Stuck in 4K60 rendering hell? Here are some tips


D7K wrote on 7/2/2019, 9:09 AM

wow. twas weird reading all about 1080 rendering when the topic title is clearly marked it's about 4K. Thanks for posting the 4k Rendering tips. Vegas works about 50% of the time when I am rendering 4K as well, so I look forward to ANYTHING that helps. 4k is here, life goes forward. :)

I see this thread as about work flow. It just depends on who your customer is (and what there real needs are) and how much time you want to devote to producing something that may or may not have more value to the viewer. Work-a-rounds are great to get a problematic video finished but unless your are a hobbyist (like I am now) a working PRO cannot afford the luxury of using a process that wastes time over and over again. Musicvid's point. I was at a group meeting last week where the product cycle was talked about and the issues of "pot holes" were brought up, and the key issues was that time is not only money but there is a finite amount of it to projects and lives and anything that makes one's time more efficient in processes is a good thing.

It would seem to me that for folks doing projects such as these, one needs the right software and equipment and it appears that VegasPRO is not the right tool for the folks having issues. Has anyone test 60FPS 4K in nested projects rather than just putting everything in one file? Pre-rending the parts before you final render?

I shoot in 4K in all my cameras, and now some files are 6K 30 fps. These are my "digital negatives". I render in what FOR MY NEEDs are the most effective deliver codec which fulfills what I think are the needs of my visual customers. When 8K gets here that will become my choice, and I will upgrade my equipment even as a hobbyist, but I will deliver very few final cuts in 8K.

IMHO for most folks it is far more important, even as hobbyist, to focus on content (beginning, conflict, resolution for films and documentary factual content with compelling visuals, and clear and concise statistical testing for product evaluations) . Doesn't matter how good your NLE is if the content does not fulfill the needs of the viewer.


Musicvid wrote on 7/2/2019, 12:50 PM

Project files are either from my Panasonic G7 (4K30_100Mbit H264) or from an IP camera in this case (Transcoded with FFMPEG to CBR (4K30_50Mbit H264).

ย I also do a lot of compositing


You have mentioned compositing a couple of times. Are you doing your composite layers and masks in 32-Bit Float or in 8 bit Mode?

Quindor wrote on 7/2/2019, 5:31 PM

This discussion about 4K or not, what does it even matter? If some of the cores in your processor fail 50% of the time and you complain to Intel/AMD and they answer, well, do you really need those, can't you just wait a bit longer, I never notice when this happens, so it shouldn't bother you either? That's never going to be an acceptable answer....

And for everyone saying they cannot see a difference, not to be rude but I don't know what is wrong with your eyes, but it's so obvious to me, well I can't even explain, it's IMMEDIATELY apparent. This discussion cannot be won, especially if some of the people here are seemingly unable to determine if footage is 1080p or 4K visually, then it's a moot point to discuss anyway.

But again, not the point. I want to render in 4K60, I need to render in 4K60 as much in my opinion as you believe 1080p is fine for everything.

And all answer regarding workflow, all my workflow is in 4K, lower standards are not acceptable to me. Your workflow might be different, your audience might be different too.
All these mentions that "4K costs more time", I don't even agree on that. My editing and everything's the same in 4K as it is in 1080p, my render will take a bit longer, sure, but that's a fraction of the time involved with a whole project? As I mentioned, I only render the final in 4K, all check versions in between are rendered in lower quality, including lower vegas settings then "best", etc.. Final render taking 30 minutes or even 2 hours, I can't really be bothered by that looking at the whole and well, the difference in quality to me.

But there are lots of reasons to do 4K now, even beyond the visual fidelity it offers, 1080p is a thing of the past. For instance, YouTube will give your video a higher bitrate than a 1080p upload, even if the content inside isn't 4K (but upscaled). Also, when searching a 4K uploaded video will be given preference over a video that only has 1080p or below.

But yeah, this topic isn't about if you can see 4K or not, this topic is about issues and problems with doing a 4K60 project in the current Vegas Pro versions and rendering stalls/image corruption that comes with it. The solution to " not use it", that's just weird to even say and will drive people to other software which does not have these "limitations".

Anyway :)

@Musicvidย good question, do you mean the pixel format in the project properties? I've included an attachment.

Kinvermark wrote on 7/2/2019, 6:35 PM


Yes, @Musicvid would be referring to the pixel format. Often we see people having problems while attempting (for no good reason) to use 32 bit floating point.

The 4k vs 1080p discussion is off-topic and moot, as you have pointed out. Best to just let this lie.

Only suggestion I have to move this discussion forward would be if you were able to isolate a manageably small project file + media that consistently gives you render problems. That could then be sent to the dev's and tested by other forum members too.

Musicvid wrote on 7/2/2019, 7:04 PM

Quindor, if you look back at my old posts, just a few years ago the question was streaming 720 vs. 1080p as being the most deliverable product.

720p is still pretty good, 1080p is ~90% deliverable, and 4k HDR is on the horizon.

It just isn't here yet, and won't be for a while, and my opinions will still be unpopular.

wwjd wrote on 7/3/2019, 6:33 AM

I hate coming across 720p videos on youtube*. no effort: all they had to do was upscale to 1080, add a lil sharpen and probably would have fooled me, but nope. they're sticking to 1998! any $99 gopro knockoff has better resolution. I find 720 hard to really watch, so the CONTENT better be REALLY interesting.

*IE I usually skip to the next one

john_dennis wrote on 7/3/2019, 10:03 AM

โ€œ...but nope. they're sticking to 1998!โ€

If you check, I believe youโ€™ll find that 720x480 was all the rage in 1998.

Quindor wrote on 7/3/2019, 3:22 PM

lol ok, @john_dennisย that made me laugh :)

Musicvid wrote on 7/3/2019, 4:32 PM

What fun, all the hyperbole, but 1998? Really???

YouTube went live in March of 2005. It was 360x240.

Fast forward 13 years. That's when I first published these failsafe recommendations for YouTube based on hundreds of hours of testing and worldwide collaboration. That was 2011.

-- That x264 holds up better below 10Mbs than does Mainconcept AVC.
-- That 720p is currently a better upload medium than 1080i, from an upstream postprocessing standpoint, and playability on most consumer systems and connections.
-- That uploaded media must be strictly conformed to 16-235 levels, to prevent clipping at both ends. Includes generated text and media, and FTB levels!

And that first test upload still looks great at 720p, aspersions aside.

Most 4k looks like it was shot by kids.