FWIW -
I'm running a Quad Q6600 with 2gig RAM and a SATA Raid 0 drive setup.

It takes me two times the timeline to render from HDV (m2t plus Cineform 1080i) to DV widescreen. So an hour of timeline takes about two hours to render.
I've tried to pre-render the whole timeline to 1080i but that did not affect the final render time, so I've given that up.

HDV pushes around 4 times the amount of pixels as DV - that's why it looks so good - but that takes time, until they come up with faster processors or parallel renderings.

v

Wow, that's amazing. What do people do when they render an hour or two? Is it an over night thing for most people?

Would the rendering time be difrerent if the output was in wide screen mode?

Thanks for the quick reply,,

Gary

If you are rendering to DV widescreen with the original video in HD, isn't that better resolution output than WMV mode?

Why would it take you twice as long and me 4 times as long if we both start with HDV?

Thanks,

Gary

>>What do people do when they render an hour or two?<<

I do my Zen meditation. Time stands still....and I don't even mind......uh huh.

Changing the shape of the frame is a heavy computing task.

also what else did you do with the video? Titles, effects, color correction?
Have you ever worked in HD before.



If you want to see if anything is wrong with your system look up rendertest on thisboard. You can run the test and see how long it takes, then compare that to simliar computers

Changing the shape of the frame is a heavy computing task.

also what else did you do with the video? Titles, effects, color correction?
Have you ever worked in HD before.



If you want to see if anything is wrong with your system look up rendertest on thisboard. You can run the test and see how long it takes, then compare that to simliar computers

---------------------------------------------

The only other thing I did with the video was a 10 second title at the beginning. It scrolls.

This is the first time I've worked with HD before. I just got the camera about a month ago and played around with small test files, but now I have a video that is 1 1/2 hours.

I will look up rendertest and see what's up.

Thanks,

Gary

It's my understanding that AVCHD is even more compute intensive than HDV.

Could be just an old wive's tale, though.

Rob

Very likely you would have had quite a quick render if you had done little to the clips and had opted for "smart render" to HD format. However if you've done CC and other FX and opted for a different output format, your 4:1 ratio is about what I'd expect; I'd think it quite good, actually. Any long render I run over night.

I'll look up smart render and see what I can find, but what is CC and FX? What other output format should I have gone for with WMA?

I'm pretty new at this stuff and was blown away by the rendering times.

Thanks for any help.

Gary

CC = Color Correction
FX = Effects

Just 2 years ago it took me 8 hours to render a a 42 minute captured TV program with only contrast and CC added and this was standard video (on a P4, 2.4 single, but I would use 2 pass VBR encoding). You ought to read some of the posts (search), about Magic Bullet and Blurs. For some people, days would go by.

firstly, youre rendering to WMV... that in itself is intense... add resizing the frame size and yeas, it will def take ages..

what i do is create an edit, then prereder the final chunks and add video tracks with those newly rendered layers, THEN render out to whatever format i need.
I have to admit though, that Vegas MPG2 rendering is slow as hell compared to the mainconcept MPG encoder, so i use that instead which gives me 3x realtime mpg encoding on a single core 3.0ghz extremem with 2mb cache with 1gb ram