Premiere Pro painfully slow rendering?

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.

Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.

Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
very wrong?
19 answers Last reply
More about premiere painfully slow rendering
  1. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    I think 80 minutes is outstanding.

    On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:05:49 -0700, John <usenet@nospam.org> wrote:

    >Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
    >commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
    >it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
    >an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
    >AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
    >
    >Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
    >
    >Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
    >very wrong?
  2. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    80 minutes isnt that bad for a full render to high-quality DV.

    I just rendered a 15-min. video with about 35 transitions and output to
    high-quality MPEG-4 and it took close to 7 hrs with a P4 3.06 GHz & 1.5GB
    RAM......


    "John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
    news:t1cnl092enmjhbkp8p4bsr57dhh744mfvq@4ax.com...
    > Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
    > commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
    > it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
    > an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
    > AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
    >
    > Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
    >
    > Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
    > very wrong?
  3. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    I appreciate the comments, and would especially appreciate input from
    anyone who has hands-on experience with Premiere Pro, especially in
    comparison with Premiere 6.5. My 6.5 is on a mediocre Celeron 1.2G
    and - although I have yet to render that exact same video for
    comparison - from past experience I'd expect it to only render the
    transitions, which would take less than a minute. I'd expect mpg
    conversion will be 2:1 or a bit slower.

    I'm really shocked at the huge step backward in performance, and am
    trying to decide if I'm doing something really wrong. Other than a
    'pro' moniker and some editing metaphors designed to wag tongues in
    the "yeah, that's the way it's *supposed* to be done" direction, I
    haven't read anything compelling about the new product. On the
    contrary, there are disturbing comments about problems that didn't
    seem to exist in the previous product.

    Anyway, someone tell me I'm wrong and I'll probably believe them.

    "TJM" <tjm@nospam.com> wrote:

    >80 minutes isnt that bad for a full render to high-quality DV.
    >
    >I just rendered a 15-min. video with about 35 transitions and output to
    >high-quality MPEG-4 and it took close to 7 hrs with a P4 3.06 GHz & 1.5GB
    >RAM......
    >
    >
    >"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
    >news:t1cnl092enmjhbkp8p4bsr57dhh744mfvq@4ax.com...
    >> Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
    >> commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
    >> it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
    >> an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
    >> AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
    >>
    >> Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
    >>
    >> Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
    >> very wrong?
    >
  4. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
    > commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
    > it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
    > an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
    > AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
    >
    > Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
    >
    > Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
    > very wrong?

    Render time should take (for a simple fade) quite the same time as the real
    duration of the fade, the heavy part is the mpg conversion... this is a high
    cpu occupation task... this means it will take LOONG...
    Dunno how long the episode was, but 80 minutes is not that much if the mpg
    conversion parameters aren't set for speed (dunno about premiere, I usually
    convert video files with external encoders).
    Maybe 80 minutes is A BIT too long, but not that much IMHO

    --
    rIO.sK
  5. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    yes.. mpeg compression takes a long time. Much longer than most.
    "John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
    news:t1cnl092enmjhbkp8p4bsr57dhh744mfvq@4ax.com...
    > Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
    > commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
    > it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
    > an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
    > AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
    >
    > Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
    >
    > Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
    > very wrong?
  6. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    John,
    I am not clear on what you are converting to?
    You captured it in dv format through 1394, took out a few commercials and
    now
    are rendering the entire file to mpeg2 format to make a dvd? Is that
    correct?

    If so, 80 minutes is about right, but if you edited out commercials and want
    to save back to the same
    dv format you captured at, it shouldn't take that long, it should only
    render the parts of the file that changed, smart rendering I would think.
    I assume that you are converting to mpeg2 but you mentioned saving to high
    quality dv, so it confused me.
    If you can clear this up it would help,
    Thanks,
    Anthony


