46 hours to render?

bcmedia wrote on 11/6/2004, 7:07 PM
I just received some screen capture footage from a client who captured the "entire screen" which included dual monitors. He did this because one monitor is reactionary to the other and their are 6 video windows(monitor 2) that are being controlled by monitor 1 (ie cause and effect) The total resolution size on the screen capturing was 3894 x 1200. The software used was Camtasia Studio and it uses its own codec to compress the screen capture to an AVI. Long story short, after downloading the proprietory codec from TechSmith(camtasia) I was able to import this without any issues into Vegas 5 and crop the video to look very good, one screen at a time!! :) I was also able to edit etc however, as I go to render this baby which is 15 minutes long. I leave it on all night (5hrs) and come back and it is at 5% with 46 hours left. Does Vegas have an issue with this Codec? I have tried it several times. Is there a software that will let me compress the .avi or crop it, outside of Vegas? I tried premiere on a employees computer and it renders it in about 2 hours but the quality is not acceptable and their is no way to crop like there is in Vegas. I don't want to have to fly out onsite to change the resolution and shoot again as the scenario will never be the same.

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 11/6/2004, 7:18 PM
Shouldn't be that long a render. What are you rendering to? Uncompressed? If so, that's the problem. Uncompressed easily could take this long from that particular screen size.
bcmedia wrote on 11/6/2004, 7:32 PM
No I am rendering to MPG2...I have also tried .avi to see if there is any difference....NONE...No matter what I try, as soon as it gets to the camtasia screen capture .avi it bogs down and turns into ssssssllllllloooooowwwww mode. Does the size matter THAT much?
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/6/2004, 8:05 PM
Wait..you say "as soon as?" So it's a mixed media timeline? Don't pay attention to the time indicator then. It's merely making assumptions.
And yes, the size DOES matter that much. Masters and Johnson have it all wrong. Because the encoder has a lot to look at, it will be slower.