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... |
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.
|
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. |
not related to crashes at all, but JPEG is lossy, PNG is lossless. (edit: and PNG supports alpha channel)
|
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. |
I tend to use bmp files as they're within my comfort zone!
Is a PNG file better, and if so, why? |
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.
|
Quote:
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.... |
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. |
Is there any discernable quality difference in the final output using JPG vs PNG? Or renderig time issues?
|
Quote:
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.) |
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... |
Depends on the amount of "Ken Burns" applied...
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:42 AM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network