Cut down on Rendering time

Hello,
I am looking for any tips on how to cut down on rendering time. I usually do weddings and it seems, for the ceremony portion, I have to render each cut with each transition. These are just cross dissolve transitions. I am using 3 camera's, so the footage from each one is on V1, V2 & V3. If I do a transition involving the footage on V1...that particular cut always has to be rendered...taking up time...Is there a way to get around this? Thanks in advance.

That's because there isn't one. v1 did not have much RT capabilities. We'd need to upgrade to a newer version for more productivity. The current version with LiveType is great for event producers.

Similar Messages

Cutting Down on Writing Time

Hi
I want to create a whole bunch of different video files. Instead of writing them one by one, i was thinking maybe i could put them all on one timeline, write that, and then split the file afterwards. is that possible at all?

When yo put different clips in an FCE timeline they all become the format that timeline is. Not a got plan as it will double compress the video. Just export each file. Unfortunately there is no batch export function in FCE. It would be a good thing to have as so many people seem to be delivering stuff in a bunch of different formats.

Strange behavior - compositions being cut down

I'm trying to create After Effects compositions to be used in my Premiere Pro projects, but strange behavior is making this completely impossible. Here's how it goes:
1. Start a new AE project, start a new composition.
2. Add clips/effects/etc., save.
3. Start a NEW AE project, start a NEW composition.
4. Add clips/effects/etc., save.
5. Composition 1 has now been cut down to the time composition 2 and when trying to open composition 1 in AE, it redirects me to composition 2.
I don't get what's going on... it's like they're being linked, but they're two entirely different projects/compositions. This is crazy and it's wasting a lot of my time. Any help would be appreciated.

Let me slap my self on the forehead and say "D'oh" It's your workflow. You're using dynamic link in Premiere Pro. The proper workflow is to have all of the comps in the same AE project. In Premiere Pro you go to File>Dynamic Link>New After Effects Project. You create your comp size in Premiere Pro, not in AE, then AE opens up and you create your comp. When you want to create a new dynamic link you follow the same procedure.
Dynamic link can only look at one instance of AE at a time so it's looking at the last project for the comp info. It can't find comp 1 in project 1 because it's only looking at project 3. That explains the same comp showing up in all three locations. Fix the workflow and you'll fix the problem. In fact, I think that if you open up project 3 and import project 1 and project 2, then same project 3, then open up Premiere Pro your problem will be fixed.

Best Export Format for iDVD to cut down on multiplexing and processing

My processor is what it is and my Ram has been optimized. Is there some video/audio format/ bit rate that will require less time to convert and process?
I understand that MPEG2, mpeg4, H.264, avi, and all seem to take far too long. I prefer using FCPX and Wondershare to do my converting.
Also whenever I have a random burning error its almost always a “multiplexing error” so maybe if I make the “multiplexing” a little easier maybe I can prevent that headache.
Any thoughts about inve$ting in the fastest burners available? Isn’t the actual “burn” process the very last step that usually only takes about 2 minutes anyway?
Thank you in advance!

KidVid wrote:
My processor is what it is and my Ram has been optimized. Is there some video/audio format/ bit rate that will require less time to convert and process?
All depends on what format you need for what purpose. If you need a DVD it'll have to be MPEG-2 or for web use it'll have to be h.264. Other than that there are tons of codecs and containers available. All conversion takes time and to cut down on that time you will need a faster machine.
KidVid wrote:
Also whenever I have a random burning error its almost always a “multiplexing error” so maybe if I make the “multiplexing” a little easier maybe I can prevent that headache.
To avoid burn errors in iDVD create a disk image of your project, test that image file with DVD Player, and, if satisfied, burn with any dedicated disc burning app at no more than 4x to avoid errors.
KidVid wrote:
Any thoughts about inve$ting in the fastest burners available? Isn’t the actual “burn” process the very last step that usually only takes about 2 minutes anyway?
See the speed limit above.

I have extended video footage taken on my ipad that I need to burn to dvd. Tried imovie and final cut. Final Cut rendering time was extremely long. What is easiest way to accomplish my goal?

I am a video technology teacher and coach at a high school in NJ. I have footage of a basketball scrimmage that I need to get from my iPad onto a DVD. I tried importing it into iMovie without success. I have imported it into Final Cut Pro but the rendering time makes the process very cumbersome with 7/8 hours of rendering time to create a quick time file to then use with iDVD. Is there a quicker way to accomplish this.

