large stills in 9D as good as in 9B?

LReavis wrote on 4/19/2010, 2:04 PM

I generally render in 9c-64bit. However, it doesn't handle large stills as well as 9b, so sometimes I need to re-install 9b so that I can make an .AVI of a pan or zoom, which then I can put back into 8c for editing my project, then render to 9c. It sure would be nice if I could reliably render in 9d AND pan across large stills too.

Has anyone compared 9b's excellent handling of large stills with 9d?

Comments

xberk wrote on 4/19/2010, 2:15 PM

When you say large stills --- how large? Which format? PNG -- JPG ..

LReavis wrote on 4/19/2010, 6:01 PM

Thanks for your prompt response.

I just tried a 29500x14000+ .JPG from NASA. It immediately crashed Vegas 8c. But Vegas 9c-64 bit was able to handle it. I'm a bit surprised, for I remember that .PNGs seemed to do better in Vegas than .JPGs.

However, I distinctly remember having problems with large stills in 9c that I didn't have with 9b - maybe only when there are too many on the timeline? Or is my memory wrong? Now that I see that 9c-64 allows me to pan in this large still, I'm beginning to wonder - maybe I've been re-installing 9b when I didn't need to . . .

In any case, I'd want to be sure that 9d can handle large stills (zoom & pan) before I risk the problems that others have reported.

xberk wrote on 4/19/2010, 9:08 PM

Interesting.
29500 x14000 ... This is a large.
Larger than I've ever worked with ...
I don't have an image to try this size to test in 9.0d.
Can you post the image somewhere for download and I'd try it in 9.0d.

A. Grandt wrote on 4/20/2010, 12:35 AM

These links are to the download pages, not the actual images.

Spiral Galaxy M81 @ 22620x15200px, 442.34 MB TIFF:
[url=http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy/pr2007019a/warn/hires/true/]

And the Carina Nebula @ 29566x14321px, 479.08 MB TIFF:
[url=http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire/pr2007016a/warn/hires/true/]

However, I recall 9b having some nasty issues with some large images (from this NASA site in fact) , where it would suddenly invert the image colours when zooming in. It was perfectly repeatable.

HubbleSite's picture collection, sorted by largest images first:
[url=http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire/titles/true/hires/true/]

megabit wrote on 4/20/2010, 2:28 AM

I never do such big stills, but this thread got me interested and so I downloaded one of those huge NASA pics. Did some pan/scan and zooms and rendered it out as a 1920x1080 mxf, using VP 9.0d-64bit.

No problems whatsoever - except that the rendering is painfully slow (only some 25% CPU used). But memory-wise, never exceeded some 3 GB.

Edit: rendering to Sony YUV is a bit (not much) faster.

LReavis wrote on 4/20/2010, 10:54 AM

many, many thanks to all who responded. My memory of 9b's performance must be erroneous. In any case, I'm encouraged by the 9d performance as described above and probably will give it a go now that I know that it can handle large stills.

tim-evans wrote on 5/31/2010, 3:35 PM

Thanks for the wonderful idea.

I made this piece using the full size NASA images(enormous!!), using the original Jpegs. Vegas 9c seemed to handle everything just fine ( a little sluggish I will admit).
Music was done in Acid with a couple of soft synths. It will play as 1080P if you select that in YouTube and let it cache for a while.