Originally Posted by kweiss  This video I'm working on is very large and has a ton of cuts, and it takes my computer a good 2 minutes to load it all. Once it's loaded the program lags a bit. |
This wont phase Vegas. Not in the slightest. Vegas is loading "signposts" to the actual "footage". NOT the footage itself. Now maybe you need to spruce up your PC, housekeeping and the like - but, and in this one instance of rendering, the size of project has never been used as a reason for Vegas to get indigestion - nope!
You running any of CPU intensive s/w? Taking 2 minutes to load is far too long. This is telling me you do have an EXO-Vegas resource issue - or rather that is exactly WHAT Vegas is telling you! Why? 'cos this is BEFORE you render.
Originally Posted by kweiss Everything is the same I have used for a while... using .wmv and rendering as .wmv, default template. Only difference is the large amount of footage I'm using. |
Again, nope. I don't go along with your reasoning. What you maybe seeing, in reducing the "amount" of signposting, AS an improvement maybe hiding the real cause of the resource starvation. I want to hear from somebody that will inform us on the pros and cons of render TO WMV from an existing WMV. This to me sounds like heavy
heavy weather . .
Originally Posted by kweiss For a while I was getting this message every time I tried to render. I made the project file smaller by deleting some clips, and I was able to render about 1/4 of the video. Perhaps I will do this a few times and then edit those rendered videos together. |
Again, this may give you a result you want, but it may also be hiding the real reason for Vegas resource starvation - yeah?
I'm not convinced - but you are convinced by the result - and I can't argue with that, other than to reiterate that a false positive is exactly that - false! And, might I add, kinda damming Vegas for reasons that are really outside of its sphere of influence & optimum operational capabilities. Meaning, we could be accusing Vegas of something that it ain't responsible for and that it DOES have the ability to deal with large amounts of footage. And, as others read this Forum, I wouldn't like to think that a "cure" for something similar for others would be for them to curtail their quantity of "footage" - see? See my point?
Interesting .. .
Grazie