how long does it take to render hd at DVinfo.net

Adam Forgione · March 1st, 2008, 07:02 PM

im learning how long it takes to render hd footage. im curious how long it takes you to render a specified amount of timeline and what system your using.

the last i heard was 5 minutes took 12 hours, wow, im worried why am i in a rush to go hd?

also i just bought an ex1, is there a way around conforming in HD, i read (but didnt understand) something about using apple prores codec and it helps with conforming, is this true, how?
_________________
Thanks,
Adam Forgione
Pennylane Productions

Paul Kellett · March 1st, 2008, 10:07 PM

HD down to SD mpeg-2 takes me around 2,1/2 times.
HD to WMV takes around 4 times.
This is using vegas pro 8 on a quad core pc,4gb ram.
5mins-12 hours,no way.

Paul.

Jerome Cloninger · March 1st, 2008, 10:09 PM

I don't know exactly, but editing HDV and applying normal CC and levels adjustments I can render a 1 hour ceremony full 1080 with 3 camera angles I'm guessing in about 5-6 hours. My system is a Pentium 4 Dual Core 3.2 Ghz proc, 4 GB Ram (3.25 actually showing up in XP Pro) and Vegas 8b. All Sata II drives.... seperate drives for System, Capture, Render and Author.

5 minutes - 12 hours??? Where did you hear that?

Ervin Farkas · March 1st, 2008, 10:38 PM

It greatly depends on what you did with your footage on the timeline. If all you do is a few transitions, render should be real time or faster on a decent computer. But if you have applied heavy effects, it may take a lot!

Kevin Shaw · March 2nd, 2008, 07:27 AM

Rendering or conforming HD can take significantly longer than SD, but how much longer varies widely depending on what you're doing and how fast a computer you're using. On my dual-core computers using Edius "speed encoder" it takes ~2-3 minutes to render a minute of edited HD material to MPEG2-HD for putting on a Blu-ray disc, while rendering to WMV-HD can take much longer depending on the output resolution. I'm seeing similar speed results if I let Adobe CS3 do the final render on the same computers.

Damon Gaskin · March 2nd, 2008, 07:50 AM

I agree with what the others have said. It depends on the speed of your computer, that you did on the timeline and what your rendering to.

For me:
HD-SD avi-depending on effects load, 1/2 to 3/4 realtime.
HD-Mpeg SD-pretty 1/2 realtime for one pass depending on effects. For two pass realtime more or less once again depending on effects load.
H264 and flash from HDV-unfortunately 3-4X realtime, but most of the time around 3X but once again, depends on effect load and the preset for the export. Most of mine are set at NTSC 1024 widescreen.
HDV-WMV-approx 3/4 realtime, maybe a little less depending on effects and presets for one pass. Two pass approx 1.5-2.0 realtime.

My system is Q6600, 4GB Ram, Matrox RTX2(real reason for the speeds). The X2 really makes it easy working with HDV. Depending on if you choose pc or mac, that will determine the tools you can use. But I love the X2..

Adam Forgione · March 2nd, 2008, 08:17 AM

anyone else on mac, im trying to get a real picture with rendering/conforming hd and then exporting the hd (not to sd) on mac. im on a macbook pro 15 duo core 2.4 , 4 gigs ram, and just having 1 minute clip up and not touching it takes 10 minutes just to conform. there has to be a better way for mac, do you think?

Greg Cremer · April 29th, 2008, 07:09 AM

I'm an enthusiest, not a pro. I am using a quad core powermac g5 and final cut pro 6. I'm rendering my first HD video. I ran a test run on about 10 minutes to see how long it would take. I am rendering using compressor and the setting for putting up to 60 min of HD 1080i video on a standard DVD 5. This encodes to mpeg 1 with pcm stereo. There must be some heave encoding going on as my 10min video took about 4hrs to render. I have standard transitions, stills and some effects and color correction. I am rendering the intire 48min video as I type this. It's been rendering for 12hrs so far and compressor is saying it will be another 24hrs....and is counting up! I am surprised at how long it takes. Sounds like these pro's have the right idea with their matrox hardware. Too expensive for me though. Still, I can't wait to show the video to my friends. It's going to be in HDDVD format, but I'll make a copy in SD as well. Someday I'll move up to blu ray when the prices are more reasonable.

