VERY Slow Render to Cineform at DVinfo.net

Brad Ridgeway · August 5th, 2011, 06:25 AM

I am currently working on a wedding video which is only the second project I have ever done. The first was a Dance Recital which turned out really well. I am trying to follow the same work flow on this current project as I did on the first, but I am finding that my rendering times out of Vegas are way too long this time around.

For the recital DVDs, I rendered out of Vegas to Cineform AVI (YUV 4:2:2 High) and it took about 8 hours to render a little over 2 hours of 1920x1080 video. This wedding video is only 1 hour long and after 8 hours of rendering with the same settings, the render was only at 15%. I tried changing to Medium setting with the same result. The only thing I can think of is that my trial version of Cineform has expired, but I still have the option of rendering to Cineform out of Vegas, and it appears to work only really slowly. Maybe I'll try Lagarith.

I have also seen on several posts that Vegas Pro 10 does a pretty good job of converting HD to SD so I also tried that, but I had a lot of jerky movement in the final video after rendering to a DVDA preset, authoring, and then burning a DVD. For those of you who do use Vegas to convert HD to SD for use in DVDA, what Templates and render settings do you use?

Chris Harding · August 5th, 2011, 08:21 AM

Hi Brad

Render speed depends on your processor speed of course but I used to transcode AVCHD to CanopusHQ and it was pretty quick even on my DuoCore 2.2Ghz machine.

Now, you haven't said what your camera files actually are which would help a lot but Vegas 10 does a pretty good job of rendering out to MPEG2 ready for DVD authoring if you firstly match the raw files in Project Properties and set render quality to best. If it's HD interlaced then set the de-interlacing to interpolate and the simply render out to MainConcept MPEG2 and use (in your case) an NTSC DVD template. If you are shooting progressive then leave the de-interlace settings to "none"

Before we go into anything complex I think specific details of your computer and the camera files would be essential first!!

Chris

Brad Ridgeway · August 5th, 2011, 08:43 AM

Source files are Sony AVCHD (m2ts) 1920x1080 60i (17Mbps).

I am currently running Windows XP, AMD Phenom II X4 920 processor on an ASUS M3N78 Pro motherboard (video is on-board), 4gb RAM (max for XP), 250gb system drive, 500gb secondary drive.

PC should not be a problem because I have already completed a major project with no issues using the same type of source files. First project was a 2-disc DVD set of a dance recital with 2hr 20min on disc1 and 2hr 10min on disc2. Work flow for that project included render out of Vegas to Cineform AVI, TMPGenc to convert HD to SD, and then author and burn with DVD Architect. No issues and very good quality on both DVDs.

I tired using the same workflow for this 1hr wedding DVD, but the render out of Vegas to Cineform AVI is way too slow this time around (not sure why - could be that my Cineform trial has expired), so I am looking for alternatives.

Phil Lee · August 5th, 2011, 09:20 AM

Hi

I suspect it might be an issue with the trial having expired. Try going to Lagarith or Sony YUV codecs.

Regards

Phil

Chris Barcellos · August 5th, 2011, 10:59 AM

First of all, if your Cineform trial is done, you wouldn't be able to transcode.

However, Cineform does have a free version encoder that is meant for the GOPro camera, but also works with other media. Check it out here:

CineForm Studio: Software Download

Not sure what your machine issue are, but seems way long- even your first project. But then again if you are putting a lot of filters on, or doing a lot of compositing or color correction, I guess it could run long. I know that using various Movie Look packages can make render times unbearable. On occasion, I have had renders lock up, with no real progress, and just had to stop, exit, and start over. Could be a memory issue.

Leslie Wand · August 5th, 2011, 05:38 PM

why are you transcoding in the first place?

sony .mxf is simple and very good for one / tw0 generations.

Brad Ridgeway · August 5th, 2011, 06:10 PM

Leslie... Not sure what you are asking about my transcoding or what you are saying about .mxf. I am simply trying to convert HD to SD by following a proven workflow that I have learned on this forum which involves rendering out of Vegas to a Cineform AVI and then using that in TMPGenc to downsize to SD format before authoring and burning.

Problem is now solved...

The Cineform issue may very well have been the fact that my trial had expired. I completely removed the trial Cineform from my system and then installed Cineform Studio as suggested by Chris and all seems well now. I haven't done the complete intermediate render yet because I typically do that overnight, but I did start one and it is very obviously rendering much faster that it was previously.

