major problem

Jarrod Whaley · August 21st, 2006, 08:17 PM

I'm pulling my hair out, I can't figure out what's going on. I really hope someone here can help me.

Renders in general seem slower than usual. Worse (much worse) is the fact that a render I've been trying to do for three days will slow to a literally glacial pace when it reaches the first real clip (after titles, generated media, etc.). The only effect this clip has on it is chroma blur. No track motion, no opacity adjustments, nothing.

It's not just that clip either--I've tried it on other clips in other projects... same thing.

I thought there might be something going on with my system in general, but everything else seems to be running fine.

If it will help, here are some specifics: I'm running Vegas 6.0d on a 2.4Ghz Pentium 4 with 512MB RAM (had a gig of RAM, but I fried a chip about a week ago--any connection?). Hard drives are 7200RPM. The Vegas project(s) is/are regular NTSC DV, 60i, 4:3.

Please, PLEASE tell me someone here might have a clue about what's going on...

Jon Fairhurst · August 21st, 2006, 08:51 PM

It's almost certainly due to the lack of RAM. 512K is enough to run Windows well, but doesn't leave enough for video. Once you've exhausted your physical memory, your PC will use virtual memory - in other words, it will use your hard drive as memory. The system then needs to swap data back and forth to the hard drive to do it's work. Everything then slows to a crawl.

You might be able to get better results by optimizing your virtual memory settings, but why bother. The real solution is to get more RAM.

Jarrod Whaley · August 21st, 2006, 08:56 PM

But RAM supposedly has almost no effect on renders. And besides, everything was working just fine on 512MB just two days ago. Yeah, real-time playback within Vegas wasn't optimal, and for that I need more RAM. But renders were every bit as "fast" as they were when I had 1GB.

In fact, less than a week ago--after the RAM issue--I rendered a project with some footage in it that was exactly like what I'm having trouble with right now. Nothing but chroma blur on it, and it was even shot on the same day, on the same tape. No problems rendering it with 512MB of RAM. No problems at all with rendering until 2 days ago.

When I asked if the blown chip might be related, I wasn't really asking if less RAM was the issue, because I had been doing fine with the RAM I had. I was asking if maybe the actual blowing of the chip might have led to a delayed breakdown somewhere else or something.

Also, just wanted to clarify--I have 512MB, not 512k.

Thanks for the suggestion though.

EDIT: I also just wanted to clarify about how slow these renders are.... literally 6 seconds per frame!

Douglas Spotted Eagle · August 21st, 2006, 09:16 PM

Any 3d? Nested veg files? Supersampling? Motion blur? Rendering to what format?
If you replaced the fried chip with a compatible chip, there shouldn't be any fallout from the initially damaged chip.
RAM doesn't really affect renders much unless you've got a lot of stills on the timeline.

Jarrod Whaley · August 21st, 2006, 09:22 PM

No 3D, no supersampling, no nested .veg, no motion blur. The only things on the timeline at the point in the project where the render slows down are a regular 60i NTSC DV .avi file and the accompanying audio stream. The only thing I've done to the .avi was to add a little bit of horizontal chroma blur. I'm rendering back out to NTSC DV.

And like I was saying, a clip with the exact same chroma blur settings rendered out very quickly a few days ago. Now, even that same clip is rendering more slowly than concrete-based molasses.

Graham Bernard · August 21st, 2006, 09:35 PM

How are your fans looking? Have you seen any dust or clogging of the CPU fan? I've had this, s l o w molasses and then the PC falls over from exhaustion. Using Task Manager I watched the PC shovelling the maths into the Page File until it just gave up.

Anyways, a quiet, discreet eyeballing of the fan/s: CPU; Power and free, clean INTAKE vents will remove it from the equation. When I start to hear the fan/s hit a higher note, higher than normal for me, I take off the side panel and take a look see. Just did this 3 weeks back; rigged up the vacuum cleaner and applied a fine artist's brush, and the machine now doesn't break out into a sweat.

Why did the chip blow?

Jarrod Whaley · August 21st, 2006, 10:00 PM

Actually, I just vacuumed out the fans and everything a week or so ago when the RAM chip died. I may well have missed some major gunk though, because I didn't take the fan off of the heat sink and clean things out... I just sucked a little dust up through the fan. Maybe I'll give that a try. My CPU is running a little hot, now that you mention it. My BIOS gives an average CPU temp of about 115 degrees. I had always read that Intel chips run hotter than most others, but maybe that's a bit much.

Thanks.

Oh, no idea why the RAM chip got fried. I was just sitting here watching a video clip in VLC when the screen went black, the audio stuttered for a few seconds, and then I got the old BSOD. It screwed up the file system on my system drive (luckily my video files are on a different drive), so I had to re-install Windows. The Windows installation kept crashing, and it took me forever to realize that the crashes were due to a RAM chip--it was hanging up when I tried to copy the setup files from the CD to the hard disk.

