Long Render

wolfbass wrote on 3/19/2005, 8:42 PM
Hi Guys!

My latest render just clicked over the 24 hr mark, at 61% done, with an estimated 15 hrs to go.

Ridiculous, isn't it?

It's about an hour and 20 mins long, and there's not that much in the way of effects on it.

I also noticed when I rendered it previously, there was some pixilation on some of the shots where the camera was moving. I put that down to the fact that I decreased the frame size so it fitted into the safe area, using pan crop. Hence the rerender. If this wasn't it, does anyone have any ideas? The footage looks fine on the tape, and on previous renders where I put some basic footage originally, there's no pixilation evident.

I don't think I used Vegas to render, but let DVDA render from AVI to MPEG.

TIA

Andy

Comments

jlafferty wrote on 3/19/2005, 9:15 PM
What's your machine like and what are the effects you applied to the video?

I had my Longest Render Ever (21 hours +) recently on a single CPU machine I put together temporarily while the dual rig was out on RMA. The computer was an AthlonXP 2000+, gig of RAM, and the video was a three-track composite with some CC and curves on one layer. 21 hours! Another 5 for MPEG conversion! I missed my deadline, but luckily it was only for a gift.

Now I'm back on the SMP setup and glad that's behind me.

- jim
Liam_Vegas wrote on 3/19/2005, 9:20 PM
My latest render just clicked over the 24 hr mark, at 61% done, with an estimated 15 hrs to go.

Not necesarily. Depends on lots of things.

What system specs do you have? (it would be helpful if you could specify this in your profile).

Most times when someone comes here with "riddiculous" times for rendering they eventually find out they have done <something> wrong. This could be a combination of any of the following;

Use of FX's across the entire timeline (color correction/ broadcast colors filter, accidentally nudging track opacity by a tiny amount). Could be anything.

What specifically is the template you are using to render?

What is the source format of your video (if anything other than DV AVI - then long renders may be expected).


I put that down to the fact that I decreased the frame size so it fitted into the safe area, using pan crop

Sounds like you have fallen into the trap of noticing that your capture video is slightly larger than what you eventually see when you look on your TV... and to compensate you have used track motion to see everything. That may indeed be the right thing for you to do.... but in the end what you need to work on is making sure that everything that you NEED to see on your TV is framed so that it fits within the "safe" areas of your video when you capture it.

wolfbass wrote on 3/20/2005, 12:41 AM
SPECS ARE : Celeron 2.6. 1 gig of RAM, pleanty of space on hard drive.

I checked all the opacity setting.

I have used the DVD Architect PAL template. The footage is DDV PAL, except for some titles done in Boris Graffiti. There are some additional songs on top of an already rendered photo montage.

As I said, not really anything out of the ordinary. I know there are some scripts for checking the opacitiy levels, I'll run them early next week when this render finishes :)

Unfortunately I didn't shoot the video, it was my brother's wedding, hence I was in it, I'm just trying to output the final product.

Cheers,

Andy
the_learninator wrote on 3/20/2005, 1:38 AM
it really all depends on your system specs and the amount of what i like to call "umph!" you have in your project.

I know of someone who it took 21 DAYS! (not hours) to render a 3D model (it had a lot of umph!)

wish vegas would allow more than 3 network rendering clients...

Is it possible to create your project in vegas....but render using a 3rd party renderer such as descreet cleaner XL? Anyone?
wolfbass wrote on 3/24/2005, 5:34 AM
Update on humungous render times.

At the end of my project, I did a Slide show with rolling credits. Now the compositing mode on the track was set as 3D, to get the photos to angle back.

I'm thinking that the reason the render was so long is that over the hour that it took to get to the 3D part of the render, VEGAS was slightly moving the 3D aspect of the video, therefore the perspective of the video was having to be processed continually.

I don't think I explained that very well. Suffice to say I needed a normal keyframe just before the panned slide show started.

I moved the 3D composite to it's own track, and the render is zipping along at approx 7 times as fast.

Now, will this fix the pixilation mentioned in another post? I'll keep you posted.

Cheers,

Andy
riredale wrote on 3/24/2005, 8:56 AM
Wolfbass:

I can understand the desire to shrink the image area down to what is typically seen on a conventional CRT display, but you might want to think about the future. My new DLP projection TV monitor has very little intentional masking, and, in fact, none on the horizontal dimension (that's because a conventional 4:3 image is shown pillarbox style with black bars on the left and right sides). So if you work with the full frame, you not only anticipate for the future but you also speed up the render by probably another factor of 4.

Edit:
After writing the above, I decided to do a little test, and discovered that my shiny new DLP TV DOES do cropping, even when displaying a 4:3 image in a 16:9 frame. The amount of cropping is in the range of 3-4%.

Nonetheless, I still think you might want to plan for a future where cropping is minimal or nonexistent. I do know that PC-based DVD players such as WinDVD or PowerDVD don't crop at all.