Things I'd love to see in VV3c or VV4

riredale wrote on 6/3/2002, 2:15 PM
Okay, I'm new to VV, and over the past few weeks I've been spending a lot of time with this beautiful product. Based on my own experiences, I have a couple of suggestions. I will post these over at the formal suggestion site also, but first wanted to put them here, so you people could correct me if I've overlooked solutions.

(1) Importing photographs
I see over on other postings that there is a bit of an argument going on over aspect ratios. For me, the situation is simple: if I import a still photo that has a 4:3 (1.333x1) aspect ratio using universally-accepted square pixels, then I expect it to perfectly fill my 4:3 TV screen after inclusion in a VV-edited project. But it doesn't. VV3 expects me to go back into my still-image editor and resample the image into a 1.365 aspect ratio (derived from 655/480). Sure, I can do this, but the logic is bogus.

(2) I know that the playback indicator on the timeline can be positioned in several ways, such as using the scrubber on the screen, by using the JKL keys, or by just clicking anywhere. But it would be simpler (and more intuitive for me) to just grab the indicator and move it. Studio7, a far less capable program, does it this way. In other words, the playback indicaor needs a Grab Handle.

(3) When VV3 starts, the cursor defaults to the "Normal Edit Tool" style. Okay, but I've gotten used to selecting clips on the timeline by click-dragging, the way that pretty much every other Windows application works. To make the cursor behave this way, I need to use the "Selection Edit" version of the cursor. Why? Couldn't the cursor be given a bit more intelligence so that it knows that if it is hovering over a blank portion of the clip area and if the user does a click-hold-drag then it must be that he wants identify a clip, or collection of clips, for selection?

I've gone over much of the documentation already, and at least for my thick skull the solutions for these questions aren't obvious. If I'm missing something here, please feel free to set me straight.

Comments

Cheesehole wrote on 6/3/2002, 6:07 PM
>>>if I import a still photo that has a 4:3 (1.333x1) aspect ratio using universally-accepted square pixels, then I expect it to perfectly fill my 4:3 TV screen after inclusion in a VV-edited project. But it doesn't. VV3 expects me to go back into my still-image editor and resample the image into a 1.365 aspect ratio (derived from 655/480). Sure, I can do this, but the logic is bogus.

hi riredale, did you miss the 'Maintain Aspect Ratio' option in PAN/CROP properties in Vegas?

the logic is certainly not *bogus* and VV3 doesn't expect you to do anything like what you have described.

you have stated that you expect your 4:3 sized photo using square pixels, to fill a 4:3 TV screen.

try this:
new project | NTSC DV template
1 - drop an image sized to a 4:3 onto the timeline (maybe 640x480 for example)
2 - right-click the clip and choose PAN/CROP and uncheck 'Maintain Aspect Ratio'

you should see the picture fills the frame. preview on an NTSC monitor and it fills the frame. that's exactly what you want right? let me know if you aren't seeing this result because that is how Vegas is supposed to function.

so what's the deal with 655x480 you might be wondering?

because of the differences between PC monitors and NTSC monitors (TV), your subjects will be distorted and will look slightly fatter on the TV than they do on your PC. the difference will be very hard to pick up, since you are very close to the correct size to use, which would be 655x480. that's the reason the 655x480 size is recommended but really this recommendation is just for beginners who aren't going to get into the details or do any panning/zooming on the photos.

if you want to put a 4:3 image made up of square pixels into your project and have it fill the screen you are completely free to do so simply by making sure the Maintain Aspect Ratio switch is off. you probably won't notice the distortion anyway.

you can actually use any size photo you want and fill the frame, not just 4:3 pics. make sure Stretch To Fill frame is checked and Maintain Aspect Ratio is not checked.

OR if you would like the picture to appear distortion free no matter what your output Aspect Ratio is, Vegas makes this incredibly easy *no matter what size or shape* your photo is. open PAN/CROP properties and just right-click on a photo and hit *Match Output Aspect* and make sure both Maintain Aspect Ratio and Stretch to Fill are checked.

in that case you won't always get your whole photo in the frame, but the point is that is will appear *distortion free* (a circle is a circle) on the final viewing device.
pelvis wrote on 6/3/2002, 8:35 PM
sing it cheese!
riredale wrote on 6/4/2002, 5:53 AM
Cheesehole:

Thanks for the detailed reply. I did what you said, but I still think this is a case where one of the software guys screwed up, and it needs to be fixed. My point is that, if I import a 4:3 aspect ratio image into the timeline, the software should be smart enough to resample both vertically and horizontally such that the original 4:3 image comes out as 4:3 on the TV screen. Currently it doesn't. Obviously there is resampling taking place, since one can insert a still image of, say, 1024x768, and the softare will down-sample it in the vertical dimension to 480. But the horizontal sampling factor is incorrect, and the result is that the 4:3 image will have narrow black bars left and right. In other words, the resulting image is no longer 4:3, but rather is slightly squeezed horizontally. I must be missing something here, but it seems counterintuitive to me that one should have to uncheck any "Maintain Aspect Ratio" checkboxes in order to maintain a 4:3 ratio.

If a 4:3 image is dropped into another video-editing product, such as Studio7, the result will be a 4:3 image on the TV screen. Not here.

