Blurry Preview / Export

ikamii
ikamii Posts: 2 Just Starting Out

I wanted to refrain from posting yet another "blurry export" question but none of the answers seem to be helping my issue.

When simply putting the video into the project, the trim preview and the edit preview are different.

The edit preview is bloomed / blurry compared to the original video, then when exported it gets even more blurred and pixilated while the trim preview is as clear as the raw video being played in windows media player.

When exporting I use the YT 1080p HD preset and the video recorded is in 1080p

The settings for the preview pane are all set properly not do downscale or anything.

Tagged:

Comments

  • ikamii
    ikamii Posts: 2 Just Starting Out

    heres a better image with text to show the blur

  • TerryS
    TerryS Posts: 127 Enthusiast

    I don't have an answer for you.

    However, I can reproduce what you are seeing. In HifFilm 16.

    With matching Trimmer and Viewer settings.

    The Trimmer windows text and imagery is much sharper/clearer.............

    Than the same frame in the Viewer window.

    The exported video will be degraded to various degrees based on output settings.

    But I don't understand the discrepancy between the 2 panels ?

  • Stargazer54
    Stargazer54 Posts: 3,967 Ambassador

    @ikamii You could be seeing the result of your Paused or Playback settings (located under the View window - Click on the Full dropdown next to Options). Full, AntiAliased, Draft, etc only affect the Viewer window and are there so you can speed up your work flow by lowering system calculations to speed up your preview. They do not affect the Trimmer so it will usually always look as good as the incoming footage.

    The main thing is how your rendered output file looks. Settings in the Viewer do not affect Render.

  • TerryS
    TerryS Posts: 127 Enthusiast

    @Stargazer54

    @ikamii said above...........The settings for the preview pane are all set properly not do downscale or anything.

    I stated and tried to demonstrate my settings match. Yet, the preview is notably degraded by comparison. As you should be able to easily see in my images.

    Since then, I reproduced the issue in HitFilm Pro 9.0.7813.7206

    This makes no sense to me. Why is this happening?

  • Triem23
    Triem23 Posts: 20,397 Power User

    Two possible things.

    First is Viewer Resolution/Quality settings. Stargazer covered that.

    Second, the Trimmer and Viewer are fundamentally different - The Trimmer streams straight video frames. The Viewer...

    Ok, Hitfilm is OpenGL based. I've had a hypothesis for years that "2D" layers in Hitfilm are actually texture mapped polygons. The remap could be subject to softening. The devs have never publicly confirmed this, but they've also never told me "you're wrong, and stop spreading misinformation." They're pretty good on correcting errors, so I maintain that the Trimmer is showing a straight video frame, the Viewer a polygon texture mapped with the video image.

    This is part of Hitfilm's core rendering pipe, so there's little to be done about it.

  • TerryS
    TerryS Posts: 127 Enthusiast
    edited January 2021

    @Triem23 ,

    1. As @ikamii and I have both stated. Our Viewer Resolution/Quality settings match. Thats not the problem. Somehow what we posted gets overlooked.
    2. After seeing the same discrepancy's in HitFilm Pro 9.0.7813.7206. Being a non-technical guy but with an eye for detail. {Thats all I need really } I can see theres a problem here. Blurry preview windows by default? Open GL, someone in product development thinks blurry is A-Okay? What about when applying filters to sharpen videos? Or any number of scenarios where sharpness matters? I'm disappointed. This is not how it should be.


  • Triem23
    Triem23 Posts: 20,397 Power User

    @TerryS

    1. I stated "two possibilities," noted Stargazer had discussed Viewer settings, and, honestly, didn't look to see whether or not you and the OP had both posted about your viewer settings. Instead, I gave the new and additional information, as best I could, to the extent of my reasoning, regarding the render pipeline. Why do you persist in nitpicking unimportant things or objecting to my delivery while continually ignoring the relevant information I keep providing in this and other threads. 3D lights aren't 2D pseudo-lights, Clicking the Hitfilm logo in the top left of the interface opens an "About" panel, the Viewer is a different render pipeline than the Trimmer, the CPU and GPU hand off render tasks in series, which obviously affects resource usage. All of this is accurate information, all of which is relevant to their respective discussions. What you and others have said has been taken into account before providing other information. Also, I was typing my response when you posted yours. Also, also, yes, you'd see the same thing in HF 9. The entire core is, and always has been OpenGL based, and I still maintain, for reasons given above, that 2D media on a Hitfilm Timeline is a textured poly, with the advantages (easy 3D spacing) and disadvantages (softening of image due to mapping) implied. Segue...

