DVD rendering times

merkelck wrote on 8/24/2003, 2:49 PM
I am new to this dvd creation stuff and would appreciate other inputs regarding this task.
I gave up on Studio7/8 for everything except making the dvd. Hopefully, the new version
of MovieStudio will allow me to get it all in one package. My real question is this. When I render a project to make a dvd, 120 minutes of material takes 12-13 hours to finish. I realize there are many factors and I would assume that like anything else, the speed of rendering is directly proportional to the amount of money spent. But where is the money spent more wisely? Better software or better hardware? I realize that I could upgrade the computer from it's current 1.3ghz/256mb situation but is there a better choice of software?
Any and all ideas appreciated.
Kent

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 8/24/2003, 2:57 PM
I would say your best bet is better hardware. Rendering speed is nearly proportional to processor speed and you can get a computer around 2.5 times faster than your current one.

MPEG encoding is a very complex process and most encoders have just about hit the same peak of efficiency. The trade-off is that better encoding takes more time and fast encoding can only be accomplished by taking shortcuts. If you were to find software that encodes MPEG files substantially faster than VideoFactory then i would also assume the output would be substantially crummier too. Consider that Vegas has a "quality" slider when rendering to MPEG that normally defaults to the middle setting. Moving it to the left reduces quality for more speed and to the right increases quality but rendering is slower. You can render much faster if you move the slider all the way to the left, but most of us move it all the way to the right and suffer the self-imposed longer rendering times to get a better output.
JohnnyRoy wrote on 8/24/2003, 7:21 PM
> I gave up on Studio7/8 for everything except making the dvd

That was a wise move. There are lots of unpaid ex-Studio beta testers here. ;-)

I would have to agree with Chienworks, a faster processor is the best remedy for slow rendering. Still, your numbers seem a bit long. I have a P4 1.7Ghz 512MB (not that much faster than yours) and I average a 2x to 3x for MPEG2 encoding. So a 1 hour AVI file takes between 2 – 3 hours to render as MPEG2 on my PC. You are seeing 6x, which seems very long to me. Are you adding a video FX to the whole movie? (like brightness, contrasts, HSL adjust?) It just seems like a really long time for just MPEG2 encoding.

Try encoding an AVI file with no other changes. That’s your real MPEG2 encoding speed. Everything else is due to processing FX, transitions, titles, etc. on your AVI file.

~jr
merkelck wrote on 8/24/2003, 7:58 PM
This project was input to S8 as a single avi file. I then added 8 chapters points and a menu with the wav file attached. At the chapter points, I added a 4sec black jpg and put the chapter marker right in the center of that. Other than the menu, any other titles were already in the avi file as it came from the Screenblast VF.
I think what I will do now is follow your suggestion and put together a shorter avi file and try it with or without some trasistions or titles and see what difference that makes in the render
time.
By the way, thanks both to Chienworks and JohhnyRoy for the responses. I find both of your inputs to be very helpful and informative.
Kent
JohnnyRoy wrote on 8/25/2003, 8:45 AM
I’m sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought it was taking 12 hours to generate the MPEG2 file in VideoFactory. If Studio 8 is taking 12 hours than that explains it. Studio 8 is known for taking far too long to render DVD’s. I suggest you get the new Screenblast Movie Studio or get Ulead DVD Movie Factory or Dazzle DVD Complete. Anything is better than Studio.

~jr
merkelck wrote on 8/25/2003, 11:13 AM
I am glad I read your last post before I embarked on a long test routine. My copy of the
new ScreenBlast has been order for some time. For now, I am going to wait until that gets here and then I will start over. Thanks
Kent