Comments

TheHappyFriar wrote on 3/9/2005, 6:55 PM
You need to give us a lot more info then that.

It's like asking how long it will take to get from Buffalo to LA.
boomhower wrote on 3/9/2005, 8:10 PM
Did you apply any plugins? Makes a big difference.

Buffalo to LA is 2598 miles.....but Buffalo to LA through magic bullet movie is 45000 miles.

KB
johnmeyer wrote on 3/9/2005, 9:14 PM
Render times can be anything from faster than real time to infinity, depending on what you are doing in your project.

Here is a thread from a long time ago that talked about this subject:

Render Times

There is also a render test file over at the VASST site that you can run. You can then compare your times to what other people have gotten and see if the time on your computer is close to what others with similar performance equipment have gotten.
Cunhambebe wrote on 3/10/2005, 2:54 AM
Let's see this;
Please I kindly ask you all to correct me if I 'm mistaken:
1. For a single picture (JPG to MPEG2 or AVI) - suppose you've got a picture, jpg, and you drop the file in Vegas timeline, do some movements with the screen to mock camera movement - rendering a take like this one takes time. Vegas is going to "make" all the frames out of this movement.
2. For a series of pictures (FRAMES) - suppose you've got a series of CG (Computer Generated) frames such as Targa 32, 24, whatever. Rendering a series of frames is much easier and faster. You've already got those frames in there.
3. Re-encoding MPEG2 video - depends on the material you have.
4. DV ~AVI to MPEG2 same as above (Note: generally an Athlon 1,7 / 1,8 takes 20 to 22 hours to render/encode a 30 minute project made up of AVI files as MPEG2). Best processor today for video encoding is AMD's FX 55. You can try that. ;)
David_Kuznicki wrote on 3/10/2005, 4:22 AM

Buffalo to LA is 2598 miles.....but Buffalo to LA through magic bullet movie is 45000 miles.

I wonder about the render times w/ Magic Bullet for Editors, I have to admit...

I don't run it out of Vegas (I'm still on 4.0), but I DO run it out of After Effects 6.5, even though I don't *think* Red Giant ever listed it as an official host. MB for Editors runs fine, although there are no presets & the misfire effects don't work (but then, they don't work currently in Vegas if I'm not mistaken).

Anyway, point being-- MB for Editors doesn't render particularly slowly out of After Effects... certainly faster than some of the blur effects.

My question then is this-- has there ever been a comparision of MB's rendering times with different hosts? Is MB running under Vegas *really* that slow?
B_JM wrote on 3/10/2005, 6:13 AM
yes -- at least (it seems) 10x slower for the same preset ..

plus - the vegas version, as shipped, is resolution limited - so useless for any film or HD work ..

i do still use it on certain scenes though -- but not in vegas ..

killab wrote on 3/10/2005, 7:23 AM
I am rendering a movie that is 59 min long. I added transitions and a couple of 3d effects. I rendered the audio as AC-3. The video is being rendered as .mjp. Know would it make a difference if I rendered it to the hard drive or the external hard drive?
Thanks for all the info everyone
KB
mbryant wrote on 3/16/2005, 8:11 AM
Your last question is the easiest - no, it should not make any difference if the hard drive is internal or external. Rendering is CPU intensive, it is the amount of work Vegas needs to do, and your CPU speed that make the difference.

When you say .mjp, do you mean .mpg?

3D effects will take longer. Transitions add time... I have a slow (750 Mhz) PC, it typically takes me something around 12 hours for a 1 hour video. to mpg2 for DVD. But it can take more or less depending on what edits I've done.

There are some things you need to be careful of, like if you accidentally turn on an effect for the whole project (which you can do from the preview window) it will increase render time dramatically.

Mark