JPEG, a bad format? at DVinfo.net

Kim Olsson · November 11th, 2007, 02:01 PM

I read before that .jpg pictures could be a problem in Vegas, in rendering. It could crash or reboot. And instead you should use .png.
Does somebody have any explanation of why this is and why png is so much better?

For me it does not make any sense, jpeg is one of the biggest and widest format people using for pictures...

Jason Donaldson · November 11th, 2007, 02:10 PM

I have used jpeg for years without any problems at all. I use jpeg because like you mentioned, it is widely used, as opposed to png or other formats.

Kim Olsson · November 11th, 2007, 02:24 PM

My though too, but when people have had rendering crashes with many jpeg's in their videos, they have beed advised to use png's instead...

And I would like to know why detailed.

Mike Peter Reed · November 11th, 2007, 02:28 PM

not related to crashes at all, but JPEG is lossy, PNG is lossless. (edit: and PNG supports alpha channel)

Seth Bloombaum · November 11th, 2007, 06:22 PM

The explanation I've read is that Vegas uses QT to decode jpg. Png decodes within Vegas.

Jpgs direct from camera are also frequently much larger pixel dimensions than needed in the project. You never need more than 2x the resolution to be used. Vegas does sometimes have some rendering issues with stills of large pixel dimensions.

Graham Risdon · November 11th, 2007, 06:47 PM

I tend to use bmp files as they're within my comfort zone!

Is a PNG file better, and if so, why?

David Jasany · November 12th, 2007, 07:54 AM

I've used png for years because that's the way I learned how to use photos with Vegas. On a recent project I tried using a couple hundred jpegs and Vegas 7 kept crashing. I asked Sony tech support if it made a difference using png or jpeg and they said it didn't matter.

Kim Olsson · November 12th, 2007, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

The explanation I've read is that Vegas uses QT to decode jpg. Png decodes within Vegas.

Jpgs direct from camera are also frequently much larger pixel dimensions than needed in the project. You never need more than 2x the resolution to be used. Vegas does sometimes have some rendering issues with stills of large pixel dimensions.

Thanks YOU very much!
That was a perfect answer on my question...

If this is true, my brain have gain important knowledge.

I'll never use .jpg again, I will from now on use .png in my projects....

Mike Kujbida · November 12th, 2007, 11:11 AM

For what it's worth, I regularly do DVD slide shows with 300-400 (or more) images and I've never had any issues using JPEGs.
The only thing I'll do with them is shrink them down in size if necessary.

Phil Hamilton · November 12th, 2007, 11:49 AM

Is there any discernable quality difference in the final output using JPG vs PNG? Or renderig time issues?

Edward Troxel · November 12th, 2007, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

The explanation I've read is that Vegas uses QT to decode jpg. Png decodes within Vegas.

JPG works fine in Vegas and does NOT require QT. TIFF requires QT.

The only issue I've heard when using images is when a LOT of LARGE images are used. This can be helped by lowering the RAM preview size and lowering the image size (i.e. you don't need 2000x2000 when you're ending up with 720x480, for example, unless you're doing some serious zooming.)

Phil Hamilton · November 12th, 2007, 01:47 PM

It seems that if you're final output is 720x480 then having an image this exact size at 72dpi would look good when rendered - but - I have noticed it does not.

Rather, it seems that you need to start with something like 1080x720 at 72dpi to make the final render decent enough at 720x480 if you're authoring to DVD. Of course I'm looking at this on a 62" DLP...

Is this really necessary or is there something on the rendering settings within Vegas or with the s/w that creates the PNG image that could be tweaked (other than BEST quality) to make the smaller pixel size look good after the Vegas render? The concern here from my standpoint is render time given that that I am working with hundreds of images for animation purposes...

Jason Robinson · November 14th, 2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

The explanation I've read is that Vegas uses QT to decode jpg. Png decodes within Vegas.

