"Your photo has too little detail and information in the image, therefore there are no artifacts. I recommend checking the render on my photo."
My photo has exactly the number of pixels in a FHD render.
General Complete name : C:\Users\John\Downloads\Still Image FHD Comparo.png Format : PNG Format/Info : Portable Network Graphic File size : 3.14 MiB Image Format : PNG Format/Info : Portable Network Graphic Compression : Deflate Width : 1 920 pixels Height : 1 080 pixels Color space : RGBA Bit depth : 8 bits Compression mode : Lossless Stream size : 3.14 MiB (100%)Your problem as stated: "However, when it saves in a lower fullhd resolution in the ProRes 422 or HQ codec, these are large artifacts with compression."
No one on this planet can expect more detail than allowed by the pixel dimensions of the rendered output. I am finished with this thread.
Resolution doesn't matter. I know it's Full HD. Image details matter when rendering. You don't understand, sir.
Jest do transkodowania pliku Users 4K zarówno do formatu AVC, jak i Prores. Wersja Prores wygenerowała coś, co wygląda podobnie do szumu kamery przy słabym oświetleniu.
Yes. These are the artifacts by the landscapes. Although some people here do not believe that there are artifacts in ProRes codecs. Thanks for confirming.
There will ALWAYS be "artifacts" from a downscale.
Those artifacts may be different between codecs, and more or less acceptable or noticeable depending on a variety of factors including the nature of the footage. You claim that other software (Shutter Encoder for example) does a "better" job, but this is entirely perceptual. Perhaps it is just blurrier, which in some instances would be considered worse, but for a forest scene with tiny leaves it looks better.
I very much doubt that there is an issue with Vegas Prores encoder.
BTW, the same issues plague high resolution still images that are pan/scanned on a timeline. One of the solutions is to apply a very gentle gaussian blur. Why don't you give that a try.
Just rendered the ProRes KS format in which @RogerS reported better visual frame-grab to tiff quality than Vegas' Apple-licensed ProRes. The comparative ffmetrics quality analysis is as follows:
I also tried the Wasserman version. The HD renders are visually of lower quality than 4k, but indistinguishable from one another to my eye even on a 65-inch Samsung hd tv and on a Samsung 47-inch 4k tv. Based on this, I find it hard to accept that artifacts like those reported after frame-grab to tiff manipulation actually exist in the Vegas/Apple ProRes render... particularly with manipulated Voukoder ProRes HD frame-grabs looking better and not reflected in any of the 3 metrics above. I'd recommend abandoning that indirect method of visual video evaluation. Instead, try looking directly at the rendered video the way your clients probably will. Unless your client is NetFlix. In which case they'll be relying on metrics. I don't know how Apple evaluates for it's licensing approval, but I imagine they employ some sort of metrics analysis too.
Kinvermark what are you talking about? What nonsense are you writing. Why slightly blur the XAVC movie, photos and graphics for the ProRes codec? Prores codecs are not to be exported after editing the color or scaling movie? After all, these are editing codecs and this is the standard. Professional film studios want more editing materials in ProRes codecs, so they know about image quality. That's why I bought Vegas Pro 20. For the quality of the ProRes codecs and the license. And the picture is worse than in free editing programs that are not even licensed for ProRes codecs.
I did a XAVC movie editing test. I enhanced the colors and contrast a bit in Vegas Pro 20 and exported to FullHD. On the left is the older Photo Jpg codec and on the right is the ProRes 422 codec. How is it possible that the older 8-bit Photo Jpg codec is better than the newer 10-bit ProRes codec? The results show the facts.
I see a relaunch of an old tutorial from 2018 on the horizon. Tune in early next year -- it's an oldie but a goodie.
;?)
Ah yes, there's the expected rant and insult. No worries.
Your hyper zoomed in "results" show they are different, not Better. That's why all the other forum contributors used a mathematical analysis (which demonstrated NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE) as opposed to your pixel peeping selective perceptual analysis.
The Prores encoder works, and you got what you paid for buddy! Be happy :)
Just for fun... comparison of two renders from UHD to HD. Prores422 vs uncompressed.
And so I believe that the ProRes encoder is not working properly. Otherwise I wouldn't have started the thread. The Photo Jpg encoder is more suitable for landscapes because it doesn't have those annoying pixelations like the ProRes encoder. Not everyone thinks that the ProRes codec is ok. I recommend reading previous posts and reviewing other people's tests. You too.
And are your attributions the same if, instead of 8 bit source, you were to use 10 bit source in a matching project? After all, ProRes is a 10 bit encoder.
;?)
8 bit or 10 bit doesn't matter. On the left ShutterEncoder Fullhd 422LT 10bit. On the right Vegas Pro 20 FullHD 422LT 10bit. It's a joke.
8 bit or 10 bit doesn't matter.
Nonsense.
You have created a trap called the Rosenthal Effect.
https://www.statisticshowto.com/pygmalion-effect-rosenthal/#history
Welcome to the forums -- here's a quick review of the quantitative method and deductive reasoning, which most of us promptly forgot on leaving the ninth grade. Visual interpretations of magnified pixels reflect only your isolated expectations -- not anything that can be measured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_research
"--The first thing one needs to do to get out of a hole is to stop digging."