Vegas Render Time With 3D movements at DVinfo.net

Jason Robinson · July 18th, 2008, 02:35 PM

I know I've complained about it before, but it seems like Vegas really cannot handle lots of media files and 3D movement. Even if those media files are still photos. Check out the attached veggie. I adapted & extended it from someone that posted this to DVInfo (or somewhere else, I cannot remember).

I kicked off this render and two hours later, Vegas was still only 30% complete. The hardware is a Core 2 Duo 6300 @ 1.8GHz with 2GB RAM and nothing else running.

Am I taxing Vegas too much with all this movement & media files, do I need to "step up to AE" (not a chance I can afford to pay for it and learn a new app) or is Vegas just not suited for this?

I eventually solved my problem by bumping the render quality for video down from Best to Good. That only took 1 hr to render instead of a calculated 12hrs.

Jack Zhang · July 18th, 2008, 03:20 PM

Best Quality uses Anti-Aliasing and would theoretically take a lot more time to render. Good Quality does not perform Anti-Aliasing, resulting in "jaggies" for higher resolution sources. It's also why video games can render in real-time what would take render hours on render farms to smoothen up.

Jason Robinson · July 18th, 2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

Best Quality uses Anti-Aliasing and would theoretically take a lot more time to render. Good Quality does not perform Anti-Aliasing, resulting in "jaggies" for higher resolution sources. It's also why video games can render in real-time what would take render hours on render farms to smoothen up.

OK.... so AA isn't performed on Good quality. That would completely make sense.

Common Sony! Get with the program and supply hardware assisted rendering! At least tie in to the ActiveX protocol to use those beefy GPUs!!!!

Dan Crandall · July 19th, 2008, 02:14 PM

Jason,

I don't think you're taxing Vegas too much .... I think that your computer is being taxed too much and maybe it's time for you to upgrade your hardware. You didn't specify what format you were rendering to but I downloaded your ".veg" file and added my own hi-res photos. I then chose the "Blu-ray 1920x1080 60i 25mbs" template and I upped the quality slider from 15 to 31 and made sure it was using "Best" quality. It took my computer less than 11 minutes to render the file. (It took less than 3 minutes to render a DVDA compatible MPG2 file)
My Computer: Intel Q9450 Quad Core Processor with 4GB DDR3 Memory running Vista32.

Jason Robinson · July 19th, 2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Crandall

Jason,

I don't think you're taxing Vegas too much .... I think that your computer is being taxed too much and maybe it's time for you to upgrade your hardware. You didn't specify what format you were rendering to but I downloaded your ".veg" file and added my own hi-res photos. I then chose the "Blu-ray 1920x1080 60i 25mbs" template and I upped the quality slider from 15 to 31 and made sure it was using "Best" quality. It took my computer less than 11 minutes to render the file. (It took less than 3 minutes to render a DVDA compatible MPG2 file)
My Computer: Intel Q9450 Quad Core Processor with 4GB DDR3 Memory running Vista32.

well look who is mist fancy pants with the Quad core. ;-)

Yeah, I know the system was a bit slow. First off it was a Core 2 Duo with no RAID drives (though for stills that should not matter). I have been eyeing a Q6600, but "no tengo dinero."

Jeff Harper · July 19th, 2008, 07:25 PM

Vegas doesn't use hardware assisted rendering, what is there to blame Sony for? Your using an older slower processor, with only 2GB RAM and rendering at Best setting and your upset because Vegas can't keep up? If you need a different program try Premier. Your present PC would operate even worse.

Don't blame Vegas because your processor is 1.83 Ghz.

I apologize for coming off a bit harsh. I don't like to defend a product, I also want to make sure newbies (not you but those who are looking for information about Vegas or who are brand new to it) understand how Vegas works, and that it does what it does do well. Vegas is processor dependent and instead of depending on expensive add-on cards it simply asks for the best processor you can get in order to get best performance. For those of us who cannot afford faster processors, that is unfortunate, but even with the older processors Vegas performs pretty well, especially when you compare system requirements of other NLEs.

Some people actually like that Vegas doesn't require the additional hardware. If Vegas could simply add that capability, I agree Jason, it would be nice as an optional add-on.

On the other hand, for around $600 anyone can buy a Q6600 based PC, which is not that much more than the cost of an add-on card. Granted it wouldn't be the best, but a Quad Core processor is still a giant leap forward.

Jason Robinson · July 19th, 2008, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Vegas doesn't use hardware assisted rendering, what is there to blame Sony for? Your using an older slower processor, with only 2GB RAM and rendering at Best setting and your upset because Vegas can't keep up? If you need a different program try Premier. Your present PC would operate even worse.

Don't blame Vegas because your processor is 1.83 Ghz.

I apologize for coming off a bit harsh. I don't like to defend a product, I also want to make sure newbies (not you but those who are looking for information about Vegas or who are brand new to it) understand how Vegas works, and that it does what it does do well. Vegas is processor dependent and instead of depending on expensive add-on cards it simply asks for the best processor you can get in order to get best performance. For those of us who cannot afford faster processors, that is unfortunate, but even with the older processors Vegas performs pretty well, especially when you compare system requirements of other NLEs.

Some people actually like that Vegas doesn't require the additional hardware. If Vegas could simply add that capability, I agree Jason, it would be nice as an optional add-on.

