Boris Red 3GL users: Render times?

kentwolf wrote on 7/11/2004, 4:02 PM
I have experimenting with the tryout version of Boris Red 3GL. (I am actually gettng the hang of the interface.) I am strongly considering getting it this week.

Question: I was testing with a 3 second clip (90 frames) using the light rays effect set to max + the trails set to max.

While it is a pretty graphic intensive peice of media, as I started to render to a TGA sequence, it estimated the render time to be 6 HOURS!

6 hours for a 3 second clip? Presumably, Red 3GL is about 33% faster than the last version.

I am running an AMD Athlon XP 2400 + 1 Gig of RAM, rendering to drive E:.

Does this render time seem unreasonable, in your opinion?

I know it depends on a lot of things, but man, this sure seems like a long time.

No question, the results are supurb..it just takes a really, really long time for some things.

Is Adobe After Effects 6.5 comparable?

I was going to test out AfterEffects 6.5, but to my amazement, the help file did not have a single tutorial, nor were any referenced on the Adobe site. I'm talking, I need a ground 0, level 1 tutorial. I do not have a clue as to step 1 in After Effects. I know Encore DVD very well, but not so After Effects 6.5.

Do you maybe have an idea where I could find one so I could give it a look?

At least Red had tutorials and I was actually getting decent output after only a couple hours. (And I understood what I was doing.)

Question summary: :)

1.) Does this render time seem unreasonable, in your opinion?

2.) Is Adobe After Effects 6.5 comparable with respect to render times?

3.) Do you maybe have an idea where I could find an After Effects 6.5 basic tutorial so I could give it a look?

If this render time is normal, I will never complain about MPG2 render times ever again... :)

Thanks for your help!!

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 7/11/2004, 6:37 PM
:-) Welcome to the real world of rendering.... At least with Vegas you can network render the media, that saves time.
Boris is Boris whether it's under AE or under Vegas. Uness you have a hardware card that AE accesses like Storm or Matrox's cards.

Regarding AE tutorials, Stephen Schleicher has dozens on the http://www.dmnforums.com site. He does 2 a week.
Chris Vadnais has just submitted a VASST book on Boris Red with some Vegas stuff in there.

RED will go fast for DV stuff, but generated media going to TGA will be quite slow. This is why you want it PERFECT before rendering, and why RED now has the OGL accesses. I wish Vegas could do the same for the 3D stuff.
kentwolf wrote on 7/11/2004, 8:10 PM
Spot:

Thank you very much for your info! I really appreciate it.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 7/11/2004, 8:12 PM
I did some render tests with RedGL when it came out (the demo). Here's what I found:

Red running inside Vegas (as a plugin) renders about 2-4 times slower then Red outside of Vegas. But, it's the same with the Winmorph program too. :)

Try rendering rhe red project outside of Vegas. See if that is faster.

And yes, that render time sounds good. Remember, you're rendering 90 720x480x32 files. All those effects take time. :)
Spot|DSE wrote on 7/11/2004, 8:17 PM
The reason it's a little slower in Vegas vs RED direct is the way Vegas serves the frames, I believe. I was given the exact answer once, but it's lost in the detritus of my brain at the moment.
winrockpost wrote on 7/11/2004, 8:17 PM
6hrs for 3 seconds, never tried tga but avi uncompressed no way takes 6 hrs more like a couple minutes .
kentwolf wrote on 7/11/2004, 8:30 PM
Since Red 3GL and After Effects seem to be positioned as competitors, that would seem to imply they are similar products, competeting head-to-head.

If you had to sum up the overall objectives for each product what would it be?

Like: After Effects is best if you want to do thus-and-such, Red is best for whatever.

I know this may be an over simplification, but it would be helpful if you could at least take a stab at it.

Thanks all again!
kentwolf wrote on 7/12/2004, 4:23 AM
Bump.
Spot|DSE wrote on 7/12/2004, 7:43 AM
The are competitive or complimentary, depends on how you look at them. They do work together. Learning curve is identical on both, IMO. Boris is a lot more proactive about support and training where AE seems to leave it all to everyone else. AE still has issues that should have been resolved.
I really like the Boris product, and really like the people behind it. AE is a good tool, but I don't like the lack of access, I don't like the need for plugins to do most anything, and don't like the instability on the PC platform. (works great on Apple)
kentwolf wrote on 7/12/2004, 7:46 AM
Super!

Thanks again!
Mandk wrote on 7/12/2004, 8:24 AM
Boris does take a long time especially with 3d effects and a variety of filters applied. Simple items are a lot shorter.
Mandk wrote on 7/12/2004, 8:27 AM
In Chris Vadnias' tutorial he has an example of the two programs working together. I forget the effect but he was showing how each may have strengths the other does not have and how they can be used together to create something not possible with either alone.