Film look Screens?

Grazie wrote on 6/25/2004, 12:15 AM
We all know we can do stuff to an event. The more we do to the event the longer it takes to render - yeah? Supposing I was to create a rendered "Screen" which I overlaid my original event .. ie Track1 Screen , Track2 event. Would the render time be less, the same or MORE than FX-ing the actual Event itself? .. . What would be gained? What would be lost?

Grazie

Comments

Cheno wrote on 6/25/2004, 6:45 AM
It all depends on what fx you're applying to your event. Two tracks with one having less opacity layed over each other would most likely render faster than some fx combinations. I prefer the control over the fx if I need to make a change for some reason. Render times are rarely an issue for me though.

Mike
Grazie wrote on 6/25/2004, 6:46 AM
Me too Cheno . .it was just a thoyught .. I was wondering if anybody had used this as an option .. ?

Grazie
Jay Gladwell wrote on 6/25/2004, 6:48 AM
Grazie, this is just a guess on my part. . .

I would think any time you "alter" the original image--edge to edge, top to bottom, side to side--the entire frame has to be "redrawn" as it were. By altering the frame, regardless of what method, technique, or tool is used, the end result would be the same, as would the render time. . . I would think.

Having said that, the gentleman who created Znotes (I forget his name) said that renders from Magic Bullet alterted footage, for example, takes so long because the software was not written with Vegas codecs in mind. Hence, the loooonger render times. He and his associates are working on a new Magic Bullet-like plug-in that is optimized for Vegas. Therefore, the end results will be like using MB, but with far less render time involved.

Did any of that make sense?

Jay
Grazie wrote on 6/25/2004, 6:58 AM
Jay - Thanks and yes it did! ;-) G