odd problem: vid looks fine in vegas and AE but weak after rendering. ?

[tsimmons]

Okay, my first post here. I am not doing video for a living but just odd things once in 2 months but I use Vegas for the editing and sometimes after effects for better chroma keying and effects.

Windows XP on a PC. 4G RAM, etc. Vegas 8. AE CS4.

Now, I'm no vid expert so feel free to educate me. Prob is this. I filmed myself w/green screen at 30p hi def (i guess that's 1280 x 720?) and then captured it into vegas and rendered it out as uncompressed avi 720 x 480 1.0 aspect no interlacing. Import that into AE and create my vid w/o audio and then render THAT back out as a quicktime movie animation with 75 quality or whatever and bring THAT back into Vegas to do the final composite with another intro and my voice over track and possible music track.

Now, the vid looks great on my monitor in Vegas and AE. Just like I want it. Good contrast, nothing too dark or odd looking. Now, when I render out from Vegas an mp4 and play in VLC or Win media plyr, it looks weak. But .... okay, I just found the problem.

After screwing around a bit after typing all of that, I just now noticed that if I change the desktop color in the NVidia panel (as I had done to lower the brightness of my monitor) it did NOT change in in the video players but DID change it in Vegas and AE! wha? I thought it was changing it globally. So, in my apps, it was darker and then the vid players lighter and less depth due to higher gamma and brightness. DAMMIT! Why me? Anyway, so now I need to set it where it's the same in both.

One other question: this might really go in the DVD forum but I nearly pulled my hair out with this 720 x 480 and pixel ratio business. I tried 1.0 and .91 and it'd be right here and stretched there and I must just be dense. Can I just use 1.0 everywhere and that will be right or is .91 the real ratio I need to be using? I plan to make a bunch of short vids and bring that into dvd architect to make a dvd and I'm a total newb at that.


Anyway, all help is welcome ref preparing my vids for a DVD. I assume 720 x 480 is the res but any tips/links is good.

Oh, lastly, I never know what format/codec/compression I should use for intermediate vids that i need to make to do AE stuff b4 bringing em back into vegas. If I use uncompressed won't that be a buttload of memory for say 720 x 480 and 10 min of vid?


Thanks a lot.


Tim

[guns1inger]

The joys of overlays and software rendering in players. Yes, you have to try to calibrate them all to be the same. Best to start by putting everything to neutral and working from there.

DVD uses 720 x480 (NTSC) or 720 x 576 (PAL) for both 4:3 and 16:9. It does this by using non-square pixels and display aspect ratio tags to tell the player how to correct for it. If you are doing stills in the photoshop you can work in 720 x 480 with distortion to make it all look square while you work. For video you should choose appropriate output settings (e.g. NTSC 4:3).

Look at lossless compression for intermediate formats. Huffyuv works with both Vegas and AE, as does Lagarith. You still get big files, but smaller than uncompressed video. If necessary, buy a portable external HDD to add space. 10 minutes is not a lot of video.

[tsimmons]

Thanks for the reply. as for 10 min, no it's not but I may end UP having 3 hours of vid with some actual footage and some just created in AE. So, I was just wondering what most people do for intermediate rendering. Thanks for the info. No idea if I have those or where to get but I'm sure a google search will help me out.

Can you elaborate briefly on the photoshop/distortion part? I don't quite understand what you mean ref aspect ratios. I always thought ratio was simply the width vs height. IOW, 720 x 480 uniquely defines an aspect ratio. You divide 480 into 720 and get a ratio. So, the whole 1.0 / .91 thing is not totally clear right now.

Anyway, thanks again!

Tim

[guns1inger]

You can find links to most codecs in the Tools section (menu to your left)

Aspect Ratios are covered here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29#Distinctions - it may take you a little while to get your head around it. I would start by using virtualdub, opening a standard DV file, and then using the right-click menu on the display to see the changes in the image when you use different aspect ratios for playback.

Basically, if you create a perfectly round circle in a 720 x 480 image area with a 1.0 Pixel Aspect Ratio (1:1), then encode this for DVD, you will find the circle is no longer perfect on playback. It will be squashed.

