Are you pre-rendering? Adding a new track will kill your pre-render.

Try rendering to a new track OR just render to a separate AVI and start a new project with that new AVI. Then you can add your other stuff without any worry about those sections having to render again.

I expect more rendering to take more effort, that is understood, but it's the magnitude of the effort that shocked me. Almost doubling the rendering time to added a few overlays in a few spots. But you think this is normal and all?

-Jayson

Like I said, it depends on what you're adding, how much, etc.

I've found a workflow that I LOVE to use with Vegas.

Have 2 instances of Vegas open. Open your project in the first one. Edit it (maybe not all, but most of it). Save. Then, "render to new track" a part you don't plan on editing again (normaly the first part). While that is rendering, open your project in the 2nd copy of Vegas. Edit, save, render to new track (make sure NOT to overlap & save as the same filename).

Then, you can plop all those "new track" renders on one new track above everything, then it will just render DV-AVI files.

It saves TONS of time. I've done it for my last several projects! :)

But seriously, what are you rendering too? That info helps determine the length of the render.

Hmm, that's an interesting workflow. Don't you have the following problems:

1. Isn't the CPU/IDE bogged down rendering the first enough to make work slow in the second window? I would especially think previews would suffer?

2. Don't multiple re-encodings of media cause generational loss?


As for my stuff, I do all DV-AVI in source and intermediate files, and render final output to MPEG for use in DVD-A2.

-Jayson

1. Vegas is very efficient. On reasonably modern computer, you can do this will ease. I have worked in up to 4-5 versions of Vegas on a 2.6 P4. I have hypertrheading turned on, because I think this boosts responsiveness in this type of workflow. Memory is more important that CPU in this case. I have 1.25 gig of memory. Editing does not really hit the IDE drives so hard. I use plain old IDE drives, 7,200 RPM with an 8 meg buffer. Previews might sufffer slightly but it shouldn't matter that much.

2. Vegas's codec can stand up very well for multiple re-encodings. You will not notice a quality loss. More importantly, this workflow does not require mulitiple re-ecoding when going out to DV. Say you have a project with Part A and Part B, and you render Part A to a.avi. You open a new version of Vegas and work on Part B. Then you import a.avi into the new version of Vegas. If you do not add effects to a.avi, then vegas does not reencode, it just does a bit for bit copy of a.avi. If you are going from DV to DV, there is not reencoding. When going out to mpeg, you would have the same loss of quality that you always have when going to mpeg.

In answer to your other post, if you are using DVDArchitect, you should render to the DVD-A preset in Vegas.

add clips to this track in a few small places, say only 1 minute of total time, so that 19 of the 20 minutes of this project this new track is empty. Now, you add a track video effect like shadow or glow, and suddenly your project INCREASES by 1 to 2 HOURS. I realize the effect takes extra effort, but shouldn't Vegas not be performing all those calculations in the areas where the track is blank? Is this a bug?
------------------------
No bug, just a heavy render task for track motion shadow and glow in the areas of the track that have media. Vegas doesn't spend any resources on areas of a track that doesn't have any media. That goes for track motion and track FX.

Craig H.

What he said. :)

I did that workflow on my old P3-667 with 256mb DDR & on my "new" XP 1800with 512mb DDR. Good responce time on both (vegas isn't a resource hog. I've even played OpenGL games while rendering to pass the time!)

It seems to me that the text generator, with shadow/outline, is much more efficient rendering wise than adding text to to the track some other way(like credit roll) and adding a track effect to do shadow/glow. Anyone else see this behavior? I wonder if the text generator, because it knows the shape of the text and doesn't need to process the shadow/glow across the entire frame, is a much more efficient performer for this.

Or maybe I should just learn Boris Grafitti LTD.

-Jayson

I don't use track shadow/glow much (at all?) but i do text shadow all the time. It doesn't seem to take forever to render (for shadow on a credit roll ( copy/past the credit roll on a track bellow, then make it blakc& fuzz it a bit with a soften).

Happy Friar,
So, you think it's better to manually create a shadow by compositing two similar, and slightly offet and blurred tracks than using the track motion shadow feature? Don't they do basically the same thing? Does it actually improve render times?

-Jayson