5+ hours to Render???

dholt wrote on 12/21/2003, 4:05 PM

I'm rendering a wedding video with Vegas and it's taking over 5 hours to render a 55 min video? I rendered a 60 min wedding video which took 2 1/2 hours so I don't get it. Yes this one contains a few more particle effects and I used more Vegas plug in's like glow, b&w,sepia and a few light effects.

Is this normal?
I have an ABS Pentium 4 CPU 3.00 GHZ
2 GB Ram
2 - 180 GB HD's
running on windows XP
I'm rendering the video as a MPEG - 2 using the DVD Architect NTSC Video Stream template and using the good setting.

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 12/21/2003, 4:19 PM

Light effects and blurs are among the most time consuming of all FX because of each pixel needing to be examined, and shifted or changed. This is also an estimated time, and will depend on the look ahead. In other words, it might start out saying 5 hours until it sees a smooth path ahead, and then it may drop to a shorter render time,. If you are going straight to MPEG, it's nearly always slower than doing a render of the avi first, then going to MPEG second.

Tom Pauncz wrote on 12/21/2003, 4:33 PM

Hmmm ..
I rendered a 22min rough cut to new track and then rendered the resulting NTSC DV widescreen avi file to MPEG2 using MC Vegas codec and Vegas template for SVCD and that took almost 5hrs.

Dual P3/1Ghz - 1.25GB RAM and all 10K rpm SCSI Ultra160 drives.

Tom

TheHappyFriar wrote on 12/21/2003, 6:10 PM

That sounds right to me. When I had my p3-667 I rendered a 22 minute files (with edits and some chroma keys, alpha's, pan/crop, track motion) and it took about 15 hours. I didn't render to AVI first.

harryset wrote on 12/21/2003, 8:17 PM

Be happy. Some of my renders are taking my computer over 24 hours.