rendering uncompr AVI - BLURRY!!!

LarsHD wrote on 8/12/2009, 4:15 PM
Hi,

Vegas 9.0a 64 bit
Footage 1920x1080 29.97

- Footage is uncompressed AVI
- Footage shows a resolution test chart
- I render this out to a new uncompressed avi w. identical format

Result:
The rendered result is blurry! Not just a little. It's very obvious.
===============================================

Doing the same but to MXF. Result: MXF is clean and crisp.

What is this? It basically make 9.0a useless. If an export from uncompressed AVI to uncompressed AVI means a dramatic blurriness things are a little serious here... ;)


Any ideas?
Lars

Comments

TheHappyFriar wrote on 8/12/2009, 4:20 PM
try QT PNG. it's uncompressed @ a fraction of the size.
kairosmatt wrote on 8/12/2009, 4:56 PM
Did you check the video rendering quality? It should be set at least to good by default, but maybe it got changed?

kairosmatt
farss wrote on 8/12/2009, 4:56 PM
"It basically make 9.0a useless."

Not much argument from anyone on that, it does pay to check here regularly.

Anyways, report it. Probably just another symptom of the same gremlin but still the more they know about the more they'll know to check when testing the next release.

Bob.
John_Cline wrote on 8/12/2009, 4:58 PM
"The rendered result is blurry! Not just a little. It's very obvious."

How are you judging this blurriness? In what program? I would suspect that there's really nothing wrong with the render just how it's being viewed, but then we're talking about 9.0a and anything may be possible.
mikelinton wrote on 8/12/2009, 7:01 PM
Haven't had that happen, we use uncompressed AVI a fair bit... are you sure it's not a scaling issue? i.e. not accidently taking 1920x1080 and rendering to 1280x720, or rendering to 30p from 60i?

All I can think of off hand, but yes with 9.0 anything is possible.
John_Cline wrote on 8/12/2009, 7:46 PM
Assuming that you have the resolution, frame rate and field dominance set correctly, it's pretty difficult to screw up an uncompressed AVI.
LarsHD wrote on 8/13/2009, 10:49 AM
OK, here's how it is:

1. Set project settings to 1920x1080, 29.97
2. Set "progressive"
3. Add 3 secs of color bar on the time line
4. Now render this to 1920x1080 29.97 progressive uncompr AVI
5. Then drop this rendered file on to the time line
6. Right click and check clip properties
7. Now on the "media tab" it says "Upper field first"

If you now rerender this out to a 2nd generation uncompressed AVI it will lower the resolution... even if you set the export to "progressive"

8. But if if you change the clip properties to "Progressive", then it will render out in full resolution...


So... why does the clip properties say "upper field first" as default when in fact it isn't?

Project settings is "Progressive".
The rendred clip is progressive
So the clip properties info seems wrong don't they?

Now, with MXF files this problem doesn't exist. Vegas can tell from it's MXF that it is a progressive scan and will reflect this in clip properties media tab.

On an uncompressed AVI. Or from Cineform AVI, Vegas doesn't pick that up and reflect in the the media tab in clip properties.


--------------------------

Even if I - in project settings - set "adjust media for bla bla bla" the clip info is always giving the wrong info... "Upper...." instead of "progressive..."


This explains two things:

1 - why the Preview/Full/Good was behaving strangely
2 - and more important - why the uncompressed AVI's got blurrier for each generation I rendered.... Which was my inital question when I started this thread.

I see no reason for the clip being treated by Vegas as an "upper" clip when it is "progressive".


Any ideas on how to work around this problem. How to set it globally and not having to watch out for each and every clip I bring in here...?


Just to be clear: changing the clip properties from "upper" to "progressive" brings back the full resolution of the footage. You see it instantly. You can see it clearly when viewing in Good/Full or in Best/Full.


Best
Lars

PerroneFord wrote on 8/13/2009, 11:00 AM
What camera and settings did you shoot this with?
LarsHD wrote on 8/13/2009, 11:48 AM
Shoot *what* with??
PerroneFord wrote on 8/13/2009, 11:58 AM
My question is where did the source footage come from? If Vegas is seeing it as upper field first, I am curious where that flag got set. The reason you are seeing the blurriness is that Vegas sees the file as interlaced, and is therefore creating a new 1080 file using only half the fields.

Or at least that is what would APPEAR to be happening.
LarsHD wrote on 8/13/2009, 12:02 PM
Pls read my post, there is no source *footage*. It's a color bar in Vegas. And the multigeneration rendering work is made of AVI's going out from and into Vegas.

My question is: Why does Vegas clip media properties tab understand that the MXF file I render out, bring in is a *progressive* file, but it doesn't understand that the AVI *progressive* file is a *progressive* file... That is the question here.

Best
Lars
TheHappyFriar wrote on 8/13/2009, 12:56 PM
it was said somewhere before that avi's don't contain field order info, so you need to change it manually.

BUT with progressive it shouldn't matter if it's upper, lower or progressive in the media settings. The file is still progressive & should display as such.
PerroneFord wrote on 8/13/2009, 1:16 PM
Your original message said nothing of color bars. Sorry I missed your post later where you said you did it with color bars. That's why I was confused.

And TheHappyFriar is right. AVI does not offer a flag that gives field dominance so you have to set it manually. It may be plausible that the field setting overrides other things set as progressive. Only a programmer could say for certain, but your experience seems to suggest this.
farss wrote on 8/13/2009, 3:59 PM
"AVI does not offer a flag that gives field dominance so you have to set it manually"

Um I think they do. Problem is it can only indicate upper or lower not None. With MXF a whole host of info about the clip is stored in metadata aka "essence"

Bob.
PerroneFord wrote on 8/13/2009, 6:27 PM
Ahhhh, I had heard differently. Thanks for clearing that up.