Comments

Ivan Lietaert wrote on 1/29/2009, 11:58 AM
It depends. If you render to avi, which is pretty fast, DVDA will render the file to mpeg2 (=preparing). DVDA will automatically optimize bitrate etc so that it nicely fits on the dvd.
If you render to mpeg2, DVDA will only need to 'prepare' the audio, and burn the mpeg2 file instantly. If however, the file is too big to fit on the dvd, DVDA will re-render anyhow, form mpeg2 to mpeg2, which is a bit lossy, and timeconsuming.
richard-amirault wrote on 1/29/2009, 5:54 PM
It depends. If you render to avi, which is pretty fast, ....

"fast"? maybe .. maybe not.

I just completed an edit that ended up at 1.5 hours .. so I knew that it would need compressing to fit on a single layer DVD. I had a problem in the middle of the edit .. and to fix it, but not loose anything I pre-rendered the first half to avi-dv and was amazed at how fast that went.

I then started a new project with that avi as the begining .. and then continued my edit with the rest of the footage.

When I finished the edit, I rendered to avi-dv again so DVDA could "fit to disk" easily. This time it wasn't fast at all .. why? Because I put a "bug" in the lower right corner of the entire video. Vegas had to re-render the entire footage.

If I didn't have that bug? Yes, it would have been very fast. Only slowing down for disolves, or text on screen, and the like.
noah2112 wrote on 1/29/2009, 6:01 PM
Last night I burnt a 90 minute video with nothing but two chapters in the edit and it took DVD Arc 4.0 two and a half hours. I like DVD Arc but this rendering time is killing me. Does 5.0 work faster?
Sonata wrote on 1/30/2009, 7:00 AM
Rendering with Vegas is processor-based. The only way to make it faster is to get a faster processor with more cores...your 90-minute video being rendered in 2.5 hours isn't that bad.

Generally, it takes my computer 3 hours to render a 70 minute video in VMS9. Heck, I recently made a 30-second video with lots of motion tracking, images, video effects, etc, and it took 30 minutes to render a 30-second video! Other times, with plain video, no edits, just .avi from the camcorder into mpeg2, my computer can render a 60 minute movie in 70 minutes.

Rendering takes a long time. I remember working in computer labs with Macs (pre-G3 era) and when people would render with Photoshop/Quark(?), they would start a render and come back later that night or *the next day* to do the next step... Then the G3 came out and people were so excited that their Photoshop(?) renders would only take *hours*!
Strangeman wrote on 1/31/2009, 5:17 AM
That's nothing - I once had access to a 'state of the art' machine costing the same as a small house at the time which took a weel to render a single image.

Before that, the first computer I ever used would take 15 minutes to process a command typed in on the screen, and half the time the response would be 'syntax error' (!)
Chienworks wrote on 1/31/2009, 6:18 AM
Y'know ... i'm one of those old school computer geeks too. I grew up in the days when it took computers a noticeable amount of time to do even the very simple and quick things. Nowadays we have nearly instant response for most functions. I still catch myself after sorting a 150,000 row spreadsheet in an eyeblink thinking "rats, the something went wrong and the computer didn't do anything."

Some of the servers in our rack can process in excess of 5 million transactions per second. It wasn't that long ago that folks like IBM and E&S were batting each other to see who could break the 10,000 per *minute* barrier first. The cost is proportional too ... but the other way 'round. Our servers cost well under $10,000 each, and the old mainframes cost millions.
noah2112 wrote on 1/31/2009, 11:33 AM
I guess we're just spoiled now complaining about a few hours of rendering :P