The Mac does not come with a Blu-ray burner. So you would be burning a Blu-ray compatible file to a standard DVD-5 or DVD-9. Neither of which are ideal for authoring Blu-ray content.
Do an exhaustive search online about Blu-ray authoring and disk creation. This is not something for the hobbyist video creator (and I say hobbyist in the sense that you're not creating thousands of copies for mass distribution, so no one take offense.)
Blu-ray is expensive and requires a lot of planning and prep to do it right. But you can't burn an official Blu-ray disc on a Mac as they stand. And, Compressor doesn't burn discs, it only creates files. DVD Studio Pro would be the app that would burn the Blu-ray disc, and DVDSP has not been upgraded since long before Blu-ray came on the scene.

Slow Rendering Time After Installing Final Cut Studio 2 Upgrade

I have a Mac Pro with two dual core processors, 8 GB of Ram, and 1 Terabyte of storage. I'm running the latest version of OSX. Ever since I upgraded to Final Cut Studio 2 my rendering time in Final Cut Pro 6 has become painfully slow. For example, it now takes at least an hour to render a short 5 minute video project. A project that size used to take just a few minutes. I uninstalled Final Cut Studio using AppZapper because I couldn't figure out how to remove the program any other way. Then, I reinstalled Final Cut Pro 6, but it didn't fix the problem. I called Apple's Final Cut Studio tech support, but they just had me upgrade Final Cut Pro 6 to 6.0.1. Unfortunately, this didn't fix the problem. Everything worked fine with Final Cut Pro 5, but ever since we upgraded everything has fell apart. Can anyone give us any insight into fixing this problem? So far, Apple's Final Cut tech support has been unable to find a solution.

Just a couple things to double check.
1. Repair Disk permissions, RESTART.
2. Try setting your RENDER DRIVE to something Different than the Media drive, RESTART.
3. Try Hosting your Media on a new Drive, RESTART.
Also, at this point since you are having system problems, I would backup all of your Media, Projects, etc. I just read a post of someone else that didn't have backup of their project and it became corrupted. I use Lacies SilverKeeper to automatically backup about 20 times a day, so we have dupes of at least all our Projects. And the first thing I do every morning is start the system up, repair disk permissions, and RESTART.
The reason why I suggest restarting after each attempt at changing preferences and such is so that the next time you load FCP it loads the settings that you have saved/changed as native settings as opposed to changed settings, this does make a difference. You will know what I am talking about if you have experienced the Log & Capture Input problem for FCP 5.
Let me know, I have some other suggestions if these don't work.

HELP: I have an impossibly long rendering time after converting .MP4 files from Go Pro Camera to .MOV on Final Cut Pro 7. PLEASE ADVISE.

I am working on a project and shot guerilla style footage with a Go Pro camera, which produced .MP4 files incompatible with FCP7. When I converted the files to .MOV, I realized the rendering time in the sequence editor is impossibly long. I am working with a deadline and the rendering time exceeds the deadline, let alone editing time. Suggestions???

Telling us you converted to .mov doesn't tell us much. MOV is a container that supports a very wide range of codecs. It is the specific CODEC that matters.
You most likely did not convert the material to a FCP7 native format. ProRes is recommended and, given the compression of the GoPro, ProRes LT would be the best choice.
Use Compressor to convert everything to ProResLT and life will be much simpler.
x

I need to edit out parts of a song to cut it down to two minutes for my daughter's talent show. I went to info and it will cut down one part but only one part. I need to put three parts together. I tried adding duplicates of the song to the list but if I

I need to edit out parts of a song to cut it down to two minutes for my daughter's talent show. I went to info/start time and it will cut down one part but only one part. I need to put three parts together. I tried adding duplicates of the song to the list but if If I change the start time on one it will change it on all of them.

In your library, right-click the song you want to edit.
select "get info".
go to "options" and select the start and stop times for your first section of the song.
click "OK".
Find the shortened version of the song in your library. It may take a minute for it to show up. right click it again and select "create (????) version". (the ???? is different for different formats).
The library will spit out a new, second version of the song which you can rename. I suggest you use the original title and add a 1 to the end.
Now you can go back to the other version and repeat the process with a different start/stop time.
Once you are done editing, you can burn all of your versions to a disk, just make sure your interval time is zero so there are no gaps between edits.
To keep the orginal song on your library, just go back to the original and put the start/stop times back to the original settings.