Kevin Shaw · April 29th, 2008, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Cremer

Sounds like these pro's have the right idea with their matrox hardware.

I don't think the current Matrox hardware helps with encoding finished videos for HD delivery; it merely reduces rendering requirements during the editing process itself. As far as Blu-ray is concerned, I've heard of people buying burners for under $200 and the blank discs are only a few bucks each, so the cost is already pretty reasonable for limited distribution projects. And because Blu-ray discs have so much more capacity you can use MPEG2 encoding instead of more compressed options like you're using now, hence reducing your rendering time dramatically. I can render and burn a Blu-ray disc in a few hours rather than a couple of days.

Damon Gaskin · April 29th, 2008, 08:21 AM

Kevin, you are incorrect in that assumption. The X2 actually does "both" and more. It accellerates the editing process and then also with your exports they are sped up also with the hardware. Honestly, some formats better than others, or should I say as I was told, it "catches" some formats and not others. Say h264 which even with the X2 is a slow process for me. What you said is really a common misconception about the cards and what they do. But you definately with them don't get "only one part of the process" with what you pay for.

And I am not a pro, I consider myself an enthusiast also. I have a good understanding of what the hardware and software does just because I don't like not knowing something that I am spending money on. But, I just personally hate exactly what your experiencing "rendering". It completely annoys me and always has(even when I did CAD), so I bought the Matrox hardware for that reason alone in the beginning. Yes, it is expensive, but I have made money to pay for itself and on top of that, this isn't my first Matrox card. You don't have to be a pro to use their equipment, just like everyone isn't a prof that uses Cineform, Avid, Final Cut, etc...

It just depends to be honest. Question though, why are you encoding to MPEG1 and pcm? You would "easily" be able to fit 60 minutes of MPEG2 with dolby(correct me if I am wrong, but encoding to dolby 2 channel these days is pretty standard isn't it?). Encoding to dolby instead of PCM would save you tons of space in itself. You should be able to do a 2 pass encode to MPEG2 downconverted to widescreen at a pretty decently high bitrate for one hour. I can't recall off the top of my head what the rate would be, but I am pretty sure it would be well over 4mbs?

With the converts down from HDV, I have found on my system and laptop, it depends on the format it is going to very much. For example with the numbers I posted, those were within premiere to those formats, but for my dvd's(SD downconverts), I most of the time export to a movie(SD widescreen) at a pretty high bitrate(between 50-100Mbs) and then bring it into Cinemacraft Basic encoder(very cheap and IMO very good encoder), and the transfer to MPEG2 is very fast at that point and the results are vastly superior to the AME. I then bring it into Encore and simply author the discs...

Voila! Good looking discs that when upconverted(I test the upconvert quality on or on standard discs looks great for my clients and friends...

Kevin Shaw · April 29th, 2008, 09:20 AM

I haven't seen any reports indicating that the Matrox cards can render HD-resolution output faster than CPU-based rendering, but they may help with SD output. It definitely takes longer to render H.264 than MPEG2-HD on all but the most expensive encoding setups: the cheapest real-time H.264 encoder I've found retails for several thousand dollars.

The reason to use MPEG2-HD (not MPEG1) for Blu-ray is to reduce the encoding time, which won't work on a standard DVD if you have more than a few minutes of content. At a high-quality HD data rate of 25 Mbps a standard (single layer) DVD will only hold 20 minutes or so of video, while a standard Blu-ray disc will hold about two hours. Once you have Blu-ray you don't need heavily compressed delivery formats, so you can eliminate the multi-day rendering times for H.264.

By the way, I know someone who bought the Matrox RT.X2 card and had nothing but trouble with it, while I'm sailing along editing HD content on my laptop. Hardware-based editing had its place a few years ago when computers weren't powerful enough to do the job well on their own, but those days are largely over. What we need now is HD rendering acceleration, not editing acceleration.

Damon Gaskin · April 29th, 2008, 01:01 PM

Ok here we go again... I am not going to dispute the card because honestly it speaks for itself. You were not the starter of this thread.. You have your "opinions and assumptions", I have two cards in two different machines and also a few years experience with matrox products. If your friend can't get his/hers going, I don't know what to say... Can be tons of reasons. Have them post something on the forums and if they can't help them there, have him/her post something here... If you haven't read up on the cards and their benefit, that is your thing. But all you have to do is go to the page and read a few lines on the benefits of the cards "yourself" and you would see that it indeed does say accelerated output to various formats. That is not speculation, that is in black and white and also by reviews done on the X2 in the past.

