Is Vegas 500% Slower than Premiere for rendering?

Tinle wrote on 4/18/2005, 5:16 AM
Jan Ozer has a lengthy article (Configuring a DV Workstation By Jan Ozer - Posted Apr 18, 2005.) at emedialive.com that addresses performance impacts of the principle components of a workstation set up for specifically for DV work.- CPU, RAM, Hard Drives, Tapeless Capture devices, DVD Burners, etc. It presents a significant amount of information.

In amongst the article are charts on "Performance by Processor" and "Performance by RAM Configuration".

The article is not intended as a "shootout" between editing programs, but does provide rendering times for Premiere Pro, Pinnacle Edition, and Sony Vegas 5.0 as part of the CPU & RaM charts.

Sony Vegas times presented are about 400% -500% longer than Premiere, and about 350% longer than Pinnacle Edition.


Do those ranges match the real world editing bench experience of those who have used Vegas and Premier/Pinnacle Edition?


http://www.emedialive.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=9762

"We tested preview and rendering with three different programs—Adobe Premiere Pro, Pinnacle Edition, and Sony Vegas—with the results presented in Figure 4 Note that the times for Premiere Pro and Vegas include both rendering to DV (for preview) and output to MPEG-2, while Edition's time includes only MPEG-2 rendering. This is because Edition previews in the output format (in this case MPEG-2), and doesn't need to render to DV. The results in the table are presented in hours"

Figure 4 is located at:
http://www.eventdv.net/Images/Default.aspx?ImageID=2891

Figure 5 is located at:
http://www.eventdv.net/Images/Default.aspx?ImageID=2892

Comments

FuTz wrote on 4/18/2005, 5:34 AM
Two editors. Deadline in 3 days.
One goes with Premiere, the other with V5.
The next day, the V5 guy starts rendering, while the Premiere guy is still editing.
3 days later, both of them are on-schedule.

Question #1: which of the two had time for a Margarita?

Question #2: did mr.Ozer had a look at V6 new features?

Question #3: why in hell is this article popping in exactly on april 18th 2005 ?

Ha-ha-ha. ; )

PS: I went on their site. In their buyer's guide for NLE, they have Vegas 4, not 5.
Well, THAT was some time ago...
I didn't bookmark the site, to tell you the truth.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 4/18/2005, 5:39 AM

Anything I've ever read by Mr. Ozer has been suspect at best. His agenda shows through in every piece.


FuTz wrote on 4/18/2005, 5:47 AM
It doesn't take a decade just by looking at this site that there is something... hum... very "diluted" concerning NLEs.
I get suspicious when a site advertises both crap and serious stuff together. It tells me: "we are not really passionate about this but we have a site about the topic so we can get free stuff"...
cbrillow wrote on 4/18/2005, 5:51 AM
"It doesn't take a decade just by looking at this site that there is something... hum... very "diluted" concerning NLEs.
I get suspicious when a site advertises both crap and serious stuff together. It tells me: "we are not really passionate about this but we have a site about the topic so we can get free stuff"..."

Not to be too indelicate, but....

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??!! Decade, diluted? I don't understand...
FuTz wrote on 4/18/2005, 5:58 AM

to sum it up: replace "a decade" by "someone very clever"
and "diluted" by "already sold out"...

GOOOOOOT IIIIT ?????
Tinle wrote on 4/18/2005, 6:03 AM
The question posed by this thread is:

"Sony Vegas rendering times presented are about 400% -500% longer than Premiere, and about 350% longer than Pinnacle Edition.

Do those ranges match the real world editing bench experience of those who have used Vegas and Premier/Pinnacle Edition?

Jay Gladwell wrote on 4/18/2005, 6:20 AM

I've never used Premiere, so I could not say with any authority. But I have read here in the past that folks who have switched from Premiere to Vegas would say those numbers were suspect.

Vegas has a much faster work flow and a superior video codec. So what if it takes a little longer to render? But 400-500% longer...? I doubt it. Ozer does not always compare apples to apples (no pun intended).

From Ozer's writings, it's obvious that he has it in for Sony Vegas and always has.


B_JM wrote on 4/18/2005, 6:27 AM
for some reason they prerendered the whole project to DV first - then RE-RENDERED to mpeg2, but looks like NOT from the prerendered dv file. ... which of course doubled+ the rendering time i suspect .. did they also use "BEST" both times ?

i don't mind to be shown I am wrong...