PC Shutting Down when Rendering

I have used Premiere for many years/versions now and have had a persistent problem of the computer shutting down while rendering, regardless of the system.
My current computer is a laptop (Clevo 900DF for those familiar with that brand) with the following specs:
- i7 960 3.2 GTHz *desktop* processor
- 6 Gb DDR3 ram
- Windows Ultimate x64
- 2 WD 250Gv harddrives (working as 1 striped drive)
The shut-down problem is inconsistent, but occurs most when I got a number of effects on the videos, esp. things like level changes, or more recently, when I try to include a logo I created in After Effects in the video.
Previously I thought the problem was with my systems (both desktops, on XP and one a dual core Vista x64 machine), but now I am having the same problems on my laptop and it's getting very frustrating.
I am going to check into getting some better external cooling (hard to adjust internal cooling in a laptop) and wonder if this is a problem others have had and if so, what solutions you found. Could the inclusion of the AE logo watermark be causing my problems? (The render time is also very long, yesterday it was over 2 hours to render a 17 minute HD video to the H.264 YouTube widescreen preset.)
Thanks,
Julie

Julie,
A computer shutdown, whether you see a BSOD, or not, is most often related to hardware, and most often to overheated hardware.
Take a look at this ARTICLE, for some tips, and tools.
After all possible hardware causes have been exhausted (but not until you have tested them all), then you will probably be looking at a driver issue with the OS.
Good luck,
Hunt

Elements 9 ACR 6.5 is a cut down program

I've used ACR with CS4 before to process my RAW files but recently bought Lightroom 3.5 and Elements 9. I've upgraded both programs to ACR 6.5 to support my camera and noticed for the first time that the Elements plugin is a cut down version of ACR 6.5 with many of its features missing. If ACR 6.5 is a free download and available from thrid party websites why isn't the full program available when opening a RAW file withing Elements 9? I've tried downloading it from Adobe and using it as a standalone probram but when opening it up I'm told that it isn't appropriate.
George

From what I’ve seen, while many adjustment tabs and sliders are not in PSE-hosted ACR, the underlying RAW converter is still the same, so if you have made adjustments in LR and save into an XMP then open in PSE, or just use Edit In Photoshop Elements from LR, the ACR that opens the file on the way in to PSE will apply all the adjustments that were made in LR. And so since you can make all the adjustments in LR there’s no need to make anymore adjustments in the ACR on the way into PSE is there?
Is your experience different than this, where if you do something in LR that doesn’t have a corresponding slider in the PSE-hosted ACR, it doesn’t get applied. For example, if you make a manual lens-correction for perspective that is easy to tell whether it happened or not, in LR and then do a Edit in Photoshop Elements from LR, does the perspective-correction not happen?
The only thing that should be different is that you have to be in LR to make all the adjustments, not use PSE-hosted ACR to make them.

Premiere Pro CS4 crashes and system shuts down while rendering

Hi All,
Good morning everyone, my system shuts down while rendering using Adobe media encoder from premiere pro. I have tried the following:
1.Completely removing CS4 and reinstalling.
2. Updating all the video drivers.
3. Re installing the Operating System (XP and Vista)
But the issue persists, i have attached the crash report and any thoughts are highly appreciated.
Regards,
Vincent

A number of problems pop out of your DXDIAG:
Both your video driver and your audio driver are more than 3 years old.
Your F drive is slow, because of the fill rate of 90%. You lack other hard disks.
You have Matrox, BlackMagic, Nero, Sony, DivX and other stuff installed. It has been a long time ago that I have seen such a long list of DirectShow filters installed.
Suggestions: Update your drivers, clean up your F drive and add another disk, remove all that Matrox stuff, possibly include BlackMagic and Sony.
What export/encoding settings do you use from what sequence settings?

Java needs a cut down "media" VM

What would it take for java to take on flash in the internet media space?
My thoughts on why flash dominates java:
The java download is far too big, java is ~7MB, flash is ~1.8MB
The vm takes far too long to startup
You get an ugly grey box when the vm is starting up in place of the applet
What is needed is a cut down java "media" vm. It should:
Be no larger than the flash download of ~1.8MB
Have greatly improved startup time. On a modern pc it should be almost instantaneous.
Be fully upgradable to the "full" vm. For example if the full vm is ~7MB then if you have the media vm installed the full vm download should be ~1.8MB smaller
As the name implies it should be focused solely on rich media (steaming movies etc)
It should not cause the java icon to popup on the taskbar by default. It should be transparent to the user that java is running.
Should not display a grey box in place of the applet when starting up, the box should be black or non-existent.
The aim would be for sites like youtube to be able to realistically replace flash with java. What do you think?

