Render Time at DVinfo.net

Steven Julien · February 8th, 2007, 05:09 PM

A recently finished an 11 minute documentary. It took me 18 hours to render. That to me seems like a very long time. It may very well be my computer (laptop) at fault. Here are the specs.

Processor

* Processor manufacturer
* Intel

* Processor type
* Pentium M

* Clock speed
* 1.5 GHz

* Core voltage technology
* Ultra Low Voltage (ULV)

Mainboard

* Chipset type
* Intel 855GM

* Data bus speed
* 400 MHz

RAM

* RAM installed size
* 512 MB

* Max supported RAM
* 2 GB

* RAM Technology
* SDRAM-266 MHz

* Memory specification compliance
* DDR266/PC2100

Display (Projector)

* Display (projector) diagonal size
* 14 in

* Display (projector) technology
* TFT active matrix

* Color support
* 16M colors

* Max resolution
* 1280 x 768

Video Output

* Graphics processor
* Intel 855GM

Video Memory

* Video memory technology
* Shared video memory (UMA)

Storage Hard Drive

* Hard drive
* 80 GB IDE Internal

Any input on why this took so long and how to avoid this in the future would be great.

Don Bloom · February 8th, 2007, 05:48 PM

First what did you render to, MPEG, AVI or???

Second, what video FX if any did you have going on the clip(s) you were rendering.
Certain effects will just suck up all the juice from the computer and make it run like it's filled with maple syrup.

Some more info would be helpful.

Don

Gints Klimanis · February 8th, 2007, 06:04 PM

My initial guess is that your computer is running out of RAM and using the disk as "extra memory".

Try a second render and hit Control-Alt-Delete key simultaneously to bring up the Windows Task Manager. Click on the Performance tab. During render, watch the CPU meter as well as the RAM usage. If your Available Physical Memory drops to below 50,000K, you're limited by your system RAM.

Beyond the project content and effect reductions Don asked for, you can only hope to change a handful of items in your notebook:

Here are a few hardware upgrades:
1) Upgrade RAM to at least 1 GByte for WindowsXP
2) Add 2nd disk for project files
5) Upgrade your hard drive to a faster, larger unit, such as a 5400 or 7200 RPM, which will help a bit if you have one of those slower 4200 RPM drives

Here are a few manual upgrades :
1) Defragment your main drive
2) Keep your disk drives less than half full for greater performance
3) Check your output video file type. If you're using a time consuming process such as two pass Variable Bit Rate (VBR), try switching to Constant Bit Rate (CBR).

Steven Julien · February 8th, 2007, 06:18 PM

I'll start off with Don's question first then i'll work on what Gints recommended.

The majority of the effects were magic bullet filters. I was also heavy on correcting audio through an audio editor. Thats pretty much it for that.

Now I'll take a closer look at your reply Gints.

Thanks

Steven Julien · February 8th, 2007, 06:26 PM

OK Gints. The average APM is 56000-58000 and it does drop down below 50000. I saw it go as low as 30000. Also my CPU is certainly maxed out at 100. I do have a newer external 250gb HD. I'll work on getting the extra ram and the defraging. I am not clear on the VBR and CBR. I am rendering another project right now 3minutes and its taking forever as well. As soon as that is done I will look into what the setting is at.

Mike Kujbida · February 8th, 2007, 06:46 PM

The use of Magic Bullet FX can increase render times by as much as 10x :-(

Dave Stern · February 8th, 2007, 07:00 PM

problem= 1.5 ghz cpu, plus magic bullet + other filters / fx

Don Bloom · February 8th, 2007, 07:20 PM

yep, MB is an absolute KILLER on renders.

IF you're going right to MPEG and it sounds like you are why not try this. Rneder to AV FIRSTTHEN goto MPEG-it won't take as long to render to AVI and then it won't take as long to render that to MPEG. It sounds goofy but I do that a lot and it is faster. The AVI render might take a couple of hours but once you've got the AVI with all of the effects imbedded it should go to MPEG fairly quickly. 18 hours? Man I do not have the patience for that AT ALL-especially an 11 minute project (ask my wife - she'll back me on that one)

Don

Steven Julien · February 8th, 2007, 07:33 PM

Great replies and thanks everybody for your input. I am now on a quest to ditch magic bullet and not be lazy about color correction. I learned a great tip today using sony vegas color correction. Yeah, 18 hours was just stupid but my laptop isn't all that so I will do with what I have for the time. Thanks again.

