You are here

Extremely slow render times with new pc, sony vegas pro 11 and neatvideo

christodoulidesd's picture
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 05/02/2012 - 10:25pm

<p style="font: normal normal normal 13px/normal 'Trebuchet MS', Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; color: #222222; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial; font-size: medium; padding: 8px; margin: 0px;">Dear community,

I've been having some off problems lately, and i want your opinions:

Here's my setup:

Sony vegas pro 11 x64
i7 2600k asus-stock-overclocked at 3.4ghz, 8core
Windows 7 ultimate x64
8gb ram gamers edition 1600mhz
msi nvidia gts450 1gb ram ddr5
normal sata-2 hard disk drives at 7200rpm, western digital

I have shot a live band playing with my Sony HVR-HD1000E at 1080-50i
The project is 2 hours long and has the following video fx:

neat video for noise reduction
sony color curves for brightness and contrast
sont hsl correction for desaturating the colors
sony color correction

My problem is that when i render at MPEG2-Blu-ray 1080p it needs 25 hours to export the project!

During render, Cpu load is average 30-40% which is nothing and ram is 8gb-ram.

What am i doing wrong ?

I have gpu acceleration (using the latest option in vegas pro 11 and cuda cores) enabled but even if i turn it off, it doesn't change a thing. Nor does exporting to interlaced makes it go any faster.

Take a look at thisVegas Pro 11 GPU acceleration

Since my cpu and ram aren't being stressed at all, i imagine it's either a bad setting in the project / software or the gpu being relatively old and slow, so If i invest 660 euros to get the asus nvidia gtx680 2gb ram which is a beast,ASUS - Graphics Cards- ASUS GTX680-2GD5will i see any worthy difference or will it be money thrown away? Would it be better strictly for video applications (i am not dealing with graphics or animation) to opt for quadro? 'Cause sony shows otherwise in their gpu benchmark site which i linked above.

Any experience with neatvideo?

I would deeply appreciate your inputs.

Thank you!
Demetris


Steve4900's picture
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: 07/07/2010 - 2:29pm
Plus Member

Neat Video is very very slow to render. Think a Tortoise doing a 5 mile marathon - that sort of slow.

Curiously I have found in Premiere (my editing software) that if I break up the clips by using the razor tool to slice each clip into even smaller chunks on the timeline, the rendering goes much faster. Not sure why; though Neat Video does analyse the entire clip when performing the noise reduction, so this may have something to do with it.

Kind Regards

Steve - Video4aDay


christodoulidesd's picture
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 05/02/2012 - 10:25pm

Thanks! I'll try and see although it's huge extra time needed for all of this seperate rendering processes...thanks!


christodoulidesd's picture
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 05/02/2012 - 10:25pm

thank you for the excellent input so far.

For the time being, i have 2 regular 7200rpm western digital sata2 drives and i am thinking of switching to:
2xssd hard disks, one for os (windows 7 x64) + program files, and one only for projects+8gb ram = total 16gb ram+gtx570
You think i'll gain considerable speed with these updates? They will cost me around 750 euros..



Woody Sanford's picture
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/19/2010 - 7:33am
Plus Member

Neatvideo is a resource hog and slow. I break up clips as well because you might apply less to one part of it than another, which will increase render times. When cleaning video I cut it down to the bear minimum. If your entire video is low light grainy footage I would look into a better low light camera if you can, you're just making extra work for yourself that is reducing the hourly wage you get. That's where the cost of equipment pays for itself big time.