Comments

BillyBoy wrote on 7/4/2002, 4:36 PM
Faster CPU, not more RAM. Here's why:

In order for anything to happen your computer has to work on it in RAM (random access memory) once it runs low it switches what is currently in RAM out to a Paging file in blocks, called memory pages, then back again as needed. While more RAM is better you do approach a point of diminishing returns.

So people that load up their system with 1GB or more of RAM are just kidding themselves if they think that's going to speed up rendering to the point you see things fly along. The real bottle neck is how fast can your CPU do all the caculations needed to push the render out faster.

If SoFo would port out a version of Vegas that would run on a Cray Super Computer's operating system I suspect you could get incredibly fast renders, maybe something like a 30 minute DV render taking 10 seconds to complete. That's not real world, at least not yet. So unless you can afford a Cray, can talk SoFo into writing a custom version or maybe have Mr. Spock on the Enterprise use their computer or something like that there is no magic setting. Rendering takes as long as it takes.

No drooling on your screen: http://www.cray.com/products/systems/sv2/
If you have to ask how much, you can't afford it. Millions for sure, how many I don't know. The ultimate "system" for video enthusiast wanting "fast" renders. Or a little chepaer model that has a single Cray SX-6 node which offers two to eight vector processors, each with eight gigaflops of peak performance. Each processor shares a uniform high-performance memory of 16 to 64 gigabytes capacity, and up to 256 gigabytes per second of bandwidth. Just in case anyone is wondering a gigaflop is a billion floating-point operations per second and you thought a P4 2.0 Ghz was fast. <wink>

venomhed wrote on 7/4/2002, 7:29 PM
Damn, you mean I have to upgrade this Commodore 64? No wonder renders are taking months!

;)

Thanks!
JavaNut wrote on 7/5/2002, 3:21 AM
Well that explains why my TI Sinclair is having troubles during transitions. You should see the number of stacked memory modules I have! To get me up to 1GB, I have had to stack them 10,534 feet! (3/4" width for each 8K module).

Jeez, do any of you old dinosaurs like me remember that old machine?

:-)
Zulqar-Cheema wrote on 7/5/2002, 4:37 AM
I noticed that if i disable device control in capture i did not get any dropped frames when recording into my Laptop. No idea why.
Chienworks wrote on 7/5/2002, 10:19 AM
The Sinclair was that beast that used the processor to generate the video display, right? So whenever the program was running, the TV screen went blank; then to see something on the screen, the program had to halt. Wooooo! The heady days of advanced electronics!

Last i heard of them was that they were selling on the streets for about $10 each, and people were snapping them up to get the Zilog Z-80 processor chip out of them because the chip itself cost about $15. Ahhh, those were the days ;)
venomhed wrote on 7/6/2002, 7:14 PM
Where is that option Device Control at?

Can you setup different codecs in VV capture mode? I havent used VV capture mode cuz I use Power VCR2 or VDub which are very versatile
SonyDennis wrote on 7/6/2002, 7:38 PM
The first option in the General preference panel in VidCap is "enable DV device control"
///d@
venomhed wrote on 7/7/2002, 3:12 PM
Found the option, thank you.

Still getting massive frame loss on my p3-1ghz. Also my AMD 1.33ghz loses them as well.

Can you secify the size and or codec for vid capture? As stated before i am using Power Vcr 2 which uses Mpeg 1 or 2 and it is a dream! The quality is excellent and works in VV nice but it would be cool to have this same feature in VV and avoid using Power Vcr.

thanks