[jagabo]

I don't quite understand what you mean ref aspect ratios. I always thought ratio was simply the width vs height.

Pixels don't have to be square:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/322346-same-resolution-but-difference-in-display-w-...=1#post1995959

[tsimmons]

You can find links to most codecs in the Tools section (menu to your left)

Aspect Ratios are covered here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29#Distinctions - it may take you a little while to get your head around it. I would start by using virtualdub, opening a standard DV file, and then using the right-click menu on the display to see the changes in the image when you use different aspect ratios for playback.

Basically, if you create a perfectly round circle in a 720 x 480 image area with a 1.0 Pixel Aspect Ratio (1:1), then encode this for DVD, you will find the circle is no longer perfect on playback. It will be squashed.

Okay, so I understand by this last statement that ALL DVD players play back 720 x 480 with a .91 aspect then? This is going to take me some thinking. I can tell the diff when I change the aspect in Vegas. It looks sometimes squished, sometimes stretched wide.

I guess I need to do another short test vid to see what the flow needs to be from my camera to final DVD. Write it down and don't worry about it.

Thanks for the links! Will just take me some time to check it all out. I am working on making a color theory DVD and I am at the stage where I need to know the best way to render this stuff so that's why I'm asking these things. Just never did it b4. Now that I got the color issue fixed, this aspect thing and other codecs are next. thanks!


Tim

[tsimmons]

I don't quite understand what you mean ref aspect ratios. I always thought ratio was simply the width vs height.

Pixels don't have to be square:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/322346-same-resolution-but-difference-in-display-w-...=1#post1995959

Yes, but I just assumed I could keep them square from the camera to the DVD MPG2 files but maybe that was my problem. I'll check the link and the ones by guns1inger too. thanks!


Tim

[jagabo]

Square pixels are not allowed on DVD. NTSC DVD supports only two display aspect ratios 4:3 and 16:9, pixel aspect ratios 10:11 and 40:33 respectively.

[tsimmons]

Square pixels are not allowed on DVD. NTSC DVD supports only two display aspect ratios 4:3 and 16:9, pixel aspect ratios 10:11 and 40:33 respectively.

I had no idea. I'm pretty ignorant of DVD creation. I'm still baffled how aspect ratio <> pixel ratio. I'll need to take some time and read up on the wiki link.

So, most likely, I'll want to render my final mp2 or mpeg2 files as 720 x 480 with pixel of .91? I guess what's throwing me is that I thought I could just use 1.0 all the way. More to learn...

Thanks!

And thanks to everyone for the fast replies! That's very cool.


Tim

[jagabo]

So, most likely, I'll want to render my final mp2 or mpeg2 files as 720 x 480 with pixel of .91? I guess what's throwing me is that I thought I could just use 1.0 all the way. More to learn...

DAR = PAR * SAR

DAR = Display Aspect Ratio, the final shape of the picture
PAR = Pixel Aspect Ratio, the shape of individual pixels
SAR = Storage Aspect Ratio, the frame dimensions

16:9 NTSC DVD, PAR=40:33, SAR=704x480

DAR = PAR * SAR
DAR = 40:33 * 704:480
DAR = 40/33 * 704/480
DAR = 1.2121 * 1.4667
DAR = 1.7778 (16:9)

4:3 NTSC DVD: PAR=10:11, SAR=704x480
DAR = PAR * SAR
DAR = 10:11 * 704:480
DAR = 10/11 * 704/480
DAR = 0.9091 * 4.6667
DAR = 1.333 (4:3)

There is some argument over whether commercial DVDs contain the 4:3 or 16:9 image in the center 704x480 portion of the frame (with 8 pixels of padding at the left and right edges, or in the full 720x480 frame. In any case, the difference is only about 2 percent. If you want to assume the full 720x480 frame contains the 4:3 or 16:9 frame use pixel aspect ratios of 8:9 and 32:27 respectively.

[tsimmons]

So, most likely, I'll want to render my final mp2 or mpeg2 files as 720 x 480 with pixel of .91? I guess what's throwing me is that I thought I could just use 1.0 all the way. More to learn...

