DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   What Happens in Vegas... (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/what-happens-vegas/)
-   -   10 second AVI takes 10 minutes to render in Vegas (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/what-happens-vegas/19086-10-second-avi-takes-10-minutes-render-vegas.html)

Lars Siden January 1st, 2004 06:22 AM

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

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

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

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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:58 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network