10 second AVI takes 10 minutes to render in Vegas at DVinfo.net

Lars Siden · January 1st, 2004, 06:22 AM

Hi,

Just made a test, took a 10 second clip from christmas eve, imported it to Vegas and applied 3 effects

1. Color Correction - remove yellow cast
2. Median filter - light noise removal
3. Unsharp Mask - medium

Rendered it - took 10 minutes and 2 seconds - that is 60x slower than RT.

My question:

Is this normal? Or have I done something "wrong"?

// Lazze

Peter Jefferson · January 1st, 2004, 06:30 AM

no not normal...

dunno what ur doing wrong thou....

Lars Siden · January 1st, 2004, 06:59 AM

More testing

Same clip:

* Only Color Corrected - took 19 seconds, -2X RT
* Color Corrected + Unsharp, -12X RT

The "rest" of the time is the Median filter...

Please, try for yourself!

// Lazze

Edward Troxel · January 1st, 2004, 07:53 AM

The median filter is a VERY time-intensive process. Use it very sparingly.

Lars Siden · January 1st, 2004, 11:08 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Edward Troxel : The median filter is a VERY time-intensive process. Use it very sparingly. -->>>

So I noticed ;-) Do I have another option? What is "median"-filter? Could I replace it with a blur of somekind?

I have almost decided to buy a DVStorm2, don't know if it has some kind of HW median...

// Lazze

Edward Troxel · January 1st, 2004, 11:52 AM

Any of the "blur", "median", ... type effects will be slower because the affect the entire video frame. EVERY pixel must be modified for EVERY frame. So it is best to either use them sparingly OR just set Vegas to render while you're away (such as overnight).

Glenn Chan · January 1st, 2004, 02:39 PM

It seems like the median filter is the slowest filter in Vegas. On a P800 it's 100X RT, and on my P2.6 it's like 30X RT (very rough guesstimate, I am too lazy to wait around for it to finish). Maybe someone has good ideas about an alternative for noise reduction.

I will try other NLEs to how well they do. Some of Vegas' filters are better than other NLEs so the extra rendering time might be worth the wait. Final Cut with stock filters isn't as good for color correcting as Vegas for example. AFAIK it just doesn't have color curves or saturation adjustment (curves for saturation). Not sure about Premiere Pro or Avid.

Mark A. Foley · January 2nd, 2004, 05:49 AM

I think Edward's response is best..and is soon realized by anyone that uses Vegas seriously...let it render while you sleep....

Lars Siden · January 2nd, 2004, 02:52 PM

Made the same render in Premiere Pro

* Color corrected
* Median filter
* Sharpen

Took < 3 minutes with other programs running at the same time...so I guess the Vegas time has to polish there code some!

// Lazze

Glenn Chan · January 2nd, 2004, 03:12 PM

The Premiere Pro median filter doesn't have as many options, like circular processing. With circular processing the Vegas filter would take forever. As a workaround, you could bypass the effect until the final render (and RT preview provides a decent preview). Still, the render time is incredibly long in Vegas.

Edward Troxel · January 2nd, 2004, 03:54 PM

There are also OTHER things you can do to help speed up processing such as rendering at Good instead of Best.

While the Vegas render takes longer, it will arguably look better in the final result.

Lars Siden · January 3rd, 2004, 04:36 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Edward Troxel : There are also OTHER things you can do to help speed up processing such as rendering at Good instead of Best.

While the Vegas render takes longer, it will arguably look better in the final result. -->>>

I agree, the output from Vegas is very good.

( and I always render at Good, not best )

Best regards,

Lazze

Harry Settle · January 31st, 2004, 11:00 AM

I just set up my new editing system and ran a quick test, to see the effects of moving from my old Athlon 900 to a new P4 3.2.

I took a 15 minute clip and rendered it out to mpeg2, no effects added. It cooked in about 18minutes.

I took the same clip and threw a gaussian blur over the whole thing plus a couple of other global effects, to make the system work as hard as possible. It cooked in about 2 hours.

Needless to say I was very pleased with the improvement in rendering time. Would have taken my athlon 5-8 hours.

Lars Siden · February 1st, 2004, 01:06 PM

Hi Harry,

That is nice to hear! I just ordered the brand new iPentium 4e at 3.2ghz with 1mb cache - this version is reasonable priced compared to the 2mb cache edition!

// Lazze

Lars Siden · February 8th, 2004, 02:45 PM

Hi all,

Got my new 3.2ghz CPU - in the end, I bought the standard Northwood P4 3.2/800, not the new Prescott.

Took the same testvideo file as I had when I started this thread, rendered in 7 minutes 28 seconds.That is 2.34 better than my old P4 2.53/533

// Lazze

January 1st, 2004, 06:22 AM	#1
Lars Siden Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sweden, Stockholm Posts: 469	10 second AVI takes 10 minutes to render in Vegas Hi, Just made a test, took a 10 second clip from christmas eve, imported it to Vegas and applied 3 effects 1. Color Correction - remove yellow cast 2. Median filter - light noise removal 3. Unsharp Mask - medium Rendered it - took 10 minutes and 2 seconds - that is 60x slower than RT. My question: Is this normal? Or have I done something "wrong"? // Lazze __________________ Sony HDR-CX130,Canon 5DMKII,i7 930@4.0, 12gb memory, 3x SSD + 2x1Tb(stripe), Geforce 480, Dual 24", Win 7 x64

January 1st, 2004, 06:59 AM	#3
Lars Siden Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sweden, Stockholm Posts: 469	More testing Same clip: * Only Color Corrected - took 19 seconds, -2X RT * Color Corrected + Unsharp, -12X RT The "rest" of the time is the Median filter... Please, try for yourself! // Lazze __________________ Sony HDR-CX130,Canon 5DMKII,i7 930@4.0, 12gb memory, 3x SSD + 2x1Tb(stripe), Geforce 480, Dual 24", Win 7 x64