DAR = PAR * SAR

DAR = Display Aspect Ratio, the final shape of the picture
PAR = Pixel Aspect Ratio, the shape of individual pixels
SAR = Storage Aspect Ratio, the frame dimensions

16:9 NTSC DVD, PAR=40:33, SAR=704x480

DAR = PAR * SAR
DAR = 40:33 * 704:480
DAR = 40/33 * 704/480
DAR = 1.2121 * 1.4667
DAR = 1.7778 (16:9)

4:3 NTSC DVD: PAR=10:11, SAR=704x480
DAR = PAR * SAR
DAR = 10:11 * 704:480
DAR = 10/11 * 704/480
DAR = 0.9091 * 4.6667
DAR = 1.333 (4:3)

There is some argument over whether commercial DVDs contain the 4:3 or 16:9 image in the center 704x480 portion of the frame (with 8 pixels of padding at the left and right edges, or in the full 720x480 frame. In any case, the difference is only about 2 percent. If you want to assume the full 720x480 frame contains the 4:3 or 16:9 frame use pixel aspect ratios of 8:9 and 32:27 respectively.

Man, I knew calculus would come in handy ONE day. haha Okay, so I'll cogitate on this and read the wiki stuff and maybe it will sink in eventually. Thanks for the hard numbers. As for 708 etc., I think I'll just be happy if it renders clean and doesn't look squished.

I just installed that Lagarith codec on my PC so I can try it for my intermediate vids. I'm still a bit confused by all the codec stuff and how you can pick AVI and still do mp4 and all these other things. I never know whether to render out as avi or mov or mp4 because to me they all look slightly different and the mp4 seems to be the best vs quality but I hear it renders slower. So much to know but let me start on these things and see what I can come up with.


Thanks again and if I posted in the wrong forum, let me know.


Tim

[tsimmons]

So, most likely, I'll want to render my final mp2 or mpeg2 files as 720 x 480 with pixel of .91? I guess what's throwing me is that I thought I could just use 1.0 all the way. More to learn...

DAR = PAR * SAR

DAR = Display Aspect Ratio, the final shape of the picture
PAR = Pixel Aspect Ratio, the shape of individual pixels
SAR = Storage Aspect Ratio, the frame dimensions

16:9 NTSC DVD, PAR=40:33, SAR=704x480

DAR = PAR * SAR
DAR = 40:33 * 704:480
DAR = 40/33 * 704/480
DAR = 1.2121 * 1.4667
DAR = 1.7778 (16:9)

4:3 NTSC DVD: PAR=10:11, SAR=704x480
DAR = PAR * SAR
DAR = 10:11 * 704:480
DAR = 10/11 * 704/480
DAR = 0.9091 * 4.6667
DAR = 1.333 (4:3)

There is some argument over whether commercial DVDs contain the 4:3 or 16:9 image in the center 704x480 portion of the frame (with 8 pixels of padding at the left and right edges, or in the full 720x480 frame. In any case, the difference is only about 2 percent. If you want to assume the full 720x480 frame contains the 4:3 or 16:9 frame use pixel aspect ratios of 8:9 and 32:27 respectively.

Man, I knew calculus would come in handy ONE day. haha Okay, so I'll cogitate on this and read the wiki stuff and maybe it will sink in eventually. Thanks for the hard numbers. As for 708 etc., I think I'll just be happy if it renders clean and doesn't look squished.

I just installed that Lagarith codec on my PC so I can try it for my intermediate vids. I'm still a bit confused by all the codec stuff and how you can pick AVI and still do mp4 and all these other things. I never know whether to render out as avi or mov or mp4 because to me they all look slightly different and the mp4 seems to be the best vs quality but I hear it renders slower. So much to know but let me start on these things and see what I can come up with.


Thanks again and if I posted in the wrong forum, let me know.


Tim

One quick question... I was planning on doing the size of 720 x 480 just because i figured I didn't really need 16:9 but what do you think? It won't be a movie or dealing with wide shots really. That's why I thought just do the 720 x 480 and that'd speed up the rendering too.

