I have a feeling that (yet again) Zippadeedoodaa is pulling our chain and is not giving us the information (or the angle) that he is really playing.

His reference to the "12 hour renders" is the biggest clue. His real issue is that he has not come to terms with the way that Vegas operates and that when you have a complex project with lots of effects / overlays etc etc that it is the internal processing (within Vegas) that is taking the largest chunk of time and not the rendering to MPEG2 by itself. Rendering to AVI first may (as some have reported) make a small difference to the overall time required to render to Mpeg but I would assert that Zippy already knows the issues involved here.

For someone who has been on this forum for as long as he has... I again cannot believe that he has not seen the many threads about render speed and how Vegas does or does not have hardware assisted rendering capabilities.

DELETED

I rest my case.

At work we have a separate system to do encoding. We play the rendered project out from Media 100 (on a mac) and pipe it into a PC that does the encode.

We actually set this up for windows media encodes. The Mac platform and Media 100 made the process really slow otherwise.

So, Zippy faces the same dilema. He needs to render a finished AVI and then he can do the mpeg2 encode. Many people say they get real-time MPEG2 encodes just from their PC. So he'd have to experiment. But he has to come to grips with the fact that the project has to be rendered first.

Rob Mack

Well, then that's how long it takes. I'd say that the MPEG encode is the least of your problems.

For the AVI render, you either change the way you work or you change your system (hardware or software or both).

You might find that rendering portions to a new track when you think they're done will help. Or maybe cutting the first half of the project out and putting it into a new project and then rendering it while you work on the other half...You get the picture. Complicated acrobatics here.

This is where mutliple timelines and subcomps and nested timelines would pay off. You could mark an area and choose to create a nested timeline of it. You essentially lock the region. From there vegas could render in the background. If you want to change it you have to open up the nested timeline. Rendering starts anew.

But this doesn't exist right now so you need to do the same thing in your head. One strategy might be to start rendering to a new track overnight even though you're only partway done. Then as you finish you can cut out the new track parts you don't want and use the underlying tracks to make the changes.

You're really going to have to use your head here. Brute force rendering speed isn't going to help you.

Or get a faster machine, or go to another NLE, or to something that provides hardware support (as long as you're doing things the hardware can help with).

Or find smart ways to get more out of what you've got.

Rob Mack

DELETED

Rehashing what (I think...) every poster on this thread already knows:

There is no system in the world that can render any concievable combination of fx in realtime at any resolution. Some hardware-assist rigs can drastically cut down on render time under certain conditions (specific fx in a specific order), but slap on a gaussian blur, or add a drop shadow, or add another layer (it varies with each setup)...and you're back to rendering.

With Vegas, on a fast machine, you should be able to ENCODE to DVD MPEG-2 at way less than 2:1. Encoding in the pure sense-, no fx, no scaling, no resample, just compression.

My machine will render PAL DV video to PAL MPEG2 video in realtime or a bit more (58seconds for 1 minute of video).

As SonyEPM says, it's all down to the effects/comping slowing the render.

Rehashing what (I think...) every poster on this thread already knows:

Exactly.

Pinnacle Edition claims that it is renderless but, in reality, it does the renders in the background as you create transitions and use FX. This way when you’re done editing you’re also done rendering. This might be a nice feature to add to Vegas 5. In the mean time, you can always select the Tools -> Selectively Prerender Video... option to prerender your project as you build it. This will cut down on your final rendering times by doing incremental rendering in between.

BTW, I get near real-time MPEG2 encoding of DV AVI files on my P4 3.0Ghz computer (give or take a few seconds). So getting a faster processor is your only hardware option using Vegas currently.

~jr

I get MPEG-2 encoding at about 95% of real time. :-)

Bad news Zippy - you're not going to be able to get what you're asking for without a serious outlay of cash. In fact, none of the major desktop NLE applications can do what you're asking them to. Not Final Cut, not Premiere, not Xpress, and certainly not Vegas. Even some of the hardware-accelerated solutions by Matrox, Canopus, and even Avid Mojo would probably not be enough to deliver the type of real-time performance you're asking for.

In fact, it's my strong suggestion that you consider contacting a Discreet sales rep to build you an SGI-based multi-server Inferno system with a SAN storage subsystem. You'll find that they're very scalable and will be an excellent solution to meet your needs. Sure, the user manual might be daunting, but I have every confidence that you will be productive inside of a week on it and leave all of this Vegas nonsense behind.

You're right, Zippy. It is our right to demand Hollywood effects and render speeds in realtime for our personal productions on our desktop computers for less than four figures. Just remember that every axe is composed of a finite amount of metal, and that you can only blindly grind it so far before you reach the handle.

DELETED

Zippy,

Pardon my asking but what is your box's processor speed? 12 hours to render 25 minutes seems somewhat excessive (unless you have several complicated Boris Graffiti sequences in the there). If the latter is the case, consider building the Graffiti sections in Premiere 6.5 then importing the rendered AVIs into Vegas. But if you took the time to start the show in Premiere 6.5, with its vastly superior titling tool, why even bother going back to Vegas? A lot of people diss Premiere but 6.5 ain't bad. Pro, however, is processor intensive so I'd hate to try using it without hardware acceleration.

