Best export settings for...

Rippie

Rippie

Veteran
I currently have a Vegas timeline using Cineform transcoded files
at 23.98 1080p (12 min short film)

I need to get this timeline out of vegas so a different editor can cut
a trailer together in Final Cut Pro.
He will also be coloring the trailer footage in Final Cut.

I also need to get the footage to a visual effects guy and colorist
for the actual movie.

Any recommendations on settings for rendering
the best possible quality and file format for working with?

I just tried exporting a test uncompressed mov file but
only 8 seconds of footage gave me a 2 gig file
so I dont think that is going to work too well.

Any online resources that might help me out?

Thanks for the help
 
For the FCP guy:

Both of you install the Avid DNxHD codec. And then you can render to it, and he can read your files into FCP seamlessly, and with colors intact.

For the VFX and colorist:

You don't say which version of Vegas you have. That will make a difference. If you have Version 9, ask if they can take DPX files. If so, that is what you should give them (Render As > Image Sequence > DPX) but it will create very large files, so you should be prepared for that.

If you do not have Vegas 9, then your best bet is going to be to render uncompressed or with the animation codec. If both of those are too large, then do a DNxHD 175 file and hand that off to them, asking both to install the Avid codec. While the Avid codec is very clean, it is a compromise from the other methods, but will preserve your colors and will go back and forth from PC <-> Mac without issue.
 
PerroneFord thanks for the help so far.

Another quick question.
In Vegas when I render and choose .mov
Im guessing I should use 32 bbp color correct? or is 24 enough?
Im sure its 32 but just trying to get the file size down.

And right below that, the quality bar. Does that make a big impact on file size?
Where would a recommended setting be for that bar to lose very little if any quality?
Should I go full tilt and go 100%? or ?

And if I choose the animation compression what keyframe number is a good idea
for my situation?

Thanks
 
Use 32bpc if you have an alpha channel. Otherwise use 24bpc. They are the same except for the Alpha channel.

As for what affects size, take a 10 second file and render it with the quality at 50% and at 100%. See if that makes a difference. For some codecs, it will, for others it won't. And see if you can detect a change in quality.

I don't use the animation codec. I prefer other options, so I don't know the answer to your question.
 
I have a new question i'd love some advice on.
For my trailer guy I ended up doing a animation codec mov. Which is what he recommended as well.

Talking to my visual effects guy. He would like an image sequence TIFF files.

Using the script within vegas to export an image sequence the only choices are
jpg and png.
I know the png is a higher quality but is it as good as a tiff?

I switched all my preview windows to full quality (I believe the script uses the preview settings for the image output).
I'm exporting currently and seems to be working ok but its taking forever.

I opened a png image and the same frame in the quicktime animation codec file.
To my naked eyes they look identical.
So the question is,
what is the reasoning for wanting an image sequence rather than an uncompressed mov?
What does it bring to the table?

He mentioned wanting to use the program NUKE which i've never heard of.

Just trying to learn.

Thanks
 
Rippie said:
I know the png is a higher quality but is it as good as a tiff?
Click to expand...

It depends. They both are lossless, and both have options for lossless compression.

The difference is whether or not your application can use higher bits per channel (vegas doesn't, and I think internally is only 10bpc) , and what type of png or tiff you are using

The images vegas renders can only go up to 32bit total, or 8 per channel (thats 8bpc; 8 for red, 8 for green , 8 for blue, 8 for alpha)

Compositing software such as Nuke, AE, can go up to 32 per channel (32R, 32B, 32G, 32A)

png are only limited to 16bpc, but tiff can use 32bpc , so if you can render 32bpc tiff, it is better. (you can't in vegas, so it doesn't matter)

higher bpc is useful for compositors, because of reduced banding during intermediate calculations - it allows more freedom to do more


what is the reasoning for wanting an image sequence rather than an uncompressed mov?
What does it bring to the table?
Click to expand...

The uncompressed mov only allows 8bpc. Where as a tiff could allow 32bpc, or png 16bpc . Also some prefer stills , because of intricate photoshop work

Ask your effects guy for more details

EDIT: I should add, the difference between 8bpc and 10bpc is huge when doing color corrections, effects etc.. , but the difference between 10 and 16bpc, not so much, and between 16 and 32bpc even less. 32bpc can be useful when incorporating HDR photos. If your initial acqusition was only 8bit to begin with (then converted to 10bit in cineform), the advantage is less as well (since the values are interpolated)
 
Last edited:
PDR I appreciate the information.
This is a whole new world to me and Im glad you took the time to answer.

Since you seem to know Vegas well enough to know the limitations of the png exports
would you happen to know any better way to get this stuff out of Vegas or do I
just have to accept the limitations of the software?

You're right, the original files were 8bit avchd transcoded to 10bit cineform avi's.
I hate to think on export the timeline will go back to 8bit before it
ever hits a single effect or color, which I thought was the entire reason my original
colorist did the cineform thing.
 
Rippie said:
Since you seem to know Vegas well enough to know the limitations of the png exports
would you happen to know any better way to get this stuff out of Vegas or do I
just have to accept the limitations of the software?
Click to expand...

Without using Vegas 9, you're doing all you can.
 
