Help! The system is low on memory.

CosmicNIO wrote on 6/25/2009, 10:58 PM
I have made a project in Sony Vegas Pro 9 and when i go to render it gets to about 5% or frame 71 and a window comes up and says: An error occurred
The system is low on memory. You may be able to reduce memory usage by closing other applications. I have tried that and it still comes up. I think that this has something to do with the RAM. I have 3 GB of RAM. Do I need more?
Ask me if you need info.

Any help? Thanks!


ushere wrote on 6/26/2009, 1:25 AM
what system?

what's on the tl?
CosmicNIO wrote on 6/26/2009, 1:42 AM
I think it means either Sony Vegas Pro 9 or the computer.
srode wrote on 6/26/2009, 2:39 AM
I have 8GB and get the same result in 32 bit many times with different output formats - I believe it's a bug - haven't had it show up on anything the 64 bit version.
blink3times wrote on 6/26/2009, 3:01 AM
How big is your page file and how much dynamic ram have you set?
cliff_622 wrote on 6/26/2009, 11:53 AM
I'd hate to say this but I think you will need to just give up on your 32bit OS.

I struggled with this for many many months in XP32bit. After jumping through many hoops, all kinds of back door acrobatics, pulling lot's of hair out and 3 (failed) attempts at suiside,...I switched to Vista64.

ALL rendering problems gone today.

Life is back to normal and the mental scars are beginning to heal.

Forget Vegas in the 32bit world.

blink3times wrote on 6/26/2009, 12:13 PM
"ALL rendering problems gone today."

No, no no.... It's SCS and all the..................... "memory issues" ........that are to blame ;)
cliff_622 wrote on 6/26/2009, 1:43 PM
"ALL rendering problems gone today."

No, no no.... It's SCS and all the..................... "memory issues" ........that are to blame ;)

Alright BLINK!

We FINALY agree on something! You are indeed correct on this. Other 32bit progs can render fine with 3 gigs. Adobe's render engine is excellent in 32bit. Unfortunatly, Vegas 32bit tries to bite off more than it can chew in it's mouth. Giving that same "engine" a bigger mouth (64bit) allows it to actually "chew" the data it's already shoved in there.

It's my humble belief that if the engine were completely rewritten, (allot of work!) SCS could optimize the way "nibbles" on the data and it's caching process.

To use another food analegy, can eat the same plate of food with 3 gigs, just needs to learn how to eat in very tiny bites and move it around the plate and not swallow it all so fast.

It always blew my mind that my worst projects used to preview 100% fine but rendered horibly. When you demand "real time" , get it. When you give it all the time in the world to do it,...that's when it bombs. (ironic)

Anyhoo,..thank God those days are over for me. However, I still have sympathy for the folks left in 32bit render hell.

Thanks Blink,..I knew you'd come around eventually! : - )

CosmicNIO wrote on 6/26/2009, 5:13 PM
Yes i am gonna upgrade my laptop to a very powerful desktop (64 bit). my page file is 1500 and max is 2000. I had never got that message before but all i did was change my audio settings to slightly better quality and now i get it.
thanks for the help! i'm looking at getting a desktop with 64 bit Vista Ultimate with 8 GB RAM and 1.5 TB (750 x 2) HDD.
DigVid wrote on 6/27/2009, 4:34 AM
Well that's just great! I'm glad everyone here is happy with their 64-bit rendering machines. However, some of us still use 32-bit OS' and SCS should offer us refunds or at least have warned us that they would not work properly in their 32-bit versions. I certainly did not intend to capitalize their 64-bit ventures by buying into a crippled 32-bit version. While I am generally happy with the fixes that Pro9 includes. I will not be at all happy if they can't make Pro9 render properly in 32-bit. Talk about forcing their users into 64-bit!
Mahesh wrote on 6/27/2009, 4:52 AM
I am really, really, disheartened.
My core 2 duo with 32bit xp would not run V9.
So, today, I picked up a new PC with i7 quad core cpu and loads of memory. I decided not go for Vista 64 and got them to install 32 bit XP pro. I was hoping to wait for Windows 7. Looks like a bad-bad decision.

