Is this a world record?! at DVinfo.net

Sean Walsh · October 10th, 2007, 04:31 PM

I was outputting a short film a month or so ago, and nearly fell off my chair when I saw the render time left that PPro2 was suggesting!
By the time I'd pulled out my stills camera to grab a shot - the numbers had plunged to a mere 363 hours!
I know my system is old, but surely it can't be that sloooooooow!

Alex Sprinkle · October 10th, 2007, 09:34 PM

I was editing something on an old mac at the church, and I hit apple-r. I'm thinking the render time will be no more than an hour (it was a lot to render) ... I saw the number from across the room... "14 hours?" I thought. "That's too much!" Much to my surprise, I was wrong. My vision is bad, and it said, "About 14 DAYS!" DAYS! It was measuring in calendar days!! That's a half of a month!

The next day I convinced the church to buy a new computer

Peter Ferling · October 10th, 2007, 10:12 PM

Much of this has to do with encountering tough spots in your timeline, those with many layers or heavy in effects, where the rendering practically grinds to a halt as the FX stack for each frame is processed. As soon as the render hits plain video or the easy stuff, the render speed picks up and the time is dynamically updated and it can be a huge difference.

If you have short spans of FX and the majority is straight cuts and video. You can simply test render a ten second spot of the average stuff and see how long it took to render. Then do the math based on the entire length of the piece for a better proximation. Then you'll know if it's a few hours vs. overnight.

Carlos Rodriguez · October 11th, 2007, 03:14 PM

the bottleneck effect.

October 10th, 2007, 04:31 PM	#1
Sean Walsh Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: London, Milton Keynes, Bedford UK & Beijing, China Posts: 102	Is this a world record?! I was outputting a short film a month or so ago, and nearly fell off my chair when I saw the render time left that PPro2 was suggesting! By the time I'd pulled out my stills camera to grab a shot - the numbers had plunged to a mere 363 hours! I know my system is old, but surely it can't be that sloooooooow! Attached Thumbnails __________________ Sean Walsh http://www.visionworkstv.co.uk PPro, Z1, EX3 - Currently in Beijing at CCTV-News

October 10th, 2007, 09:34 PM	#2
Alex Sprinkle Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Moore, Oklahoma Posts: 408	i understand I was editing something on an old mac at the church, and I hit apple-r. I'm thinking the render time will be no more than an hour (it was a lot to render) ... I saw the number from across the room... "14 hours?" I thought. "That's too much!" Much to my surprise, I was wrong. My vision is bad, and it said, "About 14 DAYS!" DAYS! It was measuring in calendar days!! That's a half of a month! The next day I convinced the church to buy a new computer

October 10th, 2007, 10:12 PM	#3
Peter Ferling Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Wyomissing, PA Posts: 1,141 Images: 57	Much of this has to do with encountering tough spots in your timeline, those with many layers or heavy in effects, where the rendering practically grinds to a halt as the FX stack for each frame is processed. As soon as the render hits plain video or the easy stuff, the render speed picks up and the time is dynamically updated and it can be a huge difference. If you have short spans of FX and the majority is straight cuts and video. You can simply test render a ten second spot of the average stuff and see how long it took to render. Then do the math based on the entire length of the piece for a better proximation. Then you'll know if it's a few hours vs. overnight. __________________ Pete Ferling http://ferling.net It's never a mistake if you learn something new from it. -------------------------------------------

October 11th, 2007, 03:14 PM	#4
Carlos Rodriguez Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Modesto, California Posts: 206	the bottleneck effect.