Vegas 10 WMV levels read wrongly (V9 fine)

fausseplanete wrote on 5/24/2011, 3:52 PM
As one would expect, as in earlier versions of Vegas, WMV files are rendered over the (approximately) full (0..255) levels-range by Vegas 10. However Vegas 10 (only) reads/interprets WMV files as only over the range 16..235, hence producing a "washed-out" look. Earlier versions of Vegas instead read them back over the same 0..255 range that they were rendered.

Surely a bug! Sorry if it has been reported here before (unknown - my search found nothing). But even if it has, it's so important it's worth highlighting.

To demonstrate the issue:

From both Vegas 9 and 10, create a project (e.g. 320x240) then insert Gradient (generated FX), and render to WMV. Then in both projects (9 & 10), insert both of the rendered WMV files in tracks below the generated FX. Finally, in each project: display the Waveform Monitor (WFM) with both of its property checkboxes clear, then use Track Solo to see each track in turn.

In both Vegas 9 and 10, the generated media itself is shown by the WFM to cover the full "PC" luma levels range, between about 0 and 255. That's consistent with what traditionally happens in Vegas.

Now compare the WMV renders against this. In the case of Vegas 9, all tracks display about the same luma levels in the WFM. However in the case of Vegas 10 (sub-versions b or d, at least), both WMV tracks show luma levels linearly squeezed down into the Studio range, 16..235.

This demonstrates that the levels-mapping error takes place only when Vegas 10 reads WMV files, not when it writes (renders) them.

Consequence:

Consequently, in Vegas 10 (but not earlier versions of Vegas), WMV tracks look washed-out. Someone else noticed this - http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/24/925293 - where they were advised to correct the levels by applying FX. But this kind of patching-up is ugly - the levels should be read correctly by Vegas 10 in the first place. It is also destructive - essentially the levels are getting remapped (with quantization noise) twice: once by Vegas 10's WMV-Read and again by the applied FX. If you kept doing it (multi-generation) you'd end up with a flat grey image.

It sure wasted my time and held up delivery of a product to client (requiring WMV), because at first, when quality-checking it in a Vegas 10 review-project , I wasn't sure what was going on and thought I'd rendered the wrong levels. So I did experiments tonight (UK) and can next deliver to them in two days' time. Luckily not too embarrassing this time, but not good.

My workaround for levels-checking of WMV products (whether by WFM or by eye) is to use earlier Vegas versions instead. Maybe for editing also...

Comments

musicvid10 wrote on 5/24/2011, 4:28 PM
We have noticed anomalies with WMV levels both in playback and as reported in the Vegas scopes as far back as Vegas 2. They seemed to be indigent in the WMV encoders and WMP player versions, but not as a direct result of anything Vegas was doing. The squeezed playback levels you noticed are typical of what we regularly encountered back then. Various Quicktime formats were also notorious for these same types of behaviors.

Sorry to be a bit vague, but my tests on this were done many years ago. Really, it's been about that long since I had any interest in doing any work in WMV, once Vegas began supporting h264. Also, I do not have Vegas 10 at my disposal to run a new set of tests. Perhaps you could undertake this task with various encoder and player versions and report back with your results.

fausseplanete wrote on 5/24/2011, 4:54 PM
Well I've been using WMV since 1998 (when it was ASF) and Vegas since version 7, I'm pretty fussy about levels (hence my quality-check) and it's been no problem up until now. H264 is great sure enough but two of my main clients most definitely require WMV products, no choice.

I tried a quick play of both renders in Windows Media Player and in VLC, and by-eye and when stacked vertically they look identical and OK. So the encode is not the problem. It's only Vegas 10's WMV-read (decode) that gets it wrong. It was fine in the earlier Vegases 7-9.