SonicEPM said:

>800x800 is the maximum supported output rez.

That's REALLY a let down for me. I know a lot of people were waiting for particular favourite features to be added to Vegas 4, and I'm sure that many of them got their wishes. But surely I was not alone in hoping that V4 was going to increase its maximum resolution? Several other video editors (including free and low-cost ones) are able to handle HD, so it seems odd that Vegas, which has a delightfully flexible or "agnostic" approach to related variables such as frame rates, pixel aspect ratios, etc, does not. It surprised me in V3 when I discovered the 800x800 limit. It really surprises me in V4!

I mean - 800x800? Why is that the limit? Seems quite arbitrary to me -- not exactly a common resolution.

Will there be another version of Vegas soon that handles HD? An upgrade to v4? Is it too late to add common HD resolutions to V4? Or will I have to wait till v5? HD resolutions would have made the upgrade decision easy for me - maybe I am in the minority.

I am helping out with a HD project later this year and I wanted to recommend they use Vegas to edit with, but now I cannot. Bummer!

Maybe it's time to get a linux box up and running with Cinellerra. But that Cinelerra interface! Ugh! :-)

Are you sure that is how transfers work? I am not an expert, but I don't think you work in your editing environment at full film res. I guess if you start at that res in the camera you would, but I am assuming your are shooting on a DV or similar format and then goin going to film. If that is the case, you would edit at DV res and then upsize to film. Anyone know the answer to this for sure? If that is indeed the case, Vegas is more than capable.

JR

Doesn't VV3 and V4 handle two of the major HD specs, 480i/p and 720i/p?

Yes, it is missing 1080i, but so is the camcorder market for all but a VERY special few. I suspect that when the camcorder market embraces 1080i, as a whole, you will see it here, as well.

For stills, in ANY resolution, remember, you are OUTPUTTING at up to 800x800. That covers all the HD specs mentioned, above, and many other obscure ones, except that 1080i.

If I'm not mistaken, the HD specs start at 1080i, anything less is not HD. And the need for 2k film resolution for me is more related to a desire to do computer graphics and chromakey composites that will be scanned onto film then edited into a final film project (not DV). I guess that stuff I can do in After Effects.

My wish was to be able to use V4 to offline a film edit at DV resolution, which would later be conformed by a negative cutter. For a few visual effects shots, I would work in After Effects at 2k film resolution or higher.

Vegas already excels at DV editing and output. I was hoping to extend that wonderful workflow to offline film editing too.

Does anyone know what direction Vegas are planning to take their software? Being hardware independent has its advantages, but being resolution "independent" would be a greater advantage... Without being able to handle, at the least, 4:2:2 the attraction of VV is lessened in comparison with FCP. If Vegas were to cater to 4:2:2 input/output they would effectively have a software package that could be used by anyone in the PC environment to produce (admittedly with SDI interface, etc) broadcast material and work at the hi-end - not HD, maybe, but still a giant leap.

BUY VIDEO TOASTER!!!!
That is what Video Toaster is for.

How many people have HD video cameras? What's that? That's what I thought.

What I find annoying is a growing number of people looking for features that at best something like .0001% of users will benefit from. Rather foolish, don't you think?

Headzup BB,

Comin at ya... sooner than ya might think:

"Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC) is pleased to announce the Japanese launch in early March of the "GR-HD1" high-definition digital video camera, the first consumer digital video camera in the world to record and play back digital high-definition images, and to be announced in the United States later this year. ..."

http://www.jvc.co.jp/english/press/2003/gr-hd1.html

Cheers, mph

Wow. Now with that stuff, we're gonna need 500Go hard drives to store the images...no?

actually hd resolution will be available in march for sub 2k prices from jvc - i think there will be a huge demand shortly.

And, when the demand is enough (that is, when there are enough true HD camcorders actually sold), there will be the Vegas functionality needed to handle it.

As I said about this JVC camcorder when its prototype was announced, it is too big, too heavy, too proprietary, too short of megapixels (actually used for VIDEO), and too short of 1080i true HD. And, with an expected max output of 1000 units a month, the price will also be too too.

