Did some MPG2 renders tonight and timed them in both programs. Vegas 6 was slower every single time by several seconds in a minute or less render.

Am I missing something- everyone seems to be seeing INCREASED render performance?! I will note one thing- when I went to render out my first MPG2 from Vegas 6 it never asked me to connect to the net to "register" the MainConcept encoder like it did in Version 4 and 5.

Is it possible it's still using the Vegas 5 encoder?

in the preferences tab u can allocate how u manage cpu.

Dejavu man... i swear i just saw a similar post to this on the sony forums??? or am i imagining it ?? god i need sleep...

in the preferences tab u can allocate how u manage cpu.

Dejavu man... i swear i just saw a similar post to this on the sony forums??? or am i imagining it ?? god i need sleep...

Are you talking about the number of threads to allocate to rendering? Or something else?

in the preferences tab u can allocate how u manage cpu.

Dejavu man... i swear i just saw a similar post to this on the sony forums??? or am i imagining it ?? god i need sleep...

Nope, I posted this question on 3 different internet forums. I'm a bit irrate. I dumped $200 yesterday- and one of the big new features I was looking forward to was the increased rendering performance. Ironicly I've seen the exact opposite.

I haven't gotten an answer yet from anybody about it and it seems I've found a bunch of people on the Sony forum that are experiencing the same thing- decreased rendering performance in 6.

strange...
im still using V5 until this V6 engine is a lil more stable, as im gettin constant crashes, so i cant help at this time im afraid..

strange...
im still using V5 until this V6 engine is a lil more stable, as im gettin constant crashes, so i cant help at this time im afraid..

Yeah do what I do. Leave your previous version installed until the first or second build.

I have confidence in the fact Sony will patch it up pretty quick. I'm just dissapointed because I was expecting something I didn't get. Mark Foley confirmed on his rigs, that his Dual Processor machine is now blazing fast, and his single processor machine is slightly slower. I might be able to tweak the performance by changing the "render threads" but I don't understand what they are or how they work yet- I haven't seen any literature on them.

sony specifically states that 3rd party codecs won't render any faster if they're not multi-threaded.

sony specifically states that 3rd party codecs won't render any faster if they're not multi-threaded.

I haven't done a specific test, yet, but just from putzing around last night I got the feeling that rendering a preview was slower. I was also playing around with a nested project, and had two projects open at once, so that might have had an impact.

I'll try to do a test tonight. I have the same project in V5 and V6, so I can try that.

OK, my test is complete. The project is a 7:36 long song from a concert; the source files are on a firewire drive, the target was a local drive. The target format was DV. There was color correction applied, as well as some transitions across the cuts. Both projects were identical; I pulled up a backup of the V5 project and had already saved a V6 copy last night.

V6: 30 minutes

V5: 33 minutes

This is on a single processor 2GHz P4, 512MB RAM, no hyperthreading.

No real speed-up, but no slow-down, either. I'm satisfied that V6 is no slower.

hey glen,
I hear ya mate..
funny thing is i still have vegas4 installed as its the only app that will alow me to import QT files to the timeline, whithout the need of having me go and buy an "upgrade" of quicktime pro. once i have the QT files there, i render out to avi then throw then in Vegas 5.. :)

As for version 6, i cant get anything happening with mine.. i cant even import media.. i dont know if its the fact im actually running V5 while i launch v6, but that shouldnt happen anyway..

i think some more work needs to be done with V6...
on top of that, i was hoping for some new filters and transitions... maybe a alpha loadable cookie cutter or a colour match filter or auto white balance.. :(

hey glen,
I hear ya mate..
funny thing is i still have vegas4 installed as its the only app that will alow me to import QT files to the timeline, whithout the need of having me go and buy an "upgrade" of quicktime pro. once i have the QT files there, i render out to avi then throw then in Vegas 5.. :)

Peter, Vegas 5 and 6 also allow QT *WITHOUT* QTPro. You do need one of the newer versions (6.x???) and do the custom install taking special care to make sure the Authoring Tools have been selected.

Hey Ed, i have QT5 installed, but when i try to import .movs to V5, V5 tells me i need QT6...
im not prepated to pay another hundred bux or so for a codec i already have and despise, however use as i work with alot of mac heads...
I dont see why Sony did this.. but i guess again it could be a DX issue.. i might be wrong..

I've always been able to import movs to Vegas 5. I think you just need to upgrade the player with "authoring tools" selected during the install-it's free.

