Dale Spetz
Forum Replies Created
-
If you are capturing with Cineform, it is my understanding that you will need the version 4 codec to be able to view it in Vegas9a-64. According to Cineform-Jake, NeoHD version 3 should still work in Vegas9-32bit.
I would like to continue to use NeoHD with my new 64-bit system, but I feel that I have already paid them too much money.
-
I concur. Previewing on my new i7-950 Vegas9s-64 has been underwhelming—still sluggish. Maybe slightly better than my old dual-core. But, it is a rendering race car.
It does seem to help to turn off the new auto-quality feature, for previewing.
-
Jake at Cineform, states that you must update your NeoHD codec to version 4, for use with 64-bit systems. Those of you who have already spent $500-600 for NeoHD may be less than pleased to learn that Cineform wants you to spend an additional $129 for this update.
-
They are, admittedly, relatively minor, but they are new and do not occur on my older system.
What I have done, temporarily, is install Vegas8.1 (64bit) on my new Vista 64-bit system. So far, it seems to co-exist fine with Vegas9a, on the same computer.
Vegas8.1 almost renders NTSC-DV well (like old system), except it throws pulsating artifacts onto the bright reds (fixed previous problem, but created new problem). So, even if the NTSC-DV is the same in each version of Vegas, I am concluding that each renders differently. Or, the new 64-bit system is making the NTSC-DV codec behave differently. Or both.
Anyway, I have now tried using the Cineform 5.1.4 codec for SD 4:3 and it seems to render very well, on each version of Vegas on the Vista 64bit system. Perhaps this is the answer until I complete my old Vegas8c originated projects.
Thanks for your replies, Mike.
-
To finish my projects, started in Vegas8c-32bit, I am considering installed Vegas8.1-64bit on my new Vista-64bit system.
Will Vegas8.1 coexist with Vegas9.0a on the same system?
-
OK These may not be the most dramatic examples, but are slight color bumps and artifacts that jump in, on the Vegas9-64bit renders (lower image with circles).
Granted, they are not extreme, but they are there.
Now, the original HDV footage was captured with Vegas8c-32bit. Would this make a difference?
The gist of it is, I am trying to move my Vegas8c projects over to my new Vegas9a-64bit system—mainly to gain render speed. But, I can’t do so, if I will be losing any quality.
-
These are sort of small to compare, but I believe that you can see that the bottom image (Vegas9a) is a bit less-sharp than the Veg8c render, above. As far as I can tell, the settings are the same for both.
-
I seem to have improved my Preview viewing sluggishness issue by unchecking “Display at project size”, in Preferences/Video. It is still not great, but it is, at least, as good as my old Dual-core Veg8 system.
-
After working with this a little more, I see that it is not actually such a big deal. I just have to redetermine what the new letterbox 4:3 “y” values are. These new values are consistent, so I can apply then to the entire tracks.
Vegas does properly resize the images, as well proportionately redetermine the proper “x” values.
This is true if the width of the images has not been altered in Pan/Zoom. If the width has been changed, then the new letterbox 4:3 width must be redetermined.
At least, this is what I have found.
-
Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to do it. It seems that it is only the “y” value placement that doesn’t properly relocate, when going from 16:9 to letterbox 4:3.
Since the letterboxed image spans the entire width of the 4:3 frame, the “x” values properly reposition. But, since the 4:3 frame is proportionately taller than a 16:9 frame, the “y” values want to reposition within the entire 4:3 frame, as opposed to just its letterbox portion. This places them outside of the upper and lower letterbox margins.