Thanks BillyBoy, I will try this in another 6 hours, once Vegas finished rendering.

So you say that "Good" to "Best" is a nominal difference? I will be rendering to
DVD.

Thanks,

Alex

Excalibur will do nothing to increase your rendering time. It just creates a new video track and moves the appropriate clips to that video track. What effects were added to the clips/project (I know you said none were added but is that really true)? Is the track level at 100%? Something else is going on but Excalibur didn't cause it. If you want, send me the VEG file and I'll see if I can find what is amiss.

Edward

The only difference between "good" and "best" is in how the file is rendered relative to the method used.

Straight from Vegas Help:

......................................................................................................................

Unless you have specific performance problems, choose Good. Choosing Best can dramatically increase rendering times.

Good uses bilinear scaling without integration, while Best uses bicubic scaling with integration. If you're using high-resolution stills (or video) that will be scaled down to the final output size, choosing Best can prevent artifacts.

......................................................................................................................

As I understand it, the difference between bilinear and bicubic methods is in how pixel changes are caculated. Bilinear only looks at neighboring pixels, top, bottom, left, right then caculates what it has to change on the sum divided. Bicubic does all that then takes it a step further taking a weighted average also looking on the diagonal giving predominate tones the preference. It is all this extra caculating that makes your CPU work that much harder and it slows down the rendering. As much as 2 to 1. Maybe more. Depends on the source file.

Its only human nature when one sees two choices, "good" and "best" to assume that best is always better. It isn't, not for this. It can be better, but only if certain conditions are there. If you source file is very high quality I would read that as a higher frame size and/or you using very high resolution stills that you've cut down or you are zooming in on stills, that kind of thing, you MAY... note its only a maybe... see a slight difference in quality between good and best and then only if your video has large areas of solid colors or gradients. The colors MAY be a tad richer. Just a maybe...

How much, even if, depends on the source file. If on the other hand you expect huge improvements between good and best, you're going to be disappointed. All things considered, nine out of ten people looking at two videos with average type footage one rendered as good, the other as best will see no real tanagable differences. So almost always there is no point to using Best over Good, and doing so only dramatically increases rendering times. Your time is much better spent learning how to do good color correction with the many filters Vegas has, especially the new Color Correctors and Scopes feature part of version 4.

3 hrs to render 1 hr of MPEG-2 is doing pretty well.
///d@

SonicDennis, I think you misunderstood, it took 20 HOURS!!!

SonicDennis, I think you misunderstood, it took 20 HOURS!!!

20 hours to render 1 hour is pretty good. It just took me damn near 48 to render 2.

I recently did a wedding video for a friend. I took footage from 2 cams, some stills, and added a blur effect in Vegas (among other video filters). All in all, the video was 35 minutes. When I went to render, it said it was going to take 18hrs....and it did! However, the resulting video is spectacular.

My PC specs: AMD XP1700+, 1GB DDR RAM, 40, 60, 120GB W/D SE HD's, etc.

since were talking render times to mpeg2, i figured i'd add my .02

current project: transferred 40 minutes of vhs. made cuts transitions... rendered to new avi in standard dv. no problems,

sent it out to tmpg to make svcd, croping the frame size as the video was orginally from old 1960's video and was overlayed on a blue background, cut that out to put in the black borders. add the noice reduction and ghost reduction. and guess what the render time is?

BTW the system is a Celeron 433 with 160megs of 66mhz sdram. (you can stop laughing now)





render time: 138hrs. but when the job is done and play it on the set top player parents are happy with the results. thank god i have a another system i can do my other work on.

dgg in ottawa

all i know is that my father had someone convert old home movies, actually they may actually be from the 50's now that i think about it, when i put the captured stips into virtualdub, it actually looks like a film strip with a continuous blue backing. the srip itself only made up a small portion of the screen. i have no idea if this was standard but it sure looked tacky.

I think my dad was just happy they were able to get it all onto a video tape. the 138hr render is actually the second in a series of 40 minute portions i'm rendering to svcd. the original tape was 2hrs long.

i plan on keeping the master captured avi file on the system so that when i get a dvd burner i can then render it to dvd and burn it to one disc.

for now though, the three svcd's will have to do. it doesn't hurt that my dad has a 5cd/dvd changer. this makes the 3 svcd system work a little better.

so all told i am looking at just under 400hrs of render times. for a two hour project.

Newbie123,

"...so all told i am looking at just under 400hrs of render times, for a two hour project."

Yipes! That seems scary excessive. I currently have only one computer, a 400MHz AMD homebuilt. I am now kind of dreading my first MPEG-2 render.

-- Seeker --

I shoot a lot hockey myself, I use a VX1000 and have found I need a bit rate of at least 7200 to prevent motion artifacts, sounds like you do some advanced work-three cameras- my e-mail is hystyx42@aol.com if you would care to share your advise on the program you used to sync the footage or any other techniques - that darn nettting makes it really tough sometimes.

Wow, 138 hrss render time, could die and be buried before completed.

JJK