I've had a couple of black frames twice in recent renders, once with mxf and the last one wth mp4.
On recommendations from forum members here, I totally switched off GPU, not only in the render but altogether, before rendering, and the black frames were gone in the render.

I shall try CPU only to see if those little lines disappear. I posted to see if there was a difinitive answer as I suspected the difference would not be visible to the naked eye! Cheers for the replies

Forget that Vegas has a GPU feature. Just turn it off, everywhere you can. It apparently does work for a few lucky people, although I secretly suspect that they may also be having problems that they simply haven't spotted yet. Random blank frames are sometimes difficult to discover. I actually wrote software that would scan my renders to look for single black frames, and after I kept finding them, I gave up on GPU, never to go back.

You might still want to use GPU for playback, but only if you get a substantial improvement. Just remember to turn it all off before you render.

It apparently does work for a few lucky people, although I secretly suspect that they may also be having problems that they simply haven't spotted yet.

It works for those that have the right hardware; it's as simple as that.

"It apparently does work for a few lucky people, although I secretly suspect that they may also be having problems that they simply haven't spotted yet.

It works for those that have right hardware; it's as simple as that."




A++++ 1000% correct :) no other way to put it.

I recommend putting the original footage, a CPU-rendered file, and a GPU-rendered file lined up on 3 separate video tracks, then compare them on the Waveform and RGB Parade (in the video scopes window) by soloing each track. This is a great way to pick up differences. I expect in many cases you'll see the GPU-rendered file differ more from the original than the CPU-rendered file, but it depends on many factors, and the difference may well be tolerable.

[I]" It works for those that have the right hardware; it's as simple as that."[/I]

And that would be?
Where is that information published by SCS?

Bob.

There was information available since VP11 if you knew how to read it and nothing has changed ever since.

There was information available since VP11 if you knew how to read it and nothing has changed ever since.Can you please refrain from these snarky remarks? Bob is a really good guy and has contributed more to this forum than almost anyone I can think of. He doesn't deserve to be "spoken to" like this.

What Nick and Bob and I are trying to say is that the GPU rendering is fraught with problems for many people -- most of whom have tried really hard to find the right hardware to use but, absent any guidelines from SCS, have often failed to get a system which reliably works. In addition, speaking for myself (although Nick echoed this sentiment), I strongly suspect that the GPU and CPU renders are not identical, and that other problems may lurk in the GPU renders. I base this on having read most of the posts in this forum for the past fourteen years, including the large number of posts in the past four years concerning GPU rendering problems.

John Meyer

I agree with OldSmoke. I found it very difficult to read. Actually I could read it, but it went over my head!

We're all Stars here.

Grazie

@nickhope,
Would using the difference compositing mode on a GPU rendered track above a CPU rendered track be a good way to compare? Or do the compression schemes have enough randomness introduced to make this test meaningless?

When I first installed 11, I noticed color fringing around thin text on a GPU render that wasn't on a CPU render. I then started noticing subtle differences in the renders whenever any compositing was involved, even crossfades. Couldn't see any difference when compositing wasn't involved. After that I just always went with CPU renders even though I get good timeline acceleration with GPU on. 560ti on one system, QuadroFX 1800 on another. Saw same results on both.

@johnmeyer

Provided the information in your system spec is still up to date, there is a very good reason why it doesn't work for you.
There is also a reason why I and others here are always asking for system specs when they complain about GPU acceleration.
Could Vegas be better, certainly but we first should always look at our systems before we blame the software.
As for the topic, yes there are differences in rendering with and without GPU and they are most apparent at low bitrates, 7K and lower on my system, and mostly only with the MC AVC encoders which where specifically written for certain GPUs by Mainconcept.

[I]"There was information available since VP11 if you knew how to read it and nothing has changed ever since."[/I]

On behalf of the many forum members who are having issues and who you implied are at fault because they're using the wrong hardware I asked you where they could find the information. The best you can come up with is a document that:

a) Is labelled "Internal use only."
b) Is benchmark tests.
c) at least one of the cards used in the benchmark tests is no longer in production.
d) is years old.

It's neither published nor a list a recommended video cards.

If that's the best you can manage then I'd suggest you owe the forum members that you were taking a cheap shot at when you said:
"It works for those that have the right hardware; it's as simple as that. "
an apology.

Aside from that, there is one piece of information in that document that could be relevant:

"A clean uninstall of the previous driver was CRITICAL."

That's a statement backed up by multiple posts on several Windows support fora. Doing a complete uninstall of video card drivers does seem to be problematic, even if you use Windows own driver uninstallation tools it might not get rid of everything and it does seem that might lead to issues.

One tool that is recommended for getting this task done is Display Driver Uninstaller. I have not tried this, as with any such software be careful as the page includes download links to things you probably don't want on your computer. Hopefully it's an easier road to go down than what several users have had to resort to, a bare metal re-install of Windows.


Bob.

Oh no, that is not the only information and by the way, it was publicly available for a long time. Here is some more information.
Again, read it carefully and you will still find that it says FERMI architecture when it comes to Nvidia.
There have been numerous threads about GPU acceleration and what works and what doesn't. Members of this forum have taken their time to even test their hardware properly and publish the results here. This has been going on since VP11 was introduced and I still stand to it: if you have issues with GPU acceleration you have to check your hardware.