Choke on JPG: 4:4:4 =GOOD ; 4:2:2 = CHOKE

Grazie wrote on 3/3/2013, 3:02 AM

I'm waaaaay over my head on this one. Help!

If I apply ANY Pan/Crop, i.e. Vegas chokes and falls over. Is this your experience?

I've got JPGs from my Canon PS50sx, and straight from the camera Vegas is fine. If I do a Pan/Crop, say for straightening purposes and "Ken Burns", Vegas chokes on it. It's NOT size 'cos when I fluff it up to 150% it grows from 2.4mb to 2.88mb VEgas is good as gold.

In wanting to get a "view" on the altered JPG, I dipped them through MediaInfo and the difference I note is the Chroma subsampling(?) has been readjusted from 4:2:2 up to 4:4:4 .

OK, 3 Questions:

1] Why does or should this happen?

2] Why should the 4:4:4 "change" make a difference to Vegas NOT choking?

3] Is this something Vegas SHOULD be smarter at processing/doing?

. . and finally

4] DO I plop this onto SCS's lap for their attention?

TIA

Grazie

Back to post

Comments

PeterDuke wrote on 3/6/2013, 8:40 PM

Grazie

Perhaps you could try an earlier version of Vegas to see if that is significant.

Grazie wrote on 3/7/2013, 5:40 AM

PD, I'm here because I'm here.

Meaning, I've got a Camera that does Stills and Movs; I'm on B486 and mostly it works; If I swap-out the 4:2:2 to a 4:4:4, VP12 is fine and behaves itself.

So why, in all that's Faraday-Evidenced-Based results, would I need to confirm, or deny, that another state would work or wont? How would this improve the Wealth of Nations? Even you've found the need to do a render-tango to get something working in your workflow.

So, here's the thing:

A] I have a simple work-flow option to counter this twit-ishness . . .

B] The actual "workaround" is flagging up a disparity that is, IMO, daft!

Cheers

Grazie

PeterDuke wrote on 3/7/2013, 5:42 PM

Grazie, some people have an inquisitive mind. I was just trying to get to bottom of the problem, and when it may show up for others, including myself.

I am also conscious that curiosity killed the cat ...

Grazie wrote on 3/8/2013, 1:43 AM

PD: Grazie, some people have an inquisitive mind.
I know that! I've been around here for 10+ years.

PD: I was just trying to get to bottom of the problem,
A very admirable mission. However, showing that this works for you doesn't negate that it isn't working for me and that your inductive reasoning can not point to a solution - admirable as it is.

PD: . . . and when it may show up for others, including myself.
But here I have identified an issue and when it shows up.

PD: I am also conscious that curiosity killed the cat ...
No it didn't. It was the electricity in the mains plug that killed the cat! Actually it was the loss of oxygen that was supplied to the cat's brain that killed it - that, and a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the laws of resistivity. But I put that down to the cat's parents taken it out of "Saturday Science Club", which the cat truly enjoyed going to. Pity it missed out on that last semester dedicated to the early experiments on electricity by Faraday.

Where am I going with this? I'll tell you: Causal issues, viz the Cat and as in Vegas can be well hidden by a process of combinations of seemingly non-related functions, the ƒ(x) option is rife. Meaning, we are most likely chasing our own tail/s to figure out a root cause, when in actual fact this needs to be re-mapped by the engineers who are the drivers on this. All I/we can do is bring it to their attention via Forum Admin here, and hope that FA is in a position or has the stamina and endurance, to pass it along.

PD thanks for your time and attempts to throw some light on this.

Grazie

PeterDuke wrote on 3/8/2013, 2:47 AM

As the Italians would say, "grazie Grazie"