preview screen brightness VS10

wolf1 · Post by **wolf1** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:51 pm

Is there any way to adjust the brightness in the preview screen window? It's much darker than whats showing in my camcorder

Jerry Jones · Post by **Jerry Jones** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:19 am

Have you tried adjusting your video display brightness?

That might be the problem.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Post by **Ken Berry** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:06 am

You also need to be aware that the preview window in VS is nothing more than that: a way to get a fairly quick overall impression of the video and your editing. I have, since I started using Video Studio with VS7, found it a little fuzzy and dark too. But when I output to a final video file or DVD, the video is very clear and the brightness/contrast are also correct.

Do NOT use the brightness/contrast filters if your only aim is to improve the image in the preview screen as that will only screw up the brightness and contrast in your final product.

tel33 · Post by **tel33** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:21 pm

What I dont understand about your post above this is the fact that I had a perfect preview picture on mine (Bright and sharp) then my hard drive failed so it does not mean that you have to put up with it like this as its obviously not meant to be dark.

I reinstalled XP SP1, then Ulead10 with SP1 and the preview picture is now very dark when its played so something has changed and I am not too sure on what it is, I have clean installed XP so I am sure it cant be that but one thing I did change was the graphics card driver, I will when the present project is finished rendering change the driver to a version before this one and I will elt you know if it worked.

The graphics card is a Geforce 5200 with 128mb (See my system tab)

If anyone else can tell me the solution I would be very grateful.

Thanks

Ady

TDK1044 · Post by **TDK1044** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 pm

It does feel like a video card driver issue, and i suspect you'll resolve your issue by rolling back your driver to the previous version.

I have always used dedicated capture software to capture my footage, and by grading my footage at the time of capture, I know that it's right. I use the video studio preview window as a tool to monitor the edits and the rendering, but I don't trust the video displayed by the preview window, it's just a reference.

CycleWriter · Post by **CycleWriter** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:35 pm

TDK1044 wrote:I have always used dedicated capture software to capture my footage, and by grading my footage at the time of capture, I know that it's right. I use the video studio preview window as a tool to monitor the edits and the rendering, but I don't trust the video displayed by the preview window, it's just a reference.

I have commented on this problem in other threads, but I feel compelled to reiterate. What good is a video editing program that allows you to make color corrections, quality enhancements and other effects if what you see in the preview window does not even remotely resemble the final output? Why should I have to render a project in order to see how my tweaks look? That's just ridiculous. I don't expect that little preview window to be perfect, but this is a problem that a lot of users have and it is unacceptable to expect one to be working basically blind until they render and watch a DVD on their TV. There's no point in having all those quality enhancement effects if you can't see a close representation of what they will look like in the finished product. That's absurd!

Post by **Ken Berry** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:14 pm

It's not that I disagree. I guess I have just become used to it and make the necessary mental adjustment. At least it has been consistent

since I first starting using Video Studio with version 7. (And to me, it is not terrible, just poor: a bit dark and a bit fuzzy are my main complaints -- though I agree that, fundamentally, even this is unacceptable in what is overall a rather sensitive process.)

In other words, when I look at a preview in the preview screen, knowing that the original was fine in the camera and, from experience, knowing that the rendered product will look just as good if I do things a certain way, then I accept what I see in the preview screen as 'good' quality. But if the preview screen varies from what I have come to expect, then I know something has gone wrong and that I have to make adjustments to get it back to what I accept as 'good'... if you see what I mean.

And one can rant and rave and threaten legal suits till one is blue in the face.

But the fact remains that I have yet to find one program with a wonderful preview screen. Some of them are definitely better. Adobe Premier Pro is one, but its default size is a good deal smaller than Video Studio's, and requires an unacceptable squishing of the other elements of the program to make it larger. So to me nothing is perfect... And as I have said, I have learned to live with it and make the necessary adjustments...

TDK1044 · Post by **TDK1044** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:43 am

I have commented on this problem in other threads, but I feel compelled to reiterate. What good is a video editing program that allows you to make color corrections, quality enhancements and other effects if what you see in the preview window does not even remotely resemble the final output? Why should I have to render a project in order to see how my tweaks look? That's just ridiculous. I don't expect that little preview window to be perfect, but this is a problem that a lot of users have and it is unacceptable to expect one to be working basically blind until they render and watch a DVD on their TV. There's no point in having all those quality enhancement effects if you can't see a close representation of what they will look like in the finished product. That's absurd!

I understand the point you're making and it's quite valid. But I think that people need to apply common sense regarding this issue. Anybody run a test to see how well lined up their camcorder viewfinder image is? How well lined up are the computer monitors that are used to capture and edit the footage? Also, most people have their TV pictures set up at least 10 to 15 percent higher than they should be when you look at black level. So I use dedicated capture software on a computer monitor that is lined up pretty well, and although my TV is also lined up pretty well, I allow for a lift in the pictures when played back on other people's TV sets and I crush my pictures a little at capture to compensate for the end result.

