V10 Initial Test Results

Birk Binnard wrote on 6/8/2010, 10:03 AM
BOttom line: this looks like a keeper!

My system specs: Win7-64 on i7-920 CPU with 6GB RAM, SSD boot drive, 500GB internal HDD, 1TB external HDD, nVidia 9600GT graphics, dual moinitors

Software download/install: no issues; installed in different folder from Vegas 9b

Initial tweaks/observations:

1. Vegas 10 uses the C++ 2008 SP1 object library (9B uses 2005 version)

2. Options/Preferences + Shift key/Internals
2.1. MinSplashTime = 1000
2.2 Time Text Color (Active) = FFFF <== yellow
2.3 Time Background COlor (Active) = 0 <== black
2.4 BD Burn Image Path = folder on my external HDD
2.5 Disc Images Path = folder on my external HDD
2.6 VCD Burn Image Path = folder on my external HDD
2.7 Print to Tape Image Path= folder on my external HDD
2.8 PSP Render Path= folder on my external HDD
2.9 MultiMedia Burn Image Path = folder on my external HDD
2.10 DAO Burn Image Path = folder on my external HDD
2.11 Prerender Folder Path = F:\work (temp folder on my internal HDD)
2.12 JPEG Save Qulity = 99
2.13 Max for Maximum Video Render Threads = 8

Notes on Internals:
1. Maximum Video Render Threads = 4 but Maximum Video Render Threads (64 bit) = 16 so I left this alone (had changed to 8 for Vegas 9b)
2. RAM Preview Limit (MB) = 1024 but RAM Preview Limit (64 bit) (MB) = 32,768 (had changed to 2048 for Begas 9b)

3. Options/Preferences/Video
3.1 Dynamic Ram Preview = 256
3.2 Maximum number of rendering threads = 8 (after close & reopen)

4. Options/Preferences/Editing
4.1 New Still Image Length (seconds) = 7
4.2 Automatically overlap multiple selected media when added = checked

5. Options/Ruler Format = Time

My test video: 1 1920x1080 MTS file (19 sec), 3 16x9 aspect ratio JPG files (about 4 MB each), 1 18,658x6846 JPG panorama (128 MB) with left-right-center pan/zoom effect. Entire test video 51 sec.

Render results:

1. AVI format 1920x1080 took 7:23 to render; render preview & resulting output was very herky-jerky/not acceptable

2. Blue-Ray 1920x1080 24P M2V format render aborted when reaching panorama with "out of memory" message; resulting video had no sound when played back on PC.

3. Used "Match Media" function pointing to my MTS video file & rendered as 1920 x 1080 24P MPEG2 M2V file; render aborted when reaching panorama with "out of memory" message.

4. Resized panorama to 2848x1080 (2.13 MB) and rendered as Sony AVC 1920x1080 60i 5.1 Surround M2TS format file. Render time 2:51. Everything OK with this format.

Looks like I'll be purchasing the upgrade very soon. Will also do more experiments with large JPG panoramas and see if there is an optimal size for them.


Comments

Markk655 wrote on 6/8/2010, 10:36 AM
Thanks for posting this. Was there any speed increase for rendering the 1920x1080 clip compared to VMS 9?
Birk Binnard wrote on 6/8/2010, 10:47 AM
The single video clip I selected is really too short to tell if V10 rendering for MTS files is faster than V9. But in general my sense so far (very limited testing) is that V10 does render faster. Maybe that is just wishful thinking though.


More data to follow.
Ivan Lietaert wrote on 6/8/2010, 10:59 AM
At least in 'adjust size and quality for optimal playback' mode, VMS10 appears to transcode video in the background in order to generate 24/25 fps in preview playback (at adjusted quality, of course). This imo does take quite a while, and unfortunately, when you close the project, the transcoded files get lost, and when you reopen the project, the transcoding starts anew, from zero.
dalemccl wrote on 6/8/2010, 11:41 AM
The SCS web site mentions the inclusion of New Blue FX, but doesn't say how many or which ones. Can you provide more detail based on what's in the trial? Thanks.
Markk655 wrote on 6/8/2010, 12:48 PM
Have a look at the gallery page in the menu.
dalemccl wrote on 6/8/2010, 1:00 PM
Thanks. I saw the "Video Effects" screen shot in the Gallery, but didn't realize that some of the listed FX must be New Blue. I thought they would be labeled as New Blue.

Actually, the list in the screen shot looks almost exactly like the list in v9. I didn't do a 1-1 comparison but at casual glance, the only thing I saw new is the secondary color corrector.
Markk655 wrote on 6/8/2010, 1:16 PM
I started a new thread so we can keep this one for testing/performance.

NewBlue FX links.

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=12&MessageID=714190
Birk Binnard wrote on 6/8/2010, 1:36 PM
with discount code received in Email from Sony. This is a very nice $30.00 savings off the standard DL price.

Thanks Sony!
Birk Binnard wrote on 6/8/2010, 1:50 PM
Just a quick test of the Stabilize Media option:

I have a 2'15" AVCHD video that is a hand-held 360 degree walkaround of Stonehenge. The field around Stonehenge is tall grass and not especially flat, so the resulting video is rather shaky. But it is watchable (for an amateur video of course.)

