Native formats for Vegas - quality control

RBartlett wrote on 12/14/2005, 7:22 AM

Now a variation on a question that I thought I knew the answer to but am, especially with the recent issues, not certain of.

Vegas is RGBA 8bit, with uncompressed (4:4:4:4) being the first native format. The second native format is DV (irrespective of whether it is PAL, NTSC, interlaced, pulldown 24p, 4:1:1 or 4:2:0). Nothing else is native, which means that rendering is seen in all other cases.

So both of these formats passthrough Vegas untouched, if, ahem - you leave them untouched on the timeline.

So does this only count, in both cases for each of the AVI variations? Or is it true for Quicktime uncompressed and Quicktime DV? Are these valid container formats for the native/passthrough codec functionality in Vegas?

ie, if I export from AVI->Quicktime or vice versa, will recompression occur, or - if I keep the edit to cuts only (or in otherwords untouched for a significant part of the project) - will I see a direct bit/pixel transfer occuring.

Or should a dedicated piece of software be used if I purely need to swap container formats? Whilst I am not underwhelmed at the thought of rendering between the same payload formats when they need to transform between different containers - I'd like to know what Vegas6c does in these cases?

Invariably I publish in MPEG-2 or WMV - but if I need to fit into someone elses workflow and this is Quicktime upstream or downstream of me - this becomes an important quality control consideration.

In the past I've used a tape based transfer - but even though some direct-to-disc units can convert for you - sometimes more generic storage units are called upon for moving the works-in-progress.

Thanks in advance, if anyone can offer or quality the answer to this?

Comments

busterkeaton wrote on 12/14/2005, 9:02 AM

Quicktime and Avi are generally wrappers around video.

So if you have straight DV video on your PC as AVI, and you want to deliver quicktime, Vegas should be doing nothing more than swapping AVI for QuickTime wrappers. People move between Final Cut and Vegas all the time. You can do more than just "leave them untouched on the timeline." If you do cuts only editing you should not see re-rendering or recompression.

Also later versions of Vegas have a Sony YUV 4-2-2 codec which keeps more color info than DV's 4-1-1. You could do a search here for info and see if it helps you.

GlennChan wrote on 12/14/2005, 11:14 AM

buster, are you sure that Vegas passes quicktime DV through it? I don't think I can check myself, but I know what Vegas misses the timecode from quicktime DV files. Also, the quicktime DV codec decompresses to 0-255 color space, unlike the Sony DV codec which decompresses to 16-235. So there'll be color inconsistencies between quicktime and AVI/Sony DV if you render things, unless you perform color space conversion.

busterkeaton wrote on 12/14/2005, 11:48 AM

I'm not dual system myself, but plenty of people do a Vegas FCP workflow.

Vegas can do 16-235 or 0-255.

busterkeaton wrote on 12/14/2005, 11:51 AM

I just created a file using a gradient from 0-255 and rendered it using the default NTSC DV template.

When I bring the rendered AVI file back into Vegas the histogram shows it as 0-255. If apply the broadcast filter at the Conservative settings, the rendered avi file shows 16.235

Logan5 wrote on 12/14/2005, 11:58 AM

“Nothing else is native...” [In Vegas]

I’ve found the mpeg1 file back to mpeg1 will not recompress saved/rendered from a Vegas track.
So other possibilities seem to be present.

So indulged my theory, in Vegas if you are rendering in the native tongue of the file on the track – most cases should just save right back out.

AVI (DV) –to AVI (DV)
QuickTime (DV) to QuickTime (DV) <need to test this
Mpeg1 to Mpeg1
WMV to WMV <worth a try

RBartlett wrote on 12/20/2005, 12:01 AM

Is there a ForumAdmin or Sony<?> way of the word that can be shared on this please?

What formats are native as of Vegas6 and I suppose which support smart re/rendering. I suspect DV[YUV].AVI, RGBA and RGB (all RIFF header / chunk formats)? However it seems reasonable for quicktime DV and RGB formats to ingest and render with some amount of similar vigour and perhaps "nativeness" . Anything else being a bonus (smart rendering of YUV-uncompressed and MPEG-2 with native when untouched in RIFF(AVI) or MOV(Quicktime) format...)

elevating

Chienworks wrote on 12/20/2005, 6:34 AM

It's very easy to tell if Vegas is recompressing or if it is doing a straight copy ... watch the preview window while rendering! When Vegas is recompressing you will see the video update in the preview window every 5 frames. When Vegas is doing a straight copy the preview window doesn't change.

So, if you can see your video moving along in the preview while rendering then Vegas is recompressing. In my experience, this happens with ALL MPEG and WMV formats, even if the output parameters exactly match the source files. The only combinations i've encountered so far that don't recompress are DV AVI -> DV AVI and uncompressed AVI -> uncompressed AVI, and then only when the output file matches the source file format.