Jason Robinson · February 8th, 2007, 07:56 PM

The Pentium M is a horribly crippled version of whatever generation of chip you could have been using. That chip is just not meant for multimedia applications like this. Spreadsheets? Sure. Surf the web? No prob. They were designed for mobile applications where power consumption is at a premium so performance is skimped. Here is why.

All processors have "cache" memory and instruction memory that is located inside of the CPU itself. when a program is running, the set of instructions to run is loaded by the program counter to the instruction cache as short "ToDo" list. then when an instruction need to do something, it asks the cache memory if it has that bit of data. If not, the CPU pauses whatever it is doing, and then requests that data from main memory which is alllllllll the way back off the CPU, down the bus to the memory controller, back out another bus to the RAM dimm, back the same bus, through the memory controller, and back to the cache memory. Only then can the program counter pass the completed statement to the execution unit which figures out how to do what that instruction wanted to do.

The problem with the Pentium M is that CPU is crippled by an extremely small memory cache (unless it is one of the latest generations of the M chip name). so almost anything involving lots and lots of data (like encoding) that is always changing (each frame / is different) means the CPU is sitting there in a busy wait state waiting on data from main memory.

So even though you have 2GB of RAM, the on die cache is the main limiting factor for applications that always need new information in the cache. The M series have only 1024KiB (1MB) while most Core 2 Duo chips have 2MB or 4MB for the latest and greatest. This doesn't sound like much memory, but consider that cache is sometimes a bigger reason for a performance boost. The down sides is that a CPU chip is an extremely expensive piece of real estate for a space hog like memory. That is why chips with lots of cache memory are very expensive (large die surface area means greater chance of manufacturing defect & less % yield & higher fabrication costs).

hope that helps some. Here is a good article.

jason

Peter Jefferson · February 8th, 2007, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Kujbida

The use of Magic Bullet FX can increase render times by as much as 10x :-(

Try 25x if using more than one filter on the same clip...

"The majority of the effects were magic bullet filters"

for ur GFX card, u wotn get any performance boost from MB2.. but if u had Nvidia, youd be able to render this faster than realtime..

Peter Jefferson · February 8th, 2007, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Julien

Great replies and thanks everybody for your input. I am now on a quest to ditch magic bullet and not be lazy about color correction. I learned a great tip today using sony vegas color correction. Yeah, 18 hours was just stupid but my laptop isn't all that so I will do with what I have for the time. Thanks again.

OK, well heres teh beauty of Vegas filters.. theyre FAST... and wit teh rigth combination, you can easily get manyu MB "lookss" happening withotu the fitler..

In the past when MB first came out, i really REALLY got sick of teh stupid render times, so i went through certain "looks" which i liked and created my own chain .. by duplicating the clip and having one as a template, then another with a series of chains.. i then tweaked eeach chain to get the look from teh template clip.. took forever..
BUT IT WORKED>. this might be your best option considering ur GFX card and (maybe) budget..

I then upgrade to MB2 editors.. now this runs straight through your compatible GFX card and runs MB in realtime.. on my lappy i have a Nvidia Go7300 256mb 128bit card, and on the workstation, i have an Nvidia 6800GS/t 512mb ram, 256bit... Both give me faster than realtime performance with HDV... and DV of course.. i layer about 4 tracks (DV) with the filter and it doesnt skip a beat.. (havent tried mroe than that coz i didnt need it.. )

another thing i noticed, is that when i run the filter across the track as a track effect, it speeds up ALL the previews.. as the clip filters occur before the track filters, so as the chain hits the track filter and processed by MB, usually MB2 and the GFX card have done all teh maths, so my previes are perfect (irrespective of the clip filter) so thats another consideration...