The guy posted to ask about times, not a debate on whether or not you know about matrox cards(which in all honesty, you really don't and are going off what someone else that doesn't know a thing about them or had a bad experience is saying, which I restate once again is typical). If you have no personal experience with the cards, then in all honesty, your blowing a bunch of nothingness..

I know all about the HD bitrates and yada yada... But he indicated he is encoding to MPEG1. That is according to everything I have seen and experienced, not a HD codec. I could be wrong and I learn something every day. He also indicated that he is putting 60 minutes on SD-DVD(follow the post) with the MPEG1 which is/was typically used for VCD's and SVCD's. He probably(and I am saying probably because there is soo much changing all the time in the industry and the like) would be better using MPEG-2 for his SD downconvert... And I still stand by that in respect to what he was saying in his particular sitation.

My response was mostly to him in the respect of the times and things of that nature and saying that "pro's" use the Matrox cards, not to start with you the typical "I hate matrox and hardware-vs- software stuff"...

And I ask, "rendering acceleration", what need is there of that if you don't have to render in the first place? Yes, I have CS3 and I chug along also with the little files, etc on my laptop when need be. But anytime I drop a cross dissolve, any time I add any effect, render city. With the machines with the cards in them, I drop a cross dissolve, I go on, I drop a color correction, do my tweeks, I go on with no render needed. Say I want to add a title, create it, add a ripple to it... What? No render needed.. That is the X2 "for me" and there is documentation that this is the case for many others. When I need to send out say that HD project to MPEG2, the results were what I posted before depending on effects. Know something about the cards before you speak on them...

And if I sound snip I am being so because I am tired of people saying "my friend's matrox doesn't work" so something is wrong with Matrox.... Or better yet, the editing is exactly the same and the cards are outdated... Maybe for you since you have no experience with them and don't know what they honestly can do, but that is just your lack of experience and maybe your friend did something wrong? Maybe if they bought a turnkey, were they a gold dealer? Other things need to be asked and pursued before just spouting "my friends matrox doesn't work and I am chugging along"...

Damon Gaskin · April 29th, 2008, 02:18 PM

Had a thought in the shower related to the original question. I decided I would take it as an opportunity to learn something about the mac workflow. I just did a quick skim of the fc forum and came upon something interesting. In one recent thread a guy was saying he was having a long encoding time but then switched to quicktime and his times dramatically decreased with a resulting high quality file. Here it is:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=120430

I then came across this thread that also mentioned converting to quicktime:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=119198

Both of them ended up with faster exports/conversions and I believe you said your using compressor so try what they are suggesting and maybe tweek your settings here and there. You should obtain good results as quicktime is pretty efficient.

Kevin Shaw · April 29th, 2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damon Gaskin

My response was mostly to him in the respect of the times and things of that nature and saying that "pro's" use the Matrox cards, not to start with you the typical "I hate matrox and hardware-vs- software stuff"...

Relax Damon, I'm not here to give Matrox a hard time - just trying to help clarify various HD encoding options. The original poster asked what's the fastest way to create HD resolution output on a Mac, and one answer to that is to use the MPEG2-HD format rather than H.264. It's easier to output MPEG2-HD than H.264 because the former is a less demanding codec, so it should render faster on any computer except one with a real-time H.264 encoder. I don't see any mention of such a feature on the Matrox web site for their MXO series products, so if it's there please feel free to point out exactly where it says that. And if anyone here can render H.264 output at HD resolution in anything close to real time, please post your system specifications so the rest of us can learn from that. By the way, I don't see any mention of MPEG1 in this discussion except in Damon's posts, so I'm not sure where that came from.

I can make a 90-minute Blu-ray disc in MPEG2-HD format in about five hours using Adobe Encore CS3 on a dual-core PC, so the same should hold true using the same software on a similar Mac. If you want to get away from multi-day encoding times for H.264-HD, use MPEG2-HD instead.