I am glad that it is coming out, as the consumer models have to start improving somewhere, and at least it is 16:9, which is a good sign, but other than that it doesn't excite me even a little bit.

By the way, this WILL be the year of the HD Camcorder. Don't get me wrong. There will be the "half HD" 720 model from JVC, something from Panasonic, and, yes, one is expected from Sony (Perhaps the VX3000 will be its name?). So, it won't be long. But for a while, there is barely a market.

Sure, sure, but how many will run out and buy it?

My point is you're putting the cart before the horse. If there is a market, then I guess in time Vegas will support it. By since there right now is no market to speak of, developing a feature few have video from is well foolish. More so when SoFo is sort of strapped for cash...

Kind of like putting in a landing pad NOW next to your driveway for your personal sized helecopter.

Hi again,

Replying to several posts in one, hope that's not too confusing.

jrsunshine: 480i/p and 720i/p is not generally considered HD (but I've seen people get purple in the face over the definition of "HD", and I don't feel that strongly about it).

I'm not actually asking for this or that particular HD resolution to be included in Vegas (after all -- which ones? It's a moving target). I was really asking for the same wonderful approach Vegas has to pixel aspect ratio, fps, etc to be extended to resolution. As willtobark said, I think resolution independence would be a major selling point. Up to certain practical limits I guess, as I assume frames of 50k x 50k would choke Windows on any hardware.

Yes, EW, I too want to render out my animations from my 3D app at HD or better res, and use Vegas to do compositing etc then render out the frames as an image sequence or an HD Quicktime. So no need for an HD camera at all.

Rhino, yes, Video Toaster is cool, but its software is tied to hardware isn't it? I dislike that approach these days, though it has many advantages I'll admit (only one person to complain to when things go wrong is a biggie!)

wcoxe1 said:

> And, when the demand is enough
> (that is, when there are enough
> true HD camcorders actually sold),
> there will be the Vegas functionality
> needed to handle it.

I see your point, but from my point of view (and possibly ONLY my point of view!) this isn't relevant. I'm not currently watching the emerging HD camcorder market. I do not intend owning a HD digital camera anytime soon - so why do I want resolution independance in Vegas? Partly for animations, and partly because the HD stuff I HAVE been involved in have been with RENTED cameras. I don't buy gear unless I HAVE TO, or unless it's high quality and dirt cheap. HD camera rentals are quite affordable already - competitive with 35mm and, if you haggle and plan carefully, even with 16mm - once you add every stage of production up (depends on how you're finishing of course). And these aren't little camcorders, these are wonder pieces of technology with fantastic lenses.

But even taking into consideration projects based around HD camera rental, am I still in the minority wanting HD or better in Vegas? Yes, probably. As I admitted in my earlier post. Ah well.

BillyBoy said:

SNIP
> My point is you're putting the cart
> before the horse. If there is a market,
> then I guess in time Vegas will support
> it. By since there right now is no market
> to speak of, developing a feature few have
> video from is well foolish. More so when
> SoFo is sort of strapped for cash...

Fair enough, though I think the market is bigger than you think. Plus it's a growing market. Plus it's a potentially high profile market, and can be used for marketing purposes (buy Vegas 4 now and you're ready for HD! Future proof! Never mind that you have no affordable way to actually get the HD footage INTO your home PC!). ;-)

I'm NOT a programmer, but the 800x800 limit in Vegas 3/4 seems so arbitrary, almost as if it's stuck on as an artificial limitation. It probably says a lot about the freedom Vegas gives me in other areas that I think this way about its few limitations - for all I know there would have to be serious changes under the hood to support anything bigger than 800x800. But it FEELS like all they have to do is change a few lines of code... :-) :-)

So, SoFo - what's the plan on resolution?

whether SoFo realizes it or not, they've created an application that is so flexible and powerful that it can be used for the same type of compositing work that I used to use AfterFX for. this app goes way beyond simple DV editing. (I hardly even use it to output DV) I often use it to make animated masks and textures for use in 3d studio. with scripting support, the possibilities for this application have expanded drastically.

