RAM upgrade produces incredible results at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Windows / PC Post Production Solutions > What Happens in Vegas...

What Happens in Vegas...
...stays in Vegas! This PC-based editing app is a safe bet with these tips.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 26th, 2008, 12:15 PM   #1
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Posts: 180
RAM upgrade produces incredible results

I couldn't believe this. I am running a Quad Core Q6600. I had 2 1gb sticks of DDR2 533 RAM. I used vegas to capture, edit and render a video file from my Sony HVR-A1U in HDV format. Rendering of the finished product including transitions and color correction etc took 13 hours and 14 minutes. This was on Tuesday. I recently changed my RAM to a 2GB (1 stick) of DDR2 667. I re-rendered the exact same project, and this time it only took 8 hours 43 minutes. The RAM was the only thing that was changed on my PC. I used the same HD to render to and I didn't defrag or anything else between the two renderings.

Is it normal to have such a difference in performance between the two RAM configurations? I am definately not complaing at all.
__________________
HVR-A1u,WCS-999,HVL-20DW2 w/diff,2xAudio-Technica Freeway 600,Flycam 3000,Vegas 7E
Jason Donaldson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2008, 12:50 PM   #2
Trustee
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 1,271
8 hours 43 mins !!
How long was the project ?
What format did you render to ?
My quad core q6600 with 4gb ram renders my HD footage into SD for dvd in about 2.5 times.

Paul.
__________________
Round 2
Panasonic HC-X1, Vinten PB, Sennheiser G3 bits. Vegas pro 14 on i7,AMD Radeon RX480 8GB.
Paul Kellett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2008, 01:24 PM   #3
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Posts: 180
Do you mean 2.5 times longer than 8 hours and 43 minutes?
Anyway, my project is 85 minutes in length, and I rendered out to WMV "8Mbps HD 1080-30p Video" with the render quality set to "best".
__________________
HVR-A1u,WCS-999,HVL-20DW2 w/diff,2xAudio-Technica Freeway 600,Flycam 3000,Vegas 7E
Jason Donaldson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2008, 01:46 PM   #4
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
RAM includes some metadata that tells the motherboard how fast to run it. It's likely that the new RAM allowed access with fewer wait states, speeding up all access to the memory. And yeah, that will speed up renders and anything else that exceeds the cache (on chip RAM) and uses the RAM in the motherboard slots.

The funny thing is that the previous RAM might have been *capable* of running as fast as the new RAM, but to find that out would take testing and optimization. Overclockers adjust things, test, adjust, test and so on to optimize not just CPU speed, but RAM access times, ignoring the metadata.

On the other side of the coin, if you ever build a machine that crashes, try slowing the memory access. That can turn a crash dummy PC into a rock solid performer.
__________________
Jon Fairhurst
Jon Fairhurst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2008, 02:24 PM   #5
Trustee
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 1,271
Jason, i mean 2.5 times the length of the project, a 1 hour project will be rendered to mpeg-2 in 2.5 hours.

So you had an 85 mins of hdv project and it took 8hrs and 43 mins to render to WMV !! That's very slow.
I wouldn't even wait that long.

Paul.
__________________
Round 2
Panasonic HC-X1, Vinten PB, Sennheiser G3 bits. Vegas pro 14 on i7,AMD Radeon RX480 8GB.
Paul Kellett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2008, 03:01 PM   #6
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Posts: 180
Yes, WMV HD. You're rendering to SD, not HD. There is a ton of transitions and color corection within the project, and 2 nested .veg files as well as 5.1 sound (6 tracks audio). I don't think your PC could do any better considering the contents of the project file.
__________________
HVR-A1u,WCS-999,HVL-20DW2 w/diff,2xAudio-Technica Freeway 600,Flycam 3000,Vegas 7E
Jason Donaldson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2008, 03:15 PM   #7
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,421
Hey Jason, this is off topic, but I notice you are using the extremely slow "best" setting.

Unless I'm mistaken, (wouldn't be the first time) rendering using the "best" setting is only needed for using lots of photos, as I understand it.

Someone correct me if I'm mistaken. I do know it slows rendering to a crawl, and from having tried it a few times I truly saw no difference in output quality, except for photos, where I have see a slight improvment.

Anyone else?

Incidentally, if you rendered with Best setting the first time and then good the second (not knowing you were doing so) that would account for a drastic speed increase as well.
Jeff Harper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2008, 03:32 PM   #8
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 263
Render time is not all about time length of your film...

If you use 3d track motion, FX (filters, color corrections and so on), transitions and more the rendering time will be affected... These stuff is heavy things for Sony Vegas...

I recently made a 80 seconds long film, which took 4 hours to render (M2T, 1280x720, 50fps).
Its all about the content in your project.
Kim Olsson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2008, 03:33 PM   #9
Sponsor: JET DV
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 7,873
"BEST" should be used when resizing is done. This is almost always when using images. But it can apply even when using video. For example, HD sources to an SD render could benefit from "BEST". Otherwise, "GOOD" typically gives results that are just as good as "BEST". I would recommend doing a small test both ways and see whether or not it will benefit your situation.
__________________
Edward Troxel [SCVU]
JETDV Scripts/Excalibur/Newsletters
Edward Troxel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2008, 05:02 PM   #10
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 1,772
Wanna see your render times go crazy, try rendering a 32-bit floating point project. I had one that was about 2.5 hours in length with lots of color correction, transitions and some inserted picture in picture type portions. On a Q6600 based machine with 4 GB of ram it took 8 days to render!
Garrett Low is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2008, 05:31 PM   #11
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,421
Yes Garrett, it is amazingly slow. I have done it, and admit color was a bit better, but not better enough to justify it's use for general video use.
Jeff Harper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2008, 05:37 PM   #12
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Troxel View Post
"BEST" should be used when resizing is done. This is almost always when using images. But it can apply even when using video. For example, HD sources to an SD render could benefit from "BEST". Otherwise, "GOOD" typically gives results that are just as good as "BEST". I would recommend doing a small test both ways and see whether or not it will benefit your situation.
Thanks for the info Edward. I just assumed that if good was good, then best was best so to speak.
__________________
HVR-A1u,WCS-999,HVL-20DW2 w/diff,2xAudio-Technica Freeway 600,Flycam 3000,Vegas 7E
Jason Donaldson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2008, 05:38 PM   #13
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Harper View Post
Incidentally, if you rendered with Best setting the first time and then good the second (not knowing you were doing so) that would account for a drastic speed increase as well.
I have saved a preset using the same settings so best was used for both...good thinking though
__________________
HVR-A1u,WCS-999,HVL-20DW2 w/diff,2xAudio-Technica Freeway 600,Flycam 3000,Vegas 7E
Jason Donaldson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2008, 05:40 PM   #14
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,421
Well, I'm impressed. I had no idea memory speed could have such a drastic impact...thanks for letting us know...
Jeff Harper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2008, 05:45 PM   #15
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hillsborough, NC, USA
Posts: 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett Low View Post
Wanna see your render times go crazy, try rendering a 32-bit floating point project. I had one that was about 2.5 hours in length with lots of color correction, transitions and some inserted picture in picture type portions. On a Q6600 based machine with 4 GB of ram it took 8 days to render!
See this post for an explanation as to why floating point is s-o-o slow:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....1&postcount=37
John Miller is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Windows / PC Post Production Solutions > What Happens in Vegas...

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:06 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network