>
Not true, you should probably read a few tutorials. You can already replace that with an image or an animated image.Well I have not written any applets for a long time it is just what I am seeing out there. I have been developing java for over 10 years so I don't need to read any tutorials.
This is a large development space and java should be taking it over. JVM modularity is the first step in the same direction.

Compressor rendering time

I am using Final Cut Studio 2.
I am rendering HD footage in FCP for use in DVD studio.
I am using compressor to compress the footage for DVD
DVD Setting in compressor: 90 minute best video
Rendering time is approximately 7-8 hours per hour of footage?
Is this normal?
My computer is:
iMac 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo (2008 model)
4 gigs of 800 mhz ddr2 sdram (this is the max ram for this computer! )
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS 512 MB
Hard drive: 465 gig (I use mainly external drives for editing)
Would an older Power PC G5 be any better as a friend suggested that it would.
Thanks
Bill

NO!
My workflow is for a finished DVD of up to 65 minutes.
That 65 minute video would pretty well fill the DVD.
So it would be impossible to get any more on.
When you do 90, 120 or 150 minute DVDs you have to compress the video more so that it will fit on. This reduces the quality of course.
You could use the "Fast" settings rather than the "Best".
This would get it done in less than half the time but the quality would not be as good.
However, I don't think there will be a tremendous difference and it could well be good enough for your requirements.
NOTE: Just to be absolutely clear, if your finished DVD is 2.5 hours long you will have to use one of the 150 minute presets.
Message was edited by: Ian R. Brown

FCP LONG RENDERING TIMES, MANUAL FADES J U M P I N G.... Please h e l p!

Hello
Firstly please bare with me as im trying to be thorough
I have final cut studio HD 2.
I am making a "HALO MACHINMA"(basically making a film from manipulated game footage) film for my final project at university.
My HD recorder kicks the files out a M2TS files, so since as far a sim aware FCP cannot touch these I have been converting them to HD quicktime videos using the program "Xilisoft HD converter "
Once i imported these files i was able to edit one scene fine. No issues.
However i have come back to my project a week later. I opened a NEW PROJECT so i could edit another scene without having a huge timeline. I began by using one of my clips and doing a manual opening fade with the pen tool. However rendering took far longer than usual (I have 4GB of RAM so for something so small its usually near instant), then when i went to replay it the fade kept jumping. if i manually tab the timeline bar over it using the right arrow i can see every frame, but play back jumps. (also if i export the video it doesn't jump, however i cant edit correctly like it currently is)
So my issue is, The LARGE rendering times, and the fact it jumps when played if i alter it.
Things ive tried:
I thought, well maybe if i go back to the original project i can try putting the files in there and editing, since maybe the project settings were weird on the other one. However the new files still do the same there.
SO then i thought "maybe these unedited files are corrupt or something similar" SOOOO within the original project I copied an original file that previously worked fine. HOWEVER even the old files dont work correctly. I cannot even alter the original project without HUGE rendering times, however the playback still "appears" fine on the original project.
I am also getting 2 RED rendering lines about the video and audio. where it used to only be 1. (if im correct 2 means the audio and video needs rendered)
If i place in another file like a standard quicktime or AVI i do not have a problem.
I do not understand how it once worked, now does not on these files? have some setting changed?
(when i start a new project i get the box that says the settings are wrong for this, change etc etc. I click YES -so i'm guessing its meant to work fine then)
Please help me, im running out of time on this final university project and any help will be very appreciated.
Thank you
Sam Edwards

Hi Nick
Yes the files i'm using are .MOV files. according to Xilisoft they are HD .MOV files.
although it may only claim there HD due to the high resolution. -1092x1080
ok so i clicked more info on the file and it claims its codec is MPEG-4 video, AAC.
I dont under stand that if there .MOV files then why would they have this codec?
confused.
Thank you

Ability of DSLR cameras to cut down UV and infrared light

Is it a fact that most digital cameras can cut down ultraviolet and infrared parts of the electromagnetic radiation on their own and therefore do not require separate filters for that purpose? If so, even an entry level DSLR, like my Canon EOS 1100D, is so capable?