RBartlett wrote on 12/20/2005, 6:54 AM

Perhaps Vegas7 will treat DV based AVI and Quicktime formats equally and interchangably....... seems about time.

I'd taken this to mean AVI only when I read the SonicFoundry statement on this years back. I'm not too worried as to whether MPEG-2 ever gets passthrough support or not. Ultimately IBP editing formats will probably go the same way that microMV has gone. These technologies fit a niche or a lust for a period of time. (famous last words!)

Chienworks wrote on 12/20/2005, 7:16 AM

Well, i've never had a Quicktime DV file lying around to try this with, so i can't tell you what happens with that format. I suppose i could generate one in Vegas and then try rendering it to another file. Then again, you could do that too and see what happens.

I wouldn't count MPEG-2 out yet. It is a very robust format and one of the most popular ever created. Consider the proliferation of DVDs and DVD players, all of which are based on MPEG-2. The mainstream HD formats are all MPEG-2 based as well even though newer and more exotic codecs were already available. As available storage space increases and storage cost decreases, we may see a swing from the newer codecs back towards MPEG-2 since it does outperform the newer codecs at high bitrates.

I think one of the reasons that we haven't seen native MPEG editing/rendering in Vegas is because Vegas is so format-agnostic. You can throw just about anything on the timeline and render to just about any format. In order to do that Vegas has to excel at format interchanging and has been written with this in mind. Since it is good at this the users don't have to concern themselves with many file format details at all. Consider the dreaded "conform" process that users of other NLEs often have to suffer through but that we Vegas users happily and blissfully avoid.

In order to allow Vegas to natively render MPEG without recompressing the source formats would all have to match the output format exactly in all parameters, including frame size, frame rate, color depth, color space, bit rate, etc. Any files that didn't match would have to be conformed first. In that case, you are still suffering a recompression which is no different from what happens now while rendering. I can see that this would be easy in the case of splitting up a single source file into parts and trimming since presumably all the parts would be identical formats. But then again, if you want an output format that differs even slightly then recompression will have to happen to conform to that output format.

Now imagine the simple case that you have some MPEG files you've ripped from a couple different DVDs that you had created and you toss them both on the timeline. Did you render both at the exact same bitrate? It would probably be very unusual if you had. Even if you pick output parameters that match one of the files, the others will have to be conformed to match. This is true even for editors that claim to be able to edit MPEG natively.

The problem here is that MPEG is a very flexible format while things like DV are a relatively fixed format. Taking into account the few choices such as PAL/NTSC, widescreen/4:3, 24p/29.97i, as long as those match the data streams in various DV files are all going to be the same format. This just isn't the case with MPEG type formats.

RBartlett wrote on 12/20/2005, 7:52 AM

I was hoping to find some hidden truth and not the answer that was in my head regarding DV format types. I'm happy with recommending the use of a third party transformat tool that doesn't recompress or recommending that the files are printed-to-tape and recaptured. A hoop jump workflow with Mac colleagues seems a pity nonetheless.

As for MPEG-2, many of the formats above semi-pro seem to get a new designation and remain in the vein of I-frame based spacial/DCT compressed. Using the DV family compressor or perhaps the DCT compression algorithm at either SD or HD frame size. They just call the spacial compression something else, like IMX or XDCAM, DVCPro50 / ProHD. In each they conform by having a ~fairly within their own type~ consistent bitrate, dynamic range, frame size, field/frame cadence and colour gamut. I agree with what you are saying Chienworks. I don't much care if Vegas ever bothers with MPEG-2 passthrough. Sometimes I feel that the windows video subsystem is the cause of why Vegas chokes with uncompressed SD and HD RGB or YUY2 sources - given fast fast memory and >250MB/sec sustained disk storage.

I'm hoping that one day, whilst broadcasters will be driven down the path of temporal and spacial compression - that hopefully the day will come in my lifetime where uncompressed digital movies can be bought and viewed with as much clarity as can be represented in the multigigabyte, TB or Exabyte storage/playback system. Just like the excitement that was created when vinyl/compact-cassette went to CD. Much as film will remain the moving picture equivalent of "vinyl audio" - I'm hoping that there will be a revolution soon (a decade away?) for home movies and homegrown movies.

Anyway, unless someone official steps in, we'll take it that DV (of any type in whatever version of AVI/openDML) and RGB uncompressed AVI is native and nothing much else is. RGB being rather a null format anyway.

I agree with the Sony approach. SonyYUV and Cineform or MJPEG are also well to be left out of the fray. However I stand by the fact that I find it strange that even with a directshow/vfw oriented subsystem, that it is beyond a programmers ability to handle raw DV to/ from a quicktime import/export engine without having to rewrite the pipeline to be Quicktime centric. DV ought to be DV wants the outer container has been stripped, IMHO. No matter, the consensus is stated by now I think.

