$1,400 later for just the tower/PC....

Sorry, Shawn, but the Mac set up (to equal or better this PC one) would still have cost an easy $1K+ more, not to mention having to buy the software/NLE suite, and then let's not forget the learning curve I'd have, which I can't afford any of the above right now with either tight funds or lack of time.

That said, I WOULD some day love to have a full Mac/FCP set up, as there are things about it I like a lot. But, there's honestly nothing I know of that FCP offers, that Vegas can't seriously compete with, or even beat in some areas.

Update on this system: It's got some kind of random hang up at that 1st BIOS screen. Anyone got any ideas?

Once I was able to fix the botched install of the printer software, it appears better, but it still is randomly hanging onto that BIOS screen for anywhere from half a second to upwards of several minutes. Once in Windows, it appears to operate fine.

Another note, I had NO idea how much longer renders will take when the project is being compressed vs. uncompressed. The non-cc'd project took less than 90 minutes to go to a full 720P AVI (some compression involved, but not much), vs it's taking over 7 HOURS to go to a low rez WMV so I can get it to someone to assist with the trailer.

Ugh....
 
Is there ANY thread where someone can talk about upgrading/building a PC where SOMEONE doesn't come in and say "you should get/have gotten a Mac?"
 
Oh come on, David, I thought for sure you'd have made a comment about my "aka Jim" crack. :)

Any ideas on what I asked back a page or so about benefits or cons regarding having CC settings on a nested project AND the final project vs. all in the same original? Also, do you know if there's any visual or time render difference between the 1 (linear) vs. the 2.22 (video) settings in the project properties?
 
The difference between the two gamma settings is supposed to be for switching older projects over to the 32-bit floating point color space. I didn't really test if there are any render differences, but I don't think it's something that would come up if you're starting and finishing a project in the same space.

Having CC in the nested project and also in the final project -- it's pretty much the same as having CC on a clip and then having it in the whole project, too. It can slow down rendering if you have a lot at different levels -- say, in the nested project, you have CC at the clip, track, AND project levels, and then you add CC to the project when you bring that nested project in -- it can be a slow render. But I don't think it would appreciably different than just having lots of CC effects in general.

As for benefits, it could be useful if you take scenes and then establish a CC "baseline" for them, then use the global CC to tie it all together. It's really a matter of what's appropriate for your project. I'd think in something like a feature, it isn't something you'd really do, because the whole film probably won't have a uniform color look in every single scene. (But then, maybe there IS something you want the whole thing to have.)

Now, it could be good for adding broadcast color filters, etc., to the whole project at once.

In general, though, the rule of "Keep it simple, stupid" is a good one. Do it with as few layers of CC as you can.
 
Thanks, David. It's interesting that with as many CC's as I have going on, in much of the film the change isn't that drastic, yet it takes multiple ones to get the subtle differences I want.

I tend to use the Master bus more for CC, than just a track or individual clips, for the mass effect you're talking about....since I don't want to have too many tracks by having a certain number of tracks per scene so that I can CC just those tracks.

I'll look at a scene, and usually just adjust the levels of each clip to match up with each other, if needed ... sometimes color adjustment, but rarely. Then I'll go through and key frame the CC's on the master bus so that I'll have a main look to each scene, I can just control from there.

The only reason I've decided to import the entire thing into a new project to render from there was because I didn't want the black bars effected, which they were from the Master bus.
 
Okay, I'll stop feeling buyers remorse, I guess, lol.

What the heck have you got in that, for $3K+?!

I was really focusing (partly because of budget) on getting the 'best bang for the buck', knowing that if I get the latest & greatest, it'd be half the price in 6 months anyway, and possibly not that much more noticeable difference unless it was compared on bench marks, etc. That said, I don't know if what I got was the best bang for the buck or not, but it's what I was aiming for at least.
 
David Jimerson said:
Is there ANY thread where someone can talk about upgrading/building a PC where SOMEONE doesn't come in and say "you should get/have gotten a Mac?"
Click to expand...

Don't let it bother you. I have found that most people who make those types of blanket endorsements for Mac have never compared FCP to Vegas7 or 8 on any working level. Why would they? Mac/FCP is very popular and the new industry standard.