Damon Gaskin · April 29th, 2008, 04:52 PM

Here is part of his post:

"I am rendering using compressor and the setting for putting up to 60 min of HD 1080i video on a standard DVD 5. This encodes to mpeg 1 with pcm stereo".

That is where.

And no where did you mention in "Kevin's Posts" the MXO with the exception of the last. And if your speaking of mac only, why did you mention the RTX2 and your friend? You never mentioned the MXO2 or MXO "anywhere" prior to the last post.

Furthermore, the mxo does not do what the X2 series does at all as far as realtime timeline/editing performance. It is pretty much an I/O device with the exception of down rezzing the output for reviewing and recording to tape. Once again, even a difference from what you stated in the last post.

March 1st, 2008, 07:02 PM	#1
Adam Forgione Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New York Posts: 48	how long does it take to render hd im learning how long it takes to render hd footage. im curious how long it takes you to render a specified amount of timeline and what system your using. the last i heard was 5 minutes took 12 hours, wow, im worried why am i in a rush to go hd? also i just bought an ex1, is there a way around conforming in HD, i read (but didnt understand) something about using apple prores codec and it helps with conforming, is this true, how? _________________ Thanks, Adam Forgione Pennylane Productions

March 1st, 2008, 10:07 PM	#2
Paul Kellett Trustee Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Bristol UK Posts: 1,273	HD down to SD mpeg-2 takes me around 2,1/2 times. HD to WMV takes around 4 times. This is using vegas pro 8 on a quad core pc,4gb ram. 5mins-12 hours,no way. Paul. __________________ Round 2 GH5,FZ2000

March 1st, 2008, 10:09 PM	#3
Jerome Cloninger Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: East TN Posts: 415	I don't know exactly, but editing HDV and applying normal CC and levels adjustments I can render a 1 hour ceremony full 1080 with 3 camera angles I'm guessing in about 5-6 hours. My system is a Pentium 4 Dual Core 3.2 Ghz proc, 4 GB Ram (3.25 actually showing up in XP Pro) and Vegas 8b. All Sata II drives.... seperate drives for System, Capture, Render and Author. 5 minutes - 12 hours??? Where did you hear that? __________________ Jerome www.jeromecloninger.com

March 1st, 2008, 10:38 PM	#4
Ervin Farkas Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Atlanta/USA Posts: 2,515	No easy answer It greatly depends on what you did with your footage on the timeline. If all you do is a few transitions, render should be real time or faster on a decent computer. But if you have applied heavy effects, it may take a lot! __________________ Ervin Farkas www.AtlantaLegalVideo.com

April 29th, 2008, 07:09 AM	#8
Greg Cremer Tourist Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Nampa, Idaho Posts: 1	HD Render times I'm an enthusiest, not a pro. I am using a quad core powermac g5 and final cut pro 6. I'm rendering my first HD video. I ran a test run on about 10 minutes to see how long it would take. I am rendering using compressor and the setting for putting up to 60 min of HD 1080i video on a standard DVD 5. This encodes to mpeg 1 with pcm stereo. There must be some heave encoding going on as my 10min video took about 4hrs to render. I have standard transitions, stills and some effects and color correction. I am rendering the intire 48min video as I type this. It's been rendering for 12hrs so far and compressor is saying it will be another 24hrs....and is counting up! I am surprised at how long it takes. Sounds like these pro's have the right idea with their matrox hardware. Too expensive for me though. Still, I can't wait to show the video to my friends. It's going to be in HDDVD format, but I'll make a copy in SD as well. Someday I'll move up to blu ray when the prices are more reasonable.

March 2nd, 2008, 07:27 AM	#5
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	Rendering or conforming HD can take significantly longer than SD, but how much longer varies widely depending on what you're doing and how fast a computer you're using. On my dual-core computers using Edius "speed encoder" it takes ~2-3 minutes to render a minute of edited HD material to MPEG2-HD for putting on a Blu-ray disc, while rendering to WMV-HD can take much longer depending on the output resolution. I'm seeing similar speed results if I let Adobe CS3 do the final render on the same computers.

