Compression isn't really the issue since the image has to be uncompressed when you view it on the timeline. Maybe more descriptive terms are "deflated" and "inflated". When you open the file it is inflated.

Compression would probably let you get the file off the hard drive faster, but it'll use the same amount of memory once uncompressed in RAM. In theory you're looking at the same old tradeoff of disk throughput vs CPU load incurred uncompressing the file. In practical terms maybe there's not much difference.

PNG is generally considered to be the ideal format for Vegas because it's lossless and supports an 8-bit alpha channel. PSDs will get you layers, which is nice if you want to edit images that are on the timeline.

More important is whether Vegas can use the file at those pixel dimensions, you'll have to experiment.

Rob Mack

Mike,

The images are about 2300x3500 pix (or something like that).
"large files" - do you mean the file size or the dimensions?
I would like to minimze the dimen. but keep the quality.
I need the dimen. for zooming. I have calculated that about 5x zoom would be possible on a 720x576 DVD using a 2300x3500 image.
Or have I calculated wrong?

Per

PNG will retain the quality and reduce the file size compared to PSD.

Rob

When your talking about keeping file sizes down it seems to me stills are nothing compared to video. I consistantly use 100s of stills in videos and keep them in their original format right off the NikonD70. Unless you plan to throw away your originals why mess with them? You may find you want to zoom in a lot on one and less on another, this way you have the flexibility without really incurring a major disk space hit when compared to the amount of space you're using to store video footage.

Per, definitely convert them to PNG format.
I just tried this with a Digital Juice Juice Drop and it dropped it from a 125 MB. PSD to a 30 MB. PNG.
As far as the pixel size, you're the only one who can make the call on whether to reduce the size or not.
I just loaded up a 1600 x 1200 vacation photo of a 2-story cottage.
The shot was of the entire cottage from the sidewalk in front to the rooftop.
I was able to zoom in and read the (2 ft. x 6") sign that was above the front porch.
It was definitely fuzzy but still readable.
Your CPU speed is the other determining factor.
On my old AMD 2200, I had to be very careful image sizes as too many large ones choked the computer very quickly..
With my new quad core, I don't even think about it :-)

Mike

Do a search here on this issue. It has been gone into very expertly in the past. I think basically the best approach is to decide how much zoom you will use and resize the images accordingly. This is unpractical if you have a lot of images and you want to zoom differently on each. But please do read up on past posts. And yes, you can't go wrong with PNG in Vegas.
Tor

As you progress, you could also render preselected parts you're sure you're gonna keep "as is" and use these rendered files ?

Not questioning the more experienced input by other here at all.

I'm only addressing format, not resolution or image size here:

--- If disk space is an issue, it seems to me that -- again, depending on the level of zoom needed which may vary -- an optimal compressed 4:4:4 jpg at 20 or under compression can still look very decent. For SD rez work (HD may suffer).

And saved as that only once. Every subsequent edit or save in Photoshop or whatever one uses will degrade it.

Standard 4:2:2 .ipg compression starts losing quality pretty fast from the get-go.

If disk space isn't an issue, I'd stick to .png for all reasons stated by others.
.

So, to conclude:

PNG for most use and PSD if layers is to be used.

Tor, would be great if somebody would collect any info on this get together a good "tutorial" or at least introduction. Seems like Sony documentation department don't care too much to mention recommendations. Still, after x years of internet we still sit here with these "black holes of information" and "it's there somewhere".

But, I'm sure there would be lots of copyright issues if anyone would have the kindness to ever compile a good text/PDF of info from this forum for users to enjoy and actually learn and "get going" with Vegas.

PNG for most use and PSD if layers is to be used.

Until Vegas allows us to import layered PSDs (like FCP & Premiiere), make that PNG all the time.
What you're forgetting is that, if you have a multi-layered image, even if you only save the active layer, you're still saving all the layers.
As an example, I made a 9 layer image with a single digit in each layer.
Saving it as a PSD was 220 KB.
Saving layer 1 as a PSD was 220 KB.
Saving layer 1 as a PNG was 12 KB.
This is why I save them as PNGs.

Mike

>Until Vegas allows us to import layered PSDs (like FCP & Premiiere), make that PNG all the time.

On my Vegas 7 layered(?) PSD works fine.

>What you're forgetting is that, if you have a multi-layered image, even if you only save the active layer, you're still saving all the layers.

Yes, deactivating layers will not reduce file size - if so, something would be deleted from the image and you prob. wouldn't be able to access anymore - that would be sad as one only wants to deactivate them, not remove them.

>As an example, I made a 9 layer image with a single digit in each layer.
Saving it as a PSD was 220 KB.
Saving layer 1 as a PSD was 220 KB.

Do you mean deactivating the 8 other layers or saving the single layer as a new PSD. If the latter, file size should be reduced.

On my Vegas 7 layered(?) PSD works fine.

They work for me as well.
However, FCP & Premiere allow you to import a multi-layered PSD and have all the layers show up on separate tracks, just like you can add multiple audio or video events across tracks.

As an example, I made a 9 layer image with a single digit in each layer.

Deactivating the 8 other layers and saving the single layer as a new PSD.

Mike