I ran it through the Stabilize Media filter (twice) with very similar results from both the default "General footage, medium analysis) option and the "Hand-held camera, very smooth" option. Results so far:

1. Selecting Apply in the option dialog causes a pre-render to occur and places a new file in the project media folder. This happens each time you select an option, so if you try 2 different ones you get 2 new media files.

2. The good news: the final render produced a very clear video that was much more stable looking. I was actually rather impressed with the results.

3. The bad news: the video, though more stable overall, looked like it had been shot through a piece of glass with drops of water slipping down the outside surface. In other words, the objects in the video had some wiggles introduced into them that made them look like they were actually made out of shaky jello, rather than solid stone.

I will definitely do more experiments to see if some of the other options work better. Or perhaps I made some other mistake (seems unlikely) in the workflow process.

There is no notice about the stabilizer being a New Blue product; all the stabilizer stuff looks like its a native part of V10.
Tim L wrote on 6/8/2010, 2:09 PM
The Sony press release ( http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/news/ShowRelease.asp?ReleaseID=734&CatID=0 )

...mentions that the stabilizer is based on ProDAD's work:

-----------
"Image Stabilization: Users with "shaky" video footage, commonly shot from handheld, pocket and mobile phone cameras, now have the ability to quickly stabilize their files using several optimized presets. Image Stabilization uses technology from ProDAD, a leading provider of video effects plug-ins."
-----------

The "jello" effect might be the result of a camera with a CMOS imager, which uses a "rolling shutter" readout (compared to CCD imager with a global readout). Some stabilizers are beginning to add support for correcting rolling shutter as well. You might look around in the stabilizer settings to see if any such option exists.

One problem people see when they stabilize their shaky footage is that "parts of it suddenly look blurry". If you step frame-by-frame they can then see that their original source video has motion blur in various frames, but you just don't notice it when watching the shaky version of the video.

ProDAD markets a stabilizer program called Mercalli. ProDAD Mercalli info here:
http://www.prodad.de/gb/mercalli_std_details.html
david_f_knight wrote on 6/8/2010, 2:51 PM
Motion blur and rolling shutter distortion are largely mutually exclusive. Motion blur, in general, increases the longer each frame is exposed, while rolling shutter distortion, in general, increases the shorter each frame is exposed. Finding a happy medium, maybe around 1/250 second exposure per frame or so, will pretty much minimize both to the point of generally not being noticeable, provided the camera is held reasonably carefully.

If you shoot footage with the intention of later running it through an image stabilizer, you should try to minimize motion blur by reducing exposure length to produce better raw footage for stabilization in post production. Otherwise you end up with motion blur on a stationary subject, which looks bad, unlike motion blur on a moving subject.

I think the "jello" or "rain drops" type of distortion is due to motion blur rather than rolling shutter distortion. Motion blur from hand held footage has random orientations over time as the camera moves left and right and up and down and back again randomly. In my experience, rolling shutter distortion is easily avoided -- just don't shoot video with a very short exposure and there won't be any problems with it.
LR2003 wrote on 6/8/2010, 3:08 PM
I had 3 issues with v9 and initially it looks like only 1 has been corrected.
1 - Slow AVCHD playback - Fixed

2 - Crashes when rendering Sony AVC - I have rendered one of my previous projects twice. 1 crash, 1 successful. On ver. 9 this was fixed the CFF explorer dll modifications. I do not know if my crash today was the same, but it seems likely.

3. AVCHD files do not playback correctly on Win7/ wrong file length reported. I still see this issue. I haven't had time to run the file through tsMuxer but I bet that it will work

I have a Win7 64bit system with a E8400 processor and 8GB of ram. My system is very stable and reliable on other programs. I am running the demo of version 10.
Birk Binnard wrote on 6/8/2010, 3:51 PM
Thanks David & Tim.

The Stabilize Media dialog does have a checkbox for Rolling Shutter Correction. So this time I selected "Handheld camera, slow-moving scene" and checked that box too.

Clicking Apply created a new media file in 9'18" during which my system was working hard (I can tell this because the fan speeds up.)

The results were much improved over the previous render, but there still is some jello effect visible. I did take David's advice and look at some single frames from my original video and there are indeed a number of frames with significant amounts of what I'd call either motion blur or ghosting. The stabilized video frames have much less of this, but not zero.

I shot the original video at about 09:00 on a clear sunny day using the GH1's auto mode, so I don't know what shutter speed it was using. I have read that all GH1 video should be shot in Manual mode with 1/125 shutter speed. Maybe I will try this.

Other notes:

1. There are 6 different options for stabilization Type but the V10 Help file does not describe them at all. I looked at the ProDad user manual but it has nothing like the same options. So it is not clear exactly what the various options do or how they differ.

2. The stabilized intermediate file that gets created and placed in the Media folder is not really in that folder. What does get created there is a second STF file of the same size as the original one, but I have been unable to locate the actual intermediate file anywhere.

Markk655 wrote on 6/8/2010, 6:17 PM
I am in the middle of downloading the trial, but there has been quite a bit of work trying to figure out Mercalli settings with other competing NLEs when it first became available. While it was shown to help, it may not be the panacea, that we want. The key is getting the correct settings in place and requires quite a bit of trial & error.


Jøran Toresen wrote on 6/8/2010, 6:34 PM
Birk, try this: Add the Sharpen effect to your stabilized clip(s) and set the Amount to 0.000 (the default setting).

Jøran Toresen