Colour gradient issue at DVinfo.net

Renton Maclachlan · September 29th, 2012, 05:17 AM

I'm afraid I'm probably going to have a lot of questions in the coming months...hope you can put up with me...here's another one.

I've got 4x green screen tracks - (no fx or compositing at all), two basic .psd cloud images with transparency layer and gradient (to be part of background image) - one with a composite envelope on it and the other without, and two .psd colour gradients with transparency (to be other part of background image) - one with a composite envelope on it and the other one without.

When all these tracks are unmuted, the video play back is terrible...unbelievable

To try and find out what was causing this extremely poor playback I went though and muted tracks until playback became normal, and found it was the colour gradient tracks. Switch them off and playback is perfect. Switch them on and it stops...

Why would colour gradient tracks like this sabotage playback?

Seth Bloombaum · September 29th, 2012, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renton Maclachlan

...Why would colour gradient tracks like this sabotage playback?

Don't really know, as I've not used psd tracks much. Never got in the habit. Have you tried png with transparency? Vegas seems to like png...

Chris Barcellos · September 29th, 2012, 12:53 PM

The other thing is to take your imagess down to simple .jpg at the resolution of your video. Generally get it to 1920 x 1080 for HD. When you have a huge file Vegas has to convert down for each frame anyway, and your image is not going to have any more resolution than 1920 x 1080

Renton Maclachlan · September 29th, 2012, 04:25 PM

Thanks guys.
Four gradient files sizes were (.psd) and now are (png):

File 1: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 18.7MB, png 1000x549 = 27.9KB
File 2: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 32.9MB, png 1000x549 = 223KB
File 3: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 27MB, png 1000x549 = 161KB
File 4: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 13.7MB, png 1000x549 = 21.1KB

Cloud files:

File 1: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 19.6MB, png 4371x2400 = 915KB
File 1a: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 19.6MB, png 1000x549 = 156KB
File 2: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 19.7MB, png 4371x2400 = 929KB
File 2a: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 19.7MB, png 1000x549 = 162KB

To make a stranglehold on the obvious, the file size reductions are significant...

With these files now replacing the other ones (Gradient 2 and 3, and Cloud 1 and 2), the playback is normal.

Given that I am not using HD and my video resolution is 720 x 576, should I make the image sizes the same? Is there any reason not to?

Seth Bloombaum · September 29th, 2012, 05:35 PM

Borrowing from graphic designers' workflow, if you aren't zooming in on these images, roughly double the project pixel dimensions is a good guideline. So, following this would be .png at 1440x1152.

The reasoning is that any slight resizing would start from a higher resolution.

But I've never really done a direct comparison with 2:1 vs. 1:1.

Renton Maclachlan · September 29th, 2012, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

Borrowing from graphic designers' workflow, if you aren't zooming in on these images, roughly double the project pixel dimensions is a good guideline. So, following this would be .png at 1440x1152.

The reasoning is that any slight resizing would start from a higher resolution.

Good point and helpful...I am resizing sometimes...reducing the image by about 1/3rd.

September 29th, 2012, 05:17 AM	#1
Renton Maclachlan Trustee Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,180	Colour gradient issue I'm afraid I'm probably going to have a lot of questions in the coming months...hope you can put up with me...here's another one. I've got 4x green screen tracks - (no fx or compositing at all), two basic .psd cloud images with transparency layer and gradient (to be part of background image) - one with a composite envelope on it and the other without, and two .psd colour gradients with transparency (to be other part of background image) - one with a composite envelope on it and the other one without. When all these tracks are unmuted, the video play back is terrible...unbelievable To try and find out what was causing this extremely poor playback I went though and muted tracks until playback became normal, and found it was the colour gradient tracks. Switch them off and playback is perfect. Switch them on and it stops... Why would colour gradient tracks like this sabotage playback?

September 29th, 2012, 12:53 PM	#3
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Re: Colour gradient issue The other thing is to take your imagess down to simple .jpg at the resolution of your video. Generally get it to 1920 x 1080 for HD. When you have a huge file Vegas has to convert down for each frame anyway, and your image is not going to have any more resolution than 1920 x 1080 __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

September 29th, 2012, 04:25 PM	#4
Renton Maclachlan Trustee Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,180	Re: Colour gradient issue Thanks guys. Four gradient files sizes were (.psd) and now are (png): File 1: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 18.7MB, png 1000x549 = 27.9KB File 2: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 32.9MB, png 1000x549 = 223KB File 3: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 27MB, png 1000x549 = 161KB File 4: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 13.7MB, png 1000x549 = 21.1KB Cloud files: File 1: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 19.6MB, png 4371x2400 = 915KB File 1a: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 19.6MB, png 1000x549 = 156KB File 2: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 19.7MB, png 4371x2400 = 929KB File 2a: psd 4371x2400 pixels = 19.7MB, png 1000x549 = 162KB To make a stranglehold on the obvious, the file size reductions are significant... With these files now replacing the other ones (Gradient 2 and 3, and Cloud 1 and 2), the playback is normal. Given that I am not using HD and my video resolution is 720 x 576, should I make the image sizes the same? Is there any reason not to?

September 29th, 2012, 05:35 PM	#5
Seth Bloombaum Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,420	Re: Colour gradient issue Borrowing from graphic designers' workflow, if you aren't zooming in on these images, roughly double the project pixel dimensions is a good guideline. So, following this would be .png at 1440x1152. The reasoning is that any slight resizing would start from a higher resolution. But I've never really done a direct comparison with 2:1 vs. 1:1. __________________ 30 years of pro media production. Vegas user since 1.0. Webcaster since 1997. Freelancer since 2000. College instructor since 2001.