4 hours to render 17 mins of video!

Former user wrote on 12/16/2018, 4:03 AM

I'll just do a little quick reminder on peter's hardware...it is an X58 motherboard, and him telling us that he's using an i7 at 2.8, would be possibly the i7-930. Additionally, this platform had the "Triple Channel Memory" configuration, so him having 12GB of RAM would also be "correct", probably either in a 6x2GB or 3x4GB (most likely at the time) setup. He also states he's using a "different HD" for source files, but that platform was only SATA II version at the time, so the best he could hope for is to change out that "spinning platter" for a cheap SSD, knowing that performance of the SSD will be "hampered" due to the technology existing at the time. Based on Peter's comments, I doubt trying to "overclock" any would be beneficial to him, or even be possible (haven't had that platform in quite some time/years'). Additionally, this platform negates the possibility of using the CPU integrated graphics, since there are none, leaving it up to a discreet graphics card. Until he is prepared to purchase an updated system more in line with today's hardware, recommending high-end graphics card(s) is also a potential waste of money, at this time. I would recommend either an AMD RX 580 (8GB) or GTX 1060 (6GB), as the other concern is that the PCI-e was only at version 2 then. At least with either of the aforementioned cards, once he does update, they will work in a new system, and either are at good buys currently, price-wise. Effectively, time to put some cash aside for a new system. Good Luck!

Thanks for the info! Yes its that 930. Overclocking may be possible, I recall seeing the option in the BIOS etc. Next test is to run max quality as I want it at the 8 bit setting. Ill be in touch.

Former user wrote on 12/16/2018, 9:15 AM

Update: 4 hours 22 to process 47 mins of video (final cut). (@ 8 bit).

Time for a new PC maybe.

j-v wrote on 12/16/2018, 9:33 AM

I dare to doubt that, but you're the boss of course.
But I'm very curious what exactly rendertemplate did you use in this final render. Rendering with the OSV of your Intel is must be going much faster.
This are the possible renderoptions I see with the same processor (I think)

Are you able to share the same screenshot of your renderoption?

Former user wrote on 12/16/2018, 9:50 AM

No don't doubt it that's the exact time.:)

Two shots attached....

Musicvid wrote on 12/16/2018, 9:52 AM

This is very helpful, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain it.

My point of confusion was in misunderstanding where the 32-bit part comes in.

So, the way I understand it, even if I bring in 10-bit source, Vegas uses the 32-bit internally, but the video/codec itself is rendered out in 8-bit depth. Is that mostly correct?

When I was looking at the white paper on Pro Res, it says Pro Res can handle up to 12 bits. So if I bring 10-bit source, edit in 32-bit, then render out in Magix Intermediate, which I understand is a Pro Res equivalent, is that 8 bit or 10 bit?

Thanks again. I'm in over my head on much of this.

http://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/docs/Apple_ProRes_White_Paper.pdf

Yes, plenty of confusion to go around, and bloggers are not helping, but you're in the right zone.

You can do lots of things with high bit source in Vegas, but overcoming the 8 bit bottleneck elsewhere is not one of them. Most practical delivery is still 8 bit, and serving HDR at home is still in it's infancy.

There are plenty of people who will disagree, but it always ends the same way, with lots of bluster, and without any hard evidence; it's the whole "alternate reality" thing, I guess.

Final thought -- if you can't deliver ten bit door to door, it's not worth it.

karma17 wrote on 12/16/2018, 9:57 AM

FWIW, I did render out Magix Intermediate in XQ (Highest quality) and get Bits-(Pixel*Frame) : 1.608. Just not sure how that translates to Bit Depth or even if it does. All the "non-Pro Res" codecs have a Bit Depth reading of 8.

Musicvid wrote on 12/16/2018, 10:14 AM

Just not sure how that translates to Bit Depth or even if it does.

It means the net compressed bit depth ratio is 8:1.6, or 5:1, that's all. Most normal stuff is 10:1 to 100:1 for comparison.

j-v wrote on 12/16/2018, 10:18 AM

No don't doubt it that's the exact time.:)

Two shots attached....

I doubt nothing but I am wondering why you don't use the Nvidia NVENC option of the same Magix AVC codec. With me that one goes 8 times faster than the old Maincept codec you are using without any GPU help, I showed that in my first answer to you.