when you consider all this, the 800x800 resolution cap becomes a limiting factor.

even if my animations were being output at DV or DVD resolution, the texture maps often require twice that in order to work effectively. it's the same concept as using higher than DV resolution photos in your projects. you need higher resolution if the 'camera' is going to zoom, pan, or fly by the photos without them becoming blurry.

it's one of those situations where they made the app so flexible that the one limitation really sticks out. of course in the end, I'm still slapping down the plastic when VV4 is released, and I'm sure that is a big factor in their decision to keep the cap ;)

but I hope they realize there is more to it than 'HD', and that Vegas can easily creep furthur into the compositing / animation arena. the sequential stills export script (the preferred output format for animation work) is just going to make us want it even more!

Good point Ben,

That said, I'll maintain that the indie-pro HD users will drive the demand for HD and QHD (quasi-HD) tools.

If the 24p Panasonic camcorder is any indication (and I think it's a good one), the prosumer HD/QHD camcorders will fly off the shelves. Similarly, we should see the "my NLE does HD" spats that currently manifest as "my NLE does 24p".

I don't think it's any mistake for SoFo to deliver other tools first... color correction, scopes, advanced ripple, etc... these tools bring huge value to the product. Besides, the PC platform might not be fast enough yet to drive HD rez with any usable speed. (Maybe with proxy files.)


I can't see where 800x800 is a unbreakable ceiling; as mentioned, it is likely arbitrary and subject to revision when the time is right. It would be grand to see SoFo pull that rabbit out at NAB this spring, but I won't hold my breath... V4 is chock-full o' goodies enough that SoFo will get plenty of attention in LV.

Regardless of what SoFo intends to deliver or not, I'll say this for them... unlike many video technology vendors, they don't sell vaporware. What you see is what you get... except you get more, not less.


mph

Some of us need to work in high resolution because our final output is not going to a TV, but instead is going to a high resolution projector being fed from a computer. My last project had all of its sources arrive as 1024x768 screen recordings and 1024x768 3D animations. There were no cameras involved with this project.

When I found out that my old and trusted friend Vegas 3 couldn't do it I had the customer purchase Premiere for me to complete the project on.

I was very excited about VV4 until I read this thread. I do not think I will bother with the upgrade until I can work at arbitrary resolutions beyond 800x800.

Great thread---Here lies the problem I think? Vegas is such a good NLE that it is beginning to appeal to the higher end editors and their higher end formats----I think that Sonic has to make a decision whether or not this group is part of their future development strategy---I hope they decide in the affirmative because there is untapped gold in them hills.

I agree with Rextillion. About 4-6 months ago I suggested to SF that they start supporting some of the higher resolutions with Vegas whether or not the comptuers of today are capable of supporting the HD bit rate. Sometimes a project comes along that pushes the limit of your hardware, but you manage, because it is only a 30 second clip.

So it seems logical to me to allow those higher resolutions for those of us who want to play around with the concept. Surely all we are talking about here is just an increase in computations used.

I mean, creating and burning a 30 second 1080i video file to DVD wouldn't really require super speedy transfer rates. Only long render times. Then it could be taken to a faster system and printed to tape. Or played across the new Windows Media 9 services.

That's all I have to say for now. :)

JBJones

SonicEPM,

I have a question about that current 800x800 resolution limit. What good is it? I mean, the square aspect ratio. When would 800x800 be better than, say, 800x600 in "real life"? There are various video formats, but as far as I know they are ALL wider than they are tall. So the 800x800 choice just seems like a waste. While maintaining the current 640,000 pixel limit, those pixels could be "spent" better on a horizontal format. Couldn't they?

-- seeker --

>>>Some of us need to work in high resolution because our final output is not going to a TV, but instead is going to a high resolution projector being fed from a computer.

great point... I was sorely disapointed when I discovered I could not edit video for this purpose in Vegas. I am just getting into 3d projection and the extra resolution goes a long way.