Vegas 14 problems with High DPI aliasing and blurriness

Jamon wrote on 10/28/2016, 11:47 AM

On the left is Vegas 12 (sharp), right is Vegas 14 (blurry).

Look at the text, and lines. Notice how aliased and blurry everything looks? The text is difficult to focus on.

Now compare DaVinci Resolve 12.5.

I sympathize how Vegas is legacy code, and not designed for modern High DPI scaling.

But I only intended to upgrade Vegas so it would look correctly on my UHD display. When people were saying Vegas was dead, I was almost certain there'd be at least one more release, and it would fix the display scaling problems. I expected it to look better on UHD than Vegas 12 and 13.

In some ways, it does. If you look at the plugin boxes, and the icons, they are more uniform on Vegas 14. The text is not cut off in the media generator, and the icons are the normal size. In Vegas 12, the icons are much smaller than normal, and the plugin section is often cut off where it's unusable.

But the solution for scaling appears to be a dirty hack, which makes the interface look ugly. I don't care much about whether the icons are pretty or not, my concern is that it's difficult to actually see anything, because the text and lines are jagged and blurry. That interferes with the functionality of the interface.

Really the way it looked in Vegas 12 was much better (with "Disable display scaling" checked), it just needed the icons to scale, and the plugin elements not to be cut off.

But DaVinci Resolve is beautiful in comparison. It is sharp, and I prefer a dark interface. If Adobe Premiere CC were the only competition, Vegas would be in a better position, because I'm not interested in paying subscription for desktop software. I've always preferred Vegas because of how intuitive the timeline is, where the video clips behave like audio clips in multitrack editing software. I liked Catalyst Edit for that reason, and it scaled correctly like Resolve, so it was better than Vegas for my UHD PC. But Catalyst went subscription only.

The choice is then Resolve, or Vegas. One I get for free, the other I'd pay $200. Already Vegas is in a difficult spot, because it must really keep up for me to be interested in continuing purchasing it.

When I install the trial, and I see it looks worse than 12 did, what incentive do I have to upgrade? It's a downgrade visually. It looks like the first version of Vegas on my CRT monitor. I have an ultra-high-definition display now, so I cannot pay for software that looks blurry and jagged.

I understand there is a big transition going on, and most of Vegas 14 is probably whatever features Sony had finished when they sold it. I imagine that with time, perhaps things can be improved. Maybe in Vegas 15, or an update, the High DPI scaling can be fixed.

But until that happens, I cannot justify paying for an upgrade.

Comments

VEGAS_EricD wrote on 10/28/2016, 11:55 AM

What is your Windows display scaling set to when you are observing these differences?

Jamon wrote on 10/28/2016, 12:03 PM

VEGAS_EricD wrote on 10/28/2016, 1:38 PM

Try using various settings between 100% and 150%. This is where I see the best results reported.

Jamon wrote on 10/28/2016, 2:14 PM

100%

125%

150%

175%

They all look poor quality.

Jamon wrote on 11/6/2016, 5:32 PM

It's strange because I see people talking about how they're using Vegas 14. I guess it was also strange how they were using 13. Does that mean the problem is isolated to my setup, or are most people not using UHD displays? It's surprising people interested in multimedia would still be using HD displays when HiDPI UHD is available. I guess Vegas people are often stuck in the past, like how people complain that Vegas Edit won't work for them because they need DVD authoring. But they're really missing out. 4K video and HiDPI monitors are drastically better looking than HD. It's strange that HiDPI support for Vegas 14 was not such a top priority that it would be tested and made sure to work perfectly. Don't the deveopers use UHD displays? I don't get it. I can't be the only one using HiDPI. I guess they're mostly all using Premiere and Resolve.

Kinvermark wrote on 11/6/2016, 8:25 PM

I am interested in UHD display for monitoring, but not really for the user interface. For me an ultrawide 1440 looks to make more sense for timeline editing. Any thoughts?

I do think you are ahead of the pack on moving to UHD. My guess is that only a small percentage have this setup for Vegas, Premier, or Resolve.

Jamon wrote on 11/6/2016, 9:43 PM

Why do you think a lower resolution would make sense? Software should scale independently of the resolution. All that the resolution should mean is the number of pixels per area. Most of the 21:9 3440x1400 displays seem to be 34". That's 110 PPI. In comparison, a 27" 2560x1440 display is 109 PPI. For that to look smooth, you'd need to be 32" away. If you have normal vision, maybe that's comfortable for you. But I like to get closer, where everything is bigger and I can see smaller details.

I have an Eizo CG248-4K. That's 3840x2160 at 23.8". I got the smallest size I could, because then the pixels are packed tighter. That's 185 PPI. It looks smooth 19" away. But I can get even closer than that, and it still looks smoother than the old 92 PPI 24" HD displays.

When I set scaling to 200% in Windows 10, everything looks normal like if I had a regular 24" HD display. It's just way sharper where the lines and text are smooth instead of jagged. It could still be smoother, because if I get too close I can see all the pixels like with my old displays. But this is what's practical today, and I'd never want to use HD resolutions again.

As you can see in the screenshot above, DaVinci Resolve looks great. Everything scales properly, so text and icons are the normal size. With some handheld photos, you can get a sense of how it looks inches away from the screen.

