faster preview rather than render...

ushere wrote on 6/3/2008, 7:28 PM
ok, so my green screen job has just been delivered and they're over the moon - i'm happy, but like everyone here, i know i could have done better with a bigger budget....

which brings me to the subject - i'm after better previewing in hdv (e6600/3ram), rendering isn't such a big deal since i rarely have a client sitting waiting, nor am i pushed for deadlines (ah, the joy of semi-retirement - you want it tomorrow? here's a few numbers to ring...), so i can do anything heavy duty overnight.

however, previewing my keying was painful, sort of real time at draft (working on m2t's), ok for cueing audio, but a laugh dealing with pic, anything better was jerky and out of sync. so my workflow was rather jerky too - check audio cues, set preview to best to spot check key, etc.,

i'm not looking to spend a fortune, but from what i've read here, a faster dual2core would be better (for previewing) than a slower quad?

if so, would bumping up my cpu from e6600 to an e8500 be worthwhile (and significant) from a purely preview pov?

leslie

Comments

TheHappyFriar wrote on 6/3/2008, 8:44 PM
you using ram previews? I've got 4gb (3.whatever under 32-bit XP) & can do relatively long ram previews @ "preview - auto". They render really fast too (compared to a normal render).

So it may be a good idea to get vista 64 & as much ram as your MB can hold (or a new MB if you're maxed). Then ram preview till you're out of things to do because it went TO fast. :)
ushere wrote on 6/3/2008, 10:14 PM
thanks thf,

i've been using ram previews too, but what i was after was more reliable playback speed rather than 'best', i know what my keys are likely to look like, it's just that it's 'tiring' watching the time line in either draft mode (ugh!), or stuttering in best.

i'd be happy with a compromise between the two - say good/auto....

leslie
ushere wrote on 6/5/2008, 9:22 PM
i'm bumping this simply to know if it's worth waiting for the new intel chips, (probably since the price of all the others will fall?).

and i appreciate thf's suggestion re ram preview, but what i'm really after is better t/l preview, ie, better than 'preview' quality.

what would give me better t/l playback - 2 core at 3.16mhz or 4 core at 2.6mhz?

tia

leslie
farss wrote on 6/6/2008, 7:42 AM
Don't know if this helps much but I've only recently noticed this too and it's wierd. Vegas can render much faster than it can preview. On a current project at Best I get around 10secs per frame preview and yet it encodes to mpeg-2 at around 2 frames per second.
A faster CPU must help but I wonder why the huge difference in speed, you'd think the additional work of the encoding would give the reverse result.

Bob.
Grazie wrote on 6/6/2008, 7:58 AM
Remember my thing about using Pre-render options for Previewing? Remember? Having a QUADie and having pre-render below GOOD gets me a very quick Preview on what I am doing. Next question -Bob - is Pre-rendering quick enough? And yes, why isn't Vegas using the CPU power to Preview?

Grazie
farss wrote on 6/6/2008, 2:41 PM
Unfortunately pre-rendering isn't going to help here. I need to work at Best as there's a bit of scaling going on. I only really need to see the current frame while I adjust a mask or FX, making a change and then waiting seconds to see the result is a bit frustrating.
Should have hauled this off to my quaddie, you're right.
I seem to be seeing a bug in the bezier masks too, think you mentioned this once. Composite white on white and you can get a faint outline of the mask. Doesn't matter in this case thankfully.

Bob.