Therefore, for me, the Video Studio preview window is nothing more than a reference. I don't tweak the color, brightness, hue or saturation within video studio. For me, that is all done at capture. I edit and render and then apply effects as needed, but my picture levels are right going in.

CycleWriter · Post by **CycleWriter** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:52 am

TDK1044 wrote:Therefore, for me, the Video Studio preview window is nothing more than a reference. I don't tweak the color, brightness, hue or saturation within video studio. For me, that is all done at capture. I edit and render and then apply effects as needed, but my picture levels are right going in.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Would you buy a car with features that you couldn't access or use? What about an appliance like a washer machine where only one of three settings worked? Why do we put up with this kind of thing from software manufacturers? The purchase price is no excuse for them to include features that simply do not work or do not work correctly. If it was any other consumer product there would be a class action suit so fast it would make their heads spin. In fact, almost any other product would have the manufacturer so scared to release such a product that it wouldn't leave the factory. Why is software excluded from this due diligence? Because users, unfortunately many like yourself, are willing to accept it and find workarounds for it instead of demanding that the software do what it is advertised to do. Microsoft pioneered the business model of just giving the consumer junk and let them beta test it for them and patch it on the fly. Sorry, but that shouldn't be acceptable for ANY product regardless of the purchase price. Every new iteration of a software brings with it new bugs and headaches because more effort is put into adding features to help it sell rather than fixing it so it just works. That's a disgrace.

TDK1044 · Post by **TDK1044** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:11 pm

I respect the point you're making, Cycle Writer, but I think that given the number of devices involved; the camcorder viewfinder, the computer monitor, the encoding device and the preview window, it's extremely difficult if not impossible to get a true 100 percent likeness of the original footage.

I worked in broadcast television for 25 years, and during a production, the cameras were graded by a vison control engineer using a vector scope and a waveform monitor. At the edit, the edit suite was lined up with similar equipment and $20,000 Barco monitors and a PLUGE generator. Even then there were discrepencies.

This is a $90 piece of software. I think it's excellent value for money, you just have to get your pictures right going in so that you're not having to guess at how far out they are.

tel33 · Post by **tel33** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:24 pm

Thanks for all the replies, the problem I have is not one that I had before so the preview picture was no problem at all before my hard drive crash.

It was clear and bright just like the output from my DV camcorder.

I will try another driver but cant roll back sadly, one thing I have noticed was that if I played some footage back via PowerDVD it was the same picture quality as the preview picture but when I used Windows Media Player it played ok so maybe this is an issue to look into too.

I will let you know the results, it does look like a driver issue or a codec issue though.

Thanks

Ady

somegeek · Post by **somegeek** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:01 pm

FWIW I just purchased VS and had this problem... when asked if VS could change project settings to match the file I added to perform smart render and then I played the clip, it was clear. Also verified I had the this tutorial.

somegeek

CycleWriter · Post by **CycleWriter** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:01 pm

TDK1044 wrote:This is a $90 piece of software. I think it's excellent value for money, you just have to get your pictures right going in so that you're not having to guess at how far out they are.

No offense, but that's an incredibly overly-simplistic statement. For someone like myself who has been a VS user since Ver. 4, I have a lot more money invested in the program beyond what the latest upgrade cost. I also have a lot of money invested in SmartSounds libraries that only work with one other program I know of (Pinnacle Studio, which I will never use again). And what of the investment in time I've made in learning to use the program and having to deal with its many foibles? The investment in any software goes well beyond the purchase price and developers should have some respect in that regard for the users.

As for the problems of different platforms and PC configurations, that's also a weak excuse. Device drivers, hardware, codecs et al, all have to conform to certain standards. Even with a homemade PC there is still a level of standardization that exists in the components that go into it. If software companies spent more time listening to their users and seeing what kinds of equipment they're using they could easily replicate many of the problems. Regardless, I still believe many of the problems in VS are software and not hardware or user related. I went from runing VS8 on my home-built PC with few problems to now using it on a store-bought HP Media Center PC and having a mutlitude of problems I never had before with VS.

I never said I expected the preview window to be a 100% representation of the final output, but what I'm getting isn't even close. As is, it makes all the quality enhancements available in VS basically useless as I have no way to even get a close idea what they'll look like until I render the project and output to a final display device. That's just unworkable IMHO.

Post by **Ron P.** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:33 pm

So cyclewriter, you expect a $90 piece of software to perform like $100k setup? If so then you are asking companies to give-away their products.

I think it's rediculous to expect all the makers of NLEs to be able to know all the possible setups that people would have for their PCs. There are so many variables that they would spend years compiling this information, which would never be accurate, since technology is changing and advancing so fast.