    2. Any NLE makes decisions on how to approach things in early design stages. Early decisions ripple for years. Ae started as a 2D program and, to this day, that affects how Ae deals with 3D - which is why things like Element 3D and Particular render 2D image layers. Vegas Pro based its core kernel around Video for Windows, which has been deprecated for over a decade - and the core render engine being based around a dead kernal is something Vegas developers struggle with to this day. When Hitfilm was in initial development OpenGL was chosen to create a low-cost NLE that ran on the widest possible range of hardware (this is where I note the minimum hardware specs for After Effects, Vegas Pro Avid and Resolve are all higher than Hitfilm, but leave the Google search to you). The OpenGL core brings its own set of limitations and challenges, but the pros and cons were surely weighed. The only publicity stated information given was the desire to run Hitfilm on the widest possible range of machines, so that's the only core reason I can give - besides the aforementioned "other guys require more powerful hardware," which correlates with the stated goal of making Hitfilm something that can run on lower spec machines. Technical details matter.

    As I've stated in other threads, if one decides Hitfilm isn't for them - whether because of feature set, render times, image quality, or troubles with the interface - there are other options. Whichever tools are correct for the individual user are the tools that person should use. Pick the tools that work for you and go create a thing. Have fun.

    Aaaand, I've already broken my resolution to not interact with you. Sigh.

  • Stargazer54
    Stargazer54 Posts: 3,967 Ambassador

    It is a known fact that the Viewer window will not match the clarity of the Trimmer. Again what is seen in the Viewer should not be confused with the actual rendered output which is what is important. The viewer is an approximation of the final output, but not what you should see in the render. ( However, if you increase the MSAA settings in the Render Options, that CAN make the render blurry. In most cases that should be left at the default of 4xMSAA.)

    That said, I do not see the blurry Viewer problem on my system (or maybe just never noticed it as an issue). It would be interesting to hear if the OP sees the same problem using a second monitor when switching to Full Screen Preview.

    @ikamii If you could list your system specs that would be helpful. Would be interested in particularly in what GPU you have. Thanks!

  • TerryS
    TerryS Posts: 127 Enthusiast

    @Triem23

    Why do you persist in nitpicking unimportant things or objecting to my delivery?

    Why is it detailed posts are so often not read by Ambassadors like yourself? I've been a member of this forum for many years. I see a lot of canned answered that look right past a posters actual detailed information.

    Neither you or Stargazer caught the original posters full explanation or seemed to follow the question.........The settings for the preview pane are all set properly not do downscale or anything.

    I followed up with images and reiterated what he posted. I also stated With matching Trimmer and Viewer settings. And was experiencing the same thing. Degraded viewer imagery by comparison.

    Yet, you open with........

    Two possible things.

    First is Viewer Resolution/Quality settings. Stargazer covered that.

    If your going to contribute to the thread and try to help. Great! Thank You!

    However, Can't you do yourself, the post and everyone involved a favor. Read the original post first, perhaps look at others contributions to see where things stand. Then respond to question at hand. Some of this back and forth banter was triggered by responses that were off target. Viewer resolution settings were never an issue. I'm a nit picker for pointing this out? I invested time into those screen shots and posted information, just to have my information overlooked for what amounted to a 50% canned response. Viewer resolution. Stargazer didn't respond to me or read my post.

    As far as open GL goes, in this day and age. A decent computer for video editing is relatively cheap these days. A preview window with quality playback settings makes up for low power systems, it seems a bit ridiculous that you have zero options to acquire a 100% sharp freeze frame image.

    This is an area HitFilm needs to improve in.

  • Stargazer54
    Stargazer54 Posts: 3,967 Ambassador

    @TerryS Please put in a Feature Request on the issue. Neither @Triem23 or I are Staff. We have no way to fix this to your satisfaction. I think it is agreed that you see this as problem but only the Devs can fix it.

    Until we hear back from the OP I suggest we move on.

  • NormanPCN
    NormanPCN Posts: 4,385 Expert

    @Triem23

    Vegas Pro based its core kernel around Video for Windows, which has been deprecated for over a decade

    I would disagree with this. Video for Windows does not really do very much. Nothing to base a video editor "kernel" on. VfW gives you a frame from a file and for encoding/exporting you can give it a frame to send/encode to a file. Everything in between getting the frame and doing something with the final result frame (display/export) is entirely up to the developer. They are free to do what they want.

    ---

    I question if OpenGL allows one to run on a wider array of machines than other options. If one wants to use a 3D geometry engine then OpenGL is the only choice to run on Windows and Mac. Direct3D is Windows only. For GPU HW compute then OpenCL is a fully portable option. But now you have to write all the 3D geometry transformations and mapping yourself. For example when Vegas does 3D track motion they have to do all the transformation themselves. Using a 3D geometry API allows one to offload a fair bit of development work onto that subsystem. It really is an enabler for the Hitfilm unified 3D feature.

