Render Image Sequence Omissions

ajb wrote on 8/22/2009, 3:38 PM

In Version 8 you could enter the Start, Stop, and Step Time in the Render Image Sequence script. That doesn't seem to be an option in the new "non" script version in "Render as" in Vegas 9. Anyone know of a way to do this or why this is no longer available.

Alan

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 8/22/2009, 4:07 PM

Set a loop region for the start and end. Use project properties to set the frame rate.

ajb wrote on 8/22/2009, 5:35 PM

Thanks for the info. What a strange way to have to do that. I think I like the old way. You would think that they could allow you to set up those parameters using the custom button. Maybe some day. I am sure this functionality is not a high priority for them. I think I will continue to do this in vers. 8.

Chienworks wrote on 8/22/2009, 6:08 PM

Well, it's completely consistent with rendering to any other output format, so i suppose that's why they've done it that way. The method available in the script was the odd way of doing it.

rmack350 wrote on 8/22/2009, 7:39 PM

Setting a loop region and rendering it as an image sequence seems very normal and intuitive to me. The added feature in the script of exporting images at intervals is gravy and probably not necessary for the bread and butter job of exporting an image sequence.

I didn't realize that the old script wasn't included in Vegas 9 but I suppose it wouldn't be very hard to adapt it if you need that intervalometer effect.

Rob Mack

ajb wrote on 8/23/2009, 11:25 AM

Adding it to the render process is perfectly logical. Removing the intervalometer functions is the frustrating part and having to use the project properties to select a fractional frame rate for that purpose is not an accurate, or for that matter, a convenient way to select "n" number of frames spacing for a timelapse. That is what bothers me about the new implementation in 9. Sorry for the rant.

rmack350 wrote on 8/23/2009, 1:07 PM

This is the first time they've actually built an image sequence function into the program rather than scabbing in on with a script. It handles the basics of getting footage into and out of programs that require image sequences, and this is the fundamental requirement.

The only thing that's disappointing to me is that it cooks-in the project's PAR. Like you, I think mucking with the project properties to correct this is not elegant.

Rob Mack

TheHappyFriar wrote on 8/23/2009, 1:56 PM

i don't have 9, but you can't have a render template like everything else? Those override the project properties for the rendered file.

rmack350 wrote on 8/23/2009, 9:57 PM

No, this render option doesn't give you those sorts of choices. You can chose the image format and that's it.

If you were outputting NTSC 720x480 to some sort of grading application (unlikely as that is) that worked with image sequences the output would get sized down to 655x480. In this scenario that's bad, not good.

On the other hand, if you're working in HD then sizing 1440x1080 up to 1920x1080 probably doesn't hurt you, except that maybe your round trip get's sized up and then eventually back down.

The render description for image sequences says
"Video: Project Frame Rate, Project Frame Size
Progressive"

It's not really giving you project frame size but maybe that's open to interpretation. One thing that the built-in sequence exporter gives you though is an alpha channel with 8-bit transparency. That's good.

TheHappyFriar wrote on 8/24/2009, 4:12 AM

the most likely use of the frame export would be for SFX. There the 655x480 would be good. People have complained for years that Vegas didn't automatically take in to account AR when exporting to stills so that when you import it's not all messed up, now they finally did.

rmack350 wrote on 8/24/2009, 8:54 AM

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. In NTSC land Vegas has always exported stills at 655x480 (or 486). The new image sequence renderer is consistent with that.

Granted I've not done much of this but when I open a new composition in AfterFX 7 (what I've got available to look at) and use an NTSC DV preset my frame size is 720x480, not 655x480.

This really all depends on whether your FX application understands PARs at all. Your suggestion that the VP9.0 image sequence rendering template let you specify more things like frame size is a good one and would cover the possibilities. For example, it looks like AEFX 7 will interpret either 720x480 or 640x480 to properly fit the frame, but 655x480 overshoots the frame in AEFX7 so you'd lose a little edge content at render time.

There's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed some choices in how you export an image sequence.