First impressions of VP8

Zelkien69 wrote on 9/10/2007, 12:46 AM

Lackluster....Yes it's a little faster with long GOP files. Yes it does have a so-so multicam. And Pro "Hype"ler is better at titles than before, but doesn't do anything special compared to whats already on the market. Maybe I was just expecting to much.

The plug-ins, with a quick glance over, are unchanged. I was hoping for a little more control with the color correctors and chroma key. It's exactly the same. I like Vegas, I just wanted it to offer a new wow factor to anyone looking to switch. If they didn't switch to 6 or 7 I don't think 8, I mean Pro 8, is going to do the trick.

I'll do some render test tomorrow and see how it fairs.

Enjoy.

Comments

Jonathan Neal wrote on 9/10/2007, 12:53 AM

Looks to me you aren't making so much a First impressions of VP8 post, as much as you are making a Requests for VP9. :P

I literally just finished downloading.

John_Cline wrote on 9/10/2007, 1:04 AM

Thanks for your "glowing" knee-jerk review based on maybe five minutes of using the program.

Why in the world wouldn't you be taking advantage of the 32-bit video processing? It will increase the quality of the color correction and chroma key filters even if you're working with 8-bit video files.

People have been bitching about the titler within Vegas for quite a while. You get a vastly more powerful titler integrated in the new version of Vegas and you bitch about that.

I suspect that others (including myself) may have a different opinion of the new Vegas than yours.

John

Zelkien69 wrote on 9/10/2007, 1:39 AM

I apologize deeply Mr Cline. I kicked the tires for about an hour, played with the multicam script, typed a little text and looked through the manual. I was way off about the 32 bit and will gladly, as time permits, be utilizing it for the exact reasons you mention.

As for the titler, I'll stand by this. If you have a great car with a crappy radio and get a nicer car with a not as crappy radio (compared to your own expectations and what other companies offer) it's perfectly reasonable to not be satisfied. It's just one area that Vegas will continue to play catch up. Considering the fact that many Vegas users on here have probably purchased an alternative text generator to make up for the short comings of Vegas over the past few years I'd say it still falls short to what's currently installed. Livetype, Boris, BlufTitler, and many many more. The presets are nice, but that doesn't make a titler.

Vegas is great and serves me well. I was just looking the wow factor. Can I expect that for a couple of hundred dollars? Honestly, didn't FCP get Color? Adobe DV Rack?

DJPadre wrote on 9/10/2007, 2:10 AM

sad t hear theres no wb correction filter..

rs170a wrote on 9/10/2007, 2:16 AM

VidCap is still stuck at version 6 :-(

Mike

MarkFoley wrote on 9/10/2007, 2:34 AM

Groundhog Day.....

Always the same thing...big anticipation before the release...everyone panting to be the first one to download...and then the whinning because they weren't blown out of their chair because the auto butt wiper feature isn't there. :-)

Zelkien69 wrote on 9/10/2007, 2:41 AM

...but they said that there was going to be an auto butt wiper feature.

megabit wrote on 9/10/2007, 2:46 AM

I have a fairly fast system (QX6700), and yet when in 32bit video mode, the playback from timeline is jerky (not full speed). The CPU is not used noticeably more than with 8bit, so what's up? Do you experience the same

Zelkien69 wrote on 9/10/2007, 2:56 AM

E6600@2.4 here with 4 GB Ram. 8 bit definitely plays back better, but 32 is back to where I was before. When I switch an 8 bit veg to 32 bit my levels are getting blown out in well lit areas and dark areas are losing detail. After adjusting the levels/colors there is no doubt that there is a smoother color pallette with 32. There's a lot going on and it's definitely going to change the workflow and seemingly FX use.

DGates wrote on 9/10/2007, 2:58 AM

...and yet when in 32bit video mode, the playback from timeline is jerky (not full speed)...

Same here. But really, you could edit as-is in 8 bit, then right before rendering, switch it to 32 bit? I'm guessing that would work, so you could see more fluid playback.

I agree, the titler and other features are decent, but the 32-bit processing is really something. I took a clip, added four effects to it, and rendered in both 8 and 32. What a difference. The 8-bit has obvious effects banding (particulary with gradients). The 32-bit looked pristine.

To say VP8 is a let-down, would be not seeing the forest for the trees.

That being said, this build did freeze up and close a couple of times. I usually wait until version "C" while all the kinks get worked out, but after messing with 32-bit, I really want to do all projects with VP8 now! But I'll probably wait until version "B".

Zelkien69 wrote on 9/10/2007, 3:23 AM

Okay first test with VP8. Using John Cline's Render Test I originally ran my E6600@2.4 with 4GB RAM through it in 4:06. Absolutely average compared to like systems.
In VP8 in 8 bit mode it took 4:27 What?? close. similar. but slower.
Now in VP8 32 bit ............. 4:38.
Next report will be a small 30 sec HDV file with motion.