    "John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
    news:do2ol0panbk5fcvtepge794825k1n5vv2h@4ax.com...
    >I appreciate the comments, and would especially appreciate input from
    > anyone who has hands-on experience with Premiere Pro, especially in
    > comparison with Premiere 6.5. My 6.5 is on a mediocre Celeron 1.2G
    > and - although I have yet to render that exact same video for
    > comparison - from past experience I'd expect it to only render the
    > transitions, which would take less than a minute. I'd expect mpg
    > conversion will be 2:1 or a bit slower.
    >
    > I'm really shocked at the huge step backward in performance, and am
    > trying to decide if I'm doing something really wrong. Other than a
    > 'pro' moniker and some editing metaphors designed to wag tongues in
    > the "yeah, that's the way it's *supposed* to be done" direction, I
    > haven't read anything compelling about the new product. On the
    > contrary, there are disturbing comments about problems that didn't
    > seem to exist in the previous product.
    >
    > Anyway, someone tell me I'm wrong and I'll probably believe them.
    >
    > "TJM" <tjm@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >>80 minutes isnt that bad for a full render to high-quality DV.
    >>
    >>I just rendered a 15-min. video with about 35 transitions and output to
    >>high-quality MPEG-4 and it took close to 7 hrs with a P4 3.06 GHz & 1.5GB
    >>RAM......
    >>
    >>
    >>"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
    >>news:t1cnl092enmjhbkp8p4bsr57dhh744mfvq@4ax.com...
    >>> Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
    >>> commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
    >>> it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
    >>> an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
    >>> AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
    >>>
    >>> Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
    >>>
    >>> Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
    >>> very wrong?
    >>
    >
  7. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote:

    >John,
    >I am not clear on what you are converting to?
    >You captured it in dv format through 1394, took out a few commercials and
    >now
    >are rendering the entire file to mpeg2 format to make a dvd? Is that
    >correct?
    >
    >If so, 80 minutes is about right, but if you edited out commercials and want
    >to save back to the same
    >dv format you captured at, it shouldn't take that long, it should only
    >render the parts of the file that changed, smart rendering I would think.
    >I assume that you are converting to mpeg2 but you mentioned saving to high
    >quality dv, so it confused me.
    >If you can clear this up it would help,
    >Thanks,
    >Anthony
    >
    Premiere Pro offers a couple of mpg conversion choices - two cbr and
    one vbr. They call cbr 6 mb/sec "high quality". I just meant that was
    what I was using, and was keeping the output unchanged - DV in, DV
    out.

    Premiere Pro seems to insist on rendering everything. Others have
    asked "isn't there a way to enable 'smart rendering' but afaik they
    answer is no.
  8. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    I agree with Anthony R. If at all possible you should always capture and edit in
    the exact same video and audio codec. This way when you output the file, Pro
    should only "render" the differences, which in your example are real small. This
    means rendering would take about as long as it takes to transfer the file from
    one location to another.

    If you are converting things to DVD mpeg2 format, I don't care how fast your
    computer is, it is going to take time.

    One more thing. If your input and output settings are the same, make sure an
    item called "always recompress" isn't checked. This should be in your video
    settings.


    "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
    news:JrX6d.49457$Ot3.24712@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    > John,
    > I am not clear on what you are converting to?
    > You captured it in dv format through 1394, took out a few commercials and now
    > are rendering the entire file to mpeg2 format to make a dvd? Is that correct?
    >
    > If so, 80 minutes is about right, but if you edited out commercials and want
    > to save back to the same
    > dv format you captured at, it shouldn't take that long, it should only render
    > the parts of the file that changed, smart rendering I would think.
    > I assume that you are converting to mpeg2 but you mentioned saving to high
    > quality dv, so it confused me.
    > If you can clear this up it would help,
    > Thanks,
    > Anthony
    >
    >
    >
    > "John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
    > news:do2ol0panbk5fcvtepge794825k1n5vv2h@4ax.com...
    >>I appreciate the comments, and would especially appreciate input from
    >> anyone who has hands-on experience with Premiere Pro, especially in
    >> comparison with Premiere 6.5. My 6.5 is on a mediocre Celeron 1.2G
    >> and - although I have yet to render that exact same video for
    >> comparison - from past experience I'd expect it to only render the
    >> transitions, which would take less than a minute. I'd expect mpg
    >> conversion will be 2:1 or a bit slower.
    >>
    >> I'm really shocked at the huge step backward in performance, and am
    >> trying to decide if I'm doing something really wrong. Other than a
    >> 'pro' moniker and some editing metaphors designed to wag tongues in
    >> the "yeah, that's the way it's *supposed* to be done" direction, I
    >> haven't read anything compelling about the new product. On the
    >> contrary, there are disturbing comments about problems that didn't
    >> seem to exist in the previous product.
    >>
    >> Anyway, someone tell me I'm wrong and I'll probably believe them.
    >>
    >> "TJM" <tjm@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>80 minutes isnt that bad for a full render to high-quality DV.
    >>>
    >>>I just rendered a 15-min. video with about 35 transitions and output to
    >>>high-quality MPEG-4 and it took close to 7 hrs with a P4 3.06 GHz & 1.5GB
    >>>RAM......
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
    >>>news:t1cnl092enmjhbkp8p4bsr57dhh744mfvq@4ax.com...
    >>>> Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
    >>>> commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
    >>>> it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
    >>>> an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
    >>>> AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
    >>>>
    >>>> Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
    >>>>
    >>>> Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
    >>>> very wrong?
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Vincent Cruise" <nospam@no-spam.col> wrote:

    >I agree with Anthony R. If at all possible you should always capture and edit in
    >the exact same video and audio codec. This way when you output the file, Pro
    >should only "render" the differences, which in your example are real small. This
    >means rendering would take about as long as it takes to transfer the file from
    >one location to another.
    >
    >If you are converting things to DVD mpeg2 format, I don't care how fast your
    >computer is, it is going to take time.
    >
    >One more thing. If your input and output settings are the same, make sure an
    >item called "always recompress" isn't checked. This should be in your video
    >settings.
    >
    Yeah, well, input was from an ADS Pyro 1394-out box that captures DV
    including 48khz stereo, and I'm asking Adobe to write it in exactly
    the same format. I don't think that's the problem - the mpg encoder is
    going to encode the whole thing no matter how alike the input and
    output are, and probably is moving along hastily.

    I think the problem is that the Premiere Pro designers forgot how neat
    an idea it is to only render stuff that needs rendering, and there is
    no way to get it to render just the transitions. Someone posted in
    another forum that the silly thing absolutely insists on rendering
    each time you export. If you tell it to render the timeline, and when
    it's done tell it to render it again, it goes right to work, quite
    unlike 6.5 where once it's rendered it you have to do some serious
    changes to get it to do it again. (I wanted to re-render something
    over and over for benchmarking, and it's a challenge. Hooray!)
  10. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    LOTS of new stuff including HD and 24P to name 2. But as for transcoding Pro
    has to set up the audio too...called conforming. Takes time and a lot of
    drive space. Not sure about why but it does. But the color correction is
    MUCH better for another example. How it handles clips of different aspect
    ratio is strange and I feel sub standard compared to 6.5. If like me you did
    A/B editing on 6.5 the new single timeline for video and effects is a pain.
    But it's encoder BLOWS AWAY 6.5. Higher quality but I will; say its slow.
    But I tested a simple 1 hour project on both and the time wasn't much
    different but the Quality was.
    Mike

    "John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
    news:do2ol0panbk5fcvtepge794825k1n5vv2h@4ax.com...
    >I appreciate the comments, and would especially appreciate input from
    > anyone who has hands-on experience with Premiere Pro, especially in
    > comparison with Premiere 6.5. My 6.5 is on a mediocre Celeron 1.2G
    > and - although I have yet to render that exact same video for
    > comparison - from past experience I'd expect it to only render the
    > transitions, which would take less than a minute. I'd expect mpg
    > conversion will be 2:1 or a bit slower.
    >
    > I'm really shocked at the huge step backward in performance, and am
    > trying to decide if I'm doing something really wrong. Other than a
    > 'pro' moniker and some editing metaphors designed to wag tongues in
    > the "yeah, that's the way it's *supposed* to be done" direction, I
    > haven't read anything compelling about the new product. On the
    > contrary, there are disturbing comments about problems that didn't
    > seem to exist in the previous product.
    >
    > Anyway, someone tell me I'm wrong and I'll probably believe them.
    >
    > "TJM" <tjm@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >>80 minutes isnt that bad for a full render to high-quality DV.
    >>
    >>I just rendered a 15-min. video with about 35 transitions and output to
    >>high-quality MPEG-4 and it took close to 7 hrs with a P4 3.06 GHz & 1.5GB
    >>RAM......
    >>
    >>
    >>"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
    >>news:t1cnl092enmjhbkp8p4bsr57dhh744mfvq@4ax.com...
    >>> Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
    >>> commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
    >>> it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
    >>> an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
    >>> AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
    >>>
    >>> Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
    >>>
    >>> Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
    >>> very wrong?
    >>
    >
  11. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    When you export a movie, under the settings, video tab, there is an item called
    "Recompress." Make sure this is unchecked.