This is such a fine product that I am reluctant to hammer away at this, and since I assume the folks at SF are very aware of this issue, I will not post regarding this again.

BTW, I feel a bit out of place for signing on with such an unimaginative handle as "riredale." I don't know the origin, but "cheesehole" is one of the more creative names I have seen. Kudos.
Cheesehole wrote on 6/5/2002, 1:27 AM
>>> I must be missing something here, but it seems counterintuitive to me that one should have to uncheck any "Maintain Aspect Ratio" checkboxes in order to maintain a 4:3 ratio.

ahhh, so really the only problem is with the default setting? on that point I would agree that it would be nice to be able to change the default setting. more importantly, there needs to be a way to change options of many events at once. is there a way to change the default anyone?

>>>The software should be smart enough to resample both vertically and horizontally such that the original 4:3 image comes out as 4:3 on the TV screen.

the way I see it, Studio7 distorts your picture by default and VV3 preserves your image's true shape by default. there are merits to both I guess, but I prefer VV3's method.

as we know you can uncheck the maintain aspect ratio button to allow VV3 to distort your image to fill the whole frame, but I think you are saying that there is a mistake in the programming because NTSC DV is already 4:3?

according to most of what I've read on the subject, NTSC DV is very close to 4:3, but not exactly, so your image is actually getting distorted to something other than 4:3 in StudioDV or in VV3 if you uncheck Maintain Aspect. if you don't think VV3 is doing the math correctly, you are welcome to join the debate, and here is some material to get you started, but these pages support VV3's numbers as I understand them.

http://www.mir.com/DMG/aspect.html
http://toolbox.sgi.com/TasteOfDT/documents/video/lurker/pixelaspect.html

the thread:
http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=81847

SonicEPM has even offered a free copy of Vegas to anyone who can prove that VV3's aspect ratios are wrong. :)

- cheesehole!
riredale wrote on 6/5/2002, 4:38 PM
Amazing.

From the articles cited, it appears that NTSC DV is not defined to be based on a 4:3 aspect ratio at all, but rather on a 11/10 pixel aspect ratio. This pixel aspect ratio implies that a 4:3 image actually measures 480/704, not 480/720. The net effect is that a 480x720 window displaying a 4:3 image should show narrow vertical black bars along the sides, and if properly represented it should be slightly wider than 4:3. This implies that a TV set showing an NTSC DV signal should be showing those black bars, except that TV sets usually have so much overscan, the black bars are essentially behind the bezel. But on a PC, those black bars should be visible, right? I don't think I have ever noticed such bars.

Finally, all this math means that my little Sony camcorder doesn't shoot in 4:3 after all. If designed correctly, it should be imaging a picture that has an aspect ratio of 4.09:3.

I need to lie down for a few minutes. I think my head is going to explode...
Chienworks wrote on 6/5/2002, 7:54 PM
I don't think anyone has ever definitively said that NTSC is 4:3. I think it's just close to that and down through the ages we've all called it that enough that we start to believe it's the exact truth. It's kinda like how we all say "the sun rises in the east", when really we know that it's the earth turning instead. (Or wait a moment ... what did Einstein say about relativity ... ? )
FuTz wrote on 6/5/2002, 11:30 PM
Chien: hoooly... hydr'po stuff these days ...
But TV? isn't it 4:3 ? ha ha!

),(
..
O
l
l
l
tserface wrote on 6/6/2002, 4:20 PM
The sun rises in the east????

Funny story: My wife and I went to Maine last year on a trip and when the sun started going down my wife grabbed her camera and said, "I have to hurry I don't want to miss the sunset pictures over the water... it's such a beautiful day". It didn't take long to realize that mistake... Dumb Californians. What are you going to do?

Tom
Cheesehole wrote on 6/7/2002, 1:40 AM
ha ha! I live on the west coast of Florida so I can pretend I live in California. :)
jetdv wrote on 6/7/2002, 10:00 AM
How about fuzzy edges on Event Pan/Crop. That way, you could shrink a video scene but make the edges indistinct. Or, just make the current border control optional to work with either full frame size only or actual video size if Event Pan/Crop has been used.
tserface wrote on 6/7/2002, 11:03 AM
You can do this with the track motion settings by using a borders filter.

Tom
jetdv wrote on 6/7/2002, 11:34 AM
Not 100% exactly. Besides, most things are so easy to setup with Event Pan/Crop without having to worry about affecting other things on the track (and I don't like having 45 video tracks so I will reuse a track later even if I have used track motion elsewhere on the track). Why can't the effects be applicable to Pan/Crop as well as Track Motion when I have to add the effect at the clip level anyway?

Border is the perfect example. Here is what I expect: I add a fuzzy border to a clip and it shows the fuzzy border around the edge of the full size screen. If I then use Event Pan/Crop to make the video smaller, I expect the fuzzy border to shrink as well. It doesn't.

It just seems that the process to accomplish some tasks is a little convoluted.
FadeToBlack wrote on 6/7/2002, 2:04 PM
jetdv wrote on 6/7/2002, 2:58 PM
Thanks, GG. I'll take a look at the various settings for the keyframes. I still think it makes sense for many of these options to be available at the clip level but am learning how to use the track level controls where needed.