Quickest way to get an edited file (no render)

sggibson wrote on 8/15/2014, 8:03 AM

Hi, I'll be shooting a 15 minute video with a Vixia HF-G30 when I return from vacation. Problem is I have no time to do a render. Assuming I have to do some cuts in Vegas, is there any faster way in Vegas 12 than going "Render as" to get a final product?

Also, I assume it would be wise to shoot MP4 and not AVCHD since it is only being viewed on a computer. Correct?

Thanks very much
Shawn

Back to post

Comments

riredale wrote on 9/7/2014, 3:55 PM

Ditto what OldSmoke said. Defragging is a very useful technique for, say, a system drive, where there are lots of files that need to be read. Without defragging the heads take a tremendous amount of time (relatively speaking) jumping all over the place. Booting is one case where a fragmented C drive is a real time-sink.

But when rendering video files, one is almost never transfer-constrained, but CPU constrained.

I've never seen a case where defragging lost data. Also, never heard of a case where defragging could "wear out" the drive.

Finally, with the huge advantages of an SSD (which never needs defragging) for the C drive, I don't think this issue is very important any more for video workstations.

Oh, but getting back to the original topic--editing without rendering. In Vegas9, if I bring in my HDV files, do a lot of cuts-only editing and some simple titles, I can then render back out to HDV without much of any "rendering" at all. The finished single m2t file will be available in minutes, and it can be played on a PC. I don't know if one can do the same with AVCHD files on the latest versions of Vegas, though. And of course if one is rendering to a completely new codec, then there will be some serious processing time involved.

musicvid10 wrote on 9/7/2014, 5:45 PM

[sigh]

jerald wrote on 9/15/2014, 11:15 PM

musicvid10,
With all due respect:

You seem to be making statements about fundamental system optimization without backing up your claims with authoritative references.

I always have running system monitoring tools that show drive throughput on my machines. Some are Microsoft, some are other vendor's utilities. When rendering, i very frequently refer to read rates and write rates... especially when I have a deadline coming.

Not that I'm any better than anyone else here (obviously), but I've had many examples of sluggish or failed video projects that I've fixed by addressing all the issues I listed above. That is my personal experience. As a result, I'm careful about how media data moves and where it moves to and from in my system.

If I list an example of one of these experiences, I get the feeling that you'd state that it's not the norm. (I'm not meaning to get personal here. I have a lot of respect and appreciation for your input over the years on this forum.)

Example 1: If I have two (or more) media sources that average 17mbps (frequently the case in my work) that are to be read simultaneously due to compositing, I'll usually put them on separate drives when rendering to a lower res output.

Example 2. If I'm rendering to, or from uncompressed media. I'll make sure the source and destination are separate drives. (If I accidentally forget to do this, I'll stop the render & restart if it saves time.)

Another poster in this thread, apparently interested in making sure that they had the best current information available, asked for your references to back your claims. Did I miss them (If yes, i apologise). I'd like to know what they are, too, so that I can correct my understandings where needed.

Thanks so much for all of your excellent posts over the years. I've learned much and gotten lots of enjoyment from your input.

jerald

musicvid10 wrote on 9/16/2014, 2:33 PM

jerald,
YOU JUST DON'T GET IT, DO YOU?
Here, I'll save you the trouble.
Subtopic is continued here:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=906029

A certain number of off-topic replies are expected with a general question topic such as this, and I contributed to that background discussion. When those replies become excessive, redundant, and even further off-topic, it quickly becomes apparent to anyone reading -- save for the self-indulgent or clueless.

I suggested YOU and ANYONE ELSE interested in ruminating on the subtopic of defragging and drive chaining start another thread; out of respect, simple awareness, and common courtesy. Given the diversion from the original topic, it was not an unreasonable suggestion, made eight posts up.

Instead, you chose to overreact by challenging my veracity with speculation. How dare you put words in my mouth.
Instead, I'll give you permission to be right. Unconditionally. The moment is yours, seize it.

If you will reread my simple request made out of consideration for the OP and the OT, you may also infer that I don't really care in debating something that has already been beaten to death on this forum for as long for as I've been around. And you would be right.

Take it to the new thread that's been APPROPRIATELY titled.
Best.