Anyway, it's been a really crappy week or so on the computer end of things. I really need to buy a new system soon anyway, but I'm broker than hell at the moment... and can't make money if I can't edit. Catch-22.

Don Donatello · August 21st, 2006, 11:03 PM

open a new VEG and throw one of the clips you used ( that is taking long time to render) into TL .. apply the same FX with same settings .. i assume you are rendering "BEST" ?
you are rendering out to DV.avi ..mpeg2?
let us know if the render speed increased or stayed the same ..

if render speed increased a good amount then IMO it's some setting in the old VEG ? maybe project is set as interlace and rendering progressive ? or video level is at 99 not 100 or something is slightly off ..
if it remained the same then it's either something with the computer or it just takes that long ?

Jarrod Whaley · August 22nd, 2006, 12:43 AM

Don--

I already tried that. No dice.

Again, it's just one effect on the clip, and the same exact thing rendered quickly just two days ago.

I think it must be some crazy hidden hardware thing. I think I might well be screwed.

Graham Bernard · August 22nd, 2006, 12:52 AM

Temperature: 115 Fahrenheit (46C) does seem a little "warm", looking at this site for reducing CPU heat website. But others are 10degs above this too!

http://www.cpuidle.de/

Now if you WERE running 110C I'd be worried! Well more than worried!!

Render: I don't render BEST. I render GOOD.

Sampling: Yes, I'm all for trying samples in a test render. I've had issues with tricky Fx and mixed stuff.

Background S/W: Virus Checkers running? Have you checked for virus?

Info on checking heat and through flow of cool air. AND BSODs!!!http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/142

Sorry you've had a bad week. It WILL pass. Then I'll have it! ! LOL . ..

Jarrod Whaley · August 22nd, 2006, 02:10 AM

Thanks for all the help, Graham.

115 Fahrenheit. It's a yank thing. :)

I have definitely tried rendering without the virus scan prog running. I have gone into task manager and killed every non-essential process. I've tried disabling individual services in MSCONFIG (then re-enabling them, of course). I've tried about everything, at this point.

I've scanned for viruses/trojans/worms/etc. several times, with several different progs. I've updated, tried again. I'm not ruling out some kind of malware situation yet, but I haven't been able to find anything.

This is all driving me crazy. I can edit until the cows come home, but I can't render anything. That's a problem. If I had the money, I'd just say to hell with it and buy a new system. But I have no money.

Anyway, you're right about the luck thing. The pendulum will swing the other way soon enough. I really hope it doesn't swing your way, though. :)

Graham Bernard · August 22nd, 2006, 02:32 AM

Hey guy!! Your website is chock full of goodies for people to view!

Go see Jarrod's website - NOW!

http://www.oakstreetfilms.com/news.shtml

Dan Keaton · August 22nd, 2006, 06:55 AM

I would look at the Windows XP performance manager:

(Do this only if you are running Windows XP)

Press Ctrl-Alt-Del
Click on Task Manager
Click on Performance

Look at the PF Usage and Page File Usage History.

To get a feel for this, first perform the above when not using Vegas.

The perform it again while using Vegas but not rendering.

Then again while rendering.

Buddy Frazer · August 22nd, 2006, 08:37 AM

For some reason rendering time seems to be a function of the Dynamic RAM Preview setting. My best times run from 0 to 128MB. If you have recently changed that setting, that could be the problem. Again, this makes no sense, but it works.
Buddy

Trenton Scott · August 22nd, 2006, 09:13 AM

Other than your blown memory, something else pre-existing must have changed, or something new introduced. Have you changed settings on any pre-existing applications? Have you installed anything new, hardware or software? Perhaps something was changed and/or installed without your knowledge. For example, do you have any anti-virus and/or malware scanners running in the background, like Norton AV? These things are notorious for killing CPU and disk resources when realtime scanning is enabled (sometimes "accidently" enabled). In the worst case (in terms of being the most resource-hungry), these tools are configured to scan every referenced file, including every file used in your Vegas project. Disable all of your anti-virus tools and try rendering agian. If things improve, you'll need to loosen your scanning level.

