You can't judge based on memory and CPU speed alone. For sure DDR memory is faster than 'plain old memeory' because it supports higher front side bus speeds so in theory it should be better just because it reduces one common bottleneck. Hard drive performance is also a factor of course along with other things not the least of which is which codec is doing the compressing, your selected frame size, frame rate and how much work your asking Vegas Video to do in the way of multiple video and sound tracks, transitions and the like. Total RAM, size of Swap or paging file, what if anything else your PC is doing at the time, if system resources are low, you have one or more background applications running, your hard drive is in need of defragmentation all impact. In the final analysis I fail to understand why some worry obsessively if a 30 minute video takes x time as opossed to x +10 minutes to finish rendering. It takes as long as it takes. :-)

Tom's hardware and other such sites do bench tests. Such tests to do not accurately reflect the results you will get under real world conditions. I've noticed that Tommy is getting even more opinionated then he was a couple years back and for sure has a bias towards certain hardware. Accordingly I take any "test" results on his site and similar sites with a liberal amount of salt. Not a pinch, more like a handful or two. :-)

Here is a web site with a RENDER TEST I set up for Vegas Video and Video Factory. Fastest listed for DV rendering is a fancy P3. A guy had faster times listed with a dual Athlon system, but he pulled his results because he HATED me. Got to love people that hate in the 21st century.

http://www.hanzek.com/vf_main.htm

Craig (Not a Bigot) H.

What if you have the follwing:

1.2 Ghz AMD Athlon at 133MHz FSB
1 GB 133 SDRAM
80 GB High Throughput Ultra ATA 100 Raid Drive
3 GB Swap File on a dedicated partition.
Seperate physical Drives for Rendered, Clips, OS, and Program files.

And it still takes atleast 24 hours to pre-render a 60 minute piece to DV NTSC at Preview Quality?

Is it really supposed to be so slow? It isn't so slow on Adobe Premiere. In fact rendering to DV on Adobe usually took like half real time, depending on the effects used.

In this case I'm just using three video effects on master video out(gausian blur, film effects, and Glow), and one audio effect, namely iZotope Ozone, on the single audio track. There is only one video track with multiple clips.

This is unbelieveably slow for my system. Anyone have any suggestions, other than seperating everything to different tracks?

Izotope Ozone takes quite some time if I remember.

My longest project to date has been 2 3/4 hours. I used HSL to make some adjustments, used some overlay titles, scrolling title at the beggining along with a test pattern, and many crossfades. There were four video tracks by the time I finished the project, although three were really incorporated for my ease of manipulating certain clips . . . had I so chosen, I could have had everything render from the same video track.

There were three sound tracks.

I don't consider the project I just described to be overly taxing on my system . . . it's not nearly as complicated as some of what I read about on this board, but, that said, 24-hr rendering times still surprise me a bit. I rendered the above project overnight (from 12:30AM to 6:30AM). I don't know how long it took, exactly, because I was sleeping. All I know is that the project had finished within the 6-hours I allowed.

My system is a 900 mhz AMD Athlon, 128 MB RAM with a 100 mhz bus. I use 5200 RPM external firewire drives for capture and rendering, and my internal drives (for system/application use) are 7200 IDEs.

By today's standards, my system is fairly slow, but VV30 requires verly little overhead except when rendering, and, like WVG, I am least concerned with how long a project takes to render as long as the resulting video/audio is glitch free.

VV30 does that for me, so I'm happy.

Caruso

Caruso,

Were there a lot of portions of the afore mentioned project where there was nothing changed in the DV clips, or did you adjust HSL properties at a project level?

As far as Ozone icreasing the rendering time, I'm not sure, I know that it is processor intensive by audio plugin standards, but I would think that it would be neglegible compared to the processor requirements of video effects rendering.

As an example, it takes ~30 hours for me to render ~1 hour of DV NTSC video. By comparison, using Izotope Ozone in a wave editor to adjust the audio properties, and then rendering to a wave file takes ~1 min for every 5 minutes of audio. So, theoretically, it should take ~12 minutes for my computer to render a 1 hour long wav file using Ozone as an effects plugin. Therefore, it follows that using Ozone should only be adding about 12 minutes to the total rendering time for 1 hour of DV NTSC photage, right? surely not hours, anyway.

So, the big question is, what is taking so long? Is it the way that Vegas handles video effects, or effects processing period? Is it the Vegas DV codec?

If the codec itself is the culprit, it would be nice if SF would do something to speed it up. I'll admit, there does seem to be a perceptible difference in the clips I've rendered using VV3 and Adobe Premiere 6.0, but I can't rememeber it taking nearly this long to render anything in AP6, and I used gobs of effects with that.

Has anyone made a comparison between VV3 DV codec and Main Concepts DV codec? How good they look, or how fast they render? Let me know, if MC looks just as good as VV3, and it's faster, I may have to change up. I'm not used to these long waiting times, and it seems that there should be a way to fix this problem.

Thanks