Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

time to tear apart my tower AGAIN or is Vegas messing with me ?


Recommended Posts

So everything is working fine with this now, running Linux and web browsing, but when I try to render my new video I GUESS that this overheats....I guess.

 

So tomorrow I have to pull this apart ,clean it up and inspect the fan etc.

 

But here is a different thought.

I was using Sony Vegas originally and it has morphed into this BLOATED Movie Studio. They try to sell me a new version every 6 months or so.

 

Is it possible that Movie Studio is DELIBERATELY using 99% of my CPU to FORCE me to buy a new version ????

 

I can't go back to an earlier version because I spent over 3 hours editing with my latest version today.

 

The computer shuts down after only rendering 1% of the video. I have 8 gigs  and a 6 AMD core running at at almost 4ghz.

 

Once I get this figured out, I will have my Fastfingers III video up. If it isn't one thing......it's another!!!!

 

And of course, Movie Studio runs on Windows 10 ,on the other partition of this computer.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I have also had problems with Vegas stalling while rendering. I can't remember exactly what I did to fix it, but I think I restarted the computer just before a big render. I think Vegas might not release everything that's in memory.

 

This is a common problem, so if you search, you'll find various solutions. I tried them all and eventually things worked. Sorry I can't be more specific! But I believe Movie Studio is the same basic code as Vegas, so what works for one should work for the other.

 

Also of course rendering is a huge hog of computer resources, under even the best of circumstances. Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know nothing of Vegas but I wonder if you can increase your RAM? I run 16gb just for music recording and it's super fast on my M1 Mac but not so much on my 2015 MacBook Pro. 

What Craig mentions is true of many programs, they forget to flush and leave the mess for you! 😇

 

I always restart my laptop before tracking and before mixing so it can grow a new brain. Seems to be working...

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blackmagic's Davinci Resolve is free.  It is awesome for editing video.  They use it in Hollywood.  Just a thought.  There are definitely better options than Vegas.  It won't make your CPU faster, or need less RAM, but if you have software frustration, there is other software. (and this is free).

 

I use the full version for $200 or $300, because I need a few of the esoteric features.  But the free version does 99% of what needs to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nathanael_I said:

Blackmagic's Davinci Resolve is free.  It is awesome for editing video.  They use it in Hollywood.  Just a thought.  There are definitely better options than Vegas.  It won't make your CPU faster, or need less RAM, but if you have software frustration, there is other software. (and this is free).

 

I've been using Vegas since 1.0, so I know it really well. I always appreciated the way it handled audio compared to Premiere or Final Cut. But I just took a deeper look at DaVinci Resolve...it looks really impressive. Not sure what I'll do with a zillion Vegas files dating back over two decades, though...

 

In your opinion, do you think it's worth the effor to switch? Is Resolve that much better, or just incrementally better, or...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Anderton said:

 

I've been using Vegas since 1.0, so I know it really well. I always appreciated the way it handled audio compared to Premiere or Final Cut. But I just took a deeper look at DaVinci Resolve...it looks really impressive. Not sure what I'll do with a zillion Vegas files dating back over two decades, though...

 

In your opinion, do you think it's worth the effor to switch? Is Resolve that much better, or just incrementally better, or...?

I had it on my computer (the free version) and never got around to firing it up. 

I think you could download the free version and see if it will open your Vegas files. Maybe give it a spin. 
I know it was getting rave reviews when it came out, from people who knew their stuff. 

 

If the free one works then the full on version is probably splendid. 

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Anderton said:

 

I've been using Vegas since 1.0, so I know it really well. I always appreciated the way it handled audio compared to Premiere or Final Cut. But I just took a deeper look at DaVinci Resolve...it looks really impressive. Not sure what I'll do with a zillion Vegas files dating back over two decades, though...

 

In your opinion, do you think it's worth the effor to switch? Is Resolve that much better, or just incrementally better, or...?

Resolve is the #1 color grading app In Hollywood. It’s so much faster and easier than premiere or final cut. Black magic bought Fairlight. There’s a whole audio-only DAW inside. You can buy Fairlight audio surfaces at tens of thousands of dollars to just manipulate audio in Resolve. It’s a very professional environment. All your plugins work, etc. there is no MIDI or virtual instrument support. It’s for audio.  
 

Free resolve is not cripple ware. It’s excellent software. They give it away and would like to sell you a hardware surface for color grading or audio or both. The free version has everything except 8k video, RAW video, and a few other very high end pro features. Resolve does not support ProRes RAW due to Apple licensing. Complaining is futile. They just don’t. But regular ProRes?  All day long.  RED RAW? No problem. 
 

