Cant Render in Vegas 7.0. Not Jpeg Friendly?

[Steve Rhoden]

Maybe resave the Jpegs to a lesser definition?
I think you have answered your own solution….lol
Yes, use your photo editing program to reduce them, you
will get better performance.

Steve Rhoden
(Cow Leader)
Film Maker
Filmex Creative Media.
1-876-832-4956
https://filmex-creative-media.blogspot.com/

[Daniel Cervantes]

LOL. I’ll experiment when I get home tonight. Just wondering if that will work. When I rendered small portions of the vid it was fine. Only after now that I’m done with the whole video does it now lock up. Crazyness. 🙂

[John Rofrano]

[Daniel Cervantes] “LOL. I’ll experiment when I get home tonight. Just wondering if that will work.”

If your images are large this could make a big difference depending on your project properties. Considering that HD is only 2MP (Megapixel) and SD is only 0.3MP, if you images are 5, 10 or 15 MP you are using a lot of memory to hold them and process them and resize them. Keeping images closer to the size of the project will always give better performance.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[Dave Haynie]

[Daniel Cervantes] “Is Vegas 7.0 not Jpeg friendly? I save the file by moving the file the Jpegs were in and leaving them out of the vid. Thoughts? Maybe resave the Jpegs to a lesser definition?
“

Probably a good idea if they’re from a modern camera.

Vegas has progressively improved on its still image handling. I use these features extensively: for animation, for “Ken Burns” style video, etc.

Back in the day, around the Vegas 7 era, I found that a large number of direct-from-DSLR JPEGs could bring Vegas to its knees, and that, when on its knees, it was much more likely to crash. First thing I did was put the JPEGs on a drive other than that used for video (and in fact, video input and video output went to different drives). This dramatically improved rendering speed and reliability, at least in my case.

Second thing… yeah, sometimes, I could shrink the images without worries. In the event of a fixed image that’s not panned or zoomed (rare), you can’t use more than 1920×1080 pixels, anyway. So you can resize any photos that aren’t moved around that way. And then, given today’s much larger camera sensors, the problems are just that much more likely — the DSLRs back in 2006 or so were 6-8Mpixel.

-Dave

[Bob Peterson]

I always use Photoshop to properly size still images. That is one of the things that a photo editor is built to do. Vegas is not a photo editor, and cannot be expected to produce the same results.

These days I always use PNGs in Vegas. I do not use jpegs.

[Dave Haynie]

As a video editor, Vegas can absolutely be expected to resize a photo just as well as Photoshop. The problem is that Photoshop has, effectively, all day to do it, and when it’s resizing, that’s all it has to worry about. Vegas is resizing photos, maybe video, compositing, etc. And doing so where speed really matters. If you’re doing this in a system with more limited resources, they may get spread pretty thin with all this going on.

Pre-scaling your photos is one way to offload this work — but don’t go overboard. If you’re panning and zooming within a photo, keep it fairly high resolution. And at least the recent versions, Vegas 9/10/11 on 64-bit systems with plenty of memory, handle my 18MPixel JPEGs and PNGs just dandy, no absolute need to resize anything.

-Dave

[Mike Kujbida]

I use Irfanview (it’s free and very quick) to do batch resizing amongst several other features.
https://www.irfanview.com/</a>

[Daniel Cervantes]

Big thanks to everyone and the great assistance you all provide. I love this place!

I took the pics I needed out of the folder, resized them (they were huge actually) 18 mega pixels mind you. Resized them using the MS Picture viewer to a Webpage/Document size and it worked like a charm.

Side note, the CPU usage floats around 80-90 during rendering. I’m sure with the big size of the pics, my old computer and Vegas 7 create the perfect storm. I was so happy to have such hi-res pics, but in the end, the rendered video still looks great. No real differnce (in my eyes).

Thanks again for the awesome feed back. You guys rock.

[John Rofrano]

[Daniel Cervantes] “I took the pics I needed out of the folder, resized them (they were huge actually) 18 mega pixels mind you. “

Yea, when HD is 2MP, having 18MP images is 9x overkill. 😉 It’s always important to keep your images at a manageable size. Glad that worked for you.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[Bob Peterson]

Let me expand. In Photoshop, the recommended method for decreasing a photo’s size is bicubic sharper while the recommended method for increasing a photo’s size is bicubic smoother. Unless, I’ve missed something, Vegas lacks this degree of sophistication. It can certainly resize, but it does not produce the same level of quality.

Certainly, if panning or zooming is needed, Vegas should have a larger image to accommodate that function, but routinely giving it 18 megapixel photos strikes me as a recipe of extremely long render times.