Just a very small example would be the HD "fad". Where do you think they came up with that? People wanted better quality, more space to store. So they respond with HD. Ulead has been marketing VS with a single overlay track for years. Then finally after hearing over and over again, that the consumers needed additional overlays, and that other products, such as video camcorder sales skyrocketed, they responded.

I have had issues with every version of VS, most being features. However for an NLE that has behaved as well as can be expected, VS has done that.
I too feel that they should try to fix problems before rushing out with a newer version, but they don't answer to me, or you for that matter (unless you are a rather large stock holder). The stockholders that are expecting a return on their investments are the ones that constantly push this. Oh and just because you or I decided we are not ever going to purchase another Ulead product, I doubt that will have any effect on them. It would take a few thousand people, at the least, to hurt them. The whole Corel aquistion is base soley on Corel being able to give their stockholders a positive return, nothing more or less. Intervideo has a good share of the Eastern Asia market, and Corel plans on cashing in on that.

In closing why do people feel the need to post derrogatory statements about Ulead, offering no help? I've always thought this was a help forum not a trash the products forum. It seems that you have stuck with Ulead for quite awhile (since v4), yet you voice nothing but disdane for them. It just peaves me, every time I read a post where nothing beneficial is provided, just the trashing. There are numerous competitive products to choose from. If it doesn't work for you then I think it would be a wise choice to find something that does. I mean would you keep a car that always broke down, didn't really get you from point A to Point B?

Sorry for the rant...but this stuff gets old...

CycleWriter · Post by **CycleWriter** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:02 pm

vidoman wrote:So cyclewriter, you expect a $90 piece of software to perform like $100k setup? If so then you are asking companies to give-away their products.

I guess you really didn't read what I wrote. Your statement is a total mischaracterization of what I posted.

I think it's rediculous to expect all the makers of NLEs to be able to know all the possible setups that people would have for their PCs. There are so many variables that they would spend years compiling this information, which would never be accurate, since technology is changing and advancing so fast.

I spent a number of years working in the computer industry in Silicon Valley long before any real standards existed. With MS certified this and industry standard that, it really isn't that hard to develop software that works on a wide variety of hardware and configurations.

Just a very small example would be the HD "fad". Where do you think they came up with that? People wanted better quality, more space to store. So they respond with HD. Ulead has been marketing VS with a single overlay track for years. Then finally after hearing over and over again, that the consumers needed additional overlays, and that other products, such as video camcorder sales skyrocketed, they responded.

Why is a budget video editing program even bothering with HD? HD is a high-end technology that is in relative infancy. Adding it to a budget editor is simply a marketing move and has no real value to the majority of VS users. It certainly makes no sense to add HD support to a product that still has difficulty handling standard video. Adding additional overlay tracks is a feature most would come to expect from editing software. HD support isn't, but it's indicative of the philosophy at Ulead. Add more features that will help sell more product instead of addressing the functional issues in the previous version.

I have had issues with every version of VS, most being features. However for an NLE that has behaved as well as can be expected, VS has done that.

Sorry, but your experience and tolerance are different from mine. I'm not asking for anything special, just that the claims made on the box and by the company about the software's ability be kept.

I too feel that they should try to fix problems before rushing out with a newer version, but they don't answer to me, or you for that matter (unless you are a rather large stock holder). The stockholders that are expecting a return on their investments are the ones that constantly push this.

That's where you're wrong. The market is who any product manufacturer answers to. Keep putting out a mediocre product and you won't be in business long as it will leave open the door for another company t come along and offer what you couldn't.

Oh and just because you or I decided we are not ever going to purchase another Ulead product, I doubt that will have any effect on them. It would take a few thousand people, at the least, to hurt them. The whole Corel aquistion is base soley on Corel being able to give their stockholders a positive return, nothing more or less. Intervideo has a good share of the Eastern Asia market, and Corel plans on cashing in on that.

That kind of arrogance was behind companies like IBM and Syquest, among others. In the case of the former, they re-evaluated their business model and changed how they do business. In the case of the latter, well, they are no more.

In closing why do people feel the need to post derrogatory statements about Ulead, offering no help? I've always thought this was a help forum not a trash the products forum. It seems that you have stuck with Ulead for quite awhile (since v4), yet you voice nothing but disdane for them. It just peaves me, every time I read a post where nothing beneficial is provided, just the trashing. There are numerous competitive products to choose from. If it doesn't work for you then I think it would be a wise choice to find something that does. I mean would you keep a car that always broke down, didn't really get you from point A to Point B?

Because without criticism, change does not happen. A cursory glance at this forum and one could easily see that it is less about people asking for help on how to use the program and more about people posting their problems with it. For every thread asking "How do I..." there are 10 or more of people having functional problems with VS. That speaks volumes.

Sorry for the rant...but this stuff gets old...

No older than the amount of time many of us have wasted rebooting, reinstalling, looking for solutions and basically NOT making movies. If a product can't deliver on its promises, regardless of price, it has no business being on the market.