Resolve is modern, current software and feels like it. It runs much faster than Premiere and has super clean core workflow. After doing hundreds of videos in Premiere, I switched in a week. 
 

should you switch?  Try it. The workflow is easy to evaluate. Import some footage and try a typical edit. What about your old projects?  I pretty much never open old edit files. Depending on what you shoot and retention, do you even have all the original footage? Do you need it?  Finished video here is always rendered as HDR 4K files. It’s my equivalent of archiving WAV files. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, techristian said:

 

The computer shuts down after only rendering 1% of the video. I have 8 gigs  and a 6 AMD core running at at almost 4ghz.

 

Dan

Can you say something about the source footage and what you are trying to render?  Is this 1080p from a DSLR?  4K? Cellphone footage?  What are you trying to output?  Resolution and codec both matter. 

 

What video card do you have?  Premiere and Resolve (and Final Cut) all make heavy use of a GPU. Particularly for encoding/rendering and all color grading.
 

I suspect your rig is underpowered for what you are trying to do if rendering is very slow or multiples of the footage length. It sounds like a great audio rig - will easily do 32 tracks or more. How old is that CPU?  
 

I edited 4K GH5 DSLR footage for years on an 8core/16 thread intel  9900k overclocked to 4.8GHz, 64GB RAM and an NVIDIA 3070 GPU. The GPU cuts render time by 3-4x minimum. Sometimes 10-20x. Modern apps are written to expect a GPU. The CPU is the slow path.  During render, the CPU runs at 25%.  The GPU is saturated at 100%. Rendering is about 25% of the run time of timeline.
 

Modern software uses the hardware encoders built into modern GPUs as much as possible.  The 3070 has 8G RAM just on the graphics card. It is used 100% while rendering. System RAM used goes into the 16-32GB range depending. My edit box is GPU limited.
 

if I put 8k RAW footage on my timeline, this powerful computer will choke and play back 2-3 frames per second. It’s unusable. Rendering takes 40 minutes for 1 minute of footage. Exactly like you describe. I would need better CPU and a 4090 RTX GPU (24G Video RAM) to work with 8K RAW. I don’t have rig for the gig.   But I can do 12-bit 4K RAW easily and the footage is glorious. 
 

Video edit software architecture matters hugely.  Threading, hardware support, GPU support all matter hugely to performance. Resolve scales beautifully onto even the largest 64 core processors from AMD. Premiere does not. Final Cut only works on Apple hardware, which is middle of the road for hardcore editing.  Avid Media Composer is the other pro platform, but is quite expensive. 
 

Puget Systems (https://www.pugetsystems.com/all-articles/ ) tests video edit software and hardware combinations if you want current benchmarks. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it’s worth, I separated video edit and audio computers. They optimize almost exactly opposite. DAWs need low DPC latency. GPUs increase it. I get best DAW real time performance using Intel onboard graphics (no GPU). Video render is not about real-time CPU, but raw grunt and GPU. It is FAR more demanding than audio.  Obviously, you can run one machine that does both. But my composing template is much happier on a machine without a GPU. Editing video without a powerful GPU is unthinkable at this point. 
 

Apple has a lot of value for personal creators going to YouTube. The new M1/M2 platform has good performance - about the same as Intel/AMD consumer chips and a midline GPU.  For volume professional work using pro codecs and cameras, I think many would build or buy high core count Intel/AMD rigs with top of the line video cards, lots of RAM and silly amounts of fast storage…. Modern RAW footage looks so good, but is heavyweight to process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I upgraded this a few years ago with a new CPU and new memory. At that time , YES there was some overheating in the SUMMER when rendering video. I have turned off OVERCLOCKING in the bios and slowed things down a bit to see if it makes a difference and will take this apart and clean it later on today.

What am I rendering? A 32 bit audio stereo track along side a 1080 video track from my Nikon DSLR. Outputting to a MP4. I usually combine these first and then edit, because this system chokes from to much editing.

My video card was probably "state of the art" over 10 years ago. I'll get the info on it later today.

 

There is a picture of my BIOS . I think this was running in DUAL CHANNEL originally. We will see.

Thanks for all of your suggestions.

 

Dan

BIOS.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nathanael_I said:

should you switch?  Try it. The workflow is easy to evaluate. Import some footage and try a typical edit. What about your old projects?  I pretty much never open old edit files. Depending on what you shoot and retention, do you even have all the original footage? Do you need it?  Finished video here is always rendered as HDR 4K files. It’s my equivalent of archiving WAV files. 

