Layers not rendering the same as preview

Flyarbo wrote on 2/10/2010, 5:06 PM
I'm trying to show an animated arrow pointing to a certain location on an island photographed from space. Everything is working perfectly (the animated motion, transparency of the animated arrow layer, and so on) except for one bizarre and incredibly annoying little detail. Everything is lined up absolutely perfectly down to the pixel in the preview window, with the exact tip of the arrow pointing to the exact, desired point on the map.

But in the final rendered video, the tip of the arrow point is pointing way off.

Go back and check it in the preview window and it's right where it should be.

To compensate, carefully observing how far off the arrow tip is in final rendered version, I've gone in and arbitrarily adjusted the arrow point to be offset by the amount and direction of the error that I saw in the final rendering. It works; it's wrong in the preview window but now correct in the final rendering. This doesn't mean it's something I want to do on a regular basis every flipping time I want to work with layers and transparencies. It's retarded that I have to do this in an "professional" NLE system.

PLEASE tell me I'm doing something wrong.

So...why is it that layers do not line up properly, and exactly, in the final rendering like they do in the preview?

tracking: 835466D8-5D09-4EED-8499-9D63AB394198

Comments

rs170a wrote on 2/10/2010, 5:46 PM
PLEASE tell me I'm doing something wrong.

You are doing something wrong.
The Preview window MUST be set to Best/Full for accurate alignment.

It's retarded that I have to do this in an "professional" NLE system.

What's retarded is that you just joined this forum and you're already slamming the software.
IMO, that's not a good way to start.
BTW, a simple forum search would have turned up the answers to both of your posts.

Mike
Flyarbo wrote on 2/10/2010, 6:33 PM
Mike:

A. As I have whacking fast, quad processor machine to work with, my Preview window HAS been set to Best/Full all along.

B. Your assumption that I didn't know that, nor that I would not have tried looking for answers before asking a question, was at best unwarrented, and at worst, rude.

C. I have been using Vegas as an amateur since Sonic Foundry days, from whom I purchased my first copy. I may not be active around here, but I've paid my amateur dues, and full prices for upgrades, for some time. Since I've bought the software, and taken the time to learn it over the years to a reasonable-effort, self-tought level, I'll express my opinion freely, thank you very much, and your inappropriate attempts to chastise me notwithstanding. While I appreciate your greater experience and expertise, I don't appreciate it enough to sit still when you do it with ignorance of my situation and based on unfounded assumptions. I've made a good faith effort to resolve my issue, and my irritation is justfied.

D. My question stands. I've double-checked my Preview window settings to verify I'm not quite yet the fool you take me for, and they are indeed at Best/Full, as always. The descrepincy remains, your omnicient and condescending convictions notwithstanding.

Anyone ELSE care to rip my head off before asking me any questions?
Former user wrote on 2/10/2010, 6:37 PM
We need information such as:

1 Project properties
2 source material
3 rendering properties


This might help us provide some suggestions.

Dave T2
BudWzr wrote on 2/10/2010, 6:44 PM
Hey man, I got loud when I first came here too, but you just have to grin and bear it. Yeah, anyway your "safe zone" may be the issue.
Flyarbo wrote on 2/10/2010, 7:29 PM
DaveT2:

Here are some captures of my settings:

http://www.vashon.com/vegas/project_settings.jpg
http://www.vashon.com/vegas/rendering_settings_1.jpg
http://www.vashon.com/vegas/rendering_settings_2.jpg
http://www.vashon.com/vegas/vashon_birds_eye.png

The PNG files is the lower video track.

There's also an AVI file with an animation of an arrow; there is no alpha in it as far as I know; transparency is accomplished with a "Mask Generator" "Luminance Mask".

Is this enough info? Happy to give more.
fldave wrote on 2/10/2010, 7:52 PM
You have a DV size project, blowing it up to HD 720p - big problems there.
Then on your render, you have the video quality slider set to 15, should be 31 - big problem there. Medium on a mainconcept MPG render has always been a big no-no.
Not to mention issues from going from interlaced to progressive.

Figure out what size your final project should be, then set your project properties to match. You may have to resize/zoom in on your arrows and rebuild any text media you may have created at the lower resolution.
Flyarbo wrote on 2/10/2010, 8:01 PM
fldave:

I very much appreciate your advice. I will do the things you recommend.

