<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.