You are increasing the frame size of the video during the export. It takes time to invent pixels that were not in the original video.
Also, 1366X768 is not the same ratio as 1920X1080 so the new shape of the video has to be calculated.
Perhaps if you exported at 1366X768 it would be faster. You are working your PC pretty hard for as little RAM as you have.
In addition to what Steven said, imagine your workflow on this computer.
- You have a FX-4100 CPU. It does not have hyper threading, only 4 cores, lacks full support for SSE 4.1+ extensions, which are used extensively during encoding if they are available.
- You have only 8 GB memory, which is about bare minimum.
- You indicate only a single disk for all the editing stuff.
- You start with video material with 1024x768 in a 1366x768 sequence which you uprez to 1920x1080.
- You use PNG's with 3353x3429 resolution.
- You export to a highly compressed format with a final size of 873 MB.
All these resolution changes and PAR changes need to be calculated by a CPU that lacks hyper threading, that lacks the sorely needed SSE extensions and it has to do that in a very restricted memory space, using a single disk, that is needed for media, media cache, previews, project, export, pagefile (which is used extensively) and Windows house keeping. It is like a very popular nightclub that attracts lots of people every day, but has only one narrow single door for entry, departure and deliveries. That causes traffic jams, with long queues of people waiting to get in and similar queues of people waiting to leave. That single narrow door is like your single disk.
The waiting is further aggravated by the doorman who has to direct traffic at the door and he is hampered by his arthritis, so he can't move very quickly, like your CPU. Another factor is the very limited space of the vestibule, like your memory. Finally, when people are squeezed into that tiny vestibule, it causes further delays to leave your coat or retrieve it, like the compression you apply.
Under ideal conditions your system would be around 6 - 8 times slower than a fast system, but with your workflow is may well be 12 - 15 times slower. In that case a fast system with the same workflow would take around 2.5 to 3 hours for the same encoding, which is not at all unreasonable, given the fantasizing you require the CPU to do by first - as Steven put so eloquently - inventing pixels that were not in the original picture and then compressing each frame with all its imaginary content to such a large degree.
You can improve on your workflow by first reducing the PNG's to a size that more closely resembles your sequence setting, and exporting to 1366x768 like Steven said.
i agree with Steven's and Harm's detailed explanantion
@ DeadMan: perhaps one immediate and economical thing you could do
is add another 7200 rpm hdd to export to
that way your system isn't reading/writing to the same disk
if you have a third hdd you could place the media cache files there
(i found by using multiple hdd really sped things up (and 7200 rpm hdd are fairly cheap))
(and you can move them over to your new system when you update)
also, @ DeadMan: if only all posters would provide as much initial information as you did
their issues would be explained a lot sooner and a lot better
the information is not useless that you posted: on the contrary: it is vital
i learned a whole lot by reading just these three posts from you, Steven, and Harm...
happy editing, cheers, j
Thanks for the help. I made the png smaller and changed the sequence settings to 1920x1080 then scaled the video. I've done that before and it worked then. So I started exporting it and it will not take nearly as long. Still not ideal, but the best I can do with the presets and such I like to use. Thanks again for the help.