DVD Architect rendering 30 min video in 18 hours?

othersteve wrote on 8/1/2009, 7:15 AM
Hey guys,

Just making sure I'm not the only one here whose machine is doing this...

I have a 25GB Blu-ray project (29.97 fps, 60i) where I have put together a 519-picture large picture compilation within DVDA. It's around 30 minutes long... but DVDA is supposedly taking someplace in the neighborhood of 18 hours to render the video. Is that right, or is something up?

Just for the record, my computer is quite capable... Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 7,200 RPM hard drive, etc. Vegas renders to 1280x720 AVCHD in about 5-6 minutes per minute of source video. I know 1920x1080 takes longer, but this long?

Steve

Comments

Steve Grisetti wrote on 8/1/2009, 7:27 AM
You don't say how large those photos are -- but downsampling photos and then rendering them to 1080i can take considerable time!

The process will speed up considerably if you size your photos to no 1440x1080 before you load them into your project.
othersteve wrote on 8/1/2009, 7:45 AM
Thanks Steve, just wanted to make sure something wasn't amiss. :)

I truly appreciate the advice.

Edit: Oh, and for the record, each photo is displayed for 3.5 seconds with panning/zooming enabled. Perhaps that has something to do with it as well.

Steve
warriorking wrote on 8/1/2009, 10:51 AM
Build and render your project in Vegas first and then pull it into DVDA for menu building and final burning to disc...Don't use DVDA to render you projects, its takes much longer....
othersteve wrote on 8/1/2009, 12:14 PM
Woah--

All right, another question... (sorry about all this).

DVDA just finished the preparation after 19 hours. It estimated a 24.4GB disc size.... but the resulting ISO is 35GB. Huh?

Okay, this is driving me nuts. I really don't know what the heck is up with this goofy program.

Steve
John_Cline wrote on 8/1/2009, 4:16 PM
"The process will speed up considerably if you size your photos to no 1440x1080 before you load them into your project."

1440x1080 is not a 16x9 ratio unless it also has a pixel aspect ratio flag of 1.3333. Most all image editing programs only deal with square pixels (1.0 PAR), so you would want to use 1920x1080.
Steve Grisetti wrote on 8/1/2009, 4:58 PM
Yes, John, but most photos are 4:3, not 16:9.

Your measurements are correct, then, if you want to slice the tops and bottoms of each photo so that it fills the whole 16:9 screen.

But, if you want to display a photo normally (even though it won't fill your 16:9 screen from side to side), you should use 1440x1080 (with square pixels).

In other words, both our numbers are right -- it just depends on the effect you're looking for!