SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW WMV render..

DJPadre wrote on 5/2/2007, 11:45 PM
whats teh deal? In V6 it was almsot as fast as mpg2, in v7, on a lowly 160x120 presentation a 9 minute clip is taking over 45 minutes...
were talking straight transcode.. nothing more nothin less. no editing and no tweaks or what have u..

this is a joke..

i thought id use Vegas to cut a corporate job, but the rendering (as usual) has been whats killing this entire project... knowing my luck, this client wotn come back because i promised i'd get them a preliminary by close of business today.. i have 15 minutes to go..

blody hell.. whats the go?

Comments

Grazie wrote on 5/3/2007, 12:27 AM
Just done some tests for you.

Test One
The footage was some SteadyHand-ed footage that NEEDED to be re-flagged as 16:9. So there was a bit of reformat for the media.

Default WMV9 Template. Nothing fancy.

7 sec = 25 sec

12 sec = 37 sec

That's about a 3:1 render time ratio.

TEST 2
I've as lo just done my own business's stinger, 16sec in 21secs. So that's like 1.3:1

CONCLUSION
Your 5:1 render time ratio is definatley NOT what I'm getting.

I'm on a P4 3.2gHzt


hmmmmmm . .. ?

DJPadre wrote on 5/3/2007, 4:10 AM
im on the same system.. 3.2ghz, single core HT, 1 gb ram

fldave wrote on 5/3/2007, 4:43 AM
P4 3.2 Ghz, HT (single core). 160x120 wmv, 1 minute footage, rendered in 53 seconds at 256Kb/sec setting.

What settings are you using? Source footage size, project size, wmv render rate?
DJPadre wrote on 5/3/2007, 5:35 AM
render was tvc 23.97 (or something close to 24p) from 25p PAL DV AVI footage
Target was -
WMV9, 16kbps/22khz mono cbr audio

res was presentation small @ 160x120 default 23.97
8 seconds per keyframe?? smoothness @ 90
DJPadre wrote on 5/3/2007, 5:36 AM
with v6 it flies.. but with this.. my god.. 53 minutes... for a 9 minute files..
ive also noticed it doesnt use the full CPU output??
fldave wrote on 5/3/2007, 5:40 AM
16kbps?? Do you mean 160?

if you really mean 16, then you are crushing it down to nothing, and that explains your render times. Does it look like video?

EDITED: I see that the 16 is the audio bit rate. What was your video bit rate? Project settings PAL standard, I assume? I'm in NTSC land, but it shouldn't matter, My 53 sec encode was 29.97 down to 15fps.
fldave wrote on 5/3/2007, 5:53 AM
Interesting: I just did it again going from 29.97 to 23.976 and the render time doubled to 1:48 for a one minute clip.

Because it is not a clean "half rate" like my first render (15fps) it obviously takes the encoder much longer to readjust the frame rate to an odd lot.

Probably be much faster to keep the encode at 25p.
DJPadre wrote on 5/3/2007, 5:59 AM
yeha im going to try again tonight..

ur right on abotu the audio, it was 16.. the video was at 150kbps though

it jsut really screwed me up today coz i had a corp client waiting for abotu 15 monutes for it to render (which it did the first time i did this n V6 about 6 months ago)
it seems WMV isnt the best format to transcode to using different frames or resolutions