Chris Harding · August 5th, 2011, 06:57 PM

Hi Brad

I would give a direct render a try...Vegas 10 does a lot better job than the earlier versions...it seems a painful exercise having to render to Cineform and the downsize in TMPGenc ...just render directly out in Vegas ...one simple operation!

Chris

Brad Ridgeway · August 5th, 2011, 07:15 PM

Chris...

Actually, that's exactly how I wanted to do this project and in fact what I did. However, when played back through two different DVD players, the video appeared to be doing a lot of skipping. Not sure how to describe exactly what I am seeing, but I definitely was not pleased with it. The issues could be a result of my render settings in Vegas because I'm not 100% sure exactly what the settings should be to output to SD for authoring in DVD Architect. My fallback was to use the workflow that I used for my first project since I knew it worked.

Leslie Wand · August 5th, 2011, 08:13 PM

a. unless you're going to be doing any MAJOR fx / cc'ing then using an intermediary (cineform, or even mxf) is a pointless exercise. (the only other caveat being if you have a pc that can't handle avchd / other format on the tl smoothly).

b. when i have ANY 'odd' file format i simply transcode to .mxf rather than stress vegas.

c. my workflow is simple - match project settings to source (in my case hdv) > bang buttons till i'm happy with edit > render from tl to whatever.

i have absolutely no problem going from hd to sd WITHIN vegas - mind you, i gather pal is much more scale friendly.

ymmv

Chris Harding · August 5th, 2011, 08:43 PM

Hi Brad

I see you shot in 60i so you have interlaced footage...it's pretty much critical to firstly set project properties to the correct media settings..(right top corner has the browse icon) ...it's also important to let Vegas de-interlace using interpolate and set render to best.

Try just a few mintes of footage on the timeline and render out to an MPEG2 and then you can make a test DVD and see the results.

As Leslie says, if the AVCHD footage plays smoothly in preview and you don't have piles of FX then there is really no reason to transcode!!

Chris

Larry Reavis · August 9th, 2011, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Hi Brad

As Leslie says, if the AVCHD footage plays smoothly in preview and you don't have piles of FX then there is really no reason to transcode!!

Chris

Perhaps; but several years ago I compared the DVDs produced by transcoding to Cineform and then creating the DVD in TMPGenc, and the resulting image quality was superior to that produced by Vegas/DVDarchitect. You might want to test to see if that still is true (I always use TMPGenc myself).

Chris Harding · August 9th, 2011, 07:49 PM

Hi Larry

Vegas Pro 10 has got completely new algorithms and the end result means that you don't need to go thru 3 or 4 painful processes to get decent HD - SD ... The improvement between rendering in Version 9 and Version 10 is HUGE!!!

Chris

Phil Lee · August 10th, 2011, 12:05 AM

Hi

I just want to say I still find the output to SD from Sony Vegas 10 to be pretty horrible, so I can't imagine what it looked like in 9 or older then!

Better if you go via DVD Architech as that appears to use the resizing provided by MainConcept SDK, which applies lost of filtering so you get few interlacing nasties but hardly much detail either.

Regards

Phil

Chris Harding · August 10th, 2011, 02:46 AM

Hi Phil

If I pop a clip onto the timeline shot at 720 50P and add the sharpen plugin plus reduce interlace flicker and then render to MPEG2 using the DVD PAL widescreen preset, the resulting file (brought back into Vegas again, purely for preview purposes looks pretty good to me...OK the res does soften a bit when compared to the original MTS file but I thought it did a fairly good conversion !!

I think we all tend to get "over-technical" when producing an SD DVD from HD!! It's tough to watch a 1920x1080 image on a 23" monitor whilst editing and then see it downsized to (in my case) 720x576 but the average viewer isn't really going to tell the difference at all!! They are looking at the content not image sharpness.

About a year ago I took a single AVCHD clip and rendered it directly to MPEG2 as well as transcoding to Cineform, HDV, SD AVI and HQAVI (Canopus) and then rendering each to MPEG2. The SD AVI was definately the "softest" but after showing a variety of non technical people the clip none could say with absolute confidence that one was superior to the other.

I shoot around 30 weddings a year and even brides who had their wedding shot in SD never complained about resolution..in fact a short survey on our local wedding forum had a few brides say "I really can't see the difference but hubby swears blind that HD is better"

Maybe us editors are just over-critical about the end result???

