Why is Vegas so slow at rendering some things?

nlamartina wrote on 9/19/2001, 12:44 AM

HPV,

There are a VAST number of factors that affect Vegas' rendering times. Here's a short, but by-no-means complete list:

1. TSR's running in the background.
2. Active virus scanners.
3. Network activity.
4. Timeline content/format (compressed data, large frame size, etc.)
5. Transition content (compositing, layering, keying, etc.)

I would suspect that #4 and #5 are the two factors you are currently experiencing. While I can't give you specifics (as I didn't program the software), I can tell you that some effects, however simple-looking, require really complex calculations to create good, color gradients and effects that don't look unbalanced, blotchy, harsh, or "cheap". Large frame sizes will affect performance more, as there's a lot more pixel data to comb through. Throw in really nasty compression scemes, and you've got an enormous amount of work to do. If you're unhappy with the amount of time it's taking, consider lowering the quality settings for your project.

Concerning you dual-processor question, yes, it's true that one processor will render just as fast as two. This is the way Windows is programmed to handle the data. We have yet to get support for processor arrays in a Windows platform, and judging by the press kits from Microsoft, it won't happen in XP either (out of the box, anyway). However, this doesn't make dual-processors useless. Their real power comes in the form of multi-tasking. You will see a PHENOMONAL improvement in Vegas' stabilty with two processors, as one can handle muscle-work, like pre-rending, dropping markers, and grabbing thumb-nails, while the other is playing your project.

Think of it like this: You've got two men with a broken car. Ask the two of them to fix it, and they'll do it in significantly less time than one alone (imagine this being you working on a project on the timeline). One may work on the engine, while the other hands the tools over upon request. Or one may check the suspension while the other replaces the battery. They work fine together. Now have both of them hop in the car and tell them to both drive (imagine this being you rendering a project). Assuming they don't fight for the wheel for the sake of preserving the analogy, we can conclude that in this case, one is just as good as two. You follow?

So yeah, dual processors are great, if you can afford it. Also, I imagine the same multi-processor functions in Vegas 2 will be present in Vegas 3.

Hope this info helps,
Nick LaMartina

rgwarren wrote on 9/19/2001, 2:11 PM

Sure Sonic Foundry doesn't support dual processors and they blame it on Microsoft. Adobe After Effects supports 2 processors and I can render similar effect TWICE as fast. Hmmmmm. It's running on Windows 2000!

I wonder how they did that? The guys as Sonic Foundry said it wasn't possible.

Wake up. Workstations with 2 processors are becoming a reality and Sonic Foundry better pay attention. Vegas Video renders like a big 'ol fat pig. It would help to support calculating effects and frames using BOTH processors. This has nothing to do with the Microsoft codec issue. This has to do with the fact that the VV programmers either won't or don't know how to multithread properly. Everyone else knows how to do it.

Adobe supports dual processors it in ALL their programs! And yes it make a huge difference in rendering times.

I just love it when my dual XEON 1.7GHz 1Gb machine gets blown away by a P5 1.5 GHz machine.

Keep up the good work SF. Nice interface - poor performance.

HPV wrote on 9/20/2001, 2:47 AM

>>You will see a PHENOMONAL improvement in Vegas' stabilty with two processors, as one can handle muscle-work, like pre-rending, dropping markers, and grabbing thumb-nails, while the other is playing your project.
_____________________
Thanks for input, but you missed the mark on many fronts.
First, what you say above just isn't true. When Vegas is rendering in any way, you can't do anything else in the same project. You can have another instance of Vegas open, and my P4 does just fine playing in one while I edit in another. Or rendering in one while editing in another.
Would one cpu be used for each instance of Vegas running?
(Rob and others, can you check this?)
As for my specific question, here is something to chew on. If I use the Track FX to add a shadow and glow to text, it renders in 60 seconds. The same thing done "all" in the "new" text media generator by itself renders in only 20 sec. (Studio DV does it in 4 sec.) This is a one second clip, x60 is not good. Heck, even x20 sucks.
It could be one of three things.
1. Track FX will always be slow because it calculates the text/video/graphic in some funky way. (Weak code)
2. Track FX will be 3x faster with the Vegas 3 upgrade as the new "CG" shows it can be done.
3. SF will beat the speed of the new CG for both the Vegas 3 CG and Track FX.
#3 is the only thing that will cut it in my book. Now think about the intro I just did with a DV fire clip (same framerate and size as project) playing inside text while it floated across the screen with a shadow. Now add in the moving cropped (pan & crop fx on clip) video windows with glow & a shadow. One word from both my computer and me, UGGGHHH No other way to get this effect without using Track FX in Vegas.
If SF doesn't know about this, I hope that this post will bring it into view for them. I will be sending them my wish list for Vegas 3 real soon.

Craig H.

nlamartina wrote on 9/20/2001, 3:52 PM

HPV,

Sorry for the confusion. Let me clarify a few things:

-"First, what you say above just isn't true. When Vegas is rendering in any way, you can't do anything else in the same project..."

I didn't mean by my statement that Vegas can do final renders and work. I meant that a lot of editing techniques can be benefitted by using two processors, since not all operations are being executed using just one processor. And it's not just limited to Vegas either. I imagine if you've got some other program running in the background, you wouldn't eperience as many crashes. And again, I can't give real specifics since I didn't program the software, but in my correspondance with other dual-processor users, there's been an overwhelming agreement that two processors can significantly increase your productivity in terms of editing ease and stability. Rendering, perhaps not, but hopefully that will change in the future. Now, Avid's system allows for auto-pre-rendering and such with two processors, and that would be a nice addition to Vegas. We'll have to see how that turns out too.

As to your list of possible outcomes for slow rendering at this time, I'd have to agree with you that number 3 is the most desireable. I'd like to believe that the CG update right now is just "a taste of what's to come", as noted by some techs concerning similar VideoFactory updates. I guess we'll see. Also, I'll try and do a little experimenting with TG to see if some content is faster than others. Best to send that wish list anyway. =)

Regards, and good luck,
Nick LaMartina