Love Vegas Hate Render time

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Re-read my post. I'm suggesting a stand alone system.
*I* don't use antivirus, nor does any system in our offices (18 systems) excepting one or two used by assistants that come and go. None of our laptops use antivirus either (38 systems).
I do recommend people use antivirus if they're browsing the web without care. Firewalls are always recommended.

Antivirus is anathemic to video editing. This is one tremendous argument alone, for having a system that can either be easily disconnected, having a standalone that is connected to an internal network, or having multiple profiles, one of which is that the machine is not internet-capable in a profile, but can connect to a SAN.

You may be a computer professional. Given that we've easily built, operated, and continually experiment with well over 300-400 computers (not including machines assembled for portable training at events such as NAB, etc, all connected to the web) I'd submit we're no slouches ourselves.

If someone is not very conscious about where they operate and browse, then indeed, having antivirus is an important bandaid.

Aside from that, it cannot be repeated enough; Antivirus is anathemic to video editing.
Ironically, this thread mentions John Meyer. Well known entrepeneur, code warrior, and developer of famous software who uses Sony Vegas. He is a strong advocate as well, of not using anti-virus.
You may feel it's the worst option, but those of us that edit video for our daily bread would submit the worst option is running a system *with* antivirus. And, we must be connected to the web in most instances; certainly, we must be connected to our internal networks.
I think you'll likely find that most professional editors with more than a few years in this industry are also computer professionals with years of configuration and build experience.

To bring the thread back to point, antivirus and other background applications will significantly slow render times in virtually all instances.

[John McManimie]

It is not my intention to fuel a debate here.

I read your post and I understand your point.

I do not dispute that antivirus and other background applications will slow a system and in the ideal world a person will have a dedicated editing system.

But I contend that many, many people who frequent this forum use their regular home computer for everything (and their wives, girlfriends, children and friends use that computer at times as well).

My point is this: You, your coworkers and many industry professionals may be exceptionally careful and avoid any problems but many people will not be so fortunate even with the best of intentions (I have supported a lot of users who have had the best of intentions). Judging by some posts I read on this site, there are a lot of people who are definitely not as technically savvy as you are and many stretch their budgets to afford one PC. So, consider my post a caution to *those* users.

[Ron Evans]

John I am not sure whether your comments were to me or Douglas. My recommendation is to have one machine with NOTHING important on it to browse the WEB and get mail( which you leave on the ISP server so that if you have to totally rebuild your machine you can get all your mail back). In my system this is the oldest machine, the newest is the video editor and the next oldest is the audio editor. As I get permission from the other half to upgrade they all ripple down and the oldest gets turfed!!! Use a combined hardware router and firewall set up so that you are invisible to the internet, don't ever connect your PC directly to the internet, especially a high speed link like DSL or cable modem. On this internet machine have antivirus, antimalware and Zone Alarm that locks the machine when in screen saver and has a lock on all outgoing programs. In my case this machine screens all incoming data from the internet as I explained in my post. The other two machines used for editing have no protection at all and run with minimum processes needed to edit only. They only access the internet for program updates ( Windows and editing programs. I take the risk that Microsoft, Adobe, Sony and Canopus will be virus free). I have been using basically this approach for almost 10years with no problem at all. NOW the internet connected machine gets lots of hits from mail that gets through the ISP's Norton antivirus but gets stopped by AVAST.
So my advice buy a router, use a dedicated editing PC and use an old PC for internet browsing and mail.
In my mind if someone has bought a video camera, bought editing software then they can find the money for a cheap PC for internet use for the family. IF they don't optimize the editing machine they will not be too happy with the whole experience and a DVD camcorder or HDD camcorder with in camera editing would be a better option.

Ron Evans

[Marcus Marchesseault]

Anti-virus software can be shut down while editing. It's mostly useless, but having it scan and do it's update a few times a week isn't a bad idea. If you actually get malware, you will probably need to take specific steps for each type of attack. They all have different ways of working and I haven't found a virus scanner that detects the sneaky ones. I've only had a few pieces of malware and I browse all over the web. Of course, I don't ever say "okay" to anything that wants to install something on my system. Ever since I stopped using Microsoft products (except Windows), my problems almost completely went away. MS Word and Outlook have been notorious for allowing malware to run because of the Activex controls and macro scripting. Only use Firefox and Opera when browsing is my recommendation.

I've also learned to use Spybot, AdAware, Killbox.exe, and hijackthis.exe to find and remove malicious processes.

