Large megapixel stills in video

Weldon wrote on 2/26/2013, 7:17 PM
I have been editing with VP for a few year now and have never added a high megapixel image to the timeline until today and it was like I hit a brick wall...really slowed it down. The images are around 14 megapixels. I tried to create a proxy, using VP12, but it did not allow that option. I am sure there is a better way. I have 8 gig of RAM and have no problems editing 1080i with plenty of fx. I see so many videos/timelapse done with DSLR's and RAW or high megapixels. I can't imagine how you would use vegas and work with 10,000 stills. What am I missing?


Rainer wrote on 2/26/2013, 7:35 PM
Resize your stills closer to the size you need. There's a whole heap of free photo resizers with lots more options than Vegas, Google for one that suits, I mostly use the batch resizer in Irfanview ( if you don't already have Irfanview)
Laurence wrote on 2/26/2013, 8:02 PM
Another vote for Irfanview here.
richard-amirault wrote on 2/26/2013, 8:56 PM
A 1080 HD video is 1930 x 1080 pixels.
A 3 megapixel still image is about 2048 x 1536 pixels.
You can only get about 1930 x 1080 on a standard 1080 high def project.
Using 10 or 15 megapixel images is overkill and overtaxes your system. Especially with multiple images.

Re-sizing your images to maybe twice HD resolution (to allow for zooms and the like) is likely all you'll need.

RE: re-sizing images ... most folks have some version of Photoshop ... even the consumer version (Photoshop Elements) will re-size your images just fine.
Weldon wrote on 2/26/2013, 8:59 PM
Thanks...that was what I was looking for.
Laurence wrote on 2/26/2013, 9:10 PM
With IrfanView, you can set the minimum size for the shortest edge of your picture, and you can even do this for both the x and y axis. What this lets you do is ensure that ever picture will be resized to a minimum of twice the video framesize on it's shortest side. You can set up a batch file that will do this to all your pictures with lossless png compression. Doing this before you start will make the whole editing experience snappy and pleasant.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 2/26/2013, 9:21 PM
I regularly use 8mp size images from my digital camera in Vegas.

What does happen is that when the playhead gets to that image Vegas slows down, sometimes quite a bit, but it should still render fine. Normally lowering my preview quality solves the preview playback issue.

When you're doing an images sequence it handles it like a video, just at the resolution of the images.
wwaag wrote on 2/26/2013, 10:11 PM
There's an excellent discussion of these issues in the following thread.


Bottom line is that you want to do your image prep prior to Vegas. I usually batch these in Photoshop to include a bit of Gaussian blur and reducing levels (16-235). It's a lot faster than Vegas and according to the above thread, the quality is better.


AKA the HappyOtter at System 1: Intel i7-8700k with HD 630 graphics plus an Nvidia RTX4070 graphics card. System 2: Intel i7-3770k with HD 4000 graphics plus an AMD RX550 graphics card. System 3: Laptop. Dell Inspiron Plus 16. Intel i7-11800H, Intel Graphics. Current cameras include Panasonic FZ2500, GoPro Hero11 and Hero8 Black plus a myriad of smartPhone, pocket cameras, video cameras and film cameras going back to the original Nikon S.

musicvid10 wrote on 2/26/2013, 10:13 PM
"Another vote for Irfanview here."

For batch resize, I've found none better.
altarvic wrote on 2/26/2013, 11:25 PM
if you don't like IrfanView (like me), try XnView :)
NormanPCN wrote on 2/27/2013, 10:39 AM
Exactly what slowed down?

I have Movie Studio 12 and a project with close to 400 jpeg stills, each 12MP (4000x3000) from my GoPro. The program is really slow to create the thumbnails for the events but that means nothing to the edit/play. It does cache up and there is no problem. My machine is an 8GB ram, i7 860 quad core. I typically edit with GPU enabled. Not sure if that matters. I edit at preview auto quality and the res is typically quarter. Every pic, except time lapse sequences, have a crop/pan/zoom/rotate.

Mine is a 9 minute music video and when I load the project and am zoomed out I can slowly watch as it fills in the thumbnails, but I don't wait for that. When I move to the section I want to work on, those get done very quickly.

In the future I would reduce resolution for the photos, and on the odd event you want a major crop, bring in the big image for that photo. I imagine that even with say 7MP photos it will still be somewhat "slow" creating thumbnails.
Tech Diver wrote on 2/27/2013, 11:20 AM
For those interested in image down-resampling (i.e. resizing), the best algorithms are based on Lanczos interpolation. As such, I write my own applications using the OpenCV libraries because very few commercial applications actually tell you what they are doing. Lanczos interpolation is excellent for not creating moire or other undesireable artifacts and produces excellent quality images.

musicvid10 wrote on 2/27/2013, 12:34 PM
Irfanview uses the latest Lanczos. Always has.

