Rendering Filters

[Tony Spring]

I've noticed that some filters don't render as they look in the preview, they render less extreme. For instance Vitascene's defocus filter renders much less blurred than it looks on the preview. Also when I render film effects the grain, hairs, spots etc look much less extreme.

Anybody know why this might be?

[Mike Kujbida]

Is your preview window set to Best/Full?

[Graham Bernard]

Originally Posted by Tony Spring

Also when I render film effects the grain, hairs, spots etc look much less extreme.

This is starting to "ring-a-bell"? What version, release and build of Vegas are you using?

Grazie

[Tony Spring]

Originally Posted by Mike Kujbida

Is your preview window set to Best/Full?

No I use preview/auto. When I render to new track the render looks very different.

[Tony Spring]

Originally Posted by Graham Bernard

This is starting to "ring-a-bell"? What version, release and build of Vegas are you using?

Grazie

I'm using Pro 8b with Cineform intermediate files, renders are to Cineform too.

[Mike Kujbida]

Originally Posted by Tony Spring

No I use preview/auto. When I render to new track the render looks very different.

With that setting, I'd expect it to look different.
The resolution of the Preview window on preview/auto is half of what it is for best/full.
Look at the numbers in the bottom left corner of the preview window and you'll see what I mean.
I get the same "lower quality" effect if I'm previewing text.
At preview/auto, it looks soft and fuzzy.
At best/full, it's crisp and clear.
If you can't do a proper preview at the setting, do a RAM render of a short piece.

[Tony Spring]

Originally Posted by Mike Kujbida

With that setting, I'd expect it to look different.
The resolution of the Preview window on preview/auto is half of what it is for best/full.
Look at the numbers in the bottom left corner of the preview window and you'll see what I mean.
I get the same "lower quality" effect if I'm previewing text.
At preview/auto, it looks soft and fuzzy.
At best/full, it's crisp and clear.
If you can't do a proper preview at the setting, do a RAM render of a short piece.

But if the render and the unrendered event are compared on the same timeline in the same preview window shouldn't they look exactly the same?

[John Rofrano]

Originally Posted by Tony Spring

But if the render and the unrendered event are compared on the same timeline in the same preview window shouldn't they look exactly the same?

No, because one is an approximation of what the filter "might do" and the other is the exact result of what the filter "did" do. In the latter case the preview has the real result of the defocus so it doesn't have to approximate the FX. It's just approximating the resolution. Look at them both in Best (Full) mode. They should look the same.

~jr

[Tony Spring]

Originally Posted by John Rofrano

No, because one is an approximation of what the filter "might do" and the other is the exact result of what the filter "did" do. In the latter case the preview has the real result of the defocus so it doesn't have to approximate the FX. It's just approximating the resolution. Look at them both in Best (Full) mode. They should look the same.

~jr

Thanks John & Mike. I understand now that "preview" is exactly that, but why do some filters render out as they look in the preview while others don't? I can't get Newblue film looks to render anything like it looks in the preview.

[John Rofrano]

Preview is a trade-off of quality for frame rate. Some filters are light on the CPU and the preview doesn't have to sacrifice much quality to keep the frame rate up. Other filters are heavy on the CPU and so more quality is sacrificed in order to keep the frame rate acceptable. This will cause different filters to preview differently. Film Looks usually uses very CPU intensive processing so you may see more of a difference between Preview and Good or Best.

~jr