    I just tried this with a simple four minute project and it appeared to export
    the resulting video in pretty close to the time it takes to copy the file.
  12. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "CC Baxter" <nospam@no-spam.apt> wrote:

    >When you export a movie, under the settings, video tab, there is an item called
    >"Recompress." Make sure this is unchecked.
    >
    >I just tried this with a simple four minute project and it appeared to export
    >the resulting video in pretty close to the time it takes to copy the file.
    >
    Thanks very much for the suggestion, but I think when I want to export
    to an m2v + wav to create a DVD, I have to use Export | Adobe Media
    Encoder. That path doesn't include any such options.
  13. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <23apl0p3oa2gpq40md6b9hbu6gpus8jvhn@4ax.com>, John
    <usenet@nospam.org> writes
    >"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote:
    >
    >>John,
    >>I am not clear on what you are converting to?
    >>You captured it in dv format through 1394, took out a few commercials and
    >>now
    >>are rendering the entire file to mpeg2 format to make a dvd? Is that
    >>correct?
    >>
    >>If so, 80 minutes is about right, but if you edited out commercials and want
    >>to save back to the same
    >>dv format you captured at, it shouldn't take that long, it should only
    >>render the parts of the file that changed, smart rendering I would think.
    >>I assume that you are converting to mpeg2 but you mentioned saving to high
    >>quality dv, so it confused me.
    >>If you can clear this up it would help,
    >>Thanks,
    >>Anthony
    >>
    >Premiere Pro offers a couple of mpg conversion choices - two cbr and
    >one vbr. They call cbr 6 mb/sec "high quality". I just meant that was
    >what I was using, and was keeping the output unchanged - DV in, DV
    >out.
    >
    But if you're converting to mpeg, it isn't DV out, and Premiere will
    have to render/convert the whole thing.
    --
    Tim Mitchell
  14. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    when you say evaluating do you mean the evaluation version that expires
    in 30 days or the full program, because the eval version doesn't come
    with mpeg 2


    John wrote:

    > Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
    > commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
    > it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
    > an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
    > AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
    >
    > Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
    >
    > Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
    > very wrong?
    >
  15. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    anray <anray@optonline.net> wrote:

    >when you say evaluating do you mean the evaluation version that expires
    >in 30 days or the full program, because the eval version doesn't come
    >with mpeg 2
    >
    >
    Full program - 'eval' meant that I was personally deciding whether to
    stick with 1.5 or continue with 6.5.

    It's difficult because one has to separate personal lack of experience
    with the new product from Adobe's design errors, but my conclusion is
    heading toward 6.5. For my casual work I think I'll insist on a
    product with smart rendering.

    Adobe's had some serious birthing problems with the new product -
    first calling it 7.0, then 1.0, then learning from their customer base
    that 1.0 wasn't a satisfactory product and rather quickly bringing
    forth 1.5. At 1.5, the internals and the interface still have a long
    way to go before they become as fast and friendly as 6.5. Presumably
    the only design goal was to make it appeal to the 'professional' to
    capture that market, but the result seems to be akin to forcing nedit
    onto someone used to Visual Studio because it's 'more professional.'

    Being a fan of latest-and-greatest, I hope I'm wrong.
  16. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    It does in fact render in the background many things. The audio is one. Let
    your project sit while you eat and see what happens.
    Mike

    "John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
    news:23apl0p3oa2gpq40md6b9hbu6gpus8jvhn@4ax.com...
    > "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote:
    >
    >>John,
    >>I am not clear on what you are converting to?
    >>You captured it in dv format through 1394, took out a few commercials and
    >>now
    >>are rendering the entire file to mpeg2 format to make a dvd? Is that
    >>correct?
    >>
    >>If so, 80 minutes is about right, but if you edited out commercials and
    >>want
    >>to save back to the same
    >>dv format you captured at, it shouldn't take that long, it should only
    >>render the parts of the file that changed, smart rendering I would think.
    >>I assume that you are converting to mpeg2 but you mentioned saving to high
    >>quality dv, so it confused me.
    >>If you can clear this up it would help,
    >>Thanks,
    >>Anthony
    >>
    > Premiere Pro offers a couple of mpg conversion choices - two cbr and
    > one vbr. They call cbr 6 mb/sec "high quality". I just meant that was
    > what I was using, and was keeping the output unchanged - DV in, DV
    > out.
    >
    > Premiere Pro seems to insist on rendering everything. Others have
    > asked "isn't there a way to enable 'smart rendering' but afaik they
    > answer is no.
    >
    >
    >
  17. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    I definitely do NOT have that problem on my system. Now I am using a Canopus
    Storm 2 but I am about to yank it as I see little benefit from it as opposed
    to using it on 6.5 which was a necessity.
    Mike