March 2nd, 2008, 07:50 AM	#6
Damon Gaskin Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Auburn Hills, USA Posts: 217	I agree with what the others have said. It depends on the speed of your computer, that you did on the timeline and what your rendering to. For me: HD-SD avi-depending on effects load, 1/2 to 3/4 realtime. HD-Mpeg SD-pretty 1/2 realtime for one pass depending on effects. For two pass realtime more or less once again depending on effects load. H264 and flash from HDV-unfortunately 3-4X realtime, but most of the time around 3X but once again, depends on effect load and the preset for the export. Most of mine are set at NTSC 1024 widescreen. HDV-WMV-approx 3/4 realtime, maybe a little less depending on effects and presets for one pass. Two pass approx 1.5-2.0 realtime. My system is Q6600, 4GB Ram, Matrox RTX2(real reason for the speeds). The X2 really makes it easy working with HDV. Depending on if you choose pc or mac, that will determine the tools you can use. But I love the X2..

March 2nd, 2008, 08:17 AM	#7
Adam Forgione Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New York Posts: 48	anyone else on mac, im trying to get a real picture with rendering/conforming hd and then exporting the hd (not to sd) on mac. im on a macbook pro 15 duo core 2.4 , 4 gigs ram, and just having 1 minute clip up and not touching it takes 10 minutes just to conform. there has to be a better way for mac, do you think?

April 29th, 2008, 08:21 AM	#10
Damon Gaskin Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Auburn Hills, USA Posts: 217	Kevin, you are incorrect in that assumption. The X2 actually does "both" and more. It accellerates the editing process and then also with your exports they are sped up also with the hardware. Honestly, some formats better than others, or should I say as I was told, it "catches" some formats and not others. Say h264 which even with the X2 is a slow process for me. What you said is really a common misconception about the cards and what they do. But you definately with them don't get "only one part of the process" with what you pay for. And I am not a pro, I consider myself an enthusiast also. I have a good understanding of what the hardware and software does just because I don't like not knowing something that I am spending money on. But, I just personally hate exactly what your experiencing "rendering". It completely annoys me and always has(even when I did CAD), so I bought the Matrox hardware for that reason alone in the beginning. Yes, it is expensive, but I have made money to pay for itself and on top of that, this isn't my first Matrox card. You don't have to be a pro to use their equipment, just like everyone isn't a prof that uses Cineform, Avid, Final Cut, etc... It just depends to be honest. Question though, why are you encoding to MPEG1 and pcm? You would "easily" be able to fit 60 minutes of MPEG2 with dolby(correct me if I am wrong, but encoding to dolby 2 channel these days is pretty standard isn't it?). Encoding to dolby instead of PCM would save you tons of space in itself. You should be able to do a 2 pass encode to MPEG2 downconverted to widescreen at a pretty decently high bitrate for one hour. I can't recall off the top of my head what the rate would be, but I am pretty sure it would be well over 4mbs? With the converts down from HDV, I have found on my system and laptop, it depends on the format it is going to very much. For example with the numbers I posted, those were within premiere to those formats, but for my dvd's(SD downconverts), I most of the time export to a movie(SD widescreen) at a pretty high bitrate(between 50-100Mbs) and then bring it into Cinemacraft Basic encoder(very cheap and IMO very good encoder), and the transfer to MPEG2 is very fast at that point and the results are vastly superior to the AME. I then bring it into Encore and simply author the discs... Voila! Good looking discs that when upconverted(I test the upconvert quality on or on standard discs looks great for my clients and friends...

April 29th, 2008, 09:20 AM	#11
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	I haven't seen any reports indicating that the Matrox cards can render HD-resolution output faster than CPU-based rendering, but they may help with SD output. It definitely takes longer to render H.264 than MPEG2-HD on all but the most expensive encoding setups: the cheapest real-time H.264 encoder I've found retails for several thousand dollars. The reason to use MPEG2-HD (not MPEG1) for Blu-ray is to reduce the encoding time, which won't work on a standard DVD if you have more than a few minutes of content. At a high-quality HD data rate of 25 Mbps a standard (single layer) DVD will only hold 20 minutes or so of video, while a standard Blu-ray disc will hold about two hours. Once you have Blu-ray you don't need heavily compressed delivery formats, so you can eliminate the multi-day rendering times for H.264. By the way, I know someone who bought the Matrox RT.X2 card and had nothing but trouble with it, while I'm sailing along editing HD content on my laptop. Hardware-based editing had its place a few years ago when computers weren't powerful enough to do the job well on their own, but those days are largely over. What we need now is HD rendering acceleration, not editing acceleration.

