Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Rendering Time

  1. #1

    Default Rendering Time

    Maybe someone can explain this to me. I am using Corel Ulead 11.5 Plus to do underwater video and it takes forever to render my project. Consider that with changing white balance, titling and adding music there is a lot of editing going on.

    Let me begin by saying I am using a relatively new Dell PC, Intel Q6600 2.4G Quad processor, 3G of DDR2 800 ram. By looking at certain properties I am looking for 1440x1080 format, whic I guess is HD. I don't know. Buying a Mac is not an option.

    It's taking just a tad over 16 hours to render a 45 minute movie. Burning time is just a few minutes so that's not an issue.

    I'm wondering whether I should consider dumping the Quad processor and get a 3G or 3.2G dual core. Would this speed things up?

    Any other suggestions would be helpful, but don't get too technical without explaining as I'm not much of a computer geek.
    Last edited by bfisher; 10-15-2008 at 05:22 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    So looks like you are rendering at about 1/16 of real time - that really isnt unusual.

    A 2 core is unlikely to make much difference - it may be a tiny bit faster if your s ware is not accessing 4 cores.

    Is the original video shot in HDV?

    Are you cutting to normal def DVDs?

    If the answer to the first is no, and or the second yes then there is no point in rendering to a high resoloution - rendering to SD will be much much faster.

    All buying mac will do is make you poor - point of information - Mac hardware is almost identical to PC hardware - same inside really - and they perfrom as good as PCs - not better.
    Last edited by Mark W; 10-15-2008 at 07:39 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nelson, New Zealand
    Posts
    399

    Default

    When you go to output the video are you using "mpeg optimizer" to do the rendering, it does smart render, only of use on the sections of your video that haven't been altered, so might not help you.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wandering-free View Post
    When you go to output the video are you using "mpeg optimizer" to do the rendering, it does smart render, only of use on the sections of your video that haven't been altered, so might not help you.
    Ah, so you're familar with it? As a matter of fact I have the optimtimizer at work right now. It showed that I would only gain slightly less than 7%, but every little bt helps. Right now it's 48% complete and it's been almost 8 hours since I started it.

    Mark, Yes, the original was in HD. The camera is an HC7, mini-DV. And yes again. I am burning to standard DVD. I get your point about wasting resources, but for now I'm just going to let it go overnight. It's the only video cooking right now. It's of a trip to Bonaire I did a couple weeks ago. 95% or so is underwater stuff so there is a lot of white-balance and such done to it. I can't access white balance in my underwater housing so have to do it in the editing process.

    So you say 1/16th real time is normal? Watching the viewing screen it seems to "click" along at maybe 2 frames per second while optimizing. Assuming there are 30fps this would make sense. Let's see. Doing the math and assuming a 45 minute movie, that's 81,000 frames. Gonna be a long night for the puter.

    To give you more info, I have only done two other videos prior to this. The camcorder and editing is all completely new to me and I am completely self taught with the help of a few internet cronies. Big, big learning curve.

    Doing the other two movies it took about 5 hours to render a half hour movie in standard def. Also I've had some issues with Ulead crashing on me (uuugh) so am looking for other software I might try. I do know I can get trial versions so that's maybe what Ill do when this movie is done. I honestly think I need better software, but something dumb that I can work with.

    Another issue I have to deal with soon is getting another hard drive to store the movies and music on. To me it's unbelieveable that I have used up about 300G (60%) of hard drive storing four videos and the music, and other associated software. All this in about four months. I've got an empty bay so will probably get a 1 or 1.5 T hard drive for this stuff.

    Anyway, I'll keep slogging along and try to learn more. If you come up with anything else be sure and let me know. I'm usually on here once a day, mostly surfing.

    Thanks, both of you.

    Barry

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nelson, New Zealand
    Posts
    399

    Default

    Hi Barry,

    I've just done a test on my Intel core 2 duo 3Ghz I first did one at standard DV 720x576 25fps and converted it into mpg using auto white balance and tweaked the gamma and brightness and it took 4 times real-time, so I then did one from HD 1920x1080 and did the out put as a standard DVD 720x576 with exactly the same auto white balance etc as the first test and this one was 16x real-time so It's the down converting that is taking the time have you got a way of outputting from the camera in DV rather than HD
    Bryan

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Top test ^^^^^.

    Looks like rendering to HDV at 1440 is slowing you right down.

    As for file sizes.... DV and HDV use about the same data rate - about 3.5 meg BYTE a minute, so three hundred gig should be about 100 mins long. Video really eats up hard drive space.

    Keen video editors are always heard to be mumbling about needing another drive and fantasising about sata raid5 arrays, well I do.

    My pc is 2 years old and has a 37gig, a 320, a 400 and an old ide 250 and they are nearly full.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nelson, New Zealand
    Posts
    399

    Default

    Just tried another test just using white balance on a 1080x1920 clip and kept the output at 1080x1920 and it took 23x real-time the same test using just color correction took 4.5x real-time and it made no difference to the time if I added gamma correction so its not the number of filters but the type of filter that takes the time, as a comparison I stung 6 clips together in a 1 min edit with nothing added, and it took 55 secs, so better than real-time if it's kept simple.

Similar Threads

  1. 2 PC (or more) to speed up rendering time
    By dydavid in forum The Perfect Video Editing PC
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-16-2006, 03:54 PM
  2. Stuttering Preview & Rendering Time
    By Nand Kishore in forum Adobe Premiere, Premiere Elements, and After Effects
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-18-2006, 05:51 PM
  3. Time
    By Jackshere in forum User Videos
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-18-2005, 03:41 PM
  4. Fast System_SLOW Rendering Time...
    By bliss_gfx in forum General video editing software help and advice
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-17-2004, 04:20 AM
  5. Rendering times in Vegas Video 4: rendering video smoothly
    By Ronoc in forum Sony Vegas video editing apps
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-22-2004, 02:35 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •