Vegas render bugs and too many Vegas versions...

LarsHD wrote on 5/23/2009, 5:22 AM
I created a project in Vegas 8.0c
I tried to render to WMV, AVI. Stoped every time at around 27-30% and Vegas 8.0c crashd and I had to TaskManager myself out.

I then loaded the exact same project into Pro9 in XP32.

The project now rendered perfectly.


VEGAS CONFUSION:

There seems now to be several ways of running Vegas Pro:
This is a strange situation...

Pro 8 version 8.0c Windows XP 32 bit
Pro 8.0c running in Vista 64
Pro 8 version 8.1 in Vista 64 bit
Pro 8.1 running in VIsta 64
Pro 9 32 bit version in 32 bit Windows XP
Pro 9 32 bit running in 64 bit Vista
Pro 9 64 bit version in 64 bit Vista


Sometimes disk streaming is worse, sometimes better
Sometimes still images stutter, sometimes not
Somtimes creating a project in one version and rendering it from another version is the only way out...

I hope that 9.0a will be release in July and that from that point on, I can use ONE single version of Vegas Pro 9 in Vista 64 and that Cineform and Cinescore will work and that I will have no stuttering and that rendering will function properly etc...

It is *extremely* frustrating to see that there is a little performance window there... buy... hmmm... no... then I got some stutter instead etc...

As I see it there simply isn't ONE version of Vegas Pro today that you can say is generally "BETTER" than any other. Each version in each situation and OS has pros and cons. I find this frustrating.

It would be nice if I could say, "I stay with 8.0c" but it isn't that easy. Easpevially when your working with 1920x1080 demanding footage.

I'm sure it'll be fine in 9.0a though... ;)

Best
Lars

Comments

ritsmer wrote on 5/23/2009, 6:05 AM
Hi Lars - you forgot the version 7 - and 6 also. If you put them on the list it will look even more confusing.

And I do feel with you - I am also so frustrated that my new Jaguar XF is totally unfit to transport gravel for my garden :-)

I have changed my workflow from version 8c to version 9 because of the substantially better render speed and much, much better preview - and I enjoy it every single day since I downloaded it at May 11. ...And what really impresses me is that the new Vegas 9.0 runs so rock stable here from day 1.

Maybe I am lucky because I have set my 3 machines up to run in the same way (same Windows XP and same Vegas and same ...) and do not have to fight with XP, Vista, 64bit, 8.1, 9.0, 8.0c etc. etc. oh Lord!
This I did for practical reasons - and because my objective simply is to get some editing done.
Boring? maybe - but it works - 10 hours a day :-)
LarsHD wrote on 5/23/2009, 6:10 AM
Hi ritmner,

May I ask you what is your source footage here? Or rather what exactly are you putting on your timeline?

When you run dissolves between clips, what frame rates do you see?

Best
Lars


PS: yes I forgot 6 and 7....
TheHappyFriar wrote on 5/23/2009, 7:45 AM
windows has a much wider range of stuff to run on you know.... :)

i'm not sure what the fact that you can run vegas on multiple OS's has anything to do with your problem. Better is very subjective, I could easily say that if you stuck with Win2k you wouldn't have any of those issues you're mentioning because it's better.

I'll stop @ saying it's a hardware issue with you. No listing of hardware/OS in your profile or your post, so it's an easy assumption that's the issue.

from a previous post of yours where you say you have a 6600, The results you posted I'd say aren't out of the ordinary. 1920x1080 = 4x more area vs SD NTSC. That's a lot of pixel info.
ritsmer wrote on 5/23/2009, 8:47 AM
For now it is only 1280x720p 30 Fps in mp4 or m2t format. V8.0c did not fancy the mp4 so much, but V9.0 just eats it.

Preview (preview+full+scale video to fit preview window) speed is 29.970. Also during a dissolve transition (tried 4 or 5 of them and up to 10 seconds of length) - and even if I have a 10 hour heavy Neat-Video noise-cleaning-rendering job running in the background.

The task manager says that the CPU utilization goes up some 5 percent when the dissolve is previewed.

Edt: Found a couple of stills same size as you mentioned in the other thread and put them on the TL with pan-zooms and a fat dissolve :-) result: 29.970 - still with the 10 hours Neat-job sweating in background.