I'll play with this some more tonight and see if I can get a better grip on it.


Thanks,
Tim

[guns1inger]

If your target is DVD then both 4:3 and 16:9 will be rendered as 720 x 480 - the pixel aspect ratio and therefore the display aspect ratio will be different. Given that the shape of TVs today is 16:9, it is probably the safer bet to work in 16:9, but the final choice it up to you. If you work in 4:3 you will get pillar box bars on a widescreen TV.

[jagabo]

Just think of it like this: NTSC DVDs always use a 720x480 frame. Then there is an instruction on the disc that tells the player whether that frame should be displayed on-screen as 4:3 or 16:9.

Since your source is 16:9 DAR and modern TVs are 16:9 you should make a 16:9 DVD. Resize your frame to 720x480 (no cropping, letterboxing, or pillarboxing) and tell the MPEG encoder or DVD authoring software your video should be displayed as 16:9.

[tsimmons]

If your target is DVD then both 4:3 and 16:9 will be rendered as 720 x 480 - the pixel aspect ratio and therefore the display aspect ratio will be different. Given that the shape of TVs today is 16:9, it is probably the safer bet to work in 16:9, but the final choice it up to you. If you work in 4:3 you will get pillar box bars on a widescreen TV.

Okay, thanks. I think it's starting to sink in. I'll just have to start with the raw video in Vegas again and try to go each step and come up with the right settings. Maybe like this:

Canon HV-30 into Vegas (raw clip in hi def)
Vegas to intermediate using lagarith (don't downsample yet to 720 x 480? god I'm so confused).
This into AE (some settings hahahhaha)
this out to another intermediate form into Vegas
all final compositing in vegas out to.... 720 x 480 whatever the 16:9 standard settings are for mpeg2.
THAT movie into DVD architect and do a test render and cross my fingers.

Anyway, thanks a bunch for the input. I know you are repeating yourself to tons of newbs. I did the same on airbrush forums.


Tim

[tsimmons]

Just think of it like this: NTSC DVDs always use a 720x480 frame. Then there is an instruction on the disc that tells the player whether that frame should be displayed on-screen as 4:3 or 16:9.

Since your source is 16:9 DAR and modern TVs are 16:9 you should make a 16:9 DVD. Resize your frame to 720x480 (no cropping, letterboxing, or pillarboxing) and tell the MPEG encoder or DVD authoring software your video should be displayed as 16:9.

Okay, thanks. I'll just go ahead and use 16:9 and see what happens.


Thanks,
Tim

[jagabo]

Canon HV-30 into Vegas (raw clip in hi def)
Vegas to intermediate using lagarith (don't downsample yet to 720 x 480?

Depending on what you're doing in later steps, it may make sense to downsize to 720x480 at this stage. For greenscreen work you'll probably get better results working at the higher resolution, then downscaling later (to get better antialiasing). You should run a few quick tests and see how much difference it makes.

[tsimmons]

Canon HV-30 into Vegas (raw clip in hi def)
Vegas to intermediate using lagarith (don't downsample yet to 720 x 480?

Depending on what you're doing in later steps, it may make sense to downsize to 720x480 at this stage. For greenscreen work you'll probably get better results working at the higher resolution, then downscaling later (to get better antialiasing). You should run a few quick tests and see how much difference it makes.

It probably would look okay. This chroma key plugin (keylight 1.2) is really good. So many setting in there I don't know what half of them do. But it does a great job even on crappy lit greenscreens. I don't have good lights so my screen is always too dark behind me. If I use my 500 w halogen on it, it is always unevenly lit. I know how it should be lit but I don't have the $ to buy some small aimable lights.

So, I spend the extra hour tweaking the chroma key plugin.


Thanks,
Tim

[tsimmons]

Me again. Man... is it just me or is this stuff possessed?

Okay, I made a couple of test vids to test exposure using my Canon HV30. Seems the auto mode always shifts exposure when i move in front of the green screen and out and color seems to become more saturated after like a minute. So, I set the camera to P (? whatever P means but it was opposite of Auto on the side so I flipped it to P) and in the camera menu I selected:

HDV interlaced (60 frames per second), tungsten lighting and aperture priority of whatever (I made one at say 3.4 and one at 1.8).

