6.0b Nested Veg Problem

JeffyB wrote on 9/13/2006, 9:08 PM
Hello everyone

I have been using nested .veg's, cutting my projects scene by scene, to simplify the process and then drag them into a master file for a final render.

Now here is my problem, I can open of my sub-veg files and render it in 2 minutes, but if take that and nest it inside of another veg file, even another blank one that only has that veg the render time will increase x 6 or even more. That's without any effects, just a single audio and video track. Something about nesting is causing a huge increase in both render time, and it also makes the playback suck.

I've checked to make sure the settings on both files are the same, rendering set to good, etc but nothing seems to improve it.

Any suggestions?

Now my question is, should I save nested vegs simply for small things like layover graphics, titlebars, etc and try and do everything in one project? I would really like to avoid rendering each clip as a track if possible, simply because Im usually working on 5 projects at once and I don't need another 50 3gig cineform files laying around.

Comments

Paul_Holmes wrote on 9/13/2006, 10:10 PM
My experience with nested vegs is that they render just as fast as the original veg beneath, unless you've added effects to the nester or possibly brought down the opacity on the nester by mistake. I think you're experiencing something very atypical here.
JeffyB wrote on 9/13/2006, 11:06 PM
Oops, I meant 6.0d btw.
JeffyB wrote on 9/13/2006, 11:06 PM
I'll be testing this on our other system as well to see if it's the same thing, if not, I have no idea what could be causing it :/
Paul_Holmes wrote on 9/13/2006, 11:38 PM
I occasionally use nested vegs to bring in a veg where I've done cuts and transitions and then apply some kind of effect to the whole thing. When they first came out I went crazy with them, like they were some kind of neat new toy (which they were). However, after reading Vic Milt's post about how he edits I now follow a similar method. I break the video up into small sections, one veg for each, then when I like what I've got I either nest it alone and add a look or some effect to the whole veg or I simply render it as a Huffy AVI. I then string the completed avis in a "Master" veg. I like this way of working, small sections at a time.
Trichome wrote on 9/13/2006, 11:40 PM
Have to agree with poster on this one, I nest daily, and the flexibility makes it most attractive but longer render times make it nearly unsuable.
This is creating numerous types of shows, some with FX some without, sports player stats, made for mobile content.
JeffyB wrote on 9/13/2006, 11:49 PM
I'm glad it's not only me then. I just don't understand how such an important feature could have problems.

I've also confirmed this on our second machine, same thing.

A64 3500 1gb ram and A64 3800+ X2 2GB ram with raid array.
Paul_Holmes wrote on 9/14/2006, 12:02 AM
I just did a quick test in V7 on the first 30 secs of a veg. Took 31 seconds to render to Huffy AVI. I then nested that veg and again did the first 30 seconds. Took a little hit on time. Rendered in 37.

So unnested 31, nested 37.

You mentioned Cineform so you must be working with HD. I'm not. Might be a whole different ballgame there.
JeffyB wrote on 9/14/2006, 12:07 AM
Try putting any sort of effect on the file, thats when it gets really bad for me, for just a complete stock clip it's not a big issue, there's a few second difference like yours. But that adds up when you start doing 40 minute+ projects.
JeffyB wrote on 9/14/2006, 12:09 AM
A clip with just a few random effects (newspaper, etc) went from 1:40 seconds to 8 minutes while nested.
Paul_Holmes wrote on 9/14/2006, 12:12 AM
Well, it's good you've pointed this out. As I said I'm more into putting all the little pieces together as AVIs and then rendering and titling from the veg with all the avis.

Most likely I wasn't paying attention in the past when I did some half hour pieces that were nested 1 or 2 deep. I'd just let it render while I was doing something else.
JeffyB wrote on 9/14/2006, 12:13 AM
I did the same thing and didn't notice, b ut when my last project rendered out at 33 hours I decided to look into optimizing and noticed the disparity along the way.
JeffyB wrote on 9/14/2006, 10:49 AM
Anyone have a way to get around this performance bottleneck?