Second test with M2t files from XH-A1. 30second clip with audio render to same specs as Johns.
VP8 in 8 bit mode :39 seconds
VP8 in 32 bit mode 1:31
VP7 did it in :35. and that would have been to MPG template still producing a m2t file.

Someone help me figure this out. I openly don't know and fully understand bits or colorspace as well as I should, but what gives on the bigger, better, faster front? If everyone agrees that 32 bit is better color/less banding thats great. It's going to take a little longer in most cases, I can live with that.
My question is why has V7 rendered quicker than VP8?

DJPadre wrote on 9/10/2007, 3:36 AM

one thign abotu 8bit vs 32, is the fact that colour itself IS changed, irrespective of whether or not your filtering. In that case, the issue then stems to how one shoots.. do you shoot to compensate for 32bit "popping" or do u shoot 8bit and paray that 32 wotn blow your higlights and crush ur blacks..

To be honest, i feel if your footage is good, and you just want basic correction, there would be no need for 32bit.. for compositing its a different beast, but lets face it, for what were paying, you really cant complain.
Smartrendering GOP in itself is one of the reasons im going for it.

Jay Gladwell wrote on 9/10/2007, 3:36 AM

John, this has happened with every release that I've seen since version 3 (that's where I came in). I'm not surprised.

One could paraphrase Lincoln: 'You can please all of the people some of the time; you can please some of the people all of the time; you cannot please all of the people all of the time.'

DGates wrote on 9/10/2007, 3:51 AM

Continuing with the 32-bit testing, there is definitely a richer palette. A video clip that I added sharpness, mids-boost and lower saturation (3 filters total) came out the usual over-processed looking way in 8-bit. But in 32-bit, it actually looks more natural, even with all those adjustments.

And $249 isn't a bad upgrade price.

megabit wrote on 9/10/2007, 5:21 AM

So is it OK to preview in 8bit, and only switch to 32bit befor final render? Cause otherwise, it's unusable! My system does the Rendertest-hdv in 1.48 in Vegas 7.0e, but in close to 3mins in V8/32bit!

Also, does anyone use it with the Sony DR60 drive? The merged files produced with the File->Import->Hard disk recording unit option are corrupted, just like in V7.0e...

DJPadre wrote on 9/10/2007, 5:24 AM

umm.. dude, just drag and drop.. should work

megabit wrote on 9/10/2007, 5:27 AM

Drag & Dropping has always worked just fine. I'd like to use the functionality of merging the 4GB file chunks, created on the DR60 due to its FAT32 limitations. Files created this way are corrupted, though. Does anyone use this functionatility successfuly (with V7 and now V8)?

farss wrote on 9/10/2007, 5:36 AM

Also, does anyone use it with the Sony DR60 drive? The merged files produced with the File->Import->Hard disk recording unit option are corrupted, just like in V7.0e...

I can borrow one, thanks for pointing out yet another bug to me.

I was going to shoot a 3 hour concert with a V1 and the DR60 in a couple of weeks, with a FCP user that I'd humbled over it's handling of that unit looking over my shoulder. At least he would have had the last laugh.

Wonder if the two black frame bug got fixed?
Or the VST bug?

Bob.

ken c wrote on 9/10/2007, 5:46 AM

*that* would be most helpful, re render tests, to compare speed and quality of output videos from V7 to V8...

-ken

blink3times wrote on 9/10/2007, 5:57 AM

So far it quite frankly sucks.

Can't get it to open in vista 64.... have to work on that later.
It install okay in xp but I get a memory read error on closing (can't read at 0x01fb4e00)... and there seems to be no media manager! It says "media manager not installed".

blink3times wrote on 9/10/2007, 6:20 AM

I AM however happy to report that "smart render" IS there and working for HDV!

megabit wrote on 9/10/2007, 6:40 AM

How did you check that? There are 3 usual option in media properties: force, smart and disable resmaple; or am I missing something?

megabit wrote on 9/10/2007, 6:42 AM

Also, have you noticed that the "Default all" option of Video preferrences now yields different RAM buffer value than in 7.0? I have 4GB of RAM (of course less is usable under XP x86) and the default was 511, with V8 - is 128 MB. Wonder why...

And with 32bit video, the 98-100% usage of my quad CPU is no more achievable! Definitely unoptimized code here..

fwtep wrote on 9/10/2007, 10:28 AM

Zelkien69, just so you know, under 32bit operating systems a program can only access 1.5gb of RAM, so having 4gb won't really help much. Figuring 1gb for the OS (which is probably high for XP, if that's what you're using) and 1.5gb for Vegas, you're only using 2.5gb.