Now, the interlacing apparently is giving me 1440 x 880 x 32. Does 32 mean 32 bits for color storage per pixel?

Now, I brought the clips into Vegas and they played perfectly fine with the 1440 interlaced upper field first setting.

I rendered a snip of one clip using Lagarith encoder and the same 1440 settings of my project and when bring THAT clip back into Vegas, it played like it was in slow motion. Like it had lost some frames or something. I thought maybe was rendering speed so I set Vegas to draft and it didn't improve.

So, I thought I'd take the clip into AE and see. WELL, inside AE the ratio was crunched inward (not wide enough) even though AE interprets the footage when you bring it in cuz it knew all that stuff when I dragged the clip into the window.

WHY ME? Why is Vegas (and AE I think but didn't get that far) playing the rendered clip using Lagarith like slo mo and why if I rendered the clip using same settings and AE has same settings does it look crunched in?

Last question: For highest quality of normal shoots indoors in front of my green screen, should I use the interlacing mode or the progressive mode of 30 fps? Does interlacing give any better visual results? Or is it just that progressive is easier to work with in an editor?

Thanks anyone for the help! I can't believe this is so difficult.

Oh, and what about bit depth in Vegas? I've always used 8 bit. Should I be using 32 instead? I figured it would slow down the playback and render to use 32 but maybe I should?


Thanks,
Tim

[jagabo]

Lagarith is not a high speed codec. Don't expect realtime playback from it. Just worry about whether your final output plays smoothly. Be sure you enable multithreading in Lagarith (if you have a multicore CPU).

AVI doesn't really support aspect ratios. You have to tell AE your Lagarith file is 16:9 DAR even though the frame is 4:3. (HDV should be 1440x1080, not 1440x880 as you stated.)

"8 bit" color often means 8 bit per channel. With RGB that totals 24 bits, with RGBA (including alpha channel) it's 32 bits. The other meanings of 8 bits is 8 bit grayscale and 8 bit indexed color. Since you're not working in grayscale you can rule the former out. Nobody does serious video with indexed color so you can rule that out too.

30 fps interlace will give you smoother motion but lower picture quality. 30 fps progressive will give you better picture quality but less smooth motion.

[tsimmons]

Thanks. But I recall it played back fine b4 in Vegas and AE. I wonder if it's due to the interlacing?

Also, I think my CPU is just one. I don't think I got the dual core one. So I left multi-threading off.

" (HDV should be 1440x1080, not 1440x880 as you stated.)" Yeah, it was just my mistake. I haven't used 1440 b4 and couldn't remember the other #. sorry.

Gotcha on the interlaced/prog thing.

As for the 8 bit/ 32 bit.... in Vegas i can set 8 or 32. If I set to 32, I notice the color gets more intense. So, I'm still lost on what that setting means in Vegas. I'll snoop around and see. I don't have any manual for it. I've just been winging everything so far.

Let me try a few things and see what happens.

Thanks!


Tim

[poisondeathray]

Native HDV should playback a lot easier than lagarith, even on older single computers. Lagarith will be about 10x the filesize and require more CPU to decode, so it will likely not playback smoothly unless you have no transfer bottlenecks or CPU bottlenecks

32-bit mode in vegas means 32-bits per channel (32 red, 32 green , 32 blue, 32 alpha) . It's a higher level of precision to prevent introducing more banding during color correction, but is a lot slower, you'll notice this on export

The type of format, mode and settings used will alter how vegas does it's RGB conversion (studio vs. computer RGB) , that's why you get the levels shift. You can read these articles for more information
http://www.glennchan.info/articles/vegas/v8color/vegas-9-levels.htm
http://www.glennchan.info/articles/vegas/colorspaces/colorspaces.html


Setting it so your overlay and desktop video card settings to match is fine, but it likely still won't match what you see on a DVD, unless you are using an external calibrated monitor. PC monitors are calibrated differently than TV's. You have to keep your levels and color within legal ranges. You should use your monitoring scopes (waveform, histogram etc..) within vegas to make sure everything is legal for DVD. The only way to be 100% sure is to burn some test DVD's.