    "John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
    news:7eapl0tarvkst7u0c2rsc6fvn9j98oniom@4ax.com...
    > "Vincent Cruise" <nospam@no-spam.col> wrote:
    >
    >>I agree with Anthony R. If at all possible you should always capture and
    >>edit in
    >>the exact same video and audio codec. This way when you output the file,
    >>Pro
    >>should only "render" the differences, which in your example are real
    >>small. This
    >>means rendering would take about as long as it takes to transfer the file
    >>from
    >>one location to another.
    >>
    >>If you are converting things to DVD mpeg2 format, I don't care how fast
    >>your
    >>computer is, it is going to take time.
    >>
    >>One more thing. If your input and output settings are the same, make sure
    >>an
    >>item called "always recompress" isn't checked. This should be in your
    >>video
    >>settings.
    >>
    > Yeah, well, input was from an ADS Pyro 1394-out box that captures DV
    > including 48khz stereo, and I'm asking Adobe to write it in exactly
    > the same format. I don't think that's the problem - the mpg encoder is
    > going to encode the whole thing no matter how alike the input and
    > output are, and probably is moving along hastily.
    >
    > I think the problem is that the Premiere Pro designers forgot how neat
    > an idea it is to only render stuff that needs rendering, and there is
    > no way to get it to render just the transitions. Someone posted in
    > another forum that the silly thing absolutely insists on rendering
    > each time you export. If you tell it to render the timeline, and when
    > it's done tell it to render it again, it goes right to work, quite
    > unlike 6.5 where once it's rendered it you have to do some serious
    > changes to get it to do it again. (I wanted to re-render something
    > over and over for benchmarking, and it's a challenge. Hooray!)
  18. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
    news:23apl0p3oa2gpq40md6b9hbu6gpus8jvhn@4ax.com...
    > "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote:
    >
    >>John,
    >>I am not clear on what you are converting to?
    >>You captured it in dv format through 1394, took out a few commercials and
    >>now
    >>are rendering the entire file to mpeg2 format to make a dvd? Is that
    >>correct?
    >>
    >>If so, 80 minutes is about right, but if you edited out commercials and
    >>want
    >>to save back to the same
    >>dv format you captured at, it shouldn't take that long, it should only
    >>render the parts of the file that changed, smart rendering I would think.
    >>I assume that you are converting to mpeg2 but you mentioned saving to high
    >>quality dv, so it confused me.
    >>If you can clear this up it would help,
    >>Thanks,
    >>Anthony
    >>
    > Premiere Pro offers a couple of mpg conversion choices - two cbr and
    > one vbr. They call cbr 6 mb/sec "high quality". I just meant that was
    > what I was using, and was keeping the output unchanged - DV in, DV
    > out.
    >
    > Premiere Pro seems to insist on rendering everything. Others have
    > asked "isn't there a way to enable 'smart rendering' but afaik they
    > answer is no.
    >
    >
    John,
    I have to agree with Tim, if you are going DV in and then Mpg2 out, it is no
    longer the same and it will need to encode the entire file. If you were
    going dv in and dv out, it would then just smart render the little pieces.
    You then could import the new dv file into a DVD authoring software and have
    it do the mpg conversion as it imports it.
    maybe then you can find software to do it faster?
    But either way converting to mpg2 takes time, unless you have a realtime
    card that can handle that, like the matrox or canopus. But if you are only
    doing a few movies a week, set it up to convert overnight and save yourself
    the $1000 for the real time card. :)
    AnthonyR
  19. Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    >> Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
    >> commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
    >> it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
    >> an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
    >> AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
    >>
    >> Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
    >> Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
    >> very wrong?

    w/o seeing the system, sounds fine. DV to MPEG conversion does take
    time, and usually can't be done in real-time in most video editing programs.

    why? each frame is 1/60th of a second. Adobe techs have already
    said that in order to render in real-time, you'd have to load that part
    of the video from the HD, decode that frame from DV, render into MPEG2,
    then save to disk in 1/60th of a second or less time -- this already
    means that you'll have 1:1 or slower render times. Thus, if you have a
    60 minute TV episode, 2+ hours isn't 'abnormal' considering this is
    occuring.

    naturally, faster systems, smarter 'effects segments only rendering'
    software video editors, and 3rd party DV to MPEG converters can help
    speed things up, but realistically, everyone's waiting a few extra
    minutes/hours to see the DV-to-mpeg conversion being done.

    at the minimum, test with Cinema Craft Encoder to see how long it
    takes your system to do a basic 1 hour DV to MPEG-2 conversion at
    default settings. That'll be the fastest your system will ever convert
    to MPEG-2 in general since CCE is one of the fastest converters you can
    get today.
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards Adobe Premiere Rendering Graphics Product