Poor Rendering Quality

rMario wrote on 3/7/2003, 11:32 AM

Has anyone else noticed that the rendering quality of Vegas is poor when using the built in codec?

As a test, create a gray/color ramp that cycles the grays/colors through all levels across the ramp and render with the huffy (v2.1.1) codec (you'll need some other package to do this part).

Then render this with the built in DV codec and the Microsoft DV codec (using the best settings for both). You'll notice that the built in codec generates dark grainy looking results in comparison.

What's the deal? The MS codec is free!

What do the SF folks have to say about this?

Lastly, it would be nice if Vegas supported rendering to other codecs inside the package.

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 3/7/2003, 11:53 AM

Interesting you should have these observations. Almost every review comparing the SF DV codec to the MS DV codec agrees that SF's is far superior.

Generally you can choose just about any codec you have installed on your computer while rendering. To use the MS codec go into options and turn off "Ignore third party DV codecs" and turn on "Use Microsoft DV codec". To use Huffyuv, render to uncompressed .avi, click Custom, choose Huffyuv from the list of compressors available. Any .avi codec you have installed should show up in this list.

rMario wrote on 3/7/2003, 1:30 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if there is something I'm not doing correctly to get optimal quality. I've just started using 4.0, not having used the product since it's initial release.

But, I'm not so sure the DirectX 9.0 codec is worse then the built in. And my results were duplicated by others, though they too might be making the same mistakes.

For now, I'll use the MS codec under DirectX 9 until I figure out what I'm doing incorectly.

Obviously I have a few things to learn. The method of selecting the huffy codec on output wasn't obvious when I first looked into this.

Thanks.

roger_74 wrote on 3/7/2003, 1:54 PM

If you're playing the clip in Windows Media Player make sure it's not showing DV at half resolution. It's the default setting and it is stupid.

rMario wrote on 3/7/2003, 2:24 PM

Yeah, that was the first thing that I thought of.

Here's what I did to do some comparisons. I gerated the gray/color ramp as described, then burned that to tape using the built in codec and the MS codec. The video from the MS codec is slight crisper and is definately brigher.

Loading the VV, the MS and the huffy generated avi's back into VV and doing a comparison by toggling between frames yielded similar results. The huffy and MS files were hard to tell apart, whereas the VV file is darker and noisier. Quite unexpected. I have heard similar comments from a couple local post houses, and was one of the reasons they stopped using VV, which is a shame given the amazing things you can do with the scripting facility, (I actually didn't believe it until I checked it out myself).

The only thing I can think of is that there is some installation related issue that might cause the app to behave differently depending on what else is there during the install.

This problem has been duplicated 5 times independantly so far, so there are a lot of installations with the same issue it seems.

Either that, or the updated Direct X 8/9 codecs from MS are better. You might want to check this for yourself.

SonyEPM wrote on 3/7/2003, 4:23 PM

Are you comparing the SF DV codec to an uncompressed .avi? Sounds like that may be the case. Or are you really rendering to the MSDV codec (and how did you achieve this, just curious)?

Also: "it would be nice if Vegas supported rendering to other codecs inside the package"

VFW and QT codecs are supported, so there's already a pretty wide array of choices. What can't you render to?

rMario wrote on 3/7/2003, 9:03 PM

With respect to support for other codecs, I was out to lunch on that one (doh).

I was comparing both the VV and MS codecs to an uncompressed avi.

I don't want to beat this beyond my initial observations. For whatever reason, I and a few others are in the unfortunate situation of having to use the MS codec because the VV codec is worse in our installations.

It's possible there is some step I'm not taking during the render process that I should be. What is most bothersome is the fact that the luminance levels are quite a bit lower with the VV codec.

Not sure what more I can add to this. Fortunately, I have an out.

DDogg wrote on 3/7/2003, 9:19 PM

Somewhat along the same topic I continue to mention my hope for frameserving to external encoders. Then nobody could ever say VV internal encoders kept them from buying it. Huge huffy intermediate files as a workaround solution is certainly doable but kinda chump for a pro product like V.

SonyEPM wrote on 3/8/2003, 4:14 PM

"I and a few others are in the unfortunate situation of having to use the MS codec because the VV codec is worse in our installations"

Who are the others and what is your workflow?

Bear wrote on 3/8/2003, 7:25 PM

I do not have a lot of experience but my customers that are having thier VHS Tapes put on DVD all Say Wow it is so much better than the VHS so from my perspective I am happy with the program, no let me say I love the program Want a challenge go try and make a DVD with Pinnacle studio 7 or 8 and on and on. I made quite a few DVD's in Pinnacle but I averaged one coaster for every good one and I think I lost money on every job I did. Then a friend said try VV4 or even Video Factory I got them both and am going to list all my Pinnacle products on EBAY.

HPV wrote on 3/8/2003, 8:26 PM

It's possible there is some step I'm not taking during the render process that I should be. What is most bothersome is the fact that the luminance levels are quite a bit lower with the VV codec.
----------------------------
There must be something funky with your setup. Or you using the MS dv codec and you don't know it. What other DV codecs do you have loaded? Other NLE programs loaded?
I can take an oversaturated ntsc dv clip (110 IRE value) and force recompression with the Sofo dv codec and there is no loss of luminance value. Rendering gives the same results. MS dv codec has a noticeable drop in luminance value.
Vegas is a WYSIWYG preview, you don't have to render to see what is going on. To test a codec just slap a fx (filter) with a zero setting to an event and bounce between bypass and active (check box on fx title bar).
Are you sure you using the Sofo DV codec? Under options/prefs/general you should have a check for "ignore 3rd party DV Codecs" and unchecked for "use Microsoft DV codec.

Craig H.

rMario wrote on 3/9/2003, 4:23 PM

I got so frustrated by this problem that I downloaded the demo version of the mainconcept DV codec. All of a sudden, the problem goes away. Are you folks a licensee of the mainconcept DV codec? If so, perhaps some of the shipping versions of VV have an older version of this codec?

I do find it curious that VV can render with the mainconcept codec without the insertion of a water mark.

I don't know what to make of this.

The others, by the way, are a couple local post houses.

SonyEPM wrote on 3/10/2003, 10:41 AM

What version of Vegas do you have? demo or full version?

TheHappyFriar wrote on 3/10/2003, 11:35 AM

I tried the "test" you said in the top of the thread here, and I can't see ANY difference between rendering standared DV, MS-DV, Huffy, or Uncompressed with a gradient ramp. Heck, for kicks I even rendered Divx and it looked the same as the others!

I didn't see a setting for a VV DV codec, but I had the "ignore 3rd party DV codec's" checked, and "use MS DV codec" unchecked the first time I rendered.

What video card are you using? If you're displaying on your monitor, some video cards (like my Radeon) can change the color values, especialy if you use something DirectX related. I can change my DirectX settings under Display properties and can change my screen color. The ironic thing is, non DirectX programs (openGL 3d and such) aren't affected by the changes.