Well, there's a bit of the rub, I suppose. If Vegas can accept an image that is "150 times" the size of a 6 MP image, you'll need a tool to make the images.

Initially I was thinking that this feature translated into raw memory management in Vegas but looking more closely I see that this has to involve new and better tools for handling mosaics of images.

I'm sure memory management is still improved but not that much.

Rob Mack

So, John, when you generate gigapixel images are they actually single files or is there a master file that pulls in all the tiles and displays a mosaic.

What I'm trying to get a sense of is whether VP9 can actually handle a single Gigapixel image or whether it has the functionality to handle mosaics of, say, 10x15 6MP images. Either seems fine, the mosaic actually seems more flexible, but a single gigapixel image implies an awful lot of memory improvement in Vegas.

I can remember a few instances in the past where people needed this sort of feature. The example that comes to mind was of a high school team picture that someone wanted to be able to zoom in to the individual faces.

Rob

Here's probably the most famous gigapixel image so far.
http://gigapan.org/viewGigapanFullscreen.php?auth=033ef14483ee899496648c2b4b06233c

"So, John, when you generate gigapixel images are they actually single files"

I create a single, large image using this software:

http://www.autopano.net

"Here's probably the most famous gigapixel image so far.
http://gigapan.org/viewGigapanFullscreen.php?auth=033ef14483ee899496648c2b4b06233c"

Hey! I found Waldo!

Thanks for linking to it (twice ;-) )
I promise I'll RTFM this weekend.

If VP9 can put even one gigapixel image on the timeline without crashing I'll be very impressed, but I'd also be impressed if it had the tools to help build mosaics.

Rob

Combining mosaics into a continuous image involves quite a lot of computation in aligning and conforming the overlaps. Since there are several programs that do this well (Photoshop being another) I can't see much reason to do this in Vegas. Also the 6Mpix image size you took as standard is jpeg compressed. My still camera has a 13Mp sensor, with which I usually shoot RAW, which becomes something like 80M uncompressed TIF, so not too hard to build a 1G panorama. Would I want to use such an uncompressed image on the timeline? Maybe, if I wanted to zoom into the image. Nice to be able to do so. There has been one occasion when I wanted a pan around a very dark space, too dark for video unlit, and I created a still jpeg panorama; Vegas couldn't handle it.

jc, thanks for the link - great program.....

what i still don't understand is;

how big a .jpg / .png can you now put on the timeline in v9?

i've never had problems with 3k x 2k .png's, which have been adequate for paintings, but on some large drawings i've had to shoot large then detail shots, which i've then manipulated for smooth transitions. the idea of putting a 12k x 12k on the t/l and wandering over that is exciting (and i'd probably buy the upgrade for that alone).

leslie

One of the biggest panoramas I've used was somewhere around 15,000 x 5,000 and v8.0c couldn't quite deal with it. v8.1 handled it fine.

Well, I'm on my phone and won't write a lot but I'm looking at sites that describe a gigapixel image as about 40k x 25k . That's big.

I should read more carefully -- I was talking about GB images. Indeed Gpixel is large.

That's kind of why I brought up the thread. I kind of thought people were skimming over this feature but it actually seems pretty significant to me. The last time I played with image sizes on the timeline I couldn't get much more than an 8k image to load on the timeline and preview properly. What led me to try it out was a user trying to do exactly what you'd do with a Gigapixel image - huge zooms.

If Vegas can support 4K projects then support for 40K stills is very nice. I didn't see any word that this required a 64-bit Vegas so I suppose they expect you to be able to do this even in the 32-bit version. I'm sure that the 64-bit version of 9.0 would be better for this.

Rob Mack