Event-level stabilization, subclip proxies, copy-able media FX when?

Ponchato wrote on 9/13/2018, 2:19 AM

I use a lot of moving-camera shots; dolly, slider, pan and tilt, etc. Because of that I use stabilization in probably 2/3 of my clips. However, I also use proxies to make editing and proofing *much* faster and more reliable. But subclips can't utilize proxy files. But subclips are necessary because Vegas' built in stabilization can only be applied at the Media FX level, and applying stabilization to an untrimmed video takes an excessive amount of time and kills clip usability due to cropping. Camera movements necessarily include much heavier camera shake at the beginning and end of recording than in the middle - the only part you're showing anyway. And, going further, Media FX can't be applied in bulk nor copied from one file or subclip to another.

So if I want to use proxies, I can't use subclips. But I have to use subclips to use stabilization. And if I want to color correct at the Media FX level (which is dramatically more practical than event-level FX), I can't use the raw media on the timeline, color correct, and then create subclips for stabilization, because Media FX aren't inherited by subclips nor can you copy Media FX from one file or subclip to another - I would have to color correct twice or proof the video twice, every time. As it is now we have a "3 options, pick 2" scenario. Proxies + Media FX color correction, but no stabilization. Or, Media FX color correction + stabilization, but no proxies.

If literally any one of those limitations were changed, the whole subclip workflow would work perfectly. If subclips could use proxies -> use subclips from the start, nothing else needs to be done. If stabilization could be applied at the event level -> color correct with MediaFX and stabilize individual events on the timeline; easy breezy. Heck, if Media FX could be copied (or bulk copied!), even though it would be a hassle, even that would make it somewhat reasonable to have proxies, stabilization, and Media FX color correction.

Does Magix have any plans to change any of that stuff? It would massively improve working with subclips.

Comments

VEGASPascal wrote on 9/13/2018, 6:59 AM

It is a conceptual problem of Media FX, Video FX and proxies. At the moment I have no workaround for you (maybe someone else). We will discuss this. Thanks for your ideas and feedback of your workflow.

Peter_P wrote on 9/13/2018, 10:50 AM

@Ponchato

For the reasons you listed I use Mercalli V4 as event FX and apply them with my AddMercalli (see signature) automatically. I often have to stabilize every clip in the project and it some times improves the operation having the Levels FX as the first filter.

I also hope, that the Vegas internal Stabilizer will some times be usable as an event FX, which makes it much better to use  without subclips.

Kinvermark wrote on 9/13/2018, 12:02 PM

So how do you deal with Mercalli V4 losing it's settings and needing to re-analyse? This happens frequently enough that I use a render & replace workflow using a Magic YUV intermediate. The OP's workflow wouldn't work in this case (although he could possibly also use a full-res lossless intermediate instead of a proxy.)

Ponchato wrote on 9/13/2018, 12:30 PM

@VEGASPascal

I see. If you guys could change just one thing from that list, I'd definitely suggest allowing subclips to use proxies. Either through creation of dedicated proxies for each subclip or, even better, allowing subclips to use the proxy of their parent media - that would be fantastic. Also very nice to see you folks active on the forums!

@Peter_P

Mercalli has come up as an option, but as Kinvermark said, the whole "losing its settings" thing could be a deal breaker. As I understand it, Mercalli will sometimes just... poof, lose the analysis/your settings for stabilizing clip(s) and then you have to do it all again. Someone correct me on that if I'm wrong.

(Not sure if @'ing people like this is standard on these forums, should I just be typing their name with no link? I don't want to spam people with notifications)

Musicvid wrote on 9/13/2018, 1:28 PM

Sir, I don't believe you need to use subclips, whether working from a source media or timeline proxy.

After making your rough cuts, save your project and choose Save Media with Project. Then you can choose to save the trimmed copy, and thus work from an uncluttered new project.

Does that meet your workflow needs better?

Ponchato wrote on 9/13/2018, 2:34 PM

Thanks for the suggestion Musicvid! Unfortunately it looks like making trimmed copies only work with AVI files: https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/some-of-the-media-was-not-trimmed--104100/#ca643040

Perhaps I could convert all my footage to AVI but I'm not sure about loss of quality and how file sizes would change. I'll look into it.

Kinvermark wrote on 9/13/2018, 3:21 PM

If you have enough disk space, you might want to forego proxies and just use a lossless intermediate like MagicYUV. Performance may be similar.

john_dennis wrote on 9/13/2018, 3:25 PM

"Perhaps I could convert all my footage to AVI but I'm not sure about loss of quality and how file sizes would change. I'll look into it."

Executive Summary

Using Sony YUV, loss of quality should not be an issue.