Still, V8 is going to fly on this new beast :(
cliff_622 wrote on 6/27/2009, 7:19 AM
When you say "...would not run V9..." What do you mean?

Can't install it? Can't launch it? Won't render your projects?

Your hardware is fine, you dont "need" an i7 to run V9.

If you are having the render issue, I doubt V8 will do anything better than V9, even with the new hardware running XP32bit. (unless you are going from 1gig RAM to 3gigs)

In the years to come OEM's and software companies will head more and more into the 64bit world. It's pretty much the future.

Go 64bit on the OS, especially if you spent the money on the RAM. (you can still run Vegas 32bit and render the audio in that if you have 32bit plugs that won't run in 64)

Mahesh wrote on 6/27/2009, 7:51 AM
sorry, cliff_622, I was very vague .V9 does run on my core 2 duo.. It renders and I can edit. BUT it freezes - cpu usage shoots up to 100% and stays there. Only way to get out is to terminate using Task Manager.
V8 has been and is running without only problems.
Hope that makes sense.
Andrue wrote on 6/27/2009, 12:41 PM
i have an i7 920 with vista 64. i get all kinds of vegas errors. i dont know what they all are but usually just the error message is: sony video vegas has stopped working, would you like to report this error. i do but to no avail.
CosmicNIO wrote on 6/27/2009, 5:42 PM
When I get my new desktop ill let you guys know how its going, I should be getting it just over a week :)
dreamlx wrote on 6/28/2009, 2:31 AM
Well because of several hardware I am using, I am forced to 32bit Windows XP. I have out of memories for almost every complex render that is longer than 5 minutes ! This can't be serious ! If 32bit is a supported platform, the software should also work on 32bit, slow is acceptable but unstable not at all ! I am working myself as software developer and in my opinion there are some serious memory leaks in here and they need to be fixed ! What should we tell our customers ? Should we say: We are using Vegas, so your project will be delivered one year later ? As a work around, I tried network rendering to have the render split into multiple segments. On segment 31 of 91 Vegas crashed ! The result, Vegas decided to delete also the 31 good segments ! Why ? Why can it not do a resume and reuse the 31 good segments ?

I don't want to talk only bad on Vegas, I used Vegas since version 3 which was very stable, but unfortunately over the years, Vegas got ever more unstable. I wish this moment would never have occurred but I think I will have to search for another editing system ! Any recommendations ?
CosmicNIO wrote on 6/28/2009, 3:22 AM
Yeah my favorite video editing software has always been Sony Vegas and mostly because is really friendly and a rendering system I have always trusted, I also have Adobe Premiere Pro CS4 but for me its not totally my thing. I'm not going to give up on Sony Vegas Pro 9.
Mahesh wrote on 6/28/2009, 3:42 AM
I have full faith in Sony team fix this. I still have V6 & V8 (and V5) on my system. As I work predominantly in SD, V8 is still my day-to-day work horse. I also use V6 for very quick cuts only edit ./ render.

Awaiting anxiciously for 9.0a.
ushere wrote on 6/28/2009, 4:05 AM
ok, i posted this under a new thread, but it'd probably make sense here as well:

(new i7 920, 6gb dual boot pro 32 / win 7 64)

so, i caved in and loaded 9 32 cause I WANT MY PLUGINS! well, not really, but the project i'm working on was already 'looked', and i just didn't have the patience to try and recreate the feel... so, now i'm a little more in 7 than i am in xp, and finding:

a. i have thumbnails for ALL my files in explorer!

b. so far everything has played back on wmp without a hitch!

c. 9 32 isn't as snappy as 64, but it somehow feels faster than 32 running under 32. (yeah, i know, wishful thinking...)