You can still see jagged edges up close, but it looks much better than HD, and someday higher resolutions should be available where even inches away it'll look smooth.

Vegas 12 looks sharp, it's just tiny. It doesn't scale properly, so I had to right-click the shortcut and set "Disable display scaling on high DPI settings" under "Compatibility". That makes text look the correct size, and it's sharp. But the icons are small, and some of the FX windows are cut off where you can't access the inputs to change the values. That makes Vegas 12 and 13 not really usable on HiDPI.

Vegas 14 is so much worse though. It isn't sharp. It looks like if you take a picture of the HD screen, then enlarge it with a lousy algorithm so everything becomes fuzzy. It's unusable. It's more unusable than Vegas 12. In 12, the icons are tiny, but that doesn't interfere so much if you don't use them much. If you don't use the FX plugins where things are cut off, then it works. "Color Balance" for example works fine.

You can see all this in the screenshots from the first post. I was expecting to purchase 14 because I thought it'd make it fully functional on HiDPI displays. But actually, I'm better off with 12. I still much prefer Resolve, and Catalyst looks good too. But if I need to use Vegas for something, it's still usable for most things in version 12. But 14 is so fuzzy it's not really practical to use because it's almost disorienting to look at.

Catalyst and Premiere are forced subscription only, which I do not like. Vegas doesn't really work correctly with UHD. Resolve works great and I paid nothing. I feel like my money spent on Vegas and Catalyst lately was wasted. Neither software is fully functional on my PC, and I paid for something I can't really use for anything serious.

Resolve is different. The audio and video tracks are segmented in the timeline, and the timeline feels more cramped, where I can't seem to be able to simply drag clips over each other for quick crossfades. But there might be shortcuts I don't know about, and the more I use it the more I learn. Then by the time Vegas works correctly, maybe I'll prefer Resolve.

I'd probably still buy one last upgrade to be able to have it fully functional on HiDPI so I can keep it around for years to come. But right now as far as I can tell, DaVinci Resolve is the only option for video editing software today that fits my needs of HiDPI and no subscription.

Which is why it's surprising that display scaling is not on the front page of this forum every day. I think most people agree that subscription is not a preferable licensing model for video editing software, but I assumed people would also agree that having the sharp smooth interface and video monitoring provided by UHD is also of critical importance.

Kinvermark wrote on 11/6/2016, 10:03 PM

Thanks for the info... I will have to get a closer look at some UHD monitors vs ultrawides.

I think the answer to your last question about why the display scaling issue isn't more prominent, is fairly simple - you don't miss what you never had. In other words, most people won't purchase an expensive monitor that their software doesn't support, so we don't see (literally) the benefit, and aren't pushing the developers to put that support in place. Maybe we should be!

leadfoot wrote on 6/18/2017, 3:20 PM

I switched from Pinnacle, because when Coral purchased them they stopped listening to users. Sony Vegas seemed so much better and with less bugs, but as you have probably guessed by now I have purchased a pair of UHD screens and of course if i want to use my Movie Studio Platinum I have to lower the resolution and reset scaling. It may not be on the front page as you say, but lots of us outside here are suffering.
BTW the last upgrade did improve things marginally

fr0sty wrote on 6/18/2017, 4:25 PM

Don't forget that many of those of us who do have 4K capable monitors, not all of us use them for editing, but rather previewing our 4K video at full screen, while using a lower resolution or wider aspect monitor for editing. That said, I do agree that Vegas' interface needs to be modernized. Leave an option for the old look to keep those resistant to change happy, but give us a new skin that is UHD friendly.

Jam_One wrote on 6/18/2017, 4:48 PM

...C'mon, the fonts are fonts. They are vector graphics...
How can Vegas get any "internal engine" to self-render own UI ?...
It's not a Corel Draw or a Steinberg Wavelab of a sort. Unlike those mentioned, Vegas does favor OS settings for "skinning". Rendering the UI in such a case is an operation for the OS+GPU only.

The problem should be checked from that side first of all (GPU drivers / API layers / OS components / Libraries).

First of all, please make sure you have funny .NET Framework correctly installed all the way up to the version 4.7.

Jamon wrote on 6/18/2017, 5:32 PM

The problem is with Vegas, not anyone's setup. But it's not important for me anymore, because I purchased DaVinci Resolve Studio for $300, and it's worked better than Vegas and Catalyst in many ways. They also develop quickly, and release major upgrades with new features, which are free. I'll try Vegas Pro 15, and possibly upgrade just to have it around, but right now I don't see anyone able to compete with Blackmagic Design. They're making better decisions to me, including the option to run Resolve on Linux. The interface looks fine on my Eizo display, and color management is easier.

Jam_One wrote on 6/19/2017, 5:43 AM

OK, it's good you have found the solution for your tasks! 👍

...Could you, please, out of curiosity, check one more thing with Vegas?

Namely, in the 'Properties' of the desktop shortcut / .LNK on the Compatibility page is there an item that reads something like "Disable scaling on high DPI screens" ???...

Was it "On" or "Off"?
Is there a difference between these two settings?

Thank you in advance! 🙂

Jamon wrote on 6/19/2017, 2:14 PM

Someone else can test for you, because my trial expired. I used the "Compatibility" option for Vegas Pro 12, which had sharp text but tiny icons and cut off FX window controls. I tried it with the first version of 14, but it did not solve the problem.