When using a photo scanned at 48 bits ... selecting modify clip properties reveals only a black editing screen, not the photo.

Is this a bug or are 48 bit photos not supported or just my computer? Studio 12.

Thanks,

Barry

Please post the mentioned picture so I can check it on our Studio 12 machine.

Sorry, I just moved and was not online for several days.

What do you mean by 'post the mentioned'? If you mean upload one of the picutures... I can't because i do not have permission:          

"You do not have permission to upload or link to files. Please contact your system administrator. " Are 48 bit scans (in this case tiff) supposed to be supported? Thanks, Barry

I'm sorry for the typo. I meant post the picture. Try using imageshack or mediafire and post the link where its posted.

FWIW, S11 supports 16 bit (per channel) tif files.

I have no way of posting or a place to post the picture. The problem is occuring with all my pictures scanned at a higher resolution. They are all tiff. I had computer problems and had to reinstall Studio 12 but the results were the same.

Since it is happening with all my higher res scans then the problem does not lie with a picture. It either lies with Studio 12 or my computer. Has anyone else attempted to use higher res pics in Studio 12? What were your results? Apparently they are supposed to be supported.

Barry

ATI Radeon 9550 / X1050 Series Secondary (256 MB)

Can you explain what you mean by this graphics card setup?  A Radeon 9550 is not going to cut it for S12.   (And I didn't think that it can be used in a CrossFire setup.)  In other words, your graphics card may not be sufficient to handle those files. 

Secondary

(_!_)ing-in: IMO, this refers to a dual Monitor Setup. GPU is an ATI TV Wonder Digital Cable Tuner http://ati.amd.com/products/RadeonX1050/specs.html (_!_)ing-out..  

I admit the possibility my graphic card may not 'handle it' but I have not had the problem in Photoshop, Liquid 7.2, Sony Vegas 8.0b etc. Why would these other programs display the pictures correctly but not Studio 12?

Perhaps I can update my video card but I don't feel right doing so in my computer which is now condidered 'out of date'.

Thanks,

Barry

I believe Studio has higher specs for graphic cards (and other hardware) than the other programs you mention.  It is therefore not surprising that some of your programs can handle the same files but Studio cannot, given your current hardware. 

Barry:

I admit the possibility my graphic card may not 'handle it' but I have not had the problem in Photoshop, Liquid 7.2, Sony Vegas 8.0b etc. Why would these other programs display the pictures correctly but not Studio 12?

There was a discussion in the Photoshop forums a year or so ago and the bottom line is that changing to higher end video boards will not improve Photoshop's performance - memory and CPU speed are the what limit it.

I will also point out that unless you are using HDR, Photoshop's native resolution is 8-bits with an option for 16-bits. The latter is useful for raw camera images that are greater than 8 bits (which most are). If you are using jpg's, they are going to be 8 bit images by definition.

Last, 8 bits is actually 24 as red gets 8, green gets 8 and blue gets 8.  I wonder if scanning at 48 bits is really 16 bits?  That would at least explain why Photoshop did not complain...

Some quickie calculations gives:

 8 bits =                           256 shades of gray
16 bits =                      65,536 shades of gray
48 bits = 281,474,976,710,656 shades of gray (that's a bit more than my video board can display! )
 

Jerry 

I wonder if scanning at 48 bits is really 16 bits?

That's a marketing blurb for scanner manufacturers.  48 bits is 16 bits per colour/color channel, but a 48 bit scanner sounds better than a 16 bit one.  

gjslaw:

I believe Studio has higher specs for graphic cards (and other hardware) than the other programs you mention.  It is therefore not surprising that some of your programs can handle the same files but Studio cannot, given your current hardware. 

I agree.

 

 http://www.pinnaclesys.com/PublicSite/us/Products/Consumer+Products/Home+Video/Studio+Family/Studio+Ultimate.htm

DirectX® 9 or 10 compatible graphics card with 64 MB (128 MB or higher recommended), 128 MB required for Plug-ins (for Magic Bullet Looks: Pixelshader 2 required, Intel GMA integrated graphics not supported; for VitaScene with HD: 512MB recommended)
- 128 MB required on Windows Vista (256 MB or higher recommended)
- 256 MB required for HD and AVCHD*

These are Pinnacles requirements for Studio 12. My video card does meet or beat them. So I ask the question again... has anybody else out there tried higher resolution photos in their projects?