[tsimmons]

thanks, pdr. I'm just very new to the nuts and bolts. I mean, I thought I had the Lagarith thing going then last night... slow motion. ? Something new all the time. Then the squish even setting it manually so I just feel like stuff is changing behind my back. I mean, even at draft mode quarter res, it was slo mo. ? So, it was almost like it lost frames in the conversion or rendering, NOT in playback. ?

Oh, here's a puzzler. If I want to render from interlaced to prog, do I just pick the prog setting in vegas when I render? I always wonder if those settings in the render window mean what I want it to BE or what it IS. ?? argggggggg. I know the proj settings affect how it looks in the preview window.

Yeah, I do see some stuff SOMEWHERE in there about keeping the white/black to like 235 and 15 or something so that it doesn't blow out on tv or dvd I guess. I guess that's what they call broadcast safe or something. Man, I wish I had gone to school for this instead of computer science which only helps if you need to do calculus or write a program. I'll try again tonight.

Tim

[tsimmons]

My monitor is a Sony 19" lcd. It's actually really nice ref not banding. But never sure how calibrated it is. That's always been a ? and color spaces is a joke. It's way too complicated. I mean, shouldn't there be a STANDARD? there's only so many colors you can really see just like there is a standard for audio. 44.1KHz 16 bit. Now, that has gone up but you see what I mean.

Anyway, I'll keep screwing around and prob confuse myself worse. hehe

Tim

[tsimmons]

those glennchan links didn't work. Tim

[jagabo]

My monitor is a Sony 19" lcd. It's actually really nice ref not banding. But never sure how calibrated it is. That's always been a ? and color spaces is a joke. It's way too complicated. I mean, shouldn't there be a STANDARD?

Yes, each industry has a standard (or several because the state of the art improves over time and different countries have different systems). Unfortunately, the computer and television industries have different standards.

[poisondeathray]

Links might be down, try again later. There is a lot of basic information there on how vegas works , and whether it's it using studio RGB (16-235) or computer RGB (0-255)

Uncompressed video passes though vegas nicely (levels remain untouched) , but I suspect it will be hard to edit on your current system because of transfer bottlenecks. You'll need some upgrades for snappier editing experience

If all you're doing is DVD and you will never do an HD project, it will be easier on your system (in terms of editing speed) to do everything in SD - fewer pixels to render. Quality wise, it would be better to use the native resolution - this includes the accuracy of the keying

[tsimmons]

Links might be down, try again later. There is a lot of basic information there on how vegas works , and whether it's it using studio RGB (16-235) or computer RGB (0-255)

Uncompressed video passes though vegas nicely (levels remain untouched) , but I suspect it will be hard to edit on your current system because of transfer bottlenecks. You'll need some upgrades for snappier editing experience

If all you're doing is DVD and you will never do an HD project, it will be easier on your system (in terms of editing speed) to do everything in SD - fewer pixels to render. Quality wise, it would be better to use the native resolution - this includes the accuracy of the keying

At least vegas has various preview res and quality so I can do smaller and see a more real time render in preview. My PC isn't a dog. It's decent. 3.something GHz CPU with 4 Gig RAM.

So, I'll just have to try to get something to work and stick with it. I guess when we say DVD, I need to use the studio rgb color space so it's okay for TV?

Anyway, thanks a lot!


Tim

[tsimmons]

My monitor is a Sony 19" lcd. It's actually really nice ref not banding. But never sure how calibrated it is. That's always been a ? and color spaces is a joke. It's way too complicated. I mean, shouldn't there be a STANDARD?

Yes, each industry has a standard (or several because the state of the art improves over time and different countries have different systems). Unfortunately, the computer and television industries have different standards.

Thanks. I suppose that means I should be using studio rgb for my DVD project. Well, thanks again!


Tim

[jagabo]

I suppose that means I should be using studio rgb for my DVD project.

I don't use Vegas so I don't know what's appropriate there.