On the other hand, for around $600 anyone can buy a Q6600 based PC, which is not that much more than the cost of an add-on card. Granted it wouldn't be the best, but a Quad Core processor is still a giant leap forward.

Ok, guilty as charged for having a whiner moment. :-) I'm quite aware of Vegas's shortcoming (or strength) regarding hardware independence. Of course I think that most multinational companies with software divisions should be capable of writing a simple interface for ActiveX (which is on all windows computers) to pull in some helping hands from the GPU. And it wouldn't take a $200 PXI-X graphics card to do hardware ActiveX. Heck, some onboard graphics chips have hardware units for FPops.

Any way, Yes I suppose "only" running a Core 2 Duo @ 1.8Gh is more to blame, but look at it this way.... at least I didn't mention that my main edit station is still my P4HT 3GHz Alienware mobile system. Rendering on that would be painful compared to the Core 2 Duo (which is half the reason I built it).

As a side not I usually have 1GB of free, unaddressed memory on my render system (the one I mentioned above). The ONLY way I have found for Vegas to use more ram is when I have two instances open at once, otherwise, having more than 2GB of RAM is wasted on Vegas. May be that is different in 64bit land, but waaaaay back here in 32bit OS land, it doesn't seem to help to have that much extra ram just sitting there.

Fortunately for me, my edit demands have rarely moved beyond what the P4HT system can do.

To bring this thread back to the reason for my post, I was fishing for why the best quality seemed to be taking a much longer time that I expected, and true to DVInfo's reputation, someone knew the answer. Thanks again Ya'll.

Jason Robinson · July 19th, 2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Crandall

Jason,

I don't think you're taxing Vegas too much .... I think that your computer is being taxed too much and maybe it's time for you to upgrade your hardware. You didn't specify what format you were rendering to but I downloaded your ".veg" file and added my own hi-res photos. I then chose the "Blu-ray 1920x1080 60i 25mbs" template and I upped the quality slider from 15 to 31 and made sure it was using "Best" quality. It took my computer less than 11 minutes to render the file. (It took less than 3 minutes to render a DVDA compatible MPG2 file)
My Computer: Intel Q9450 Quad Core Processor with 4GB DDR3 Memory running Vista32.

as a side note, how are you liking Vista 32bit for Vegas? I avoided touching an OEM system precisely because I heard of problem editing on NLEs in Vista. Have you found this to be the case?

Dan Crandall · July 20th, 2008, 06:56 AM

Jason,

I've been using Vista since early last year and I have no problems with it. I don't have any legacy applications that I need to run and I've disabled the annoying "User Account Control". I wouldn't advise anyone to upgrade to Vista as there are few advantages over Windows XP. However, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a computer with Vista already installed. (keep in mind that you may have to upgrade any pre-Vista software to run on it.)

July 19th, 2008, 02:14 PM	#4
Dan Crandall New Boot Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 13	Jason, I don't think you're taxing Vegas too much .... I think that your computer is being taxed too much and maybe it's time for you to upgrade your hardware. You didn't specify what format you were rendering to but I downloaded your ".veg" file and added my own hi-res photos. I then chose the "Blu-ray 1920x1080 60i 25mbs" template and I upped the quality slider from 15 to 31 and made sure it was using "Best" quality. It took my computer less than 11 minutes to render the file. (It took less than 3 minutes to render a DVDA compatible MPG2 file) My Computer: Intel Q9450 Quad Core Processor with 4GB DDR3 Memory running Vista32. __________________ -Dan

July 20th, 2008, 06:56 AM	#9
Dan Crandall New Boot Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 13	Jason, I've been using Vista since early last year and I have no problems with it. I don't have any legacy applications that I need to run and I've disabled the annoying "User Account Control". I wouldn't advise anyone to upgrade to Vista as there are few advantages over Windows XP. However, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a computer with Vista already installed. (keep in mind that you may have to upgrade any pre-Vista software to run on it.) __________________ -Dan

July 18th, 2008, 03:20 PM	#2
Jack Zhang Inner Circle Join Date: May 2005 Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada Posts: 3,053	Best Quality uses Anti-Aliasing and would theoretically take a lot more time to render. Good Quality does not perform Anti-Aliasing, resulting in "jaggies" for higher resolution sources. It's also why video games can render in real-time what would take render hours on render farms to smoothen up.

July 19th, 2008, 07:25 PM	#6
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Vegas doesn't use hardware assisted rendering, what is there to blame Sony for? Your using an older slower processor, with only 2GB RAM and rendering at Best setting and your upset because Vegas can't keep up? If you need a different program try Premier. Your present PC would operate even worse. Don't blame Vegas because your processor is 1.83 Ghz. I apologize for coming off a bit harsh. I don't like to defend a product, I also want to make sure newbies (not you but those who are looking for information about Vegas or who are brand new to it) understand how Vegas works, and that it does what it does do well. Vegas is processor dependent and instead of depending on expensive add-on cards it simply asks for the best processor you can get in order to get best performance. For those of us who cannot afford faster processors, that is unfortunate, but even with the older processors Vegas performs pretty well, especially when you compare system requirements of other NLEs. Some people actually like that Vegas doesn't require the additional hardware. If Vegas could simply add that capability, I agree Jason, it would be nice as an optional add-on. On the other hand, for around $600 anyone can buy a Q6600 based PC, which is not that much more than the cost of an add-on card. Granted it wouldn't be the best, but a Quad Core processor is still a giant leap forward.