This content has been marked as final. Show 16 replies
Seems an odd output size and type to me!
There is a lot of processing work involved in what you did.
What are you going to do with the wmv?
I often output to 1280X720 since most of the users I support have that size video monitor. As soon as they buy 1080 monitors, I will account for that.
The answer to the question is "Yes". It often takes than long to render. It depends on the applied effects.
Interesting... Never thought about media to be shown full screen on computer monitors.
1280 x 720 is one of the HD standards. This is what's meant by 720P. It's not odd at all.
It is not uncommon for 3-D animation to render for a week or two. Did you use a ton of audio and video effects?
I rendered a full quality 15 minute 1920 x 1080 H.264 with loads of colour correction, nested sequences, 8 audio tracks, effects and 5 video layers and it took roughly 2 hours to export on my Q6600 with 4GB RAM.
I set rendering to "Memory" and it does not crash saying "unknown error" or "error compiling movie" like before, I am not sure how long it would take when set on "Performance", I find renders more stable this way...
I found my Q6600 is much faster than my E6600, and I thought that was fast...
Good morning gentlemen,
The reason why I exported to .wmv format and the size I did, is because I have a few LCDs in the house, 2 of them are 720P ( 46" models ) and I have a 52" 1080p LCD TV.
I figured for the first test, I'd go with 720p and see how long it took. It took forever. I'm glad I didn't export to 1080p, it may have taken 4 days to render.
I also run Microsoft Media Center, and I needed a format that it recognizes. It does not play .mp4, nor does it play .mov and so I decided to go with .wmv which it does.
The other day, somebody told me that .wmv format will do just as good as a job as divx, ( Microsoft Media Center supports DivX movies ), but sometimes it doesn't like them, so I decided to go with a 100% compatible format that Microsoft Media Center loves to play.
I haven't tried the footage yet on the 720p TV, but on the computer monitor it looks amazing, so I am guessing it will be amazing on the LCD TV also.
At the moment, with HDV video, there is no way for the normal person to play this type of video, without the addition of a BlueRay DVD player, but if you have Media Center, then you are in business.
Microsoft Media center is like Tivo, it records TV, plays TV, you can watch video, watch images, play real movie DVDs that you would rent, or make, from the DVD drive, ett,c etc. You can even record TV in HD, if you have an HD TV capture card. At this point in time, nobody manufactures an HD TV card that will record using a wired connection, but OTA ( Over the Air ) exists, and this is how everyone out there records HD TV programs, but you must be close to a large city, that broadcasts an HD OTA signal. I haven't done this, as I don't have any interest in this, but many out there do. Check the largest Microsoft Media Center community: http://thegreenbutton.com/default.aspx
You may be asking why I wanted to down-convert 1440x1080 video in the first place. Well, the original 12 gig files are just too large to play on my computers within Media Center, but the exported version here, was about 2.6 gigs in size, and it plays without any trouble at all.
After all of this, if any of you have any more test results you wish to share, I'd love to hear them. I'd like to know how much of a speed increase in rendering I could expect with going with an Intel quad core cpu and 4 gigs of memory.
oops, I forgot to answer Adrian's question.
- I did not have any effects on the movie, the only thing, I had was a small logo ( in .png format ) on the footage ( added on video 2 timeline ) that was it.
Now, according to your calculations, this is good news. You rendered your 15 minutes of footage at a much higher size than I did, and so in theory, that would take 8 hours or so for your footage for say, 60 minutes.
Since my footage was rendered at a lower resolution, I would assume perhaps 2 hours at least below that, so figure 6 hours of rendering time, vs the 20+ hours my computer took.
I'm not sure about my estimates, but I can see that going up a little big in resolution adds a lot of rendering time to the project.
I am curious about your 4 gigs of ram. Many conversations here indicate that Windows XP ( 32bit) will not use anything more than 2 gigs.
What OS are you running, to enable you to get a benefit out of the 4 gigs ?
P.S. - When I eventually buy a new system, I will buy 4 gigs, because things in the OS world can change so rapidly at times.
On the CPU front, I read in one of the threads that a new 45mm chip is being released b Intel, and the quad core of this series will even be faster ( ? ) perhaps it is the bus-speed that is being increased in speed. ( ? ) I am thinking of waiting for this new chip, but I don't have any info on it, and don't know what to look for in terms of a model number
The 45nm dual cores outperform their 65nm counterparts, so based on that I would expect the same to hold for the quad cores.
I haven't seen any official announcements, but in a conversation with someone over at Tom's Hardware, I was informed that Intel plans to release them this quarter.
What you want to look for is the code name Wolfdale. The new dual core Wolfdales have the E8000 designation. Not sure what the quads will have, but they should still be called Wolfdales.
Thanks for the information, and clarification.
I think I'm going to wait until these new chips come out, I know the moment I put together a new system, a month later the new chip will be out.
Then there is still the question of the ram. 4 gigs sounds good ?
Supposedly XP only uses a max of 2 gigs, but what about a combo of the OS and PP working ? wouldn't this be where 4 gigs could come into play ? or does my thinking have no sense to it ?
Do apps in Windows XP actually use memory, or do they instruct the OS to use its base memory and that is how it really works ? so Windows XP will only use a max of 2 gigs, even if 4 were installed ?
Normally, Windows will use 2GB of the 4 and programs like Premiere will have access to the other 2GB. It's a worthy upgrade given the price of memory these days.
Thanks for finally clearing that up for us. I have so many posts with different opinions, but this is the first I've seen of some good info on this.
So even a 32 bit OS like Windows XP will use 2 gig or up to 2 gig for its needs, but an extra 2 gig can be used for the actual program.
Now, we are talking ! Thank you for the info Jim.
I use the 3GB switch for XP Pro.
"switch" ? can you elaborate ?
Please see here:
http://ppro.wikia.com The PremiereProPedia