it is imported as mpg. Right?"

No. I'm not talking about importing the DVD. I'm talking about importing the original VHS tapes directly to DV AVI.

[doyal gudgel] "Where in the process do I make a better project with a dv avi file? They all wind up as a mpg file on a dvd."

Right at the start. You capture your VHS tape to higher quality DV. You edit and color correct higher quality DV. Then you make the lower quality DVD MPEG2. Going from high quality to lower quality is better then starting with lower quality and re-generating more lower quality.

[doyal gudgel] " They all wind up as a mpg file on a dvd."

Yes, but one of them starts as higher quality DV which will yield a higher quality MPEG2 that's been edited.

[doyal gudgel] " Where in this "import, edit, render, burn dvd" can I improve? "

Import DV AVI. Edit DV AVI. Render DVD MPEG2.

[doyal gudgel] "Render to dv avi? It still has to get to the dvd as a mpg."

There is no DVD in my workflow (hopefully you see that now). It's a direct capture of the VHS tape to DV AVI via the Canopus ADVC-55 analog-to-digital converter. As I said in my previous post, this is compressed at only 5:1 instead of the DVD MPEG2 25:1 so more of the original information is retained while editing.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[doyal gudgel] "Lots of the tapes have degenerated with age and not worth going over everything again. I don't think I would have benefited with the Canopus ADVC-55 before going to Vegas movie maker."

Actually, you would have benefitted from the Canopus ADVC-300 (which is the one I have) because it has a Time Base Corrector that cleans up the signal from old degraded tapes but it cost quite a bit more than the ADVC-55 or ADVC-100 which are less expensive devices with less capabilities.

You still would have benefitted from the ADVC-55 because DV is much more tolerant of noise then MPEG2 is. This would have given you an opportunity to really clean up the noise before going to MPEG2.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

"what kind of file would the file be when the tape is downloaded?"

DV-AVI

"Before vegas I don't think I had anything that would edit it"

Windows MovieMaker

"Does this device keep the file interlaced or convert it to progressive scan?"

Interlaced

"What is your estimate of what the cost would be?"

$200 at B&H for the device and power supply.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?N=0&InitialSearch=yes&Q=&O=...

Thanks Mike for answering those. The ADVC-55 only does capture but that's all you need which is why I recommended it. The ADVC-100 does capture and print back to tape. The ADVC-300 does capture and print to tape with TBC and color correction. You can spend whatever you want on these things and as Mike pointed out... every video editing application for the past 15 years has been able to edit DV.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com