Thanks,

Barry

Now that you look at it, the 9550 is a DX 9.0c card and should be in the recommended requirements. However, the drivers may have some issue with the software. Try updating to the latest catalyst drivers or if you already are, then downgrade (to test) to the version that came in with the card itself.

I already have the latest driver... June of 2008 and did the update because I was having a myriad of problems with S12 until I  updated both my video and audio drivers. (Believe it or not, it was the audio driver update that made the largest difference, even though I do not understand why). I still would like to know if anyone else has this problem because it may still be something within my system. If I am alone then that is the most likely case... my system. If others have the same problem, then maybe it might be a setting within S12 or something else within S12. (I have tried turning on and off background rendering and hardware acceleration already.)

Thanks again, Barry

So I ask the question again... has anybody else out there tried higher resolution photos in their projects?

To answer your question, I took about fifteen 16 bit RAW files (10 MP) and converted them to tif by which time the files were 58 MB each.  I then opened the folder in the S12 album and they appeared after a couple of seconds delay while the thumbnails drew.  I placed them all on the timeline and S12 handled them fine (again after a brief delay).

So I would say that your graphics card is likely causing your problem. 

Okay, I changed out my video card to a faster card with more memory (512K). I have a ATI Radeon 1600 Pro now with the latest drivers. Same results. My last video card met or beat Pinnacles standards. This certainly beats minimum requirements. What now. Where do I look?

Barry

Since I was sitting at the right computer, I thought I would test the 16 bit tiff's.  Yep, they load.  Nope, could not do anything with them, effects and transitions did not work.  Same images as 8 bit tiff's worked just fine.

Now I don't have a high end system - my graphics card is an nVidia 6200 with 256megs. I'm guessing that Studio does not support 16 bit files to any degree.

Is there a problem converting them to 8-bit files?

Jerry 

Jerry,

I felt that, even though my previous card did meet or beat Pinnalce's requirements, that I was kind of written off with 'you need a new card'. I accepted that possibility and purchased a new video card to discover I still had same problem.

Yes, I can go ahead and convert files to 8 bit and save them seperately. A lot of disk space. If Studio 12 is supposed to support 16 bit pictures, and one user says he was successful, I would prefer not to. If S12 does not support 16 bit pics then they should have told me so right away so I, and possibly others, did not spend more money. I believe it is supported because Mark did not say it was not supported and felt it might be my video card... even though he acknowledged it did meet the specifications for S12. I would prefer Pinnacles find out why this is not working for you and I and I would prefer to see if this is a wide spread issue. If it is a Studio problem then Pinnacles can fix it. If it is something on our computers I would track that down... but the concern has to be more widely tested than 3 users.

Thanks for you input Jerry. I hope others will look at this issue also.

 Barry

I would love to try your 16-bit pictures on my Studio 12 system, please try and zip them and then post them to Mediafire and post the link here. That will allow you to allow other users to test your pictures on their machines. This will isolate the issue better and hopefully we can find out whats causing it.

More info re; 8 bit and 16 bit support in Studio here

My curiosity got the best of me and I went searching for the True/False answer that tells whether Studio supports 16 images in any format.  The best I could come up with was a list of supported formats but no mention of bit depth.  Anyone have a pointer to a definitive answer ?

Jerry 

Mark,

As I stated earlier, I do not have a website nor the knowledge on how to send a zipped file to it. Also, this is happening to all my 16 bit photos, not just one. If you want me to email a pic to you I will be glad to. BTW: These are photos saved in Photoshop CS3. Is there any reason to believe CS3 does not save 16bit .tif photos 'correctly'? My  photos are uncompressed.

As you go through these posts you can see I am not the only one having problem with 16 bit photos and others have tried to find whether Studio 12 supports them. I believe now Pinnacles should come out and state whether or not S12 supports 16 bit photos. If so, then apparently there is work to be done... if not then this should be public knowledge so others don't spend more money trying to get something working that is not supported.

Thanks, Barry

Barry,

I'm sorry to keep asking you this. But this will help us get a bug report going for this issue, should this turn out to be indeed an issue. Please provide me a random picture where you can replicate this issue on. Uploading it to this thread will require you to post it to a file hosting site like mediafire. It is still unconfirmed wether it is officially supported or not as I still could not get a simple answer for it. Perhaps a test from your pictures should do the trick and should put things in motion.