Comments

riredale wrote on 5/28/2004, 9:48 PM
I assume you mean to make DIFFERENT DVDs, because obviously you can clone a copy of any single DVD in the time it takes to burn one.

So I assume your biggest time sink is the render, right? If saving time is really important, you can use a different encoder. I use CinemaCraft, and on my slow (AMD 2100xp) system it renders at about .92 of real time. People with beefier CPUs can easily do renders at factors of 1.3 of real time (i.e. a 1-hour video could be rendered in 45 minutes).

Another option is of course to render in the background, while you're using Vegas or some other program in the foreground.
cat wrote on 5/28/2004, 9:57 PM
This can be a good idea.
farss wrote on 5/28/2004, 11:16 PM
Depends what you're coming from, you could look at a real time mpeg-2 hardware encoder but good ones COST. I'm facing the same problem. Also if you encode directly from whatever to mpeg-2 you then may face the horror of editing mpeg-2. Probably the best solution is more/faster machines with swappable drives.
Caruso wrote on 5/29/2004, 12:32 AM
IMO, one of Vegas' biggest strengths is that it allows you to accomplish what to me is the biggest task, editing, while demanding so little in the way of hardware overhead.

It's a snap to start rendering one section of a project (or some other project) and then open a second instance of Vegas and continue editing the next section (or next project).

Of course, unless you are working 24/7, you can always plan your work flow so that rendering is performed while you are away from the computer, fishing, hiking, whatever.

My two cents.

Caruso
kameronj wrote on 5/29/2004, 7:27 AM
Well, I guess it all depends on what you are rendering.

When I digitize footage directly from my DV cam and have it as uncompessed AVI - edit - and ready to render final...it doesn't take very long at all.

Trying to convert, edit and render something that had already been done in an MPEG, WMV, or DiVx AVI can take forever and a day.

So, I guess it all depend on what you are rendering.
BillyBoy wrote on 5/29/2004, 8:37 AM
If you're thinking about a slightly faster CPU JUST to get finished burning DVD's a little faster... save your cash. The difference between a 2.4 and a 3.0 won't make you jump up and down for joy.