Render two videos at the same time

riu wrote on 2/15/2020, 3:17 PM

Hi, do you know if there is any problem in rendering two videos with Vegas at the same time?

I mean open the program twice and render two different videos.

The result is the same?

 

Comments

walter-i. wrote on 2/15/2020, 3:20 PM

I sometimes did it with 5 instances - and noticed no differences.
Except, of course, that I was much faster overall because the processor was better used.

Last changed by walter-i. on 2/15/2020, 3:22 PM, changed a total of 2 times.

Camcorder: Pana HDC SD909, Sony FDR-AX53
Hardware: CPU i9-9900KS 4GHz, 32 GB Ram, GTX 1660 SUPER, ASUS TUF Z390-PLUS Gaming, SSD 970 EVO Plus 500GB M.2, SSD 860 EVO Series 1TB, Toshiba 3TB SATA, WIN 10 Pro
NLE: Vegas Pro11-15+17, Heroglyph4, RespeedR

lenard-p wrote on 2/15/2020, 5:17 PM

to start you should install Voukoder  plugin, it speeds up encoding alot, if you still have much cpu even after then try another instance. I don't know if you can have 2 voukoder instances going at once though, although as that interests me i'll try now

 

I tried to vegas's both running voukoder encoder encoding x264, they work fine if you wanted to do that. Big speed difference with just a single instance of vegas Magix AVC - 48fps vs Voukoder x264 72fps . This is not entirely apples to apples. as I chose default settings for magix avc, but I chose the 'good recommended' setting for x264.

riu wrote on 2/16/2020, 2:56 AM

I have noticed that when I render two files at the same time, it takes 6 hours. But when I render them separately they take 4 + 4 hours, 8 hours in total.

This made me think that the final quality was not the same.
What do you think?

bitman wrote on 2/16/2020, 7:03 AM

I would not worry about the quality, the quality is dependent on your used render configuration, not on how long it takes. I can imagine that rendering simultaneous will be faster than in sequence, as your system is more stressed, less chance there is idling between threads. Parallelism is a difficult subject, but is ultimately more efficant than sequential use (or nobody would use multi-core CPU's nor videocards with thousands of core units).

Current system: VP 17 (build 421), VP16 (suite) build 424, (uninstalled VP 13,14,15), Vegasaur, Magix Video Pro X (VPX11), Corel VS ultimate 2019, a lot of NEWBLUE plugins, Titler Pro 6, Mercalli 4.0, Respeedr, Vasco Da Gamma 12, VASST stuff, Production Assistent pro3, Boris Continuum 2020, Davinci Resolve Studio 16,...

  • OS: Windows 10 Pro 64, version 1909
  • CPU: i9900K stepping R0 (since October 2019), previously, der8auer i7-8700K (advanced edition), default speed (no overclock), Cooler: Noctua NH-D15s
  • RAM: G.Skill Trident Z 3200C14 DDR4 64GB, XMP set to profile 1 in BIOS
  • Videocard: NVIDEA RTX 2080Ti (Founders edition), NVIDEA studio drivers
  • Monitor: LG 38 inch ultra-wide (21x9) - Resolution: 3840x1600
  • C-drive (games & APPS): Samsung NVMe SSD 2TB 960 pro

  • Current Video source work drive: Samsung NVMe SSD 2T 970 EVO plus

  • Mass Data storage & Backup: WD gold 6TB + WD Yellow 4TB

  • MOBO: Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 7, BIOS F14
  • PS: Corsair HX1200i, Case: Silverstone fortress 2,
  • Misc: Logitech G910, Evoluent Vertical Mouse, shuttlePROv2

 

TheRhino wrote on 2/16/2020, 7:21 AM

There is NO quality loss rendering multiple instances of Vegas & I do it all the time so my clients can receive a 4K intermediate, 4K HEVC, 1080p MP4, etc. rendered from the original source files.

On my 9900K / VEGA 64 workstation, (1) 2 hour 4K project takes about 2 hours to render to the same intermediate. If I open another instance of Vegas & render it to 4K HEVC, both finish in about 2.5-3.0 hours. If I open a 3rd instance & render to 1080p MP4, all (3) renders finish in 3-4 hours - depending on the complexity of the project. With (3) renders going, my CPU is maxed-out, but more importantly, so is my GPU... Therefore, IMO, for the same money, it is better to have (2) fast workstations (with their own GPUs) vs. (1) high-end 32-core AMD 3970X CPU, etc. that is still limited to having just (1) GPU...

Workstation D with $1,350 USD of upgrades in April, 2019
--$500 9900K @ 5.0ghz
--$140 Corsair H150i liquid cooling with 360mm radiator (3 fans)
--$200 open box Asus Z390 WS (PLX chip manages 4/5 PCIe slots)
--$160 32GB of G.Skill DDR4 3000
--$350 refurbished, but like-new Radeon Vega 64 LQ (liquid cooled)

Renders Vegas11 "Red Car Test" (AMD VCE) in 13s when clocked at 4.9 ghz
(note: BOTH onboard Intel & Vega64 show utilization during QSV & VCE renders...)

Source Video1 = 4TB RAID0--(2) 2TB M.2 on motherboard in RAID0
Source Video2 = 4TB RAID0--(2) 2TB M.2 (1) via U.2 adapter & (1) on separate PCIe card
Target Video1 = 16TB RAID10--(4) 8TB SATA hot-swap drives on PCIe RAID10 card

10G Network using used $30 Mellanox2 Adapters & new $135 10G Switch
Copy of Work Files, Source & Output Video, OS Images on QNAP 653b NAS
Blackmagic Decklink PCie card for capturing from tape, etc.
(2) internal BR Burners connected via USB 3.0 to SATA adapters
Old Cooler Master CM Stacker ATX case with (13) 5.25" front drive-bays holds & cools everything.

Workstations A, B & C are older 6-core 4.0ghz Xeon 5660 or I7 980x on Asus P6T6 motherboards.

$999 Walmart Evoo 17 Laptop with I7-9750H 6-core CPU, RTX 2060, (2) M.2 bays & (1) SSD bay...

lenard-p wrote on 2/16/2020, 8:17 PM

I have noticed that when I render two files at the same time, it takes 6 hours. But when I render them separately they take 4 + 4 hours, 8 hours in total.

This made me think that the final quality was not the same.
What do you think?

There are delays between rendering and encoding. It looks like less delay when using voukoder (x264) then built in encoders. this creates higher cpu and gpu use, and faster encode. If you are using vegaspro17, some people complain about it not using much cpu, that would benefit from 2 instances of vegas encoding at same time