One question: I can see where the overall quality of the rendered video would improve by doing these things, and I should make these adjustments just on general principle, but do you think these things would make the alignment of layers go off?
fldave wrote on 2/10/2010, 8:09 PM
Possibly. You are previewing your timeline at 720x480 at 4x3 aspect ratio, matching everything. You are rendering at HD 720P 16x9 aspect.

So something may end up wrong on output.
Flyarbo wrote on 2/10/2010, 10:07 PM
fldave:

Well, spot on. Not only was there a substantial improvement in the overall quality of the output video, but all differentials between preview and render are gone.

The odd combination of settings I had established sometime ago by trial and error for the variety of formats I had to translate to; in general, I seemed to get good quality out of all the output formats I needed from FormatFactory using this set as a base. I have no idea what this change will do to that situation, but that's a different problem

Thank you, fldave. You nailed it first time. I would have guessed my output quality would be crappy, but never would I have guessed misaligned layers would trace to this. OUTstanding.

Thanks again.
fldave wrote on 2/11/2010, 5:42 AM
Glad I could help.
rs170a wrote on 2/11/2010, 6:20 AM
Flyarbo, my apologies for my response last night as it's not the way I usually respond and anyone who knows me knows this to be true.
I'm glad to see that you were able to get a solution to your problem.

Having said that, I have to comment on your responses.
Please take them in the helpful tone they're intended to be and not a slam at you personally.

A. Despite a Sticky request (#4 at the top of the forum page), you till haven't posted your system information.
This information can be of tremendous help in trouble-shooting and it's very frustrating that a lot of users still don't do it.

B. I'm not a mind reader and I have no idea whether you've done a search or not.
A suggestion to you and anyone else who comes here with questions is to state everything you've done so far in an attempt to solve your problem.

C. As I said, I'm not a mind reader and had no idea that you're an experienced user.
Once again, stating this in your first post really does help a lot.

D. Already answered in A, B & C.

The bottom line in all of this is that the issue of providing as much information as possible in the very first post comes up over and over again on every forum I've ever been on and it is frustrating when the folks trying to help have to sometimes pry this information out of the OP.

Once again, this is not directed at you personally but at anyone asking for information as problems get solved much quicker with as much information as possible.

Consider this a sincere welcome to the forum and I hope you enjoy your stay here.
We're a pretty helpful bunch of (mostly) old bearded grey-haired users if the recent "What do you look like? (2010)" thread is any indication :-)

Mike
Flyarbo wrote on 2/11/2010, 9:03 AM
Mike:

A. My exhaustive system profile on now on file
B., C.,D.: It's nice to know that we can not only get technical help on Vegas here, but Emily Post etiquette insights as well.

Your primary thrust appears to be that you're not a mind-reader, yet, re-reading your post, your tone was not questioning, but assertive. You did not ASK me had I done/checked these things, but stated I had not.

I hadn't "tried" anything to correct the problem, since I didn't know what TO try. I had never encountered inaccurately displaying overlays; I thought they were always accurate and was stumped at the onset of the problem. Therefore I had nothing to post about what I had tried. I'm a devoted Vegas user, even though I have the full suite of Adobe products in the same niche; I never use them. I have come to view Vegas as magical, effortlessly combining disparate media without thought or care.

While YOU may be thoroughly tired of the 548332nd new-to-the-forum arriving and violating forum protocols at the gate, THEY, each and every one, view themselves as individuals. We arrive, confused, flustered, already having failed at our movie-making objectives and desperate enough to display our ignorance and ineptitude to all mankind in a bid for enlightenment.

When we arrive, our minds are myopicly focussed on the problem that brought us here. We just might step on the grass in our mad dash to truth, all breathless and unmindful of your tender sensibilities and overlooking obvious necessities.

Your demeanor suggests ego and arrogance. You want people to know there is price to pay to access your valuable expertise, and proper decorum in the presence of the master is part of it.

Dave T2 made my error clear and obvious, in spite of the fact that he has PROBABLY had to do the same with a thousand other gleeps already, patient with the newcomer and realizing the universal realities of the frazzled dummy seeking help.

If I'm just too untouchable, too unwashed, aeromatic and uncouth, then just pass by my postings before you get anything on you. I'll depend on the forebearance of others who have the kindness to see ALL the problems I may have, technical AND pro forma, and choose to help the heathen nonetheless.

I'll now go and read all the stickies I can find, lest I step in another pile of etiquette poo. I hope that makes your heart soar with happiness; all is now right with the world.