  • TheBenNorris
    TheBenNorris Posts: 2,042 Enthusiast

    I've encountered mention of this a few times, but don't remember the exact reasoning. I'll see if I can find out.

    @TerryS I agree with Stargazer, please make a feature request (if you haven't done so already) regarding this, it would certainly be helpful to see how many users actually are encountering this as an issue. I would also be interested to see if the problem does stick around after export.

    I would also like to remind everyone in this thread to try and stay civil and polite.

    It is typical for mods and staff to ask questions from a user that they may have directly already been answered as sometimes we want to be 100% certain the user has the correct settings or setup, as it helps to avoid any red herrings.

    Will hopefully be back with a more useful answer for OP soon!

  • TheBenNorris
    TheBenNorris Posts: 2,042 Enthusiast

    Update: thanks to the other devs, they've pointed out in both screenshots by @TerryS and @ikamii the viewer is scaled/not set to 100%

    Do you have screenshots of how it looks/if it's still equally blurry when the viewer is set to 100%?

  • TerryS
    TerryS Posts: 127 Enthusiast

    @TheBenNorris

    I already took scaling into account.

    Despite the videos being scaled down. I was careful to scale both { Display windows } to the same size { as closely as possible } Matching them exactly seemed to be a nearly impossible task. When you use { Scale to Fit } Zoom levels are dependent on window size.If the Trimmer window is slightly larger than the viewer window. They will scale differently, and you cannot type in a value.

    I had the Trimmer & Viewer widows within a 3% match of scaling in HitFilm Pro.

    Then Within 0.1% in HitFilm Express.

    Then I turned down the DPI settings of my mouse. To resize the windows in HitFilm Pro

    After which I got HitFilm Pro's Trimmer panel to 65.5% and the Viewer to 65.4% for that minuscule 0.1% difference. Like in HitFilm Express.

    Both Preview widows should look equally degraded. Yet they don't. It shouldn't matter what zoom level is selected if window sizes are equal.

    I detached the Trimmer and scaled it to 100% on larger monitor.

    And here is the Viewer.

    Clearer at 100% scale, yet still Blurry


  • TheBenNorris
    TheBenNorris Posts: 2,042 Enthusiast
    edited January 2021

    @TerryS as far as I know, due to the nature of the viewer, if the scaling is not 100%, then the footage has to be scaled. In the trimmer, the scaling used is different to that of the viewer - which is why it will look different at anything other than 100%.

    Although I could make out a difference faintly in the screenshots earlier, I have to say that I don't see any blurring in the viewer 100% screenshot myself.

    Edit: I should add, we are following this thread closely and investigating internally to see if we can find anything here that could change or be improved. If we find out anything else I'll try to keep this thread updated.

    Edit 2: I can confirm that this is effectively due to the differences in the way that the sampling works for the trimmer vs the viewer. We may look into if we can change this going forwards.

    Unfortunately this means there is little the user can do, but hopefully the rendered output (and the viewer at 100%) should be as expected or very minimally different.

    I'm going to leave this thread until the end of the day, and unless anyone has any objections, close it, since I don't see there being much more we can get from here.

  • TerryS
    TerryS Posts: 127 Enthusiast

    @TheBenNorris

    See if you can make out a difference here. Click on the image and look at it at its native resolution. Theres actually some degradation in the trimmer but its minor by comparison.

    Look at the same text in Premier Pros playback window? Pristine.

    Camtasia, looks great.

    I'm sure I could go on.

  • TheBenNorris
    TheBenNorris Posts: 2,042 Enthusiast

    @TerryS please check the end of the comment just before yours, we've identified the cause of this, and at 100% it should be hopefully less, but we are aware of it and looking at what options there are.

  • TerryS
    TerryS Posts: 127 Enthusiast
    edited January 2021

    I'm going to leave this thread until the end of the day, and unless anyone has any objections, close it, since I don't see there being much more we can get from here.

    SO whats that mean? Bury it so other members might not realize the Viewer window is subpar and less than ideal?

  • TheBenNorris
    TheBenNorris Posts: 2,042 Enthusiast
    edited January 2021

    @TerryS no, it means that the discussion doesn't keep going when I've provided the reason, and that we are investigating what we can do to improve on this going forwards. Closing a thread means it simply cannot receive new comments. Burying, or "sinking" a thread is a different thing, and is not what I'm doing. Closing a thread before it goes on too long assists in helping users easily find the answer to their difficulties.

    I'm going to close this thread now.

    TLDR: The viewer and trimmer use different sampling algorithms, and as such the viewer may appear slightly less sharp - more so when at scaling other than 100% - and we are considering ways we can improve this in the future.

    HOWEVER - the export should still come out correctly - if you're having issues with export this may be a separate issue, so please make a thread!

This discussion has been closed.