Big bummer is that Misfire and Deartefact is still single threaded...

Steven Julien · February 8th, 2007, 08:55 PM

I took off all the magic filters on the new project I am working on and did CC with sony vegas (quickly but also looks good) and the render is just flying buy. I watched the frames count up with MB 1..............2.............3..........4 and so on. Without the MB filters and with Sony CC it is just flying bye.

Dave Stern · February 9th, 2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Bloom

yep, MB is an absolute KILLER on renders.

IF you're going right to MPEG and it sounds like you are why not try this. Rneder to AV FIRSTTHEN goto MPEG-it won't take as long to render to AVI and then it won't take as long to render that to MPEG. It sounds goofy but I do that a lot and it is faster. The AVI render might take a couple of hours but once you've got the AVI with all of the effects imbedded it should go to MPEG fairly quickly. 18 hours? Man I do not have the patience for that AT ALL-especially an 11 minute project (ask my wife - she'll back me on that one)

Don

this is a great suggestion to render the file to AVI first (e.g. process the effects) then encode that. I find it easier to tweek the encoding that way, e.g. you can get your unencoded edit file done (edits, effects, etc.) then play with the encoding if you need to without re-rendering the effects (even if you just pull the AVI file back into your editor to encode it). It shouldn't be quicker in total (e.g. same math has to be done and in fact is a little more disk IO) but for some reason it's easier to deal with that way. good tip!

February 8th, 2007, 05:09 PM	#1
Steven Julien New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 20	Render Time A recently finished an 11 minute documentary. It took me 18 hours to render. That to me seems like a very long time. It may very well be my computer (laptop) at fault. Here are the specs. Processor * Processor manufacturer * Intel * Processor type * Pentium M * Clock speed * 1.5 GHz * Core voltage technology * Ultra Low Voltage (ULV) Mainboard * Chipset type * Intel 855GM * Data bus speed * 400 MHz RAM * RAM installed size * 512 MB * Max supported RAM * 2 GB * RAM Technology * SDRAM-266 MHz * Memory specification compliance * DDR266/PC2100 Display (Projector) * Display (projector) diagonal size * 14 in * Display (projector) technology * TFT active matrix * Color support * 16M colors * Max resolution * 1280 x 768 Video Output * Graphics processor * Intel 855GM Video Memory * Video memory technology * Shared video memory (UMA) Storage Hard Drive * Hard drive * 80 GB IDE Internal Any input on why this took so long and how to avoid this in the future would be great.

February 8th, 2007, 07:56 PM	#10
Jason Robinson Trustee Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boise, Idaho Posts: 1,997	Processor The Pentium M is a horribly crippled version of whatever generation of chip you could have been using. That chip is just not meant for multimedia applications like this. Spreadsheets? Sure. Surf the web? No prob. They were designed for mobile applications where power consumption is at a premium so performance is skimped. Here is why. All processors have "cache" memory and instruction memory that is located inside of the CPU itself. when a program is running, the set of instructions to run is loaded by the program counter to the instruction cache as short "ToDo" list. then when an instruction need to do something, it asks the cache memory if it has that bit of data. If not, the CPU pauses whatever it is doing, and then requests that data from main memory which is alllllllll the way back off the CPU, down the bus to the memory controller, back out another bus to the RAM dimm, back the same bus, through the memory controller, and back to the cache memory. Only then can the program counter pass the completed statement to the execution unit which figures out how to do what that instruction wanted to do. The problem with the Pentium M is that CPU is crippled by an extremely small memory cache (unless it is one of the latest generations of the M chip name). so almost anything involving lots and lots of data (like encoding) that is always changing (each frame / is different) means the CPU is sitting there in a busy wait state waiting on data from main memory. So even though you have 2GB of RAM, the on die cache is the main limiting factor for applications that always need new information in the cache. The M series have only 1024KiB (1MB) while most Core 2 Duo chips have 2MB or 4MB for the latest and greatest. This doesn't sound like much memory, but consider that cache is sometimes a bigger reason for a performance boost. The down sides is that a CPU chip is an extremely expensive piece of real estate for a space hog like memory. That is why chips with lots of cache memory are very expensive (large die surface area means greater chance of manufacturing defect & less % yield & higher fabrication costs). hope that helps some. Here is a good article. jason