April 29th, 2008, 01:01 PM	#12
Damon Gaskin Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Auburn Hills, USA Posts: 217	Ok here we go again... I am not going to dispute the card because honestly it speaks for itself. You were not the starter of this thread.. You have your "opinions and assumptions", I have two cards in two different machines and also a few years experience with matrox products. If your friend can't get his/hers going, I don't know what to say... Can be tons of reasons. Have them post something on the forums and if they can't help them there, have him/her post something here... If you haven't read up on the cards and their benefit, that is your thing. But all you have to do is go to the page and read a few lines on the benefits of the cards "yourself" and you would see that it indeed does say accelerated output to various formats. That is not speculation, that is in black and white and also by reviews done on the X2 in the past. The guy posted to ask about times, not a debate on whether or not you know about matrox cards(which in all honesty, you really don't and are going off what someone else that doesn't know a thing about them or had a bad experience is saying, which I restate once again is typical). If you have no personal experience with the cards, then in all honesty, your blowing a bunch of nothingness.. I know all about the HD bitrates and yada yada... But he indicated he is encoding to MPEG1. That is according to everything I have seen and experienced, not a HD codec. I could be wrong and I learn something every day. He also indicated that he is putting 60 minutes on SD-DVD(follow the post) with the MPEG1 which is/was typically used for VCD's and SVCD's. He probably(and I am saying probably because there is soo much changing all the time in the industry and the like) would be better using MPEG-2 for his SD downconvert... And I still stand by that in respect to what he was saying in his particular sitation. My response was mostly to him in the respect of the times and things of that nature and saying that "pro's" use the Matrox cards, not to start with you the typical "I hate matrox and hardware-vs- software stuff"... And I ask, "rendering acceleration", what need is there of that if you don't have to render in the first place? Yes, I have CS3 and I chug along also with the little files, etc on my laptop when need be. But anytime I drop a cross dissolve, any time I add any effect, render city. With the machines with the cards in them, I drop a cross dissolve, I go on, I drop a color correction, do my tweeks, I go on with no render needed. Say I want to add a title, create it, add a ripple to it... What? No render needed.. That is the X2 "for me" and there is documentation that this is the case for many others. When I need to send out say that HD project to MPEG2, the results were what I posted before depending on effects. Know something about the cards before you speak on them... And if I sound snip I am being so because I am tired of people saying "my friend's matrox doesn't work" so something is wrong with Matrox.... Or better yet, the editing is exactly the same and the cards are outdated... Maybe for you since you have no experience with them and don't know what they honestly can do, but that is just your lack of experience and maybe your friend did something wrong? Maybe if they bought a turnkey, were they a gold dealer? Other things need to be asked and pursued before just spouting "my friends matrox doesn't work and I am chugging along"...

April 29th, 2008, 02:18 PM	#13
Damon Gaskin Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Auburn Hills, USA Posts: 217	Had a thought in the shower related to the original question. I decided I would take it as an opportunity to learn something about the mac workflow. I just did a quick skim of the fc forum and came upon something interesting. In one recent thread a guy was saying he was having a long encoding time but then switched to quicktime and his times dramatically decreased with a resulting high quality file. Here it is: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=120430 I then came across this thread that also mentioned converting to quicktime: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=119198 Both of them ended up with faster exports/conversions and I believe you said your using compressor so try what they are suggesting and maybe tweek your settings here and there. You should obtain good results as quicktime is pretty efficient.

April 29th, 2008, 04:52 PM	#15
Damon Gaskin Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Auburn Hills, USA Posts: 217	Here is part of his post: "I am rendering using compressor and the setting for putting up to 60 min of HD 1080i video on a standard DVD 5. This encodes to mpeg 1 with pcm stereo". That is where. And no where did you mention in "Kevin's Posts" the MXO with the exception of the last. And if your speaking of mac only, why did you mention the RTX2 and your friend? You never mentioned the MXO2 or MXO "anywhere" prior to the last post. Furthermore, the mxo does not do what the X2 series does at all as far as realtime timeline/editing performance. It is pretty much an I/O device with the exception of down rezzing the output for reviewing and recording to tape. Once again, even a difference from what you stated in the last post.