Jpgs direct from camera are also frequently much larger pixel dimensions than needed in the project. You never need more than 2x the resolution to be used. Vegas does sometimes have some rendering issues with stills of large pixel dimensions.

Since I `Burns the heck out of some pictures (zooming way in on 3MB pictures) I need all the resolution I can get. But there is a noticeable degrading in preview frame rate with images that large.

I'll have to tr the switch to png and see if the native decoding affects preview play back as much as had been indicated.

November 11th, 2007, 02:01 PM	#1
Kim Olsson Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 263	JPEG, a bad format? I read before that .jpg pictures could be a problem in Vegas, in rendering. It could crash or reboot. And instead you should use .png. Does somebody have any explanation of why this is and why png is so much better? For me it does not make any sense, jpeg is one of the biggest and widest format people using for pictures...

November 11th, 2007, 02:10 PM	#2
Jason Donaldson Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Canada Posts: 180	I have used jpeg for years without any problems at all. I use jpeg because like you mentioned, it is widely used, as opposed to png or other formats. __________________ HVR-A1u,WCS-999,HVL-20DW2 w/diff,2xAudio-Technica Freeway 600,Flycam 3000,Vegas 7E

November 11th, 2007, 02:28 PM	#4
Mike Peter Reed Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: Hants, UK Posts: 185	not related to crashes at all, but JPEG is lossy, PNG is lossless. (edit: and PNG supports alpha channel) __________________ ---8<---

November 12th, 2007, 11:49 AM	#10
Phil Hamilton Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 150	Is there any discernable quality difference in the final output using JPG vs PNG? Or renderig time issues? __________________ Phil Hamilton hamiltonp@sbcglobal.net Dallas, Texas " I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! ..."

November 12th, 2007, 01:47 PM	#12
Phil Hamilton Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 150	It seems that if you're final output is 720x480 then having an image this exact size at 72dpi would look good when rendered - but - I have noticed it does not. Rather, it seems that you need to start with something like 1080x720 at 72dpi to make the final render decent enough at 720x480 if you're authoring to DVD. Of course I'm looking at this on a 62" DLP... Is this really necessary or is there something on the rendering settings within Vegas or with the s/w that creates the PNG image that could be tweaked (other than BEST quality) to make the smaller pixel size look good after the Vegas render? The concern here from my standpoint is render time given that that I am working with hundreds of images for animation purposes... __________________ Phil Hamilton hamiltonp@sbcglobal.net Dallas, Texas " I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! ..."

November 11th, 2007, 02:24 PM	#3
Kim Olsson Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 263	My though too, but when people have had rendering crashes with many jpeg's in their videos, they have beed advised to use png's instead... And I would like to know why detailed.

November 11th, 2007, 06:22 PM	#5
Seth Bloombaum Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,420	The explanation I've read is that Vegas uses QT to decode jpg. Png decodes within Vegas. Jpgs direct from camera are also frequently much larger pixel dimensions than needed in the project. You never need more than 2x the resolution to be used. Vegas does sometimes have some rendering issues with stills of large pixel dimensions.

November 11th, 2007, 06:47 PM	#6
Graham Risdon Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 192	I tend to use bmp files as they're within my comfort zone! Is a PNG file better, and if so, why?

November 12th, 2007, 07:54 AM	#7
David Jasany Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: North Carolina Posts: 313	I've used png for years because that's the way I learned how to use photos with Vegas. On a recent project I tried using a couple hundred jpegs and Vegas 7 kept crashing. I asked Sony tech support if it made a difference using png or jpeg and they said it didn't matter.

November 12th, 2007, 11:11 AM	#9
Mike Kujbida Inner Circle Join Date: May 2005 Location: Windsor, ON Canada Posts: 2,770	For what it's worth, I regularly do DVD slide shows with 300-400 (or more) images and I've never had any issues using JPEGs. The only thing I'll do with them is shrink them down in size if necessary.