Chris

August 5th, 2011, 06:25 AM	#1
Brad Ridgeway Regular Crew Join Date: May 2011 Location: Warren, Ohio Posts: 108	VERY Slow Render to Cineform I am currently working on a wedding video which is only the second project I have ever done. The first was a Dance Recital which turned out really well. I am trying to follow the same work flow on this current project as I did on the first, but I am finding that my rendering times out of Vegas are way too long this time around. For the recital DVDs, I rendered out of Vegas to Cineform AVI (YUV 4:2:2 High) and it took about 8 hours to render a little over 2 hours of 1920x1080 video. This wedding video is only 1 hour long and after 8 hours of rendering with the same settings, the render was only at 15%. I tried changing to Medium setting with the same result. The only thing I can think of is that my trial version of Cineform has expired, but I still have the option of rendering to Cineform out of Vegas, and it appears to work only really slowly. Maybe I'll try Lagarith. I have also seen on several posts that Vegas Pro 10 does a pretty good job of converting HD to SD so I also tried that, but I had a lot of jerky movement in the final video after rendering to a DVDA preset, authoring, and then burning a DVD. For those of you who do use Vegas to convert HD to SD for use in DVDA, what Templates and render settings do you use?

August 5th, 2011, 08:21 AM	#2
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: VERY Slow Render to Cineform Hi Brad Render speed depends on your processor speed of course but I used to transcode AVCHD to CanopusHQ and it was pretty quick even on my DuoCore 2.2Ghz machine. Now, you haven't said what your camera files actually are which would help a lot but Vegas 10 does a pretty good job of rendering out to MPEG2 ready for DVD authoring if you firstly match the raw files in Project Properties and set render quality to best. If it's HD interlaced then set the de-interlacing to interpolate and the simply render out to MainConcept MPEG2 and use (in your case) an NTSC DVD template. If you are shooting progressive then leave the de-interlace settings to "none" Before we go into anything complex I think specific details of your computer and the camera files would be essential first!! Chris

August 5th, 2011, 08:43 AM	#3
Brad Ridgeway Regular Crew Join Date: May 2011 Location: Warren, Ohio Posts: 108	Re: VERY Slow Render to Cineform Source files are Sony AVCHD (m2ts) 1920x1080 60i (17Mbps). I am currently running Windows XP, AMD Phenom II X4 920 processor on an ASUS M3N78 Pro motherboard (video is on-board), 4gb RAM (max for XP), 250gb system drive, 500gb secondary drive. PC should not be a problem because I have already completed a major project with no issues using the same type of source files. First project was a 2-disc DVD set of a dance recital with 2hr 20min on disc1 and 2hr 10min on disc2. Work flow for that project included render out of Vegas to Cineform AVI, TMPGenc to convert HD to SD, and then author and burn with DVD Architect. No issues and very good quality on both DVDs. I tired using the same workflow for this 1hr wedding DVD, but the render out of Vegas to Cineform AVI is way too slow this time around (not sure why - could be that my Cineform trial has expired), so I am looking for alternatives.

August 5th, 2011, 09:20 AM	#4
Phil Lee Major Player Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: London Posts: 302	Re: VERY Slow Render to Cineform Hi I suspect it might be an issue with the trial having expired. Try going to Lagarith or Sony YUV codecs. Regards Phil

August 5th, 2011, 10:59 AM	#5
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Re: VERY Slow Render to Cineform First of all, if your Cineform trial is done, you wouldn't be able to transcode. However, Cineform does have a free version encoder that is meant for the GOPro camera, but also works with other media. Check it out here: CineForm Studio: Software Download Not sure what your machine issue are, but seems way long- even your first project. But then again if you are putting a lot of filters on, or doing a lot of compositing or color correction, I guess it could run long. I know that using various Movie Look packages can make render times unbearable. On occasion, I have had renders lock up, with no real progress, and just had to stop, exit, and start over. Could be a memory issue. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

August 5th, 2011, 05:38 PM	#6
Leslie Wand Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: upper hunter, australia Posts: 1,410	Re: VERY Slow Render to Cineform why are you transcoding in the first place? sony .mxf is simple and very good for one / tw0 generations. __________________ www.lesliewand.com.au

August 5th, 2011, 06:10 PM	#7
Brad Ridgeway Regular Crew Join Date: May 2011 Location: Warren, Ohio Posts: 108	Re: VERY Slow Render to Cineform Leslie... Not sure what you are asking about my transcoding or what you are saying about .mxf. I am simply trying to convert HD to SD by following a proven workflow that I have learned on this forum which involves rendering out of Vegas to a Cineform AVI and then using that in TMPGenc to downsize to SD format before authoring and burning. Problem is now solved... The Cineform issue may very well have been the fact that my trial had expired. I completely removed the trial Cineform from my system and then installed Cineform Studio as suggested by Chris and all seems well now. I haven't done the complete intermediate render yet because I typically do that overnight, but I did start one and it is very obviously rendering much faster that it was previously.

