VV3 PHOTO PROJ RENDERING TAKING AGES!!!! HELP!!

WinVideo wrote on 3/23/2003, 5:51 PM
Hi,

I'm working on a photo montage for my sis in law and... its a photo montage with two tracks.. the second being the duplicate of the first and used as background.. I used the blur feature on the second track to give some nice effect... and made the first track a bit smaller...

So now that this is said... here's my problem... oh yah my pics are 1600x11xx or so resolution.. and for 20 min montage its taking me 30hrs!~!!!!! is this normal?? the project is 720x480 and NTSC DV....

Does the photo size matter?? should i convert the photo to somewhere close to 720x480 and save time???? its ridiculously slowwww.. but for movies and stuff my mpeg 2 rendering takes only 3 times no effects.. and maybe 10 times max with max effects.. but for just photos i thought should take much less..

Did anyone have this problem or know how i can get around this???
I would really really appreciate a quick help.

THANKS SOOOOOO MUCH GUYS!!
WV

Comments

Sab wrote on 3/23/2003, 6:19 PM
Hi,

Well, coming from a real-time Storm/Premiere based system, long rendering times was a bit of a shock.

That said, there many more benefits in using Vegas however that offsets the rendering time. You also might want to check a few settings.

1. Photo size should be 655x480. If you search this forum, you'll see this explained thoroughly. The file type preferred in Vegas is png rather than bmp or jpeg. Again, this is explained very thoroughly in other posts.

2. By default, your render quality setting is set to "Good." There is also a "Best" setting. Use "Best" only if you are panning and zooming the photos or if you have applied track motion. Otherwise, "Good" is quite a bit faster and you won't notice any degredation.

3. Any time you apply a filter, you will need to render in Vegas. This is an unavoidable fact.

Give these adjustments a try and re-render. In the mean time, Vegas allows you to open another instance of the program and you can get started on another project. Ahhh yes, life is good as a "Vegan."

Mike
noFony wrote on 3/23/2003, 7:43 PM
It's because your photos are so big, but if you're zooming in on them they may need to stay that way, it depends what you're doing..if not zooming in they only need be 655x480.
WinVideo wrote on 3/23/2003, 9:49 PM
Thanks so much for the responses!

Well sometimes I do zooming when i have a group picture just to show everyone clearly.. I dont zoom that much though.. just make the Event Pan window quarter of the full image and i move left to right.. If its just 1 or two people in it then the max size i go is 100% full on screen or 85 % of the size to show the background and give the effect of real photo album.

So would the 655x480 be ok.. once this 30 hr rendering is done i'll try it too :(...

my main question is ...
my photos are in different sizes i mean the ratio width/height is different.. so making it 655x480 will stretch the image... Do you mean somewhere close to 655x480 or EXACTLY 655x480??

Thanks again for your help
WV
WinVideo wrote on 3/23/2003, 10:42 PM
One more thing..
I did not turn the Track Motion ON but somehow its on I dont know if that has anything to do.. The track motion icon in track head is blue not grey... I did not use track motion throughout the project..

HOW DO I REMOVE THE TRACK MOTION OF THE TRACK?? usually its just a right-click and remove.. this does not seem to work.. anyone???

THANKS IN ADVANCE!
WV
Spot|DSE wrote on 3/23/2003, 10:52 PM
No, no...no! Don't worry about track motion. That's not the issue....
1. Photos should be anything BUT tifs. Tifs require Vegas to read to the Quicktime reader, slowing things down.
2. Don't worry about photo size/aspect. Only be concerned if they are exceptionally large. Use Pan/Crop to size images that are not correct aspect.
3. When rendering photos, remember it's making video from a graphic, so it DOES take a while. If the pix are png or bmp or tga files, this is slow. Blurs are VERY slow, so expect long render times.
30 hours is excessive, unless you are rendering uncompressed, or are rendering on a slow system. Are you rendering to NTSC-DV or MPEG? If so, your timeline must have something else going on. Have you checked to see that opacity is at 100%? Any other setting can REALLY slow a render.
Those are the first things I'd look for.
for some tutorials on this subject, www.sundancemediagroup.com/home1.htm
JohnnyRoy wrote on 3/24/2003, 8:32 AM
> Did anyone have this problem or know how i can get around this???

Been there... done that. I talk about this in the Vegas Tips section of my website. Part of the problem is applying the blur to the second track. I use this a lot in my photomontages. Here’s what I do: Solo the blur track. Then save each blurred image as a PNG or JPG at project size and best quality and then replace the image with the blur effect on the timeline with the PNG that already has blur applied. Now Vegas doesn’t have to blur that track at all. It just has to play it back as video. It still takes a long time to render stills as video but this should speed things up a bit.

~jr
Zorro2 wrote on 3/26/2003, 12:44 PM
Why not buy a copy of Imaginate (which is awesome) for doing zoomz and camera movements on photos - they then are rendered out to a avi which you can insert on the timeline - that should count the rendering time wayyyyyyyyyyyy down.
Spot|DSE wrote on 3/26/2003, 5:35 PM
Yes, Imaginate is good, AND it has a Z axis that Vegas doesn't have. Rendering is still slow though.