Likewise, I've never bought Quicktime pro and have always been able to import .movs into Vegas. 4, 5 and now 6 is seems (demo only for me)

Aaron

Peter, you don't have to buy ANYTHING. Run the QT6 install, choose CUSTOM, and then pick EVERYTHING. Nothing at all to buy - you just need QT6.

anyone have a link to the downlaod??
everytime i go there, its asking for my Credit card number

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalone/

Also see the following threads on the Sony Vegas board on performance issues
and a "fix" for hyperthreading processors:

http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=381486&Replies=26&Page=0
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=381372&Replies=16&Page=1

Also see the following threads on the Sony Vegas board on performance issues
and a "fix" for hyperthreading processors:

http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=381486&Replies=26&Page=0
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=381372&Replies=16&Page=1


Thanks Rob. I thought my post had been hijacked into oblivion. Anyway- yeah, I read those posts. The first one just spins my head and question the reasoning behind posting that without a layman's explanation. The other just suggests reducing the thread count- which I already tried before posting this thread in the first place.

I suppose I should be more upset at Sony for false advertisement than my Vegas "not working". Apparently it IS working but isn't seeing this "increased rendering performance" they touted heavily. Out of respect for the users they should remove "HT" in their sentence about "Increased performance for Dual core, HT, and Dual processor machines". It's very misleading.

One of the Sony reps admitted that Vegas 6 will only show marginal improvement with HT and sometimes even marginal decrease in performance depending on what's being rendered. I appreaciate their honesty but am a bit frustrated with their use of false advertisement for Vegas 6 in regards to HT performance gains.

I can imagine your frustrated if you buy something for that reason (also).

The first article is very technical. Their main point (I can follow it since I am
a programmer myself) is that the time it will take to render your project is
dependent on a lot more then most people might think. And as logicially as
it sounds it really depends on the slowest component in your system.

So you may have a screaming processor, but if you have an old harddisk
that is slow it may slow your whole rendering down (depending on the project
complexity as well, ie, how many tracks with footage and what kind of
footage etc.).

Glen, where do you find the most troubles when rendering? Is it due to lots
of tracks/effects or is it to an output format like MPEG-2?

After reading this thread I, too, timed several clip renders and frankly, I am amazed at their speed. I am using Vegas 6 and, of course, just applied the 6.0a upgrade from the Sony website.

A 34 second clip rendered interlaced took about 15 seconds.
That same clip, rendered progressive, took 27 seconds.
That same clip with a title applied rendered interlaced took 29 seconds.

Maybe I'm crazy but render times less than the clip length sounds good to me.If I am off the mark please elighten me. I don't have the experience most of you guys do. I am using a P4 3.0 Ghz computer with 2 GB of ram and the page file set to 0.

I can imagine your frustrated if you buy something for that reason (also).

The first article is very technical. Their main point (I can follow it since I am
a programmer myself) is that the time it will take to render your project is
dependent on a lot more then most people might think. And as logicially as
it sounds it really depends on the slowest component in your system.

So you may have a screaming processor, but if you have an old harddisk
that is slow it may slow your whole rendering down (depending on the project
complexity as well, ie, how many tracks with footage and what kind of
footage etc.).

Glen, where do you find the most troubles when rendering? Is it due to lots
of tracks/effects or is it to an output format like MPEG-2?

Rob, I know what you mean about your computer being as fast as the slowest component. However that doesn't apply when your doing a direct comparision with two programs running on the same exact machine. What is it about Vegas 6 that would make it slower in some instances. The answer might be in that first post- but for the life of me I can't absorb it- it's too technical for me.

The only tests I did so far were simply rendering source footage (untouched) to MPG2 and DV-AVI. I never tried rendering clips with effects yet.

the page file set to 0.

Why set the page file to 0?

The idea to set it to 0 is that if you have enough RAM the computer should
not need to swap out. By not giving it the oppertunity to do so it might
increase performance, however, you run the risk of not being able to do
something if you actually do run out of memory (depending on what programs
you run [at the same time] and what you do in them together with a large
amount of ram this might not happen).

It is weird indeed that 6 would be slower than 5 on the same stuff and on
the same machine. BUT, as the first document tells, the rendering system
has been change, and it does say that this may give you some performance
penalties under certain circumstances (especially on single processor machines).

You "pay" an overhead for the more advanced multi-threading machine
(there is overhead to switch from thread to thread and to send information
between the threads etc.), this overhead should be small, especially on
multi-processor machines, but it is measurable. And as you have found out,
it may be a bit more on a single processor machine.

However, Sony's team may be futher optimizing the program, so who knows
what might come in the near future.

The reason I was asking for what you where doing is that if you where doing
a lot of tracks and/or effects a rendering farm might help you out. However,
the "problem" seems to be in your MPEG-2 rendering.

Personally I do not find that a problem, but in your case you may want to look
for a faster MPEG-2 encoder (with good quality)? TMPGEnc might be faster
(you can try a demo) for example (I'm pretty sure it is/was at least), it is
quite cheap as well.