Just a word of caution on the DPX files rendered by Vegas 9 - they are actually 8-bit the last time I checked, but I'm still running 9.0a (there might have been an update in b or c to fix this, not sure). Perrone would know more about this than me

The tiff and png variants that vegas offers are definitely 8bit in 9.0a, and I don't see any options to render otherwise

If you are only doing "cuts" type editing, you aren't losing anything by staying in 8-bit since your acquisition was 8-bit. In fact it's less lossy. The 8=>10bit interpoloation and upsampling to 4:2:2 has rounding errors. It's only when you do the color corrections that working in 10-bit and higher precision is greatly beneficial, so if you leave that for the FCP or effects guy, and they work in 10bpc or greater, then it should be fine. But you do lose quality when converting Y'CbCr => 10bit 4:2:2 cineform => RGB internal vegas => another Y'CbCr export format. Each colorspace conversion and color depth conversion has slight rounding errors (in addition to compression losses, which are minimal for formats like cineform, DNxHD)

One option is to use 10-bit DNxHD as Perrone suggested, and let the your effects guy decompress his own 16-bit tiff images in software that allows for this
 
Last edited:
PDR said:
You could still use 10-bit DNxHD , and let the your effects guy decompress his own 16-bit tiff images in software that allows for this
Click to expand...

Would this be the best route to go in your opinion?
Or the better question is what route would you guys go?

I hate that I don't have a better knowledge of this stuff (im a production sound mixer) but I'm trying!

I really want to keep this the highest quality as possible.

Ive been rendering the png files all day. 2800 frames, I'm at 2200 now and its taken 9hours.
Ridiculously slow. Im wondering if I should just stop if they are only going to be 8-bit anyway.
 
I would ask Perrone, because he has a lot of experience with PC <=> MAC

But that would seem like a reasonable option to me, if your effects guy isn't "miffed" by having to do extra work
 
PDR said:
Just a word of caution on the DPX files rendered by Vegas 9 - they are actually 8-bit the last time I checked, but I'm still running 9.0a (there might have been an update in b or c to fix this, not sure). Perrone would know more about this than me
Click to expand...

My Panaviewer says they are 10-bit, but I don't know how to be absolutely sure.

PDR said:
One option is to use 10-bit DNxHD as Perrone suggested, and let the your effects guy decompress his own 16-bit tiff images in software that allows for this
Click to expand...

This is what I would do.
 
PerroneFord said:
My Panaviewer says they are 10-bit, but I don't know how to be absolutely sure.
Click to expand...


Interesting. I tried importing some into AE, and a warning message popped up saying they were 8-bit. I don't have a lot of experience with DPX files and don't know how to be sure either... and it's possible they updated something in 9.0b or c
 
PDR said:
I would ask Perrone, because he has a lot of experience with PC <=> MAC

But that would seem like a reasonable option to me, if your effects guy isn't "miffed" by having to do extra work
Click to expand...

Every time I've done a PNG hand-off on to a Mac person, the colors shift. That drove me NUTS. At least with DNxHD, I know the colors are going to be right.

I feel like I should give Avid money I use this codec so much... but I talk about it all the time so maybe they should be paying me! Probably a wash anyway. :)
 
PerroneFord said:
Every time I've done a PNG hand-off on to a Mac person, the colors shift. That drove me NUTS. At least with DNxHD, I know the colors are going to be right.

I feel like I should give Avid money I use this codec so much... but I talk about it all the time so maybe they should be paying me! Probably a wash anyway. :)
Click to expand...

Were they .mov wrapped .png or native images?

Actually I've been using DNxHD alot more these days from your comments in some older threads. :)

Really impressed. I did some little PSNR and SSIM tests for myself a while back and they were stellar - higher than Cineform in filmscan2 mode (so better compression and better quality) , but a bit slower to edit

DNxHD actually acts like 10-bit in AE (on PC, ProRes and Cineform have issues and actually act like 8-bit in the histogram, with banding from levels/gamma adjustments) - but this is probably more Adobe's fault


EDIT: openEXR seems like a possible option for images exported from vegas. They seem to be 32-bit, when opened in photoshop. I don't have much experience with them, so check with your effects guy. The seem to work OK in AE, but I don't have Nuke
 
Last edited:
Guys,
I delivered an uncompressed animation codec mov file yesterday to my trailer editor across town.
1080p 23.976
80 or so gig size (12 mins)

I just got a call from him saying he couldnt play the file back in real time.
I warned him that was going to be the case. (it wont play back real time on my computer)

I told him he would need a raid drive to play it back.
Is this correct?

Will this solve the problem? Did I do something wrong?
Are there more friendly delivery formats without giving up too much quality if this doesnt work?

Ugh.
 
Just did 4 quick tests to see how the different file types played out

720p -uncompressed DNxHD avid codec -played fine in quicktime
8 seconds - 188meg

1080p -uncompressed DNxHD avid codec -played fine in quicktime
8 seconds - 188meg (I don't understand this one)

720p -uncompressed animation codec - stuttered a little bit in quicktime
8 seconds - 552meg

1080p - uncompressed animation codec -stuttered a decent amount in quicktime
8 seconds - 1.26gig

Because of these results im really leaning on the hard drive speed.

Side note : I really don't get why a 720p and a 1080p DNxHD file
were the same exact size.
(I exported the 1080p one twice thinking it was user error and its not)
 
universal equation:

filesize = bitrate x running time

(Note the frame dimensions have no direct bearing on filesize)

It might have been that you selected the wrong options
 
PDR said:
universal equation:

filesize = bitrate x running time

(Note the frame dimensions have no direct bearing on filesize)

It might have been that you selected the wrong options
Click to expand...

i went back.
It was all the correct options.

With the info above do you believe thats the reason why he
couldnt play back the 1080p animation files?
hard drives too slow?
 
Rippie said:
i went back.
It was all the correct options.

With the info above do you believe thats the reason why he
couldnt play back the 1080p animation files?
hard drives too slow?
Click to expand...

Very likely. It's not a editing friendly codec.

Use mediainfo on both files in text mode (view=>text) , and check that they were encoded using the same profile (you might have entered it, but the commands might not have got passed through, or the 720p was upscaled to 1080p or 1080p scaled to 720p)

http://mediainfo.sourceforge.net/en
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top