d. i have to say i really like the gui under 7 (with the dark turned off in vegas), much more pleasing - and i can now see grouped events with the blue outline - something too subtle in xp

e. i haven't tried any 'lengthy' renders as yet, but the novelty of my new system is enough to keep me quiet on that front for the moment. (all renders to m2t, mp4, mxf have gone according to plan)

for a (nervous) old fart, i have to say i'm very taken with 7, and coming back to xp is rather like shooting with a beta rig vs a v1p - you know it's the real thing cause it's been working well for so long, but hey, the new kid on the block sure knows how to do it as well (if not a damn sight better!).

so, so far no problems (hence the nervousness), but it's early days... i'm going to start loading some of my other software during the week (rather like moving into a new house), and we'll see how it all fits together.

my only dislike so far (and it's probably ignorance at work), is the new start menu (i gather it's similar to vista?) - i'd like to create my own folders and groups and such, but it seems overly complicated to achieve, if not impossible. i know m$ decided not to look back with a 'classic' menu, but it's another thing looking too far forward as well.....

FilmingPhotoGuy wrote on 6/28/2009, 4:35 AM
I've posted on the same Low Memory error. Just check if you still get it when render out to lowest quality. I only get this error if I render to BEST or GOOD. But selecting DRAFT or PREVIEW it renders out fine.

Project AVCHD 17mbps from Canon 1920x1080 to 1280 x 720 progresive. System i7 2.66, 6GB 133Mhz Ram.

Vegas 8b renders no problems.
FilmingPhotoGuy wrote on 6/28/2009, 4:40 AM
Just to add to the above:

XP64 bit. So I don't think it's a 32bit issue.

- Craig
Mahesh wrote on 6/28/2009, 4:53 AM
Do you think V9 was beta tested on Vista rather than XP? Makes me wonder:(
dreamlx wrote on 6/28/2009, 9:44 AM
Well I found one workaround that seems to work for my project.

1. set render threads to 1 (even on multicore machines)
2. configure one network render service per core (see help from network render service)
3. render using distributed rendering

At least for me, this seems to be a workaround to get things done. I even have better core utilization.

What comes here is pure speculations and can be complete nonsense:

I think Vegas (32bit) is using 1gbyte of ram for all render threads. Having 4 render threads (the default) means having 256 mbytes per render thread which can soon lead to out of memory situations. However when distributing rendering over the network render server, 4 processes are create which can use 1 gbyte each.

I have also spend some time this afternoon testing other editing systems, but from the usability, if think Vegas is still the best one. So please fix rendering issues, and you will have many happy users.
cliff_622 wrote on 6/28/2009, 11:55 AM
Yup,...dropping render threads to 1 in the 32bit world has always seemd to do the trick. It's a horrible thing to have to do because I have had literally 50+ hour render times doing that.

When you are desparate and are ready to end it all, do that and you should be OK. (let your PC chunk away at it alone, not even touch the mouse untill the render is done.)

This is a severe problem. And, it appears to me from reading this forum and talking to other Vegas users around me, this is THE single and largest issue that the program has. (I can think of only one person here that has consistantly tried to downplay the problem.)

I was speaking to a lady at InfoComm09 in Orlando at the "Sonic Foundry" display. (ironically) Her husband works for SCS. We were discussing Vegas and her problems rendering. All I could say was "haha, too?....yup! I feel your pain"

It appears SCS's only solution is "Go 64bit". I dont think they are going to spend the time and money needed to rewrite a brand new rendering engine to fix the problem in a 32bit OS.

"IF" (it's a big "if", I know) the current rendering code is ineffecient with memory, it's easier to throw it much more addressable memory and let it play out there than it is to rewright the whole darn thing.

Problem: My SUV guzzels and swallows gass like crazy!

Well?...just give it allot more gas!!! There ya go,.. problem solved. You dont need to redesign anything.

I dunno, I don't claim to be an expert on this, it's just the way I see it from where I sit.


I love Vegas over all other NLEs and I will stay loyal to it, even if it drives me crazy sometimes! lol
blink3times wrote on 6/28/2009, 1:31 PM
"I dunno, I don't claim to be an expert on this, "

Yes... this we know.