File size for 1920x1080-59.94p XAVC-S (50 Mbps) increased by a factor of ~41.

CPU load is significantly less for uncompressed Sony YUV in an AVI wrapper, but I/O goes up equally significantly.

It trims!

john_dennis wrote on 9/13/2018, 3:27 PM

"If you have enough disk space..."

...and I/O bandwidth, if using multiple streams.

Musicvid wrote on 9/13/2018, 3:51 PM

Haha you will not lose quality by converting to AVI! That is beyond probability.

Your hands-down encoder choice is Magic YUV (not "Magix"). It is a free download.

File bandwidth will be larger than your originals, but you won't be doing a lot of wasted stabilizing.

Ponchato wrote on 9/13/2018, 3:52 PM

Thanks for the info john_dennis and Musicvid, exactly what I was curious about.

Looks like uncompressed AVIs are a bit out of reach - 40x more storage is a heavy burden. So close to a good workaround though! I think I'll just be waiting for proxy-able subclips.

Kinvermark wrote on 9/13/2018, 4:06 PM

That's just uncompressed. Not the same as MagicYUV (or cineform or XAVC-intra) which take up WAYYYYY less space. I think it would be worth your while to test a couple clips to see what you can make of it.

john_dennis wrote on 9/13/2018, 4:15 PM

"Haha you will not lose quality by converting to AVI! That is beyond probability."

I can measure a difference using scopes. I'm not sure I can...

see the difference...

...anymore.

This is a thought experiment for me. I continue to slog along with clips directly from the camera.

Musicvid wrote on 9/13/2018, 7:15 PM

Thanks for the info john_dennis and Musicvid, exactly what I was curious about.

Looks like uncompressed AVIs are a bit out of reach - 40x more storage is a heavy burden. So close to a good workaround though! I think I'll just be waiting for proxy-able subclips.

No, Uncompressed AVI is an IMPRACTICAL SOLUTION for a digital intermediate due to its large size. Did I actually say anything at all about Uncompressed, or did I strongly suggest Magic YUV?? That's one of several compressed AVI CODECS, since you seem to be brand new to any of this.

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/speaking-good-video-a-beginner-s-guide--104463/

Why are you so determined to discredit and dismiss a solution that is tried and true after years of testing and active use? I do see that you are more interested in receiving attention for your feature request than in finding a solution. Hi there, Ponchato.

in addition to Magic YUV, other AVI Intraframe 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 Digital Intermediates I have personally tested and confirmed in Vegas are Sony YUV, HuffYUV, UT Codec, Cineform, Helix, DNxHD / DNxHR. They are smaller than uncompressed. I do not recommend Lagarith or some others.

Now, I passionately suggest you stop grousing about this subclip thing and start YOUR own testing. Your feature request "may be" more pleasantly entertained in the Off Topic area. Welcome to the Forum, and Best of luck.

Peter_P wrote on 9/14/2018, 12:56 AM

So how do you deal with Mercalli V4 losing it's settings and needing to re-analyse?

@Kinvermark

I never had this problem with Mercalli V4 and Vp15/16 using UHDp30 footage - as long as the length of an event is NOT changed. However, my AddMercally allows also to start automatic re-analyse.

Peter_P wrote on 9/14/2018, 1:38 AM

@Kinvermark

I recently worked for weeks on an UHDp30 project with a final length of 1h05 and 818 XAVC-S UHDp30 Clips. 751 of them have Mercalli V4 applied with AddMercalli and I did not have to re-analyse even one – only when the length was changed.

A different story are the ‘Mercalli-Glitches’, where the analyze message pops up for 1 – 3 frames during rendering. This my be caused by a problem with multithreadening on the Vegas/FX interface. Currently this required to render with 1-thread only as user peter-r found out.

Can you please provide details, how you manage to loose the analyzed state without changing the length of the event? What footage, what project setting …..

Kinvermark wrote on 9/14/2018, 9:56 AM

@Peter_P

My experience with Mercalli is exactly how you describe (plus occasional random issues that are hard to replicate). Footage typically 24p , 4k UHD or 4k DCI from Gh4/5 cameras. HDV too, but this needs a workaround to work at all.

In the context of the OP I think this is problematic without a render/replace workflow. IMHO not many editors would want to hold 751 clips without many length changes. Also, it only takes ONE bad frame to ruin a render.

Peter_P wrote on 9/14/2018, 10:10 AM

IMHO not many editors would want to hold 751 clips without many length changes.

I also had to change the length of every clip. But this was done before applying the Mercalli FXes. ;)

Also, it only takes ONE bad frame to ruin a render.

That absolutely true. But you can avoid them rendering with the 1-thread setting. I have done this meanwhile with many projects.