How about about this 64 bit uncompressed workflow.

LarsHD wrote on 6/14/2009, 3:34 AM
1 a)
Camera footage converted to 1920x1080 uncompressed AVI

1 b)
Camera footage converted to 960x540 uncompressed AVI

(Sonys "Production Assistant" does a fine job in batch converting, and unlike Cineform it doesn't alter the levels of my footage and I have full freedom to create my rendering template in Vegas.).

2
I set project properties as 960x540

3
I throw in the 960x540 version of the footage on the timeline. With 960x540 and my Velociraptors I can get full fram rate during dissolves, which I like. It looks good, it's big enough for me to view properly and work with.

4
When entering text, I set the plugins for 1920x1080 because that is the format I will use when rendering out the finished product.

5
I edit the footage and add text etc.

6
When doing any color corrections I do these based on the high quality of the AVI files I view and knowing that when I replaced them with the full 1920x1080 AVI files, the colors and levels are identical. Unlike when using a compressing codec.

7
Rendering time. Before I render I now throw in the 1920x1080 versions of the same files that are in my production folder. Files have same name and Vegas 8 is happy. I now change the project properties to 1920x1080 and the text plugins will deliver full resolution because they are lready set to that. Render looks good!



Advantages:

A - I get full quality.
B - I can play with multigen work freely and don't worry
C - I don't have to spend time messing with codec s
D - Conversion is simple and straightforward
E - I can work in 64 bit! There are many little things here and there that I like with VP9-64.
F - I can play the rendered 1920x1080 master at full frame rate knowing it is really good and accurate in colors. Freedom from codecs is a good feeling! Knowing that what I see is my camera and the stuff I have been doing.


Disadvantages:
A - Takes up a lot of disk space. But if I don't mind and have big storage drives etc., this isn't an issue.
B - Anything you can think of?


Cinescore doesn't work in 64 bit. I think however that using that as standalone for the time being and work in 64 bit actually is an ok sacrifice.



Anyone?

Best
Lars



Running "Performance Test 7.0" I see that interaction with disks is more efficient in Vista 64 than in Windows XP 32. Between 5-20%. Same machine. Same disks.

Comments

farss wrote on 6/14/2009, 4:51 AM
If it works for you go for it. Your needs are significantly different from most peoples here, some go to considerable lengths to do exactly the opposite.

I'd investigate using the Sony 10bit YUV codec rather than the 8bit 'uncompressed' codec. You'll probably not see any difference on most monitors but you might with heavy color grading. For that to make any real difference you'd need to use Vegas's 32bit mode. I can't say for certain if this will give you any real advantage or not given the camera you're using but as you've spent so much time testing it could be a trivial task relatively speaking to do a bit more testing.

As always no testing is complete until you check the outcome on the target display(s). As Leslie pointed out in that other thread that can be a much bigger issue than anything in this game.

Bob.
LarsHD wrote on 6/14/2009, 6:01 AM
Thanks Bob for good input.

1.
"go to considerable lengths to do exactly the opposite" = what? Achieve bad colors and low resolution...?

2.
Will give the 10 / 32 a try. Yes, having since long gone beyond the insanity test...etc might as well do more... ;)

3.
"Leslie pointed out" = what is this, missed that...

4.
Target monitor - well, I do a lot on 0-255 and good quality 1920x1080 computer monitors are my target many times (hence, CineForced 16-235 isn't always what I want...) Architecture, interior, fashion, eyelashes, jewlery, fabric etc at a fairly close viewing distance. Lots of stills, mixed with moving/still architecture, nature etc. Colors, geometri, resolution / color balance etc. All very important here. A normal TV-monitor, even the best, isn't always the best target monitor for all sorts of work.


Best
Lars

winrockpost wrote on 6/14/2009, 6:38 AM
What is your final dlivery method of these uncompressed files ?
farss wrote on 6/14/2009, 6:51 AM
1. Technically yes. Absolute color accuracy is not always desirable although skin tones can be risky to mess with. Many things are done that reduce resolution both in front of the lens, behind the lens and in post.

2. I was just playing around with NewBlue's Cartoonr. Much to my surprise ir work a bit differently in Vegas between 8 and 32bpc (video). Same in After Effects between all modes.

3. Clients monitors can be all over the place. Plus they might want a different 'look' that's not absolutely correct color.

4. Agree re TV monitors. But you have to be careful. Advice I've heard from the experts is to color grade with an eye on the target delivery device.
It's more than just monitors though. Most hardware DVD players will clamp illegal levels so your blacks and highlights will get clipped.

TV monitors are designed to work to a spec which defines an entire processing chain. Once you go outside that standard all bets are off unless you can manage the whole thing yourself. Very different world to say print where you can watch the pages come off the press and know that's what the reader will see.

I have done one project similar to what is your usual fare. It was for a point of sale display so I understand where you're coming from. Client originally wanted to use cheap DVD players but I told them upfront that was not going to work with graphics on a 43" monitor. Finally went to HDD based player feeding HDMI to LCD displays. Whole project feel over though because of cost and burn in problems with both LCDs and Plasma displays.

Bob.
LarsHD wrote on 6/14/2009, 9:18 AM
Bob: "Absolute color accuracy is not always desirable although skin tones can be risky to mess with. Many things are done that reduce resolution both in front of the lens, behind the lens and in post."

Lars: It's fine to do things that alter/reduce resolution if you know what you're doing and it's part of a delibaret process of getting the look you want. What I'm opposd to is codecs etc. making changes in colors levels / luma levels etc. "behind your back" etc.

Bob: "Clients monitors can be all over the place. Plus they might want a different 'look' that's not absolutely correct color."

Lars: True, clients monitors can vary a lot. However, If they are modern computer monitors they are much more consistent that ordinary TV sets were 10-15 years ago. If they want a look (like warmer or cooler etc) then of course you have to make them understand that should be done in my studio rather than fiddling with the setting son their monitors. But there is always that riosk with everything. You make music and record the base nicely and people play it in crap speakers in a noisy car - not what you had in mind. But then *IF* you do yuor audio/video in as calibrated an environment as possible, then it will work as good as is possible of course.


Bob: "It's more than just monitors though. Most hardware DVD players will clamp illegal levels so your blacks and highlights will get clipped."

Lars: Yes, but I would not put 0-255 on a DVD and expect that to play correctly through a DVD and normal TV. It's really important to know when 0-255 is the best output and when 16-235 is what it takes. In the computer screen of today I think it is inmportat that we don't speak about "illegal" levels 0-16 and 236-255 without realising they are in fact *not* illegal if used right. They are "illegal" in the broadcast worl for transmission and DVD/TV-set as you correctly point out. ut if you're doing something for a PC monitor or internet you may infact doing yourself a disservice but not using the entire available dynamic range. Making a video for a PC screen and limiting yourself to 16-235 levels is as meaningful as making a digital photograph that is limited to 16-235....



Lars