Render Test....

Rat_City wrote on 2/24/2004, 4:02 PM
Hello All,

I just got my vegas 4 software, and so far, so good. I did have Avid and I did like it. It was a ease using and rendering time was not bad. The only ting I didnt like was that damm dongle...
My died on me and the only thing was I had to buy a new. And the other thing I didnt like was that with just about their updates, you had to almost buy a new system. HEY, I paid good money for my system and I want to get my moneys worth here.

Anyway.. back to the render test. I saw on one post the rendering times for different systems and processors and such... Well I ran that test.. the best I saw on the post was about a min and half. And that was a 4 gig I think.... And then I saw some info in the bible for vegas 4 talking about what you might try and the sort.... Well kids I got 1.1 min

But then I tried the mpeg test.. forget that.. it was one of those hour deals.. I do belive that a good graphic cards shold help. I do have one on my older system that I will try.

I have a IBM Intellistation Mpro with a 1 gig processor and 256k mem. And I am also using the virtual memory at 952k meg.

I am also using 2 AV drives. I am also going to set up one of my av drives for virtual mem.

Running windows 2000. x86-based pc

That all for this time... God Bless. Jim

Comments

p@mast3rs wrote on 2/24/2004, 4:10 PM
Graphic cards shouldnt make a difference at all in rendering time. Good graphic cards will help with real time preview but not with file rendering.
Chienworks wrote on 2/24/2004, 4:27 PM
Actually a good graphics card makes almost no difference even on previews. A super fast card will make a miniscule difference over an ancient slow beast only because Vegas can draw the preview window on the screen a tiny bit faster. This applies to rendering 1/5 as much as to previewing. However, in neither case does the video card assist Vegas in producing the frames, so the overall speed assistance is just about negligible.
Liam_Vegas wrote on 2/24/2004, 4:44 PM
I have a IBM Intellistation Mpro with a 1 gig processor and 256k mem. And I am also using the virtual memory at 952k meg.

Well... sorry to burst your bubble... but if you really DO have only a 1Ghz processor then I can GUARANTEE you would not get a valid rendertest result coming out at 1.1 mins.

I have a 3Ghz processor and it does the rendertest in 1min 33secs.

I suspect that you chose the wrong format to render to or you did not set it to BEST quality. You must choose the NTSC DV format and set the quality to BEST.

Test with those settings and re-post your render times.
cosmo wrote on 2/24/2004, 4:44 PM
Rat_City - did you say 1.0G processor? Maybe your render times for MPG files are ok given your processor. I know MPG renders take much longer then some others I used like WMV.
Rat_City wrote on 2/25/2004, 11:00 AM
Let me ask you this... which settings did you use. When I did the test the first time I used the settings that were saved on the test I down loaded.... and they were set to MPEG1

So I did the test again....

MPEG1.. time 1.01
MPEG2 ...........5.44
AVI.................5.19
WMV V8.........16 sec
WMV V9........ 16 sec
Quick Time .mov 7.10
I hope you guys and gals here dont have a "WELL I CAN DO BETTER" thing going on here.. Is This a Forum "TO HELP EACH OTHER".

And it's kind of funny with all the messages that get put up on this forum, you think nobody did anything with their system.. (Don't take it the wrong way)

I have been in the video production business for over 16 years (do you remember the old TAPE to TAPE editing?), and movie producer. I was also a computer tech for many years. So I know my computers and software. I still remember the 100 meg drives that were 18" round.

Rat's
cyanide149 wrote on 2/25/2004, 11:15 AM
The render settings for the test should be Video for Windows (avi), NTSC DV template, best setting. For your 1 gig cpu, around 5 minutes is about right. Some of the new Athlon 64 systems are im tne 1:30 range.
Liam_Vegas wrote on 2/25/2004, 12:53 PM
Hey Rat_City... this is NOT a thing about "who does it faster"... but it is about giving appropriate feedback and being accurate. The Rendertest is something that we all use to verify how our systems are perfoming. But for it to make sense we all must use the same standard render settings. Make sense?

You came on the forum with the statement that your rendertest was running at 1min when it should be running in 5 minutes. Would you prefer that we just let you go on thinking your system was somehow 5 times faster than it really is?

I can imagine that the next post we would have from you is... "hey my system does the rendertest in 1 min so why is it so slow doing <this>?"

What would you prefer? You are implying that you would rather not know this. And at the same time implying that we should not even bother to respond to you as that must mean we are not doing work. Now THAT is not a nice thing to say... even with the "(Don't take it the wrong way)" comment. Come on... just how many people ARE you trying to offend on this forum with a comment like that!

While I am doing this I have two systems rendering and a DVD burning. But you know occasionally I do feel that investing my time in this forum is WORTH it and (oh my gawd) my systems are NOT doing anything then. I guiess I should re-think that strategy.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 2/25/2004, 1:05 PM
The default render type (mpeg-avi-wmv, etc) when you hit "RENDER AS" is determined by the last render you did, not by the veggie file. So, you just didn't render the file the propper way (AVI-Best).

oopes. :)