Peter

If there is any blur or supersampling orlots of generated media, a 25 minute video could easily take 12 hours to render from a timeline to MPEG. Problem is, if Zippy would read the forums a little, he'd see that the BEST software encode comes from an avi file, not a timeline.
Zippy, go buy the ADS Instant DVD kit. It's a hardware encode, will deliver a better-than-software encode, and it's real time. Then you can post in the ADS forums about their product and how the cable plugins shouldn't be red, white, and yellow, and how Svid sucks compared to composite, and how component confuses you because there are 2 red connectors. And that the power button is too small, too big, not rounded enough, too rounded, and it looks funky on your desktop. Or not funky enough.

DELETED

Then buy the DV Bridge if you can't figure out how to connect a USB cable.
Better avi solution? You mean faster? Get a real computer. Get quality gear. Learn to use the app. There are smart ways to edit, and less than smart ways to edit. get informed. That might help.
As said, you'll ALWAYS get a better and faster encode from an avi file than you will from a timeline. ALWAYS.
Zippy, if you'd just take the time to figure some of the basics out, it wouldn't be so hard at the end. Knowing the WHY things work the way they do, almost always makes the HOW become more simple to deal with. Because then you know what to avoid and what to take advantage of. A tree doesn't grow great without having strong roots. I strongly suggest you start spending more time learning about the roots of NLE's, digital vid, and how it all works before you keep screaming out regarding trivial issues, that would be trivial for you were you to understand how it all works.

As said, you'll ALWAYS get a better and faster encode from an avi file than you will from a timeline. ALWAYS.

Is that true for WM9 too? I am doing a project where I only use a few dissolves and a lot of wipes, so most of the project is DV that will not need to be rerendered. In that case is it still better to do it in two steps?

Yes, you will always get a faster encode from a rendered avi file than from the project, if that project has anything other than straight cuts DV sources. However, what this statement doesn't take into account is the rendering time to produce the avi file. If you add the two steps together it will almost always be longer than a single render/encode straight from the timeline.

Hey Zippy -
No one likes to wait for renders, so keep these things in mind.

If you render sections as you go along, it will speed up your final encode infinitely.

When I'm working, if I finish a section, I always "Render to a new track" with the following settings: DV NTSC, best resolution, NO AUDIO. It takes about 10 minutes (I haven't really TIMED this) - but about 10 min or so to render a 40 to 60 second piece with a bunch of track moves, transparencies and other video candy (Yeah Vegas!). This generally follows anywhere from a half hour to two hours of intensive genius, on my part. So I set it to render, go to the head, have a drink of water, look at the script, and now (with my nifty new P4 3mhz, HT, 1 GIG RAM, I will often open and continue to cut on the same show, but opened separately.

Each effect (along the way) I look at with a "Ctrl B" RAM render - generally 20 seconds or so.
Then I drag the rendered section down to the top track so all the renders are on the same track, and erase the top track which is now empty.

If I don't like a sectiion (bad move or effect or something else I don't like) I cut out the bad part of the top track render, fix the mistake (generally under 3 seconds of track time) and re-render THAT SECTION and drag IT onto the top track.
As my show is completed, I get more and more on that top track. It doesn't cut into my creative time at all - a glass of water and a little stretch are necessary to eliminate bleariness. It sets a good pace.

When that top track is filled... I'm done with the project. Well not really, there are ALWAYS some last changes, but you ain't re-rendering much, just the corrections, and then dragging them down onto the finished rendered track.

Then I encode the finished piece with minimal effort. It's rendering a single non-effected AVI track.
PLUS, in the morning, I can see what I finisihed the day before, at full speed.

This is a great way to work - now...
someone else recommended a Discrete system. Well, actually I owned an AVID MC 9000 with an Aladdin Genie (hardware) accellerator which DID do real time (as in NOW) renders of up to two tracks including 3D effects. It's a nice way to work, but I paid about $120,000 for it in 1992. Today, prices have fallen and you can get a good AVID that will do pretty much what you want for under $100k.

So why aren't I still on that real time AVID. Because 12 year old technology just ain't as good as the present. Vegas is just better visually and super comfortable to work with. And, of course, I no longer have the NEED for real time renders. When you have a client watching your every move and you are charging him $400 to $1,000 an hour, well, nobody wants to wait at those rates. But you HAVE to get that kind of money to pay off the gear and the talent who run it. It's going on everyday in NY, Boston, Miami and LA. It's expensive to play in the big time, and major corporations are ready to pay, if you've got the talent and abilities.

If you aren't ready to demand and get those kind of rates, then rest easy laddie - your dreams will come true, soon enough (No I don't have ANY "special friends or knowledge" at Sony. It's just SO OBVIOUS. )

So thank your lucky stars that you were born at a time when without any familial or Union contacts, you can shoot, edit and deliver with professional quality at your fingertips. It wasn't always this easy.

Meanwhile, I'd suggest you take a look at my latest book, "Quit Whining".
Check it out on Amazon or www.quitwhining.Net

Hang in there - as we all are. It only gets better and better. Best of luck to you in all your video endeavors. Have fun...

v.

True, it doesn't take into account the extra step of render time, but isn't quality the end game here? Fast, Cheap, or Good....nobody rides for free. Pick your favorite two.
The encode process might be slightly slower, depending on what's in the AVI render, but due to scaling issues, you'll get a better MPEG from an avi than you will from an unrendered timeline going straight to MPEG>

Spot,

For mpeg renders I pretty much always go to DV first and then re-encode to mpeg.

My question is does the same principle apply to Windows Media 9?

I have been rendering straight to WM9 because at that point I don't have any effects, only have a few small dissolves and some wipes. My titles are avi already. If you don't have effects and only a few brief transitions, is the difference in quality noticeable enough to use the two-render method?

Buster