Yes, this is true. In fact... more than you might guess.
In the days of film (I speak as if it's ancient history but that's how many of us here grew up shooting) the sensitivity of the film to various parts of the spectrum dependended entirely on the film itself. If you wanted to shoot infra-red, you loaded the camera with infra-red film. Non infra-red film was not particularly sesntivie to infra-red light.
Many films were mildly sensitive to UV light and the real point of the UV filter (which I think might surprise most people) is that whenever you pass light through a "lens", the lens has a "dispersion" effect which bends different wavelengths of light by a different amount. Compensating elements are used in the lens to attempt to correct for this and better lenses are judged substantially by how well they handle this. But it turns out human eyes are not sensitive to either UV (nor IR). Since UV is on the short end of the spectrum, it's light bends more than any other wavelength and would thus need the most correction. If left uncorrected, this might cause an image to appear slightly "soft" because the UV wavelength does not want to focus at precisely the same focus distance. Rather than "correct" the UV wavelength, it's much easier to just eliminate it entirely by using a filter -- problem solved.
Back to the era of digital...
Digital cameras are senstiive to both UV and IR and much moreso than film. Effectively _every_ digital camera needs to filter these wavelengths out. But more than this... human eyes are not actually 'equally" sensitive to all colors of light. We are far more sensitive to the wavelengths in the middle of the visible spectrum and not nearly as sensitive to the wavelengths nearing the sides of the visible spectrum. You are, in effect, VASTLY more sensitive to "greens" and much less sensitive to either red or blue. So while you see the world with reds, greens, and blues... the real world has significantly more red and blue than you are able to see. Cameras would see these more or less equally and this would result in images which appear to be saturated with red and blue.
To fix this, the camera does a few things...
First... the sensor is coated with "photosites" under a mask of red, green, and blue micro "filters". The array is usually referred to as a "Bayer Mask" (there are other types but this is the most common.) The mask has twice as many "green" sensitive sites as it does red or blue sites.
Second... the camera has both UV and IR filters inside and these are located immediately in front of the sensor (but behind the shutter). If you remove the lens, open the shutter, and look in side, then what you actually are looking at is a couple of layers of filters (which appear mostly clear to you) and then the sensor itself is behind them all.
Third... the UV and IR filters have a gradual cut-off curve. The IR wavelength begins at 700nm (and longer) Anything "shorter" than 700 is considered 'visible' light. The visible spectrum runs from roughly 400nm through 700nm. But it's not as if the filter allows 0% of wavelengths shorter than 400nm to pass and 0% of the wavelengths longer than 700nm to pass and yet 100% of the stuff between 400 and 700nm through. What it _really_ does is a gradual ramp.
The filter begins cutting IR light starting while it's still in the 500nm range -- it's already being filtered in the 600nm range. By the time we get to the 656nm wavelength (which happens to be a fire-engine red color -- that's the "Hydrogen alpha emission line" the filter is already cutting nearly 75% of the "red" light (and this is still considered "visible" light spectrum territory). By the time it gets to the 700nm wavelength it's cutting nearly all of it.
This may sound surprising or undesireable but actually... it more mirrors the sensitive amounts of your own eyes. Your eyes are less sensitive to those wavelengths so the camera is deliberately de-tuned to be less sensitive to those areas as well and in doing this, you end up with a photograph which more closely approximatelys the color proportions that your eyes are used to seeing.
There are people who modify their cameras so they can be used for IR photography and astrophotographers love to modify them for astrophotography purposes (the Canon 60Da is a special edition of the 60D which is pre-modified by Canon to be more sensitive to the wavelengths needed in astrophotography which benefits greatly if sensitive to the Ha (Hydrogen alpha) wavelength (656.28nm) is improved.)
Thats probably more than you wanted to know about the filters... but there you have it!
There is no "need" to use a UV (nor IR) filter on any of your lenses. Some people use them as a form of "protection" (to avoid getting dirt directly on the front element of the lens). There is a downside to useing them in that they often will create optical reflections in your image ... with "ghosting" or "flaring" that would not be visible had no filter been on the lens.
Regards,
Tim
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

Cut down on Rendering time

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for