Vegas 7d and the Big Screen

U

USLatin

Panamaniac
I am working on a short that we'll try to enter on film festivals. I want to use Vegas but now I am thinking that it might not be possible... As far as I remember Vegas doesn't support 10-bit and only uses 8-bit... right? But if Vegas is good enough for the HVX's output of DVCpro HD at 4:2:2 then there is nothing else to worry about right?

I read about upping the project to 10-bit, CC'ing in AE and then putting it back down to 8-bit... is that easy? Worth it?

I am such a noob that I am not even sure I know what that means... but it seems it might be a problem when trying to render a 720p for a big screen...

Should I consider 1080i instead of 720p? I understand you get more horizontal resolution, but you have more temporal resolution with the Progressive frames of 720... How does the 1080i de-interlacing work? How does it look after the process?
 
Last edited:
The 8-bit with the 4:2:2 color space is fine, IMO. You CAN go the 10-bit route through After Effects, but AE's color correction is more of a PITA than it's worth.

720p does not have more temporal reoslution than 1080i. Temporal resolution has to do with the number of motion samples per second you have, and if you shoot the same frame rate, you have the same number of motion samples. If you shoot 720p60, you have the same temporal resolution as 60i.

If you deinterlace 1080i, you end up with less veritcal resolution than 720p.

If this is going to be a narrative film, you're going to want 24p whether you shoot 1080 or 720 . . . right?
 
Yes, I am planning to shoot 24PN and use 720p throughout but I wanted to make sure I was going the best way possible for Big Screen projection. This will be a 15min short. I might want some x2.5 slo-mo wich I can get by shooting 60fsp anyway if I do 1080i.

_ I am planning to submit to festivals for projection.
_ I will burn DVD Architect Widescreen 24p DVDs which of course will be SD.
_ I will NOT worry about 4:3 framing since I consider 4:3 dead (hoping everyone else will to)
_ I will also render one of those WMVs you talked about (not sure about the name) to share 720p for people to view on their computers.
_ Possibly do the same as a Quicktime if there is a good template.

I did mess up on my math David, sorry. 720 isn't higher but instead practically the same. I was alluding to that by having two full 1280 x 720 frames (1,843,200 pixels) you get about as many pixels as supposed to two half 1920 x 1080 frames (2,073,600 pixels).

So de-interlasing being a no-no... And if what I said above is correct, should I just stick to 720p or should I still consider 1080i for my intended distribution?
 
Well, if you're shooting 1080 24p, you have full progressive frames and wouldn't need to deinterlace, and you'll have higher resolution than 720p, both vertical and horizontal.

For slo-mo, you should at least consider using 720pN and bumping it up to 1080. I'd do some test footage to see which method you prefer -- that, or using 1080/60i and slowing it down.

Now, again, on the temporal resolution, it doesn't have anything to do with spatial resolution or numbers of pixels. It has to do with the numbers of pictures taken per second. 24p has the same temporal resolution no matter what your spatial resolution is -- 1920x1080, 1280x720, or even 720x480. Same with 30p. And 60i and 60p have the same number of motion samples per second -- 60 each. That's what temporal resolution is -- the ability to resolve apparent motion. The more pictures taken per second, the higher that ability gets.
 
Ok, I understand... I am messing up the terminology. So I have no clue hot to say what I see in the numbers in a clear way, but I understand.

About 2:3 pulldown, which is used in 1080/24pA?
(are you talking about 1080/24p or 1080/24PA?)

I was so confused... Because the sweet spot for the HVX's versatility is 720p I didn't delve much into 1080 yet, but I guess what you are saying is that 2:3 (which is used for Film! duh!) can in fact reconstitute all the complete progressive frames.

I was shot all my tests in PN because like that I got the 20min. and I simply forgot about rez since I focused on everything else... It is amazing how I knew this so very well before I got my camera but since I've been only experimenting I never tried to get into the 1080 playing field! OMgoodness! What a dweeb I am! But I guess that's what happens when you are so busy and I should be happy.

It is all coming back to me now, slowly. The only limitations are frame-rates and recording time at 1080/24... No overcranking other than 30fps for x1.25 for a "mild" slo-mo. I could undercrank to 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 15, but what for...

I would like to be able to do a bit of 22, 26 and 60 for this film... But for those, as you pointed out to me, I will have to shoot 720p and up-rez, or de-interlase 60i... The consensus seems to be that up-rezing 720p is the slightly lesser of two evils... How bad does this look to you David? I will test it tomorrow.

How do I de-interlase footage? I'd actually like to look at both...
 
Last edited:
You don't want to use 2:3 pulldown if you shoot 1080. Use 24pA, and Raylight can remove the pulldown.

If you want to use 1080 for slomo, you shoot 1080/60i and then slow it down to 40% on a 24p timeline. Set your project properties to "interpolate fields" under "Deinterlace method." Then, when you export as 24p, Vegas will take care of everything for you.

But it will be difficult to get 22 or 26 fps out of it. If you want those, you're better off shooting 720pN.
 
Oh, ok, so I guess 24pA was the one with 2:3:3:2 then right? and 24p is 2:3... ?

I am sorry, I will check myself when i get to (in about an hour or so) and I'll run some tests...

So for slo-mo with 60i . . . . . . . I drop my 60i footage on a timeline and slow it down to 40% it's normal speed, then I set the Deinterlace Method to Interpolate fields and I render it out? It seems to me that would deinterlace the footage but also make it 24fps... wouldn't I loose the extra frames for x2.5 slo-mo on a 24fps timeline?