August 5th, 2011, 06:57 PM	#8
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: VERY Slow Render to Cineform Hi Brad I would give a direct render a try...Vegas 10 does a lot better job than the earlier versions...it seems a painful exercise having to render to Cineform and the downsize in TMPGenc ...just render directly out in Vegas ...one simple operation! Chris

August 5th, 2011, 07:15 PM	#9
Brad Ridgeway Regular Crew Join Date: May 2011 Location: Warren, Ohio Posts: 108	Re: VERY Slow Render to Cineform Chris... Actually, that's exactly how I wanted to do this project and in fact what I did. However, when played back through two different DVD players, the video appeared to be doing a lot of skipping. Not sure how to describe exactly what I am seeing, but I definitely was not pleased with it. The issues could be a result of my render settings in Vegas because I'm not 100% sure exactly what the settings should be to output to SD for authoring in DVD Architect. My fallback was to use the workflow that I used for my first project since I knew it worked.

August 5th, 2011, 08:13 PM	#10
Leslie Wand Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: upper hunter, australia Posts: 1,410	Re: VERY Slow Render to Cineform a. unless you're going to be doing any MAJOR fx / cc'ing then using an intermediary (cineform, or even mxf) is a pointless exercise. (the only other caveat being if you have a pc that can't handle avchd / other format on the tl smoothly). b. when i have ANY 'odd' file format i simply transcode to .mxf rather than stress vegas. c. my workflow is simple - match project settings to source (in my case hdv) > bang buttons till i'm happy with edit > render from tl to whatever. i have absolutely no problem going from hd to sd WITHIN vegas - mind you, i gather pal is much more scale friendly. ymmv __________________ www.lesliewand.com.au

August 5th, 2011, 08:43 PM	#11
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: VERY Slow Render to Cineform Hi Brad I see you shot in 60i so you have interlaced footage...it's pretty much critical to firstly set project properties to the correct media settings..(right top corner has the browse icon) ...it's also important to let Vegas de-interlace using interpolate and set render to best. Try just a few mintes of footage on the timeline and render out to an MPEG2 and then you can make a test DVD and see the results. As Leslie says, if the AVCHD footage plays smoothly in preview and you don't have piles of FX then there is really no reason to transcode!! Chris

August 9th, 2011, 07:49 PM	#13
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: VERY Slow Render to Cineform Hi Larry Vegas Pro 10 has got completely new algorithms and the end result means that you don't need to go thru 3 or 4 painful processes to get decent HD - SD ... The improvement between rendering in Version 9 and Version 10 is HUGE!!! Chris

August 10th, 2011, 12:05 AM	#14
Phil Lee Major Player Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: London Posts: 302	Re: VERY Slow Render to Cineform Hi I just want to say I still find the output to SD from Sony Vegas 10 to be pretty horrible, so I can't imagine what it looked like in 9 or older then! Better if you go via DVD Architech as that appears to use the resizing provided by MainConcept SDK, which applies lost of filtering so you get few interlacing nasties but hardly much detail either. Regards Phil

August 10th, 2011, 02:46 AM	#15
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: VERY Slow Render to Cineform Hi Phil If I pop a clip onto the timeline shot at 720 50P and add the sharpen plugin plus reduce interlace flicker and then render to MPEG2 using the DVD PAL widescreen preset, the resulting file (brought back into Vegas again, purely for preview purposes looks pretty good to me...OK the res does soften a bit when compared to the original MTS file but I thought it did a fairly good conversion !! I think we all tend to get "over-technical" when producing an SD DVD from HD!! It's tough to watch a 1920x1080 image on a 23" monitor whilst editing and then see it downsized to (in my case) 720x576 but the average viewer isn't really going to tell the difference at all!! They are looking at the content not image sharpness. About a year ago I took a single AVCHD clip and rendered it directly to MPEG2 as well as transcoding to Cineform, HDV, SD AVI and HQAVI (Canopus) and then rendering each to MPEG2. The SD AVI was definately the "softest" but after showing a variety of non technical people the clip none could say with absolute confidence that one was superior to the other. I shoot around 30 weddings a year and even brides who had their wedding shot in SD never complained about resolution..in fact a short survey on our local wedding forum had a few brides say "I really can't see the difference but hubby swears blind that HD is better" Maybe us editors are just over-critical about the end result??? Chris