Comments

abelenky wrote on 4/2/2009, 12:18 AM
Rendering time depends on many factors, among them:
CPU power and RAM
Resolution, Bitrate and format of Source material and final project.
Number and complexity of special effects, fades, transitions, tracks.

My general rule of thumb is that for Standard Def projects (720x480) with only a few special effects, my computer takes between 3 and 6 times the project length to render.

For a project of 30 minutes, that would be 1.5 to 3 hours.
So, my answer is YES. 2 hours for a 30 minute video is about right.
Sonata wrote on 4/2/2009, 5:31 AM
Yep, I agree with abelenky, even though it's all fact so there is nothing to debate.

Vegas Movie Studio depends on the processor for rendering (whereas other video apps may utilize the GPU for rendering).

It takes my Intel P4 3.0HT, 1.5GB RAM rig 3 to 4 hours to render a 60-minute SD movie into MPEG-2 format with hardly any edits.

If I am doing an involved project with lots of extra music, photos embeded, multiple layer video tracks, etc, I just render and let it run overnight. I don't even want to know how long it takes to render.

So, yes, your 2 hours to render is acceptable.
Ivan Lietaert wrote on 4/2/2009, 9:32 AM
Speed-up trick: use two physical drives (even a usb stick will do); one for source and one for target. Have vegas read from one disk, and write to another drive, will bring down rendering time up to 50 per cent.
Chienworks wrote on 4/2/2009, 2:13 PM
Ivan, have you actually timed that? For most projects the drive data throughput speed is one of the most minor concerns. Most of the rendering situations i come across might save less than 1% by using separate drives.

Using a USB drive would probably make the process go substantially slower than using a single internal drive.
Ivan Lietaert wrote on 4/2/2009, 10:15 PM
It made a huge difference on my slow prehistoric laptop (4 years old), when rendering without heavy effects. Rendering times would be halved with the trick.
Perhaps it doesn't have that great an impact on my up to date power pc with a project heavy on effects. I haven't timed or tried on my new quad core system because it is fast anyhow.
BittenByTheBug wrote on 4/4/2009, 7:19 AM
It took about 40 min for a simple 5 minute video at 1280 x 720. That's a factor of 8 to 1. The machine is a Pantium 4, 3.2 GHz, 2 GB ram.

Two hrs for a 30 min video sounds fast. I will take that any day.
abelenky wrote on 4/4/2009, 8:27 AM
@BittenByTheBug: 1280 x 720 is well above "Standard Def". Roughly 2.5 times bigger. The multipliers quoted above (3x to 6x) are for Standard Def.

I think an 8x ratio for your larger project is actually really good, considering your machine (Pentium 4, when many of us use Dual-Core machines) and RAM (2 GB, when many of us have 3, 4, or 8 GB)
ritsmer wrote on 4/4/2009, 8:30 AM
Hi Dashadoo -

What answer did you expect?

2 hours to render 30 minutes? You have not filled in your system specs - and do not tell if you use some heavy FX's like Neat and colour correction - and do not tell to what format you render?
BittenByTheBug wrote on 4/4/2009, 2:55 PM
@Abelenky, Thanks for the perspective. I may need to upgrade my machine or at least put in a few more Gs of ram. The machine does have dual core and was top of the line a few years ago. But it is old for extensive graphics job.