Bo Sundvall
October 11th, 2007, 03:16 AM
Hi
Just done some tests with my XH-A1 and Premiere Pro 2 and have some questions about render times. My system is a 3.4GHz Pentium with 1GB RAM and I can capture (prefer HDVSplit), edit, render and output to cam with no problem. Tested with (PAL) 50i and 25F 15min video and everything works absolutely perfect. The question I have is about render times:
These are render times for just straight clips, no CC or transitions at all:
- If I chose to render to a new mt2 file, 5 minutes of video takes about 22 minutes to render.
- If I chose to output to the camera, 15 minutes of video takes about 50 minutes "Transcoding to HDV".
I can live with long render times as long as I know that it's normal and not depending on something I've done wrong. Is it Premiere that is slow? I've done some short tests with Vegas and my first impression is that Vegas makes it faster. The problem is that I don't want to use Vegas as I'm much more familiar with Premiere.
In my world of digital files, a render to a new mt2 file would just be to copy the 0:s and 1:s to a new file (as long as there are no CC or transitions involved), which would go a lot faster than the above figures. Or is the render time depending on some kind of recompressing of the captured mt2-file? If that's the case, does this mean that there are quality degrading for every render generation?
Hope for answers!
Kind regards,
/Bo
Just done some tests with my XH-A1 and Premiere Pro 2 and have some questions about render times. My system is a 3.4GHz Pentium with 1GB RAM and I can capture (prefer HDVSplit), edit, render and output to cam with no problem. Tested with (PAL) 50i and 25F 15min video and everything works absolutely perfect. The question I have is about render times:
These are render times for just straight clips, no CC or transitions at all:
- If I chose to render to a new mt2 file, 5 minutes of video takes about 22 minutes to render.
- If I chose to output to the camera, 15 minutes of video takes about 50 minutes "Transcoding to HDV".
I can live with long render times as long as I know that it's normal and not depending on something I've done wrong. Is it Premiere that is slow? I've done some short tests with Vegas and my first impression is that Vegas makes it faster. The problem is that I don't want to use Vegas as I'm much more familiar with Premiere.
In my world of digital files, a render to a new mt2 file would just be to copy the 0:s and 1:s to a new file (as long as there are no CC or transitions involved), which would go a lot faster than the above figures. Or is the render time depending on some kind of recompressing of the captured mt2-file? If that's the case, does this mean that there are quality degrading for every render generation?
Hope for answers!
Kind regards,
/Bo