For downsizing, it is very hard for the naked eye to tell a difference between Lanczos and plain 'ol bilinear, if there is no appreciable moire. However, I use Irfanview for all my batch resizing because of its versatility.
Chienworks wrote on 2/27/2013, 12:49 PM
I've done many projects with large numbers of stills. I've used hundreds of 10+MP images, and i've also done quite a few projects with 10,000 - 25,000 images at HD resolution. Generally i use JPG, though sometimes rarely PNG.

As Norman reports, drawing the thumbnails on the timeline can take some time, but i usually ignore that and just keep working anyway. Vegas chugs along like a champ, not even breaking a sweat.

In the interest of full disclosure though, i still use Vegas Pro 9.
Laurence wrote on 2/27/2013, 1:10 PM
IrfanView also batch converts raw, which can be really useful.
farss wrote on 2/27/2013, 2:00 PM
"I've done many projects with large numbers of stills."

And it should just work. Vegas is supposed to now handle Gigapixel images.
It should also handle video in CinemaDNG format (one still image per frame) and at 4K. In fairness having to read thousands of large image files to create thumbnails will slow it down something fierce which is probably why at around the same time these features were added so was the ability to control how many thumbnails are displayed per event.

Chienworks wrote on 2/27/2013, 3:42 PM
Two tiny nits, Bob. I'm still using version 9, which definitely doesn't have the new still image handling fixes, and for that matter i was doing these sorts of projects under version 3 when that was the rage. Also, the features for how many thumbnails are displayed isn't new. That's also been in Vegas since version 2. It's just that the default used to be "all", while now it's the restricted "head/middle/tail" set.
farss wrote on 2/27/2013, 3:58 PM
You're right, just checked V8 and indeed the thumbnail choice is in it with None, Head, Tail, Head-Tail, Head-Centre-Tail, All.

I don't recall exactly when the "Gigapixel" thing was touted as a new feature but yes, I too had been doing projects with very large jpegs in them with V6.

I think my point was more "hey guys, this should just work".

Arthur.S wrote on 2/27/2013, 4:00 PM
If you've ever owned a Canon DSLR, you should have Digital Photo Professional. Always been my fave for batch resizing.
NormanPCN wrote on 2/27/2013, 4:29 PM
I don't know why Sony does not save thumbnails in the project file. It seems to create the thumbnails every time.
Chienworks wrote on 2/27/2013, 4:56 PM
Probably because that might swell a 5MB .veg file into a 500MB file.
farss wrote on 2/27/2013, 4:58 PM
"I don't know why Sony does not save thumbnails in the project file"

Don't know about that idea, the project file could end up quite large doing that.
If you select "All" then the project file would contain one image per frame of video.

Keeping them in a temp folder as part of the project's files or some configurable folder would be a better idea I thin.

Same for the waveform files. I really do not like the way Vegas writes those files into the same folder as the media. Then again that's a "feature" we've been requesting since day one.

Chienworks wrote on 2/27/2013, 5:08 PM
It does it that way so that the .sfk files will be in the same folder as the original media file, which seems perfectly sensible to me, since it applies to that one file and that file only.

The other issue that can come up is that it is very possible to have different media files in different directories that all have the same name ("00001.MTS", for example). This would cause a problem for storing them in some common location, since the .sfk files have the same root name. It would be impossible to store multiple identically named files in the same directory. Vegas would have to add some other unique filename identifier string in with the existing filename in order to keep them straight, and then it would be more difficult for humans to recognize which went with which.

I also think it would be much more likely for people to forget to clean them up when purging old media files if they're not stored in the same directory as the media.

Dunno, but i usually sort my directories by file type. That puts all the .sfk files together, and when i'm done editing a project it's a snap to select them all and delete them, if i want to.
PeterDuke wrote on 2/27/2013, 8:28 PM
"In the interest of full disclosure though, i still use Vegas Pro 9."

So do I, version 9c to be specific, since it is the last version that at least makes some attempt at smart rendering AVCHD.

One problem with that version, however, is that it doesn't like mixing stills with AVCHD (red thumbnails and/or black images). I therefore render my still or group of stills, with any panning or zooming, in a separate project and render as AVCHD to match my main project. Such clips are smart rendered in the main project, so there is no loss of quality and is rendered very quickly. Because there are usually only a few stills involved in each clip, I don't bother to lower the resolution first to reduce the strain on the RAM budget.
NormanPCN wrote on 2/27/2013, 11:28 PM
100x100 thumbnails would be 3MB per 100 thumbnails, uncompressed. My 400 jpeg project file is only 686KB.

Video clips can stay on the fly. Static image videos tend to have tons more "video" items than actual video projects and thumb-nailing is time consuming. This is why file organizers like, Adobe Bridge etc, keep thumbnails on disk.