January 1st, 2004, 11:08 AM	#5
Lars Siden Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sweden, Stockholm Posts: 469	<<<-- Originally posted by Edward Troxel : The median filter is a VERY time-intensive process. Use it very sparingly. -->>> So I noticed ;-) Do I have another option? What is "median"-filter? Could I replace it with a blur of somekind? I have almost decided to buy a DVStorm2, don't know if it has some kind of HW median... // Lazze __________________ Sony HDR-CX130,Canon 5DMKII,i7 930@4.0, 12gb memory, 3x SSD + 2x1Tb(stripe), Geforce 480, Dual 24", Win 7 x64

January 2nd, 2004, 02:52 PM	#9
Lars Siden Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sweden, Stockholm Posts: 469	Sticking out my neck ;-) Made the same render in Premiere Pro * Color corrected * Median filter * Sharpen Took < 3 minutes with other programs running at the same time...so I guess the Vegas time has to polish there code some! // Lazze __________________ Sony HDR-CX130,Canon 5DMKII,i7 930@4.0, 12gb memory, 3x SSD + 2x1Tb(stripe), Geforce 480, Dual 24", Win 7 x64

January 3rd, 2004, 04:36 AM	#12
Lars Siden Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sweden, Stockholm Posts: 469	<<<-- Originally posted by Edward Troxel : There are also OTHER things you can do to help speed up processing such as rendering at Good instead of Best. While the Vegas render takes longer, it will arguably look better in the final result. -->>> I agree, the output from Vegas is very good. ( and I always render at Good, not best ) Best regards, Lazze __________________ Sony HDR-CX130,Canon 5DMKII,i7 930@4.0, 12gb memory, 3x SSD + 2x1Tb(stripe), Geforce 480, Dual 24", Win 7 x64

January 1st, 2004, 06:30 AM	#2
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	no not normal... dunno what ur doing wrong thou....

January 1st, 2004, 07:53 AM	#4
Edward Troxel Sponsor: JET DV Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 7,953	The median filter is a VERY time-intensive process. Use it very sparingly.

January 1st, 2004, 11:52 AM	#6
Edward Troxel Sponsor: JET DV Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 7,953	Any of the "blur", "median", ... type effects will be slower because the affect the entire video frame. EVERY pixel must be modified for EVERY frame. So it is best to either use them sparingly OR just set Vegas to render while you're away (such as overnight).

January 1st, 2004, 02:39 PM	#7
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	It seems like the median filter is the slowest filter in Vegas. On a P800 it's 100X RT, and on my P2.6 it's like 30X RT (very rough guesstimate, I am too lazy to wait around for it to finish). Maybe someone has good ideas about an alternative for noise reduction. I will try other NLEs to how well they do. Some of Vegas' filters are better than other NLEs so the extra rendering time might be worth the wait. Final Cut with stock filters isn't as good for color correcting as Vegas for example. AFAIK it just doesn't have color curves or saturation adjustment (curves for saturation). Not sure about Premiere Pro or Avid.

January 2nd, 2004, 05:49 AM	#8
Mark A. Foley Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Bonaire, Ga. Posts: 356	I think Edward's response is best..and is soon realized by anyone that uses Vegas seriously...let it render while you sleep....

January 2nd, 2004, 03:12 PM	#10
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	The Premiere Pro median filter doesn't have as many options, like circular processing. With circular processing the Vegas filter would take forever. As a workaround, you could bypass the effect until the final render (and RT preview provides a decent preview). Still, the render time is incredibly long in Vegas.

January 2nd, 2004, 03:54 PM	#11
Edward Troxel Sponsor: JET DV Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 7,953	There are also OTHER things you can do to help speed up processing such as rendering at Good instead of Best. While the Vegas render takes longer, it will arguably look better in the final result.

January 31st, 2004, 11:00 AM	#13
Harry Settle Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Bemidji, MN Posts: 276	I just set up my new editing system and ran a quick test, to see the effects of moving from my old Athlon 900 to a new P4 3.2. I took a 15 minute clip and rendered it out to mpeg2, no effects added. It cooked in about 18minutes. I took the same clip and threw a gaussian blur over the whole thing plus a couple of other global effects, to make the system work as hard as possible. It cooked in about 2 hours. Needless to say I was very pleased with the improvement in rendering time. Would have taken my athlon 5-8 hours. __________________ "DOH"!!!

February 1st, 2004, 01:06 PM	#14
Lars Siden Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sweden, Stockholm Posts: 469	Hi Harry, That is nice to hear! I just ordered the brand new iPentium 4e at 3.2ghz with 1mb cache - this version is reasonable priced compared to the 2mb cache edition! // Lazze __________________ Sony HDR-CX130,Canon 5DMKII,i7 930@4.0, 12gb memory, 3x SSD + 2x1Tb(stripe), Geforce 480, Dual 24", Win 7 x64

February 8th, 2004, 02:45 PM	#15
Lars Siden Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sweden, Stockholm Posts: 469	Hi all, Got my new 3.2ghz CPU - in the end, I bought the standard Northwood P4 3.2/800, not the new Prescott. Took the same testvideo file as I had when I started this thread, rendered in 7 minutes 28 seconds.That is 2.34 better than my old P4 2.53/533 // Lazze __________________ Sony HDR-CX130,Canon 5DMKII,i7 930@4.0, 12gb memory, 3x SSD + 2x1Tb(stripe), Geforce 480, Dual 24", Win 7 x64