Another thing that may prove to be very helpful is prio.exe from:

http://www.prnwatch.com/prio.html

It is a program that allows you to set and maintain the priority of applications and processes through the task manager. It enables a "save priority" setting under the menue at Task Manager/Processes/rightclick. You can select the priority and save it once prio.exe is installed. I haven't given is a full run-through yet, but preliminary tests show it to at least not interfere if I set Vegas to "High" priority. I don't think it's a good idea to set anything to "Realtime" as that seems like it may let a process hold onto the system and not let go.

[Lars Siden]

I always never recommend a software - but ESET NOD32 AV I do recommend. Almost no CPU usage, even when it fetches updates. You can easily tell NOD32 wich applications NOT to scan, as Vegas/Photoshop etc etc

IMHO - the worst cpu thieves are:

1. Norton - All products(some love Norton products, I did love the Norton DOS commander... )
2. Mcaffee AV/Shield
3. F-Secure - kills your computer while running updates

NOD32 works 100% under Vista as well.

//Lz

[John Godden]

Originally Posted by John McManimie

I am not a video professional but I am a computer professional with several years in continuity planning, security and network administration,

I think that the absolutely worst option is to run a system that is connected to the Internet without running anti-malware software (antivirus, antispyware). If you feel comfortable using the Internet without antivirus installed, more power to you; I consider it very poor advice to suggest that other people do the same.

The options really seem to be:

1) Use a dedicated editing system that is NOT connected to the Internet.

-OR-

2) Use your common system for editing BUT disconnect from the Internet and disable antivirus *temporarily* (products such as Symantec Antivirus allow you to disable until the next reboot --- that removes the burden of remembering to enable it).

-OR-

3) Use a dual-boot system and disconnect form the Internet when using the editing system (which should be configured to run minimal processes).

That's great advice!

I scan and then turn OFF anti-virus.

Regards
JohnG

[Jeff Harper]

I have not run anti-virus software in over ten years. I always run with firewall. I watch where I go on the internet.

On occasion, just prior to zero-ing out my hard drive and reinstalling my software, which I do every six months or so, I have run anti-virus software and have never been found to be infected. I have sometime run two different programs, (uninstall one, then install a second one and run it for a complete scan of my drives) and never have I had a virus.

Once I did get hit with the sasser thingy, but that was easily dealt with.

I do like the idea of using a dual boot configuration to keep things speedy though...but I believe still uncesessary.

[Chris Rieman]

Back to the render times...

I tend to use Vegas and Render As WMV in some size/quality or another, but it there a better more efficient format? Quicktime? In quick experimentation with a 3 minute file, I couldnt really draw any conclusions.

Is there a better way to render video out of Vegas? Third party? Or is RENDER AS the only option you have and are stuck with?

Whats the best format as far as eventually pushing to burn to DVD with DVD Architect. I honestly havent made many DVDs and push most of my video to the web, but Im about to work on some larger projects with 30 minutes of video, and I can see a render time in Vegas approaching 12-14hrs for something like this. Thats if the PC doesnt crash and granny doesnt run over the power cord with the vacuum.

The file sizes are huge too. I know DVD Architect can render to the size of the DVD, but what are some best practices here to get the best compression for not only the web but DVD? Render time is measured in hours at my house and I have a 3ghz 2gb system with mirrored drives.

I dont think Im being as efficient as I should. Can Quicktime Pro or Sorenson be used outside of Vegas to render Vegas projects?

OK smart ones, 'dump some nawlidge' on me. :)

[Mike Kujbida]

Originally Posted by Chris Rieman

Back to the render times...

I tend to use Vegas and Render As WMV in some size/quality or another, but it there a better more efficient format?

It depends on what you want to do with it.
If I'm doing a print to tape, I'll render to DV-AVI.
If it's for DVD, then it's MPEG-2 and AC3.

...what are some best practices here to get the best compression for not only the web but DVD?

Apples and oranges here. I don't do stuff for the web so I won't try to offer suggestions.

For DVD creation, I use a bitrate calculator (google it, there's lots around) to get the most I can out of Vegas. Most times I end up having to modify the basic DVD template to get the best quality I can.
I then feed that to DVDA and the authoring time is minimal as I've already done the calculations ahead of time.

...I'm about to work on some larger projects with 30 minutes of video, and I can see a render time in Vegas approaching 12-14hrs...

Unless you use a LOT of FX, I see no reason for your system to take that long to render.
Is your system optimized properly?
For example:
Do you render to a different drive than your OS?
Are most background services turned off (esp. anti-virus)?
When was the last time you took your computer apart and blew the dust out?
The list goes on but you get the idea.

