Comments

Former user wrote on 10/18/2006, 1:41 PM
Vegas is not displaying it at 1600 x 1077 so some detail is going to be lost. If you render and output to DVD or DV, it should look okay, but it will look mangled in the Preview Window.

Dave T2
Marco. wrote on 10/18/2006, 1:44 PM
If I

- use "Match Media Settings" to make Vegas project properties fit the image properties
- set the Vegas preview to Best (Full)

it looks exactly same as it does in Photoshop.

Marco
JHendrix wrote on 10/18/2006, 2:07 PM
where is -Match Media Settings



how does that setting apply to a video project?


any way to make image display better?
JHendrix wrote on 10/18/2006, 2:13 PM
well, i guess i learned something. if i set track motion to (real image size) and event pan crop to 720 x 480 i can see it is much clearer. but still not as good as PS
winrockpost wrote on 10/18/2006, 2:30 PM
Dont claim to know why but the black line does not show in photo shop, however if you reduce the suxe by 50% it does show in photoshop hmmmm,,, in windoes viewer it also shows at original size,,, no help,, sorry
Marco. wrote on 10/18/2006, 2:31 PM
>> where is -Match Media Settings

It is an icon in the Project Properties window - on the upper right (icon looks like a folder icon).

>> how does that setting apply to a video project?

You compare to a Photoshop preview of a 1600x 1077 image. This is not a video dimension. So this setting of 1600x1077 cannot apply to a typical video project. But when we talk about quality of previewing this image there must be an apple to apple comparison. If you preview that image full size in Photoshop you should do same in Vegas.

Marco
farss wrote on 10/18/2006, 2:55 PM
Yes, if you put that image into a HD project and set preview to Best Full it'd look way better!

Your other problem is the image contains a lot of fine detail and this may produce interalce flicker, add a tiny amount of Gaussian Blur, say 0.001 ro 0.003 Vertical only will help.

Bob.
fwtep wrote on 10/18/2006, 3:22 PM
Hmmm... in the test I did (Vegas 6) it looks slightly better in Vegas than in Photoshop, when the Photoshop version has been resized to be video res. This was with the default settings for a DV project in Vegas. Then I set Vegas to 655x480 square pixels and it still looked perfectly fine.

Were you comparing a 1.6k image to a 0.655k one??? That's not ever going to match.
rs170a wrote on 10/18/2006, 3:29 PM
if i set track motion to ...

Forget about track motion this time and use pan/crop instead. The end result will be much cleaner.
I've done numerous (educational) videos where the original image is (like yours) larger and more detailed than an TV can properly do justice to (for example, a full tray of dental instruments).
I start with the original image at full size to give the viewer an overall view of the product. I then zoom into each specific area as required for further explanation. The extra resolution of the original image (and the use of pan/crop instead of track motion) allows me to zoom in and still have a high quality image.

Mike
Nobody wrote on 10/18/2006, 3:34 PM
Quick question. What does this "VV" abreviation stand for? I'm guessing that one of the Vs stands for Vegas but what does the second one signify?

Thanks.
Former user wrote on 10/18/2006, 4:07 PM
It used to be called Vegas Video. VV

Dave T2
JHendrix wrote on 10/19/2006, 7:06 AM
"if i set track motion to ...

Forget about track motion this time and use pan/crop instead. The end result will be much cleaner.
I've done numerous (educational) videos where the original image is (like yours) larger and more detailed than an TV can properly do justice to (for example, a full tray of dental instruments).
I start with the original image at full size to give the viewer an overall view of the product. I then zoom into each specific area as required for further explanation. The extra resolution of the original image (and the use of pan/crop instead of track motion) allows me to zoom in and still have a high quality image.

Mike"


thanks MIke

thats great except in a 16:9 project using only Pan Crop the image gets cut off when scanning in the alloted - Track Motion , 720x480 space
farss wrote on 10/19/2006, 7:21 AM
thats great except in a 16:9 project using only Pan Crop the image gets cut off when scanning in the alloted - Track Motion , 720x480 space
=================================================
Shouldn't your frame size be 873x480?
You're scanning an image thats PAR 1:1

All that aside though If your image is tightly cropped you'll have a problem when you run out of room, say if you want the top left of the dive in the middle of the frame, there's not enough 'image' to fill the frame. Solve this by adding some extra space around the image in PS etc.
Former user wrote on 10/19/2006, 7:23 AM
Try this to workaround the 720 x 480 crop error.

1) IN the PAN/CROP window, hold CTRL Down and stretch the BOX, using the handles, left and right and up and down to approximately a 16 x 9 ratio.

2) Release CTRL and now when you zoom, it fills the whole area.

Dave T2
Chienworks wrote on 10/19/2006, 11:37 AM
Or, right-mouse-click in the pan/crop frame and choose "match output aspect". Then you'll get exactly 16:9 instead of just approximately.
Former user wrote on 10/19/2006, 11:43 AM
Thanks Chienworks, I didn't see that.


Dave T2