Can I use U3 Launchpad as a Smart Drive (paging file) in Vegas?

1. NormanWillis
   Member

   

   Hello.  I understand Vegas hangs during rendering when image (photo) size is large.  I went to the Sony site, and the recommend keeping the image size under 720 x  540 pixels (or something), so that the system does not run out of RAM.

   If starvation for RAM is the problem, can I permanently mount an 8GB thumb drive in a USB port in the back of my machine as a Smart Drive (RAM paging file) using U3 Launchpad?  Are there any known issues with using U3 Launchpad in Vegas? 

   My friend uses Power Director, and he claims he cut his rendering times on two hour movies in DV from 2 hours to 30 minutes using this technique, and with a much smaller thumb drive (2GB).  So shouldn't an 8 GB thumb drive work in Vegas for HDV?

   Thank you,

   Norman

   Posted 3 years ago #

2. NormanWillis
   Member

   

   OK, I got more clarity on this.  Please let me restate my question.

    If Vegas starves out for system RAM when rendering lots of large images, will installing a fast ('ReadyBoost Capable') thumb drive as a permanent paging file help this issue?

   Thank you,

   Norman

   Posted 3 years ago #

3. NormanWillis
   Member

   

   My techie friend said the thing to do was either to mount the thumb drive and set it as an all-flash memory paging file, or else to shut the paging file off.

   He wants me to check the resource monitors when doing a practice render. 

   Posted 3 years ago #

4. Ken
   Member

   

    Norman,

   If I understand the situation correctly, your best bet might be to add more system RAM. If you're doing standard definition, 1 GB of system RAM shoud be enough. But if you're having difficulties, adding another GB or 2 of system RAM is an inexpensive solution. (If you're not using Vista, 4 GB of system RAM is all the operating system will recognize.) If you're doing high definition, then get at least 2 GB (preferably more) of system RAM.

   You asked about using a USB thumb drive..... I'm not sure how much that would help.  I think it would take a lot longer for the processor to access a thumb drive than it woud to access system RAM.

   BTW, how much system RAM do you have now?  Also, do you want to do standard def or high def?

   Ken

   Posted 3 years ago #

5. Johnboy
   Member

   

   depending on how much zooming your are doing with your pictures, your picture sizes only need to be a maximum of twice the project resolution.  I also convert my jpg images to png to save memory space.  Additionally, render times also depend on how much effects, fades, transitions, color corrections are applied to the clips in the project.  'naked' clips with no effects or color corrections will render much faster. 

   John

   Posted 3 years ago #

6. NormanWillis
   Member

   

    Norman, If I understand the situation correctly, your best bet might be to add more system RAM. If you're doing standard definition, 1 GB of system RAM shoud be enough. But if you're having difficulties, adding another GB or 2 of system RAM is an inexpensive solution. (If you're not using Vista, 4 GB of system RAM is all the operating system will recognize.) If you're doing high definition, then get at least 2 GB (preferably more) of system RAM. You asked about using a USB thumb drive..... I'm not sure how much that would help.  I think it would take a lot longer for the processor to access a thumb drive than it woud to access system RAM. BTW, how much system RAM do you have now?  Also, do you want to do standard def or high def? Ken

   Hi Ken.  I gave up on the thumb drive idea.  I was told that you cannot use a page file across a PCI bus ("forget about it") because there are continuity issues.  So that's out.

   I have 4GB of RAM.  I want to do HD.  The processor is a 3.0 GHz Pentium D, about 3 years old.  I talked to Sony, and they said even though the processor is old, it should handle it, no problem.  However, the guy before me said the system would not finish rendering in HD, and Sony had told him that the issue was that the image size was too large.  That makes no sense to me.  If I am shooting in 1920 x 1080i, then what is the problem with 2 megapixel images?  Why would they be any more intensive on the machine than 1920 x 1080i footage?  I don't get it....

   Someone else on another forum suggested that I try to convert the images from .jpg to .png, as that is Vegas' preferred image file format.  I hope to writ Sony soon, and see if that is the case.

   Just a question: does the video card have anything to do with the rendering process?  Or does it just push to the monitors when editing?

   Thanks,

   Norman

   Posted 3 years ago #

7. NormanWillis
   Member

   

   depending on how much zooming your are doing with your pictures, your picture sizes only need to be a maximum of twice the project resolution.  I also convert my jpg images to png to save memory space.  Additionally, render times also depend on how much effects, fades, transitions, color corrections are applied to the clips in the project.  'naked' clips with no effects or color corrections will render much faster.  John

   Hi John.

   Good point about the zooming and image size.  Also, you are the second person who has told me to use .png, so I will try that, and see if it helps.

   I guess I am not worried about the amount of time it takes to render (so long as it is reasonable), so much as I care about whether or not the rendering process finishes/completes.

   Thanks,

   Norman

   Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Supported video provider:

youtube, myvideo, funnyordie, gametrailers, collegehumor, dailymotion, glumbert, liveleak, redtube, googlevideo, sevenload, metacafe, clipfish, vimeo