August 21st, 2006, 08:17 PM	#1
Jarrod Whaley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: chattanooga, tn Posts: 721	major problem - eternal renders I'm pulling my hair out, I can't figure out what's going on. I really hope someone here can help me. Renders in general seem slower than usual. Worse (much worse) is the fact that a render I've been trying to do for three days will slow to a literally glacial pace when it reaches the first real clip (after titles, generated media, etc.). The only effect this clip has on it is chroma blur. No track motion, no opacity adjustments, nothing. It's not just that clip either--I've tried it on other clips in other projects... same thing. I thought there might be something going on with my system in general, but everything else seems to be running fine. If it will help, here are some specifics: I'm running Vegas 6.0d on a 2.4Ghz Pentium 4 with 512MB RAM (had a gig of RAM, but I fried a chip about a week ago--any connection?). Hard drives are 7200RPM. The Vegas project(s) is/are regular NTSC DV, 60i, 4:3. Please, PLEASE tell me someone here might have a clue about what's going on... __________________ -->jarrod whaley. www.oakstreetfilms.com

August 21st, 2006, 08:51 PM	#2
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	It's almost certainly due to the lack of RAM. 512K is enough to run Windows well, but doesn't leave enough for video. Once you've exhausted your physical memory, your PC will use virtual memory - in other words, it will use your hard drive as memory. The system then needs to swap data back and forth to the hard drive to do it's work. Everything then slows to a crawl. You might be able to get better results by optimizing your virtual memory settings, but why bother. The real solution is to get more RAM. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

August 21st, 2006, 08:56 PM	#3
Jarrod Whaley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: chattanooga, tn Posts: 721	But RAM supposedly has almost no effect on renders. And besides, everything was working just fine on 512MB just two days ago. Yeah, real-time playback within Vegas wasn't optimal, and for that I need more RAM. But renders were every bit as "fast" as they were when I had 1GB. In fact, less than a week ago--after the RAM issue--I rendered a project with some footage in it that was exactly like what I'm having trouble with right now. Nothing but chroma blur on it, and it was even shot on the same day, on the same tape. No problems rendering it with 512MB of RAM. No problems at all with rendering until 2 days ago. When I asked if the blown chip might be related, I wasn't really asking if less RAM was the issue, because I had been doing fine with the RAM I had. I was asking if maybe the actual blowing of the chip might have led to a delayed breakdown somewhere else or something. Also, just wanted to clarify--I have 512MB, not 512k. Thanks for the suggestion though. EDIT: I also just wanted to clarify about how slow these renders are.... literally 6 seconds per frame! __________________ -->jarrod whaley. www.oakstreetfilms.com

August 21st, 2006, 09:16 PM	#4
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	Any 3d? Nested veg files? Supersampling? Motion blur? Rendering to what format? If you replaced the fried chip with a compatible chip, there shouldn't be any fallout from the initially damaged chip. RAM doesn't really affect renders much unless you've got a lot of stills on the timeline. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

August 21st, 2006, 09:22 PM	#5
Jarrod Whaley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: chattanooga, tn Posts: 721	No 3D, no supersampling, no nested .veg, no motion blur. The only things on the timeline at the point in the project where the render slows down are a regular 60i NTSC DV .avi file and the accompanying audio stream. The only thing I've done to the .avi was to add a little bit of horizontal chroma blur. I'm rendering back out to NTSC DV. And like I was saying, a clip with the exact same chroma blur settings rendered out very quickly a few days ago. Now, even that same clip is rendering more slowly than concrete-based molasses. __________________ -->jarrod whaley. www.oakstreetfilms.com

August 21st, 2006, 09:35 PM	#6
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	How are your fans looking? Have you seen any dust or clogging of the CPU fan? I've had this, s l o w molasses and then the PC falls over from exhaustion. Using Task Manager I watched the PC shovelling the maths into the Page File until it just gave up. Anyways, a quiet, discreet eyeballing of the fan/s: CPU; Power and free, clean INTAKE vents will remove it from the equation. When I start to hear the fan/s hit a higher note, higher than normal for me, I take off the side panel and take a look see. Just did this 3 weeks back; rigged up the vacuum cleaner and applied a fine artist's brush, and the machine now doesn't break out into a sweat. Why did the chip blow?

August 21st, 2006, 10:00 PM	#7
Jarrod Whaley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: chattanooga, tn Posts: 721	Actually, I just vacuumed out the fans and everything a week or so ago when the RAM chip died. I may well have missed some major gunk though, because I didn't take the fan off of the heat sink and clean things out... I just sucked a little dust up through the fan. Maybe I'll give that a try. My CPU is running a little hot, now that you mention it. My BIOS gives an average CPU temp of about 115 degrees. I had always read that Intel chips run hotter than most others, but maybe that's a bit much. Thanks. Oh, no idea why the RAM chip got fried. I was just sitting here watching a video clip in VLC when the screen went black, the audio stuttered for a few seconds, and then I got the old BSOD. It screwed up the file system on my system drive (luckily my video files are on a different drive), so I had to re-install Windows. The Windows installation kept crashing, and it took me forever to realize that the crashes were due to a RAM chip--it was hanging up when I tried to copy the setup files from the CD to the hard disk. Anyway, it's been a really crappy week or so on the computer end of things. I really need to buy a new system soon anyway, but I'm broker than hell at the moment... and can't make money if I can't edit. Catch-22. __________________ -->jarrod whaley. www.oakstreetfilms.com

August 21st, 2006, 11:03 PM	#8
Don Donatello Hawaiian Shirt Mogul Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: northern cailfornia Posts: 1,261	open a new VEG and throw one of the clips you used ( that is taking long time to render) into TL .. apply the same FX with same settings .. i assume you are rendering "BEST" ? you are rendering out to DV.avi ..mpeg2? let us know if the render speed increased or stayed the same .. if render speed increased a good amount then IMO it's some setting in the old VEG ? maybe project is set as interlace and rendering progressive ? or video level is at 99 not 100 or something is slightly off .. if it remained the same then it's either something with the computer or it just takes that long ?

August 22nd, 2006, 12:43 AM	#9
Jarrod Whaley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: chattanooga, tn Posts: 721	Don-- I already tried that. No dice. Again, it's just one effect on the clip, and the same exact thing rendered quickly just two days ago. I think it must be some crazy hidden hardware thing. I think I might well be screwed. __________________ -->jarrod whaley. www.oakstreetfilms.com

August 22nd, 2006, 12:52 AM	#10
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Temperature: 115 Fahrenheit (46C) does seem a little "warm", looking at this site for reducing CPU heat website. But others are 10degs above this too! http://www.cpuidle.de/ Now if you WERE running 110C I'd be worried! Well more than worried!! Render: I don't render BEST. I render GOOD. Sampling: Yes, I'm all for trying samples in a test render. I've had issues with tricky Fx and mixed stuff. Background S/W: Virus Checkers running? Have you checked for virus? Info on checking heat and through flow of cool air. AND BSODs!!!http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/142 Sorry you've had a bad week. It WILL pass. Then I'll have it! ! LOL . ..

August 22nd, 2006, 02:10 AM	#11
Jarrod Whaley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: chattanooga, tn Posts: 721	Thanks for all the help, Graham. 115 Fahrenheit. It's a yank thing. :) I have definitely tried rendering without the virus scan prog running. I have gone into task manager and killed every non-essential process. I've tried disabling individual services in MSCONFIG (then re-enabling them, of course). I've tried about everything, at this point. I've scanned for viruses/trojans/worms/etc. several times, with several different progs. I've updated, tried again. I'm not ruling out some kind of malware situation yet, but I haven't been able to find anything. This is all driving me crazy. I can edit until the cows come home, but I can't render anything. That's a problem. If I had the money, I'd just say to hell with it and buy a new system. But I have no money. Anyway, you're right about the luck thing. The pendulum will swing the other way soon enough. I really hope it doesn't swing your way, though. :) __________________ -->jarrod whaley. www.oakstreetfilms.com

August 22nd, 2006, 02:32 AM	#12
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Hey guy!! Your website is chock full of goodies for people to view! Go see Jarrod's website - NOW! http://www.oakstreetfilms.com/news.shtml

August 22nd, 2006, 06:55 AM	#13
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	I would look at the Windows XP performance manager: (Do this only if you are running Windows XP) Press Ctrl-Alt-Del Click on Task Manager Click on Performance Look at the PF Usage and Page File Usage History. To get a feel for this, first perform the above when not using Vegas. The perform it again while using Vegas but not rendering. Then again while rendering. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

August 22nd, 2006, 08:37 AM	#14
Buddy Frazer Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Addison (Dallas) Texas Posts: 88	For some reason rendering time seems to be a function of the Dynamic RAM Preview setting. My best times run from 0 to 128MB. If you have recently changed that setting, that could be the problem. Again, this makes no sense, but it works. Buddy

August 22nd, 2006, 09:13 AM	#15
Trenton Scott Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Portland, Oregon, USA Posts: 37	Anti-Virus Scanners... Other than your blown memory, something else pre-existing must have changed, or something new introduced. Have you changed settings on any pre-existing applications? Have you installed anything new, hardware or software? Perhaps something was changed and/or installed without your knowledge. For example, do you have any anti-virus and/or malware scanners running in the background, like Norton AV? These things are notorious for killing CPU and disk resources when realtime scanning is enabled (sometimes "accidently" enabled). In the worst case (in terms of being the most resource-hungry), these tools are configured to scan every referenced file, including every file used in your Vegas project. Disable all of your anti-virus tools and try rendering agian. If things improve, you'll need to loosen your scanning level. __________________ www.sonatasys.com video production, multimedia post and web integration