I most likely choose to stick with 1080/24pN for this project. 720p might turn out to be too high a compromise to get 22 and 26 fps... Hummm... that is a creative choice... I will have to consult with my DP... hummm.... Hey David, wanna come over and help us out? :D
J/K, first I have to get my productions to be able to afford you :)
 
Last edited:
ok I shot some footy... 1080/24PA, 1080/60i and 720/60p.. I am about to render the 60i but I want to render the WMV HD that you were talking about that can be used to distrubute/share/view your 1080 and other HD in a computer... but I am not sure of the settings.

So far I have a 23.976 time line with square pixels and the interpolation selected. Then I know I should render a WMV, that is should be full quality, I set square pixels, the 23.976 frame rate... but the resolution setting isn't there as an option so I did a custom 1920 x 1080. Did I miss something?

EDIT... Settings have to be right, it seems quite straight forward, unfortunately my Laptop won't play them... it freezes... I will check it out at home first thing as soon as I can.
 
Last edited:
USLATIN > 1080p windows media files etc require a very beefy machine to run on. If your planning on distributing this for people to watch on ????? what ?? Workstations ! Fine ...Average Home Computers ! Sorry. They will freeze and cough at the frames even in windows media format. Only newer machines like dual core or at least above the 2.4 ghz level can play a 1080 file without stuttering. Otherwise they choke. Better try a wmv hd file with a lower bitrate maybe. That might help run universally.
 
Yea, I see what you are saying... I also was thinking that the average screen rez is still 1200 x 768! lol.... maybe I should just render a 720p with as high of a bit-rate that will play on my 2.2 laptop... and have that handy to share... then if it is still too much I can allways say, "but it plays on my LAPTOP", lol... I am hoping to "distrubute" to my friends and people in the biz so a 1080 version will defenitely be burnt...
lol sorry about the word choice, but it is correct, didn't mean for it to sound like "distributing" if you know what I mean...


I just found out we'll be recording audio on-camera... going through my Sound Devices MixPre... :( I was hoping for a 24/96 off-camera... my complete sound department had a family emergency (one guy)... I'll see how I patch that hole before anything else...

Then I gotta try and see why I don't get silky smooth previews on my computer. I have XP-32, Vegas 7 (updated yesterday), Core Duo at 3.15, 2GB of RAM at 950MHz with low timings, and I get 130+ MB/s out of my HDDs... Could an old video card driver have something to do with this?
 
No, your video card driver will have little to do with it, at least for playback in Vegas.

But shutting down everything else in the background which might be sucking up processor resources should help. Which includes turning off your internet port, etc..

Also, in Vegas, you can lower your preview quality. Anything above "Draft" will still look pretty good.

And, there are the choices between the Full and Auto modes. The larger your preview window is, the better off you are using "full" so as to not make Vegas expend resources resizing the video in your preview window. But if you make the preview window smalelr, the fewer resources Vegas needs to play back. It's a bit paradoxical, but it does seem to go both ways. You can play with that some and see what you think.
 
David Jimerson said:
No, your video card driver will have little to do with it, at least for playback in Vegas.

But shutting down everything else in the background which might be sucking up processor resources should help. Which includes turning off your internet port, etc..

Also, in Vegas, you can lower your preview quality. Anything above "Draft" will still look pretty good.

And, there are the choices between the Full and Auto modes. The larger your preview window is, the better off you are using "full" so as to not make Vegas expend resources resizing the video in your preview window. But if you make the preview window smaller, the fewer resources Vegas needs to play back. It's a bit paradoxical, but it does seem to go both ways. You can play with that some and see what you think.
Click to expand...

It makes sense! Thank you David! As soon as I get my second Video Card from EVGA I will roll up my 24" Gateway which will be in a self-made wooden case and set up like a 4-bank Flo Light on a Baby Roller from American, and hopefully I will be able to run 1080 1:1 on it... full! :)...

BUT

I was thinking about just that as I was driving back home today from a friends house where I was building a the case... I never really had the time yet to try an figure out what I can kill that's running in the background! I felt a tad like when I realized all over again that I was going to have a 1080p final product... then when I read your post if hit me full on...

I feel so dumb, yet so lucky, kinda like finding cash under the couch...

I hope killing the processes does the trick, cause otherwise I am going to feel super dumb about thinking that this E6300 was going to be able to handle the task...
Ok, I just killed about 10-15 processes and I immediately got much smoother previews of all three clips... I need to kill more though... I got a boat-load of stuff there:

1178271623.jpg
 
Last edited:
I also suggest you sort by cpu used and memory used, and kill off the Big Ticket items first. Some of the smaller stuff won't make that much difference

EDIT: I also mean, under your own name. Don't kill off important system stuff!
 
Ok, that's what I remember doing a while back... that was the first thing I ever learned how to do to "speed up" your system... I guess I've been so concerned with the "new ways" of speeding up the system that I completely forgot to terminate the processes as opposed to simply turning them off... lol

I got my Gateway 24" 1:1 1080 today! I can't wait to show you guys the box and yoke we built with an other member... it turns 360 tilts 360 and mounts on a pin! It looks soooo pro! I am sooo happy! I will go pick up a Baby Roller from American on Monday!

David,
Do you know how Vegas 7 and 8 will use the Q6600 which is like a dual Duo E6600 ...?
Is there going to be better/worse support for it when compared to native Quads?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top