[Chris Rieman]

[QUOTE=Mike Kujbida;675400]

Unless you use a LOT of FX, I see no reason for your system to take that long to render.
Is your system optimized properly?
For example:
Do you render to a different drive than your OS?

Yes. Data drives are also mirrored and use a SCSI raid controller

Are most background services turned off (esp. anti-virus)?

Yes.

When was the last time you took your computer apart and blew the dust out?

Year ago. System doesnt lag behind in anything. 3ghz, 2gb ram, 240GB raid disks. I do tend to use my share of FX, but thats the nature of my genre'. Little choice. When I can I avoid them and use something out of Digital Juice.

It would take 35-40 minutes to render a high res WMV (3-5MB) thats only 2min in duration.

If I had 30min of video and sent it to MPEG2 for future burning in DVDA, what kind of "normal acceptable" render time in Vegas should I be expecting?

Do the number of tracks have anything to do with it? I try to keep them to a minimum, but 7-9 tracks is not abnormal. Each has different opacities and overlays.

[Mike Kujbida]

Originally Posted by Chris Rieman

It would take 35-40 minutes to render a high res WMV (3-5MB) thats only 2min in duration.

IMO, WMV renders are the absolute worst in Vegas. For whatever reason, my exerience is that they stress the system more than any other format.

If I had 30min of video and sent it to MPEG2 for future burning in DVDA, what kind of "normal acceptable" render time in Vegas should I be expecting?

Unfortunately there's no way of giving a precise answer as it's dependent on several variables with CPU speed being the most important.
As an example, last summer I completed a 10 min. video that was very heavy of chroma key and other FX. My work machine (3.4 GHz HT with 1.5 GB of RAM took 3 hr. to do an MPEG-2 render.
My new quad core did it in 27 min!!

Do the number of tracks have anything to do with it? I try to keep them to a minimum, but 7-9 tracks is not abnormal. Each has different opacities and overlays.

Any time you add FX to a project, it'll slow things down.
About 2 years ago, John Meyer did an excellent job of assembling a chart showing the effect of all Vegas FX on render times and posted his results on the Sony Vegas forum.
You can download a zipped file with a veg and the results (an Excel spreadsheet) at the Vegas Users site.
Makes for interesting reading.

[Mike Kujbida]

Originally Posted by Chris Rieman

It would take 35-40 minutes to render a high res WMV (3-5MB) thats only 2min in duration.

Here's a suggestion on doing this a different way.
Render the project to DV-AVI first.
Now render that AVI to WMV format.
Since it doesn't have to do any FX processing, it'll go much faster.
I didn't believe it when I first read about it but experience has taught me that it works.

[Chris Rieman]

Interesting!

So once I render to DV-AVI, just create a new project and import the completed DV-AVI clip then re-rip to WMV or QT or whatever?

Backdoor approach for sure but if it works and cuts time, probably worth a shot.

[Mike Kujbida]

Chris,
At this point in time, you have nothing to lose (except render time, that is!!) so give it a try. Let us know how it works out for you.

[Alex Thames]

Originally Posted by Mike Kujbida

Unless you use a LOT of FX, I see no reason for your system to take that long to render.
Is your system optimized properly?
For example:
Do you render to a different drive than your OS?
Are most background services turned off (esp. anti-virus)?
When was the last time you took your computer apart and blew the dust out?
The list goes on but you get the idea.

I just did a short 4-minute HDV project (Sony HVR-A1U) that used zero effects, just cutting up the raw footage. It took me nearly 48 hours to render this project out to .wmv 1440x1080 1.3333 PAR at the best quality. In the end, it wasn't even a successful render as it got to around 75% done, when my computer just stopped working. So now I have a 75% rendered file that took almost 48 hours to render that won't play properly on my computer. WTF. Note, I was working on a crappy laptop with antivirus running, but even then, it shouldn't have taken THAT long to render (and not even render fully and successfully) right? What can I do? Btw, it also turned out to be 750mb .wmv file (would have been around 1gb if it had actually finished rendering). That seems way too big for a 4-minute project with no effects.

Other things I know affected the render time, but I don't feel it should have taken THAT long still.
-rendering to external Western Digital 320gb hard drive (7200 rpm, via USB2.0, 9ms seek time, 8mb cache)
-this was rendered on Sony Vegas 7.0a
-used a laptop (Pentium M 1.6ghz, 756mb RAM, Intel integrated video card, 80gb hdd at 5400rpm), in other words, super slow

What are the settings you guys use to render your HDV 1440x1080 projects in the best quality possible without spending ridiculous amounts of time for rendering?