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

February 8th, 2007, 05:48 PM	#2
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	First what did you render to, MPEG, AVI or??? Second, what video FX if any did you have going on the clip(s) you were rendering. Certain effects will just suck up all the juice from the computer and make it run like it's filled with maple syrup. Some more info would be helpful. Don

February 8th, 2007, 06:04 PM	#3
Gints Klimanis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,222	My initial guess is that your computer is running out of RAM and using the disk as "extra memory". Try a second render and hit Control-Alt-Delete key simultaneously to bring up the Windows Task Manager. Click on the Performance tab. During render, watch the CPU meter as well as the RAM usage. If your Available Physical Memory drops to below 50,000K, you're limited by your system RAM. Beyond the project content and effect reductions Don asked for, you can only hope to change a handful of items in your notebook: Here are a few hardware upgrades: 1) Upgrade RAM to at least 1 GByte for WindowsXP 2) Add 2nd disk for project files 5) Upgrade your hard drive to a faster, larger unit, such as a 5400 or 7200 RPM, which will help a bit if you have one of those slower 4200 RPM drives Here are a few manual upgrades : 1) Defragment your main drive 2) Keep your disk drives less than half full for greater performance 3) Check your output video file type. If you're using a time consuming process such as two pass Variable Bit Rate (VBR), try switching to Constant Bit Rate (CBR).

February 8th, 2007, 06:18 PM	#4
Steven Julien New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 20	I'll start off with Don's question first then i'll work on what Gints recommended. The majority of the effects were magic bullet filters. I was also heavy on correcting audio through an audio editor. Thats pretty much it for that. Now I'll take a closer look at your reply Gints. Thanks

February 8th, 2007, 06:26 PM	#5
Steven Julien New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 20	OK Gints. The average APM is 56000-58000 and it does drop down below 50000. I saw it go as low as 30000. Also my CPU is certainly maxed out at 100. I do have a newer external 250gb HD. I'll work on getting the extra ram and the defraging. I am not clear on the VBR and CBR. I am rendering another project right now 3minutes and its taking forever as well. As soon as that is done I will look into what the setting is at.

February 8th, 2007, 06:46 PM	#6
Mike Kujbida Inner Circle Join Date: May 2005 Location: Windsor, ON Canada Posts: 2,770	The use of Magic Bullet FX can increase render times by as much as 10x :-(

February 8th, 2007, 07:00 PM	#7
Dave Stern Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Northern New Jersey Posts: 391	problem= 1.5 ghz cpu, plus magic bullet + other filters / fx

February 8th, 2007, 07:20 PM	#8
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	yep, MB is an absolute KILLER on renders. IF you're going right to MPEG and it sounds like you are why not try this. Rneder to AV FIRSTTHEN goto MPEG-it won't take as long to render to AVI and then it won't take as long to render that to MPEG. It sounds goofy but I do that a lot and it is faster. The AVI render might take a couple of hours but once you've got the AVI with all of the effects imbedded it should go to MPEG fairly quickly. 18 hours? Man I do not have the patience for that AT ALL-especially an 11 minute project (ask my wife - she'll back me on that one) Don

February 8th, 2007, 07:33 PM	#9
Steven Julien New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 20	Great replies and thanks everybody for your input. I am now on a quest to ditch magic bullet and not be lazy about color correction. I learned a great tip today using sony vegas color correction. Yeah, 18 hours was just stupid but my laptop isn't all that so I will do with what I have for the time. Thanks again.

February 8th, 2007, 08:55 PM	#13
Steven Julien New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 20	I took off all the magic filters on the new project I am working on and did CC with sony vegas (quickly but also looks good) and the render is just flying buy. I watched the frames count up with MB 1..............2.............3..........4 and so on. Without the MB filters and with Sony CC it is just flying bye.