Render Time...Smoke on my bottom

Dunn wrote on 2/9/2005, 7:23 AM

To what degree is Vegas set-up to take advantage of dual processors and ram. I was told using dual processors and 4Meg O' ram would increase render time at max 15%. That's 15% faster than slow. I love Vegas, but when users respond to Vegas slow render times with "don't need accelerator cards because Vegas can and does use the new faster processors to speed up the process, and in fact you are lucky to increase render time by 15% I feel smoke on my bottom! Sony please spend more time on increasing the speed of Vegas renders and less resources on trying to make Vegas "After Effects Lite".

Back to post

Comments

clyde2004 wrote on 2/10/2005, 6:16 PM

Thanks again Rich.

Boy am I glad I don't program anymore! I forgot about having to take into consideration legacy OSs and such. Ugh.

Back when I was programming... assembler was the fasted to execute. And that is what I used (this was quite some time ago).The compiled languages (Pascal and the 'new' C) were horrible, bloated and slow. So my last questions are: what language(s) is most common and is assembler still the fastest? If the code for rendering in Vegas isn't written in assembly language why not?

Thinking about programming these days makes my stomach hurt.
Clyde

BillyBoy wrote on 2/10/2005, 6:24 PM

Today, programmers have been replaced by "software engineers" and assembly will in general terms always be the fastest (if written well)since its machine language. Why not all in assembly? I asked that some time back and one of the SoFo engineers said what needs to be is.

theceo wrote on 2/10/2005, 6:28 PM

assembly is the hardest language to program in, it's machine code, a low level language, people are trained in mid and high level languages such as C and others, they use interpreters to get to low level eventually, even assembler uses an interpreter

Coursedesign wrote on 2/10/2005, 8:06 PM

Assembler is fast, but it is also totally CPU dependent. For an assembler program to take advantage of a new better CPU architecture, the program needs to be rewritten, whereas with say C or C++, the program can usually be kept and only recompiled.

Assembler instructions are in text form, but they have a 1:1 relationship with the machine instructions.

Assembler also gives the programmer a 1000' rope to hang himself with a thousand different ways. Too risky for today's complicated apps. No protection, no parameter typing, etc. etc.

Troubleshooting assembler programs was OK for thousands or even tens of thousands of lines, but with today's multimillion line monsters that era is long gone.