Besides that it must be possible to use the GPU of your Intel processor.(QSV option)
That one is not showing up in your renderoptions because the program does not know that you have that one. To allow this you have to connect your motherboard to your mainscreen that shows the Vegas UI.

j-v wrote on 12/16/2018, 10:20 AM

@karma17 and @Musicvid
Litlle bit off topic?

john_dennis wrote on 12/16/2018, 10:33 AM

"...Bits-(Pixel*Frame) : 1.608. Just not sure how that translates to Bit Depth or even if it does."

Bits/Pixel*Frame is not a meaningful measure for bit depth when using a lossy encoder. There is one "special case", however when it is very meaningful...

Wait for it...

... when you render to an uncompressed encoder, the number is equal to the number of color channels multiplied by the bit depth.

Musicvid wrote on 12/16/2018, 11:22 AM

@karma17 and @Musicvid
Litlle bit off topic?

One of us is, I'm pretty certain of that.

Former user wrote on 12/16/2018, 11:26 AM

Now Im getting somewhere:

Shoved 6 mins 23 of my 1080 GoPro footage through as a test

MAGIX AVC/AAC, Internet HD, 25 mins, 31.

MAGIX AVC/AAC, Internet HD, with the NVIDIA NVENC option, 7 mins 41. Stange up/down cycling of the cooling fans as 'a or both' processing speed goes up & down.

Whats going on here? With the faster option am I using CPU & GPU or is the GPU a beast compared to the CPU?

j-v wrote on 12/16/2018, 11:43 AM

Yes and no.
The template you used was the same as the old mainconcept was for a long period of time .
With the NVENC or QSV (a little faster) you use really the new Magix AVC encoder as desired for your hardware.

But that pointed I already out in my first answer on your opening question.

john_dennis wrote on 12/16/2018, 11:52 AM

You may not be able to fix it with a SATA II controller on your motherboard, but you have some fairly slow response times for your pagefile, 14 ms. Assuming your SSD is C:, it's not doing that great, either.

14ms here, 12ms. It starts to add up.

Get a new system. When I worked in a data center, 5 years ago, I used to pull retired X58 Xeon servers off the e-Waste pallets to run my test projects. After the tests, they would go to the crusher like the ones left on the pallet.

Former user wrote on 12/16/2018, 12:05 PM

You may not be able to fix it with a SATA II controller on your motherboard, but you have some fairly slow response times for your pagefile, 14 ms. Assuming your SSD is C:, it's not doing that great, either.

14ms here, 12ms. It starts to add up.

Get a new system. When I worked in a data center, 5 years ago, I used to pull retired X58 Xeon servers off the e-Waste pallets to run my test projects. After the tests, they would go to the crusher like the ones left on the pallet.

Inside, she has two decent (at the time) SSDs for the C: drive, setup as RAID 1, via a Marvell 9128 6Gb/s chip. Too late to move to RAID0 but maybe I could migrate out to a single newer SSD on a spare channel...

john_dennis wrote on 12/16/2018, 1:13 PM

[Tough Love]

Sometimes, what you need is a fork lift. A fork lift can move a pallet of that obsolete material to the loading dock so it can be sent to the crusher, putting everybody out of their misery. If one of the units happens to fall off the pallet, you can get some perverse satisfaction by driving one of the forks through the side of the case and into the motherboard.

Go to Frys, Costco or order parts from Newegg and move on.

[/Tough Love]

karma17 wrote on 12/16/2018, 1:19 PM

Yes, definitely a tangent. Will get off this and put on another post.

Chief24 wrote on 12/17/2018, 1:54 PM

JD is correct...time for a new system. Still unsure why the thought of using "Intel QSV" was continually mentioned, when the OP's processor does not have one. Plain fact with that hardware, and it won't change anything. I still think either a GTX 1060 6GB or AMD RX480/580/590 8GB card is the way to go, which can then be transferred over to a new system when available.

peter-shephard: Moving to a new SSD on one of the "other" channels, would not really gain you anything currently, unless you want the extra space or a newer SSD, that again could transfer over to a new system. You state that the "C:" drive, is on a RAID1 via the Marvell controller, which is the only SATA 3 (6 Gbps) channels that motherboard has. The other 6 connectors are only SATA 2 (3 Gbps), which this is shown via the manual for your motherboard. Again, time to start saving for a new system! I'm with JD on this one...get a fork truck!