Are Render Times Different Between 3ccd & 1ccd cams

beatnik wrote on 5/14/2003, 10:40 PM

I am rendering a video shot with a Sony DSR-250 camera. The video is 16 minutes
long. I am rendering MPEG 2 for DVD-A. I have included timecode effect. This video
is taking 5 hours to render! I am used to my old 1 chip camera which did NOT take that
long to render! So, is it me, my computer, vegas or the 3 chip camera?

Thanks,

Alex

Comments

pb wrote on 5/14/2003, 11:03 PM
I don't think the computer cares whether the source is BetaSP, Hi-8, SVHS or DVCAM. Adding the time code burn does affect the rendering time significantly though. I edit the piece, save as AVI then do the time code burn to WMV or MPEG.
Wayne wrote on 5/15/2003, 9:08 PM
I have found that it is faster to render a video to AVI format then create a new session and load the render file into the timeline and then render this to a MPEG 1 or 2.
I have never timed the difference. Has anyone else noticed this?
roger_74 wrote on 5/16/2003, 4:35 AM
Some people have reported slow MPEG 2 encoding with Windows XP and Vegas 4. They say it's twice as fast in W2K. I don't know if it's been confirmed.
mikkie wrote on 5/16/2003, 6:55 AM
"I have found that it is faster to render a video to AVI format then create a new session and load the render file into the timeline and then render this to a MPEG 1 or 2.
I have never timed the difference. Has anyone else noticed this?"

Suppose it's possible given the differences between DV & mjpg, but as you take a quality hit each time, it'd have to be a lot faster to be worth it.

"Some people have reported slow MPEG 2 encoding with Windows XP and Vegas 4. They say it's twice as fast in W2K. I don't know if it's been confirmed."

Ideally you'd need someone with a dual boot system or better yet, identical systems running the 2 OSes to measure actual render times. Could matter to someone running a busy shop also running win2k & xp pro, so hopefully someone will test this out and chime in.
riredale wrote on 5/16/2003, 10:11 PM
mikkie:

I think when one refers to an avi file it could be a file using any of a number of compression codecs, including mjpeg. I am assuming what was meant was that it seems logical to first take your massive editing project and just create a (DV) avi out of it. In that way, Vegas can just take the avi on a clean timeline and work full-time on doing the MPEG2 conversion. It's the way I work, though I've never tried just going directly to MPEG2. One reason is because it gives you another backup point if something crashes. Second reason is because I don't use the MainConcept codec, so I need the avi file anyway.