Thanks

BrownCow wrote on 12/20/2005, 9:21 AM

hopefully the day will come in my lifetime where uncompressed digital movies can be bought and viewed with as much clarity as can be represented in the multigigabyte, TB or Exabyte storage/playback system. Just like the excitement that was created when vinyl/compact-cassette went to CD. Much as film will remain the moving picture equivalent of "vinyl audio" - I'm hoping that there will be a revolution soon (a decade away?) for home movies and homegrown movies.
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------

No way the movie studios will sell the public uncompressed versions. They are already in a fit over the piracy and consumer upgrading implications of DVD, especially high def DVD. The piracy implications of offering the uncompressed (or even barely compressed) digital masters to the public are obvious.

Not so obvious are the studio's stomache ache over their ability to convince consumers to upgrade and/or rebuy new formats. As long as DVDs are supported for the foreseeable future, most people are going to say they are "good enough". Even high-def DVD will be a niche market for many years, considering the requirement of a HD display, the initial cost of the players, and the current satisfaction with standard def DVD. In this respect, DVDs appear to be headed for a long life similar to the CD (regardless of the RIAA's propoganda). Consumers have shown little interest in buying SACD and DVD-audio discs, even though many of them have the necessary hardware.

If the studios sold uncompressed (or virtually uncompressed) versions, they would no longer have a way to market a new format based on improved video resolution. Already, with high-definition, they are at a threshold where decreasing the compression even further wouldn't make much difference on the typical home theater screen. New formats will have to be sold based on special features and convenience.

So, the movie studios are in a bind. They want consumers to upgrade and/or re-buy so they can increase profits, but they don't want to sell digital copies that are virtually identical to their masters.

If anything, the average consumer is accepting MORE compression as a tradeoff for convenience. Consumers have already shown their acceptance of inferior digital audio formats (e.g., MP3). Unless broadband speeds and internet infrastructure improves substantially, video on-demand will be DVD quality AT BEST.

BrownCow

RBartlett wrote on 12/20/2005, 10:01 AM

That is why I mention within a decade or in my lifetime.

I can record TV uncompressed to hard disc - illegally, but little more illegally than if I used a VCR or PVR. Ok, it is 4:2:2 and subject to atmospheric and TV standard encoding+modulation noise, but it is cleaner than DVB.

Perhaps CDs shouldn't be made anymore either. I don't believe there is anything stopping uncompressed video with heavy encryption (aka digital rights management). Sure it'll be copied by DA->AD transfer, just like the aforementioned over-the-air concept for analogue TV broadcasts.

Which is the more dreadful invention from the psychie of mankind - the lock or the thief?

One day - I predict that quality will again be king. Not just what the great hord will put up with and shell out for.

Would a painter put his oils onto newspaper grade paper just in case some crook viewing it wanted to make off with his work as if it were his own? Would the painter never use canvas again after art theft became rife?

Macroblocks are the work of a dark force. From the moment they become visible.
An hour of uncompressed video needn't use much more than 70GB for standard def, and for high def, 350GB ought to fit an hour. Big figures, but a 650MB CD seemed phenomenal two decades ago.

Perhaps the pin striped suits will prevent the boiler suits from making this happen. However, what a great shame for the world we live in.

If we didn't have the lock, security systems and the likes, would we be in such a pickle as this? I know exactly what you are saying BrownCow, but stolen merchandise is exactly that. No packaging, no feeling of association with the work, an empty poor moral fibre vibe and for what, to see something and save either some time waiting or a few $. Then watch the industry adapt on the assumption that they can't help the honest remain honest, but must assume that the whole lot of us are out to remove all profitability from the industry....

I'm in cloud cookoo land, but for the fact that I have lived in a time where uncompressed media, both broadcast and on published format has worked. OK - it has been copied in large quantity since the first magnetic tapes. However there is still a market and has been for many decades for both audio and video media.

Perhaps compression will stay with us. Like you say, it doesn't exactly show itself if the viewer sits far enough away from his consumer grade kit. Maybe by the time that we have hundreds of gigabytes on shiny discs or solid state media, we'll be moving on to 3D representation. Perhaps we'll be operated on from birth to only see moving video if the encryption watermark isn't verified as a forgery.

I'm with you but hoping that this current paranoia will die away. I actually used to enjoy government sponsored films, so I feel that whatever happens in the commercial world, some of my taxes might one day deliver what I hope to see. That is: The highest quality published mediums that money can buy. Just as Philips wanted for us with the compact disc (despite the arguments that caused for audiophiles vs public).

Thanks for your words - I find this whole topic quite interesting and slightly related to the original post!