[b1nuzz]

Hi Guys

After rendering my first 'real' project last night with SVP, i was amazed to see that a AVCHD file, was going to take just over 11 hours to render. The video was 10 minutes long!

First off, is this right? sould it be taking this long?

Secondly, is there anyway to speed it all up? im not thinking majorly, but a little bit. I have read through here that it is more to do with processor speed that RAM. Is this true? obvioulsy that is alot harder (and more expensive) to replace than RAM.

Thanks for your help.

Ben

[redsox_mark]

That does seem long, though I don't edit AVCHD myself. What are you rendering out to?

I find with HDV, if I render back out to HDV, it takes something like 3x (3 hours for a 1 hour video). If I render out to MPEG2 for DVD, it takes about twice the time (as it needs to rescale). If I save it as NTSC MPEG2, then longer still, as it has to do further conversion. It also depends on the complexity of the edits, and the quality setting (best, good). Best takes longer, but is only really needed if you are rescaling.

Rendering is CPU intensive; faster CPU is really the only way to speed it up.

[senu]

It is looooong..!
I have edited AVCHD with Nero Vision ( and Sony Vegas 8) which for 10 min didnt take up to 30min ( about 28min) and this was on nothing more than a P4 3 Gh 1Gb RAM
I will try again to see that i wasnt just lucky but it could also depend on what you are outputting it to

[b1nuzz]

I was rendering to Sony AVS stylee, and then the template was PAL AVCHD, which if i remember correctly is 15mbs and AC3 5.1 sound.

I dont have the worlds most powerful computer, (1.6ghz core 2duo, and 1gb ram) but i thought i might be able to do better than 11 hours!

[b1nuzz]

Just reviving an old thread but with a new question.

My camera (panny SD1) says that it is a NTSC model on the base. I bought it second hand so i guess it was imported.

When i render as a MPG, in vegas i get the choice of PAL or NTSC. does it make a difference which i choose? Am i right in saying that AVCHD isnt PAL or NTSC?

i know if i want to use a dvd player over here then i should use PAL, but im interested to know which is better to use considering my camera says it is NTSC on the bottom.

Thanks

[glesgaguyav]

Originally Posted by b1nuzz

Just reviving an old thread but with a new question.

My camera (panny SD1) says that it is a NTSC model on the base. I bought it second hand so i guess it was imported.

When i render as a MPG, in vegas i get the choice of PAL or NTSC. does it make a difference which i choose? Am i right in saying that AVCHD isnt PAL or NTSC?

i know if i want to use a dvd player over here then i should use PAL, but im interested to know which is better to use considering my camera says it is NTSC on the bottom.

Thanks

AVCHD is either NTSC or PAL 30fps/25fps.
Your project should be rendered as NTSC if you want to keep origional quality

[redsox_mark]

I agree, in terms of quality you are probably best to make a "NTSC" 29.97 fps DVD, as that is your source material. Most PAL DVD players will handle this, and convert it to "PAL 60".

The alternative is to render out to PAL format, this will require Vegas to change the frame rate (which it can do reasonably well); and then any PAL DVD player will be sure to play it.

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by redsox_mark

That does seem long, though I don't edit AVCHD myself. What are you rendering out to?

I find with HDV, if I render back out to HDV, it takes something like 3x (3 hours for a 1 hour video). If I render out to MPEG2 for DVD, it takes about twice the time (as it needs to rescale). If I save it as NTSC MPEG2, then longer still, as it has to do further conversion. It also depends on the complexity of the edits, and the quality setting (best, good). Best takes longer, but is only really needed if you are rescaling.

Rendering is CPU intensive; faster CPU is really the only way to speed it up.

mark i have just read your post here,you say it takes you 3x[3 hours to render a 1 hour hdv video,this surprises me i rarely render more than 30 minutes and although i have never timed my render back to hdv i am certain 30 minutes does not take more than 30 minutes to render.i only use ancient pinacle 10.5 why do you reckon mine renders so quick.

[redsox_mark]

Can be many factors:

- Pinnacle vs. Vegas
- The render settings used (if I use the best vs good setting in Vegas it takes longer)
- The complexity of the edits
- My memory... maybe it's not quite that long.. But I know renders back to HDV are quicker than downconversions to SD MPEG2 for DVD.

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by redsox_mark

Can be many factors:

- Pinnacle vs. Vegas
- The render settings used (if I use the best vs good setting in Vegas it takes longer)
- The complexity of the edits
- My memory... maybe it's not quite that long.. But I know renders back to HDV are quicker than downconversions to SD MPEG2 for DVD.

oh i often put music titles and transmisions in if needed,my ram is 2gb 3.2 GH z i use external drives not that would alter render speed which renders real time or faster,i never render to sd because if an sd is needed[ rare]i make a sd copy.so pinnacle may be faster than vegas that surprises me a little.

[b1nuzz]

This sounds good. I have rendered my past videos to PAL, so i guess that has made the rendering process alot slower. On my next i will render to NTSC instead and see what increase in rendering speed i have.

Most of the time i will be rendering back to AVCHD so its not the end of the world.

Thanks for your help