Real time usually just means real-time preview. Still has to be rendered in the end. Matrox RTX100 allows you to do real-time DV output, but I'm sure that's only for a few layers of effects, and only certain ones. Eventually you have to reach a limit with layering. I have hardly ever had to wait more than 3 times the length of the movie, to have it render, unless I tried to use effects like Median which takes 3 stone-ages! If your movie is mainly straight cuts with a few effects your rendering should be in almost real-time on a newer system.

I don't care about real-time. With Vegas I can view a full-resolution choppy image on the TV to do image correction, then, to preview flow, I can view a small image of it on the computer in draft mode and adjust the flow perfectly without having to see it on the TV.

Well maybe I'm doing something wrong, I just finish a project in VV 3 and the lenght of the project was 2hr53mins, it is rending to an "avi" file, now as I type. The rendering box info is: Approximate time left = 02:42:39
and Elapsed time = 03:32:26
My system is: Abit KG7-RAID, CPU=AMD 2.0, RAM=512+, G Force 4 Ti 4200, 128Ram
Is is the normal rendering time for a project or what? ? ? Maybe I'm calling it the wrong thing, but it is not quick to me. Help me understand whats going on here ? ?

Thanks - Henry

It depends on the project.

If you're adding a lot in the way of dissolves or fx... then yeah, you'd better make some coffee, because it's going to be awhile. That's not just Vegas; it's a limitation of all NLE's.

True story-- once I did a quick project that had 12 layers of text over one another, dissolving in and out, different opacities, etc. It was :37 long... but it took about an hour and 10 min to render. Now, this is on my old machine (PIII 750, etc.), but you get the idea.

David.

I hear what you'er saying, but I just don't get it, this project I'm rendering is from a person who purchase VV3 upon my recommendations, this is their fist editing software. This was a two camera job, maybe the switching between the two cameras. But they are a novice more than me, and they just use cross fades and stright cuts, nothing fancy, very little if any color correction. Their PIII 450 started this project with a 6+ hrs estimate time, that how I got to do it I though that my system would do it quicker, I purchase VV3 as a backup for me normal editing software, which failed me and left me out to dry.

I love the program, and the things it can do, but I think this a little long on the rendering to avi file.

Henry

I think I hold the record for slow rendering times. I once used the median filter which SoFo admits is by far their slowest filter and a 15-20 minute project, I forgot exactly since it was some time ago took over 50 hours. That was on a AMD XP 1900+ box.

Like David just said the more you expect Vegas to do, especially certain things, the longer the render. Unlikely something is wrong with your setup. As a very rough gage figure roughly a factor of 8 to 1 is good for a 1.5-1.6 CPU box, adjust accordingly.

That assumes no over use of filters, especailly the slower one, not a lot of overlays or tons of audio tracksor transations or other time consuming tasks. Add more time if you're changing frame size, going from one file format to another. Also which format you render to makes a difference.

A PIII 450? That's a old dog by today's standards. While not linear, CPU speed seems to be the most critical factor. So, for a 450, (we are talking CPU speed, right?)a "good" rendering time may be somewhere in the area of 22 to 1.

Vegas for sure is one of the slower rendering applications. However the way I look at it, rendering is the last thing, so in effect I'm done with the project and I really don't care how long it takes. Maybe because I have the luxury of moving it to another machine to render on.

Yes we are talking PIII 450 cpu, this is on a dual Gigabyte mobo, I am trying to encourage them to a) buy another sys board & cpu or b) purchase another PIII 450 and add it to the board, it has the slot for it.

I'll keep those reference for future projects. If I like my work, I can handle the rendering. But it seems as if there is so much more to do than sit and wait for the bus, who got time.

Thanks - Henry

Well if you choose the "Render As" option it will be long since Vegas will render the whole video.

You should choose Print to tape from timeline. Only the modified sequences will be rendered.
I made a 4 hours film (an archive)
With tons of crossfades and it took 1 hour to render which is not much for 4 hours considring i'm on a 850 mhz...

As a novice, we only have been doing the "Render As" option, I tried to "print to tape" from the timeline, and a message came up and said that 80% of your project needs to be render. So we just always, "render as" and make an avi file then we can review the entire project, and if we need to make any changes we do it on the avi file. Did I hear somebody laughing?? Newbies, are Newbies, are Newbies. We never could get to print from tape from timeline down to a "T"

Thanks - Henry

FYI - PIII 400 is the bare minimum SoFo recommends for VV. Expect the render time you are getting.

BTW - What type camera are you using? If analog and you are capturing to uncompressed AVI, Vegas will have to render all of the footage. However, if you have a digital camcorder and captured with VidCap over firewire in DV AVI format, Vegas will only need to render footage that had filters, FX, or transitions and such added. I have also experienced longer render times when audio filters and effects are added. By default, there are 3 audio filters applied to your audio track. These can be removed if you want.

Nat wrote "Well if you choose the "Render As" option it will be long since Vegas will render the whole video."

This is not exactly true. Render time, like BillyBoy said, depends on a number of factors. If you use "Render as" to any other format other than DV AVI (NTSC or PAL), it will have to render the whole project. However, rendering to DV AVI will not need to render the untouched DV footage, only the transistions, FX, filters, etc... portions of the project.

Henry wrote "Did I hear somebody laughing?? Newbies, are Newbies, are Newbies."

Not to worry Henry! Everyone was a newbie at one point or another. I still feel like a newbie sometimes and I've been doing this for a couple years now. Enjoy the learning experience and visit here often. I learn something new every time I enter the forum.

FYI - When you finish a project, render a small portion to WMV and share it with us at Vegas/Video Factory Users Forum.

So if I understand you correctly, I can import an avi file into the program and make so changes, add transitions etc, then print this out to tape, and the only thing that is rendering is the transitions and editis on the avi tape, thus i can print to tape in much quciker time and do not have to use "Render As" all of the time, (somebody is still laughing, I can feel it :-) All I know is, this is why I like a forum for these packages.

Thanks - Henry

Short Answer is, Yes. Long answer, if digital tape is the medium you want the finsished video to go. I do not have a digital camera, so I only use the print to tape option to send back out to a VHS VCR thru my Canopus ADVC-100 (Analog to Digital Converter). I do most of my work to AVI, MPG or WMV. If you have a digital camera, which it sounds like you do, use it for archiving your finished video or to passthrough (If it has this option) to a format (VHS) more readily used for viewing on a TV.

Strange you would say that, I have Canopus DVRex M1 RT and was wondering if I could use it with Vegas, to print to tape or something.

Henry

No, I don't think so, the project just finish and canopus will not read the entire project. I guest its the file size limit.

Henry

Once I accidentally bumped the opacity level just a smidgen. There were very few effects, and it took me forever to find out what was wrong. But just that slight opacity variation, caused the entire track to need to be rendered.

Dirk

Your funny Hap, could to see you have a sense of humor.

Rendering: even my day job's AVID Media Composer that costs almost as much a house requires rendering time, though it varies from milliseconds to a few minutes, depending upon the effects and such. Guess this is why my partner and I still use Tiffen screw ons and matte boxes when wee shoot - lets the editor focus on cutting and not tie up the AVID doing colour correction/image adjustment. My own DC1000 must do a bit of rendering too. Having said that, you can't preview your effects/transitions in Premiere 6.x at all, you have to render them first; that is true rendering hell!

Peter

Rendering by using Print To Tape is the main reason I bought Vegas. I could not wait every time I wanted to see what I had done, and I'm the kind who wants to see finished material NOW! So, by using Print to Tape every time the phone rings, I go to lunch, teach a class, or anything else when I am not actually rendering, I Print to Tape. Usually it is pretty near finished rendering when I finish the editing.

The reason is because I have a slow machine, and I use a LOT of filters and effects. I figure that my 1GHz machine takes about 20 to one for rendering time. If I am lucky it drops to 15 to one. That is what my last project was. Early on, before I learned anything at all, it was closer to 36 to one.

NOW do you see why I use Print to Tape?

Who can wait a full day, or more, just to see the results. I wanted much faster results, and I get them with Print to Tape. NEVER use Render As any more unless I want to print to DVD. Then, I just bite the bullet and after finishing the Project with Print to Tape, I Render.

As far as ways to cut down render time. Don't use ANY filters, transitions, or effects. Don't TOUCH the controls in the Track header. If you just use cuts, plain old cuts, no overlaps or desolves, or anything, you can finish an hour tape in about 1.5 hours.

The problem I have is I am always shooting in bad light and can't really see if I am square with the picture. I have to use Pan/Crop to rotate the picture so that vertical is vertical on screen. Unless of course I am being "artistic" and deside that cock-eyed is what I wanted in the first place.

When I rotate, I typically find that I need to add Reduce Interlace Flicker, and sometimes a bit of Gaussian Blur to keep the image quality up.

Doesn't sound like much, but then comes the occasional color correction, cross-fade, Crop, Pan, Track Motion, Blur, etc.

Now, I am back at 20 to one or, hopefully, only 15 to one.

If I could only follow my own advice and use ONLY Cuts, I'd have it made.

So, I'm buying a faster machine, as soon as Intel's newly announced (last Monday) chipset (800MHz buss), faster RAM (for the new buss), etc., are available, I'm buying, along with 250GB drives. Should be right about my birthday.

Happy Birthday to Me, Happy Birth . . . .