It is very good software, although not better than Vegas, IMO. I went through the FCP certification classes because I wanted to up my chances of finding part-time post-production employment, and I was surprised at how much better I liked Vegas and my custom-made PC. The other issue that I have with Apple is their shi*ty attitude about customer support. You can't even ask them a question without being asked to open your wallet. They also do proprietary things that serve no purpose other than to force you to upgrade entire machines. For instance, they solder the parts into their iMacs so that you can't upgrade parts after your machine is assembled. If you want to upgrade after the fact, you have to buy a new machine. This is not the case with their Mac Pro, although the practice points to a poor attitude about customer convenience

The one thing that FC Studio has over everyone is COLOR. No one can touch that software, and it's basically free with the bundle. However, most independent videomakers don't have the color knowledge to make the most of that software, anyway, and Vegas, if you have a basic understanding of color and add some plugins, like aav6cc, can produce very good CC.

A company in SLC has been building my machines since 1999. Their name was Totally Awesome Computers, and their service and product quality was second to none. The owner was a flake, but their machines were guarantied for three years - no questions asked - and service, including service and installation on upgrades, was free for life. The owner went out of business a few seasons ago and his subsidiary (PC Laptops) bought them out. PC Laptops honors TAC's warranty polices to the letter. PC Laptop's customer support is 24hrs and free. I have called at 2am in the morning and gotten first-rate assistance. At the end of the day, that level of customer support, or lack thereof, can make or break a small indie filmmaker. Needless to say, they have my business as long as their doors are open.

I am not knocking Apple. They do certain things very well, although they are not the only option for top quality editing. People tend to fall in line with industry standards, just like when Avid was king, but you couldn't give me an Avid bay. Vegas, IMO, walks all over it.
 
Last edited:
Well I don't know if it's my system, or if Vegas has a bit of a bug with nested projects, multiple CC's going on in both, etc.

When I rendered out the non-CC'd 15 min 720P project direct from the original source (i.e. with all the tracks, etc.), it only took about 90 minutes to output to an AVI with Cineform codec.

Now, I'm taking the same project, but now nested into another with additional CC, and it's taking upwards of 29-30 hours again ... technically even longer than my original MPEG2 issue, since that was a 2-pass process. :(

While I can work on other applications (I'm going to try editing another project, while it's rendering - two instances of Vegas 8 open at the same time - one rendering, the other editing), it's frusterating to me that it's not lighting fast compared to before.

Anyone know of some good benchmark projects out there so I can compare this set up's render time compared to someone else's with comparable system?

kencangi, LOVE your logo!
 
Norm, there is a render test on the VASST site I believe that uses all internally generated media in Vegas to create a very stressful render. The whole things lats ten seconds. I use it for fun benchmarking every now and then.

My 2.8 P4 output it to Sony XDcam MXF in 3:30 and my new Macbook 2.1 C2D did it in 0:40.
 
William_Robinette said:
Norm, there is a render test on the VASST site I believe that uses all internally generated media in Vegas to create a very stressful render. The whole things lats ten seconds. I use it for fun benchmarking every now and then.

My 2.8 P4 output it to Sony XDcam MXF in 3:30 and my new Macbook 2.1 C2D did it in 0:40.
Click to expand...


Okay, I've dug around Vasst's website, and can't find this render test. Anyone have a link handy?
 
Norm Sanders said:
With just over an hour into it, using the same settings, I've got nearly 17 hours left, so 18 hours total. Not as blazingly fast as I'd hoped, but still over a 40% increase in saved render time, so I'm happier than I was before for sure.

The COOL thing is with this Quad CPU, seeing those four processors working, sharing the load. With the computer recognizing at least 3 of the 4 GB of memory, it's only using 1.1 - 1.2 GB average, so still over 1/2 to go, and the CPU usage is averaging between 25 - 38% ... the bulk of the activity seems to be on one processor, which looks like it spikes as high as 98%, then drops way down, and the other three working pretty low into the teens or low 20's.
Click to expand...

Hm, to me it seems like vegas is only using 1 core, it will only use all four cores if there is enough dynamic ram available.
"So, looks like I need a MINIMUM of a 256mb dynamic RAM preview"

Try adjusting the dynamic ram setting and see if you can hit 100% cpu usage, that should hopefully cut your render times down below 10 hours if you are lucky.

Here's another render test. Damn, those quads are impressive!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top