Rob hit the nail on the head about running out of physical RAM and not being able to do something. One time (and just one time only so I think it was a temporary glitch) Vegas would not let me render and gave me a pop up screen advising me that I ran out of RAM and to increase page file space.

I am thinking of buying two more gigs of ram to increase my ram to 4 gigs. However, I hesitate only in that I wonder if I am throwing away money if I decide to buy a new computer which, by the way, will be a custom, self build job. I am sick and tired of buying brand name computers that use proprietary software that can only be used on that machine and that fills it up with useless nonsense that slows down your editing programs.

But that is another heated mater that is sure to get people's blood boiling.

I am sick and tired of buying brand name computers that use proprietary software that can only be used on that machine and that fills it up with useless nonsense that slows down your editing programs.

But that is another heated mater that is sure to get people's blood boiling.

I'm all for building your own- you get the best mobo, ram, etc when you go that route. However not all brand name computers junk it up with garbage OEM. Alienware for example- they do speed customizations and deliver very clean machines. Unfortunately you pay a bit on the overhead going that route. You can save about 10-20% shopping at NewEgg or Zip Zoom Fly. Though...then you have to mount the cpu, configure all the hardware, update the chipset drivers, bios, etc. It can be a pain sometimes. I was considering picking up an Alienware for my next machine. All my machines in the last 5 years or so have been purchased online and built/configured myself.

I'm moderately computer literate. I can configure software, tweak this, replace that no problem. However, you make building my own from scratch sound a bit more complicated that my expertise can handle. Funny thing you mention Alienware. Just before I bought my Gateway 700 XL, I saw an Alienware ad with a pretty tricked out box. And I got to thinking: This is too good to be true. Remember how many people didn't take Vegas seriously? Well, I kinda felt the same about a computer that had an alien head on it's logo. Does Alienware have a good rep when it comes to video editing and powerful, up to date components?

I'm moderately computer literate. I can configure software, tweak this, replace that no problem. However, you make building my own from scratch sound a bit more complicated that my expertise can handle. Funny thing you mention Alienware. Just before I bought my Gateway 700 XL, I saw an Alienware ad with a pretty tricked out box. And I got to thinking: This is too good to be true. Remember how many people didn't take Vegas seriously? Well, I kinda felt the same about a computer that had an alien head on it's logo. Does Alienware have a good rep when it comes to video editing and powerful, up to date components?

Alienware, Falcon Northwest, and Vodoo are the top shelf brands in regards to the PC world. They all do extensive research and add only the best components of each and every part.

Do you read Maximum PC. Most Alienware machines are using all the parts from the 9 and 10 from their reviews. They are also very cutting edge- they had SLI before Nvidia had it! If a new mobo hits the market and it's rated as the top in it's class- go check Alienware.com, and notice what mobo they are using for their Area 51 model. lol They update constantly.

You don't always have to go with the case that has an Alien head on the front. Go to their webpage and click "Creative/Professional".

I'll throw in my KUDOS for DVline... I bought my system from them three years ago... rock solid and liftime free tech support.

DVline.com

as long as you're looking at turnkeys.

If you know what parts you want, you can get a local computer shop to assemble it or get it assembled at an online vendor like monarchcomputers.com. The only thing cheaper than Monarch is a self-assembled computer (maybe $100 cheaper) or a Dell/do-it-yourself machine (Dell's base systems are cheap, upgrades very overpriced), which can get a lot cheaper but only for base/mid-range stuff.

Check out resellerratings.com... big OEMs like Dell/HP/Sony have abysmal ratings, alienware is ok, monarch voodoo and falcon have excellent ratings.

Big name companies like Alienware, Voodoo, and Falcon are all overpriced. The computers aren't really all that better functionally, while they are overpriced. All computers are pretty much the same speed if you put the same parts in. There aren't really any good speed tweaks to speed up your system other than overclocking (I've tried). Overclocking *does work* but your system can be unstable even if you test it with prime95. Another tweak that does work is to run 4 sticks of double banked memory (this information applies to 865/875 Intel chipset only, and is getting outdated because you may want the newer Intel chipsets). It makes things a few percent faster, which is neglible. Don't get 4 double banked sticks for AMD64, because that info doesn't apply and may lead to problems.

Realistically, just upgrade your computer often and make sure it is free of configuration errors. When you buy it, get the right parts. Ask people on forums like this what parts work together for the editing program you want to use.

Not sure how you guys CPU setup but my v6 rocks on render speed.
I tested v5 with same clip and it took long time to render. The clip was 2min 13sec.
v5 at 7% it was at 5:39 (mpeg)
v6 completed at 5:39 (mpeg)
I am using 2.4 OC to 2.8 with 2GB dual channel RAM (400MHZ).
Also I am currently rendering 1:39 shoot to (mpeg) and it shows completion at 1:11.....SWEET!