 

First of all, thanks for all the info on video in general. My situation is different from yours, I do instructional and topical videos (i.e., trade show reports) that are usually short, and super-high resolution doesn't matter. Maybe it will someday, but for now, the videos go mostly through YouTube's and Instagram's data smashers. Because the videos are short, I do have almost all the original files and projects archived.

 

The concern with older projects is updating. The whole model for my eBook publishing venture with Sweetwater is free "point" updates for technology books, and reduced prices for new editions. I want to try the same thing with video at some point. A lot of my older videos could be refreshed easily with some newer screen shots or motion screen captures. I also have templates that I could re-create, but that would take time. Several third-party effects I bought for Vegas probably wouldn't move over to Resolve either.

 

Regardless, Resolve does look really good, and I'm definitely going to give it a try. Vegas is friendly, but I think it's past its golden age of when it was rock-solid software. For example, it doesn't seem to cope well with multiple MP4 files on a timeline in the same temporal locations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, techristian said:

I upgraded this a few years ago with a new CPU and new memory…..

 

There is a picture of my BIOS . I think this was running in DUAL CHANNEL originally. We will see.

Thanks for all of your suggestions.

 

Dan

BIOS.jpg

That processor was first released a decade ago. As amazing as it is, it is quite dated technology. A ten year old graphics card will not be useful to modern software. NVIDIA and AMD GPUs both have dedicated hardware and drivers that the edit software depends on.  
 

that said, a single 1080p clip with stereo audio is not that much. It’s about as low a load as software could ask for. Now if there’s dozens of clips, nested editing, multiple layers, color correction, etc, I suspect you are low on resources. I’m guessing your camera shoots h.264 compressed video and you are rendering to the same. Is the video long?  Like over 20 min or something?  Even rendering just in the CPU it should eventually get there….  It shouldn’t just stop… that sounds like software. 
 

newer CPU’s from AMD or Intel have h.264 and h.265 decoding built into the CPU in hardware. They have better micro architecture as well and will execute over 2x the number of instructions per clock cycle than decade-old chips running the same speed. Then the GPUs speed up the encoding on top. This combo produces modern edit performance.  The GPUs of the last 4 years are astonishingly powerful. (And expensive…sigh)
 

disclosure:  I have never used Vegas. I have no idea what hardware support it does or doesn’t have. The things I’ve described are common across all the major industry edit platforms but may not specifically apply. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, techristian said:

 

What am I rendering? A 32 bit audio stereo track along side a 1080 video track from my Nikon DSLR. Outputting to a MP4. I usually combine these first and then edit, because this system chokes from to much editing.

This is probably very telling. If your system can’t cleanly play back a timeline with one clip on it, it is going to suffer mightily on render.  
 

I can’t play 8k RAW, and render is like 40x playback time….  But, I can easily playback multiple 4K RAW clips, nested, color correction, etc and it renders 4-5x faster than real-time to either 1080p or 4K!  If you have timeline trouble while editing, render is always going to be much worse. 
 

if you can’t play back a single h.264 1080p stream with audio with ease, it’s almost certainly a system horsepower issue. That should be trivial. I suspect lack of hardware decoding in the CPU is a big factor.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anderton said:

 

First of all, thanks for all the info on video in general. My situation is different from yours, I do instructional and topical videos (i.e., trade show reports) that are usually short, and super-high resolution doesn't matter. Maybe it will someday, but for now, the videos go mostly through YouTube's and Instagram's data smashers. Because the videos are short, I do have almost all the original files and projects archived.

 

The concern with older projects is updating. The whole model for my eBook publishing venture with Sweetwater is free "point" updates for technology books, and reduced prices for new editions. I want to try the same thing with video at some point. A lot of my older videos could be refreshed easily with some newer screen shots or motion screen captures. I also have templates that I could re-create, but that would take time. Several third-party effects I bought for Vegas probably wouldn't move over to Resolve either.

 

Regardless, Resolve does look really good, and I'm definitely going to give it a try. Vegas is friendly, but I think it's past its golden age of when it was rock-solid software. For example, it doesn't seem to cope well with multiple MP4 files on a timeline in the same temporal locations.

Craig,

 

I’ve mostly shot the same type of content. I shoot and edit in 4K because I can (DSLRs have done this for years now- and now iPhones do!), and it downsamples to gorgeous 1080p. In the past year, I’ve started uploading 4K - because all the services take it and H.265 is only 20-30% larger, but 4x resolution. It’s very nice for screen shots and shows well on the now ubiquitous retina displays. It is definitely the “future-proof” format at this point. 
 

I get the update issue. Shooting extra resolution (4K) and bit-depth, and then outputting a 4K master in lightly compressed ProRes or DNX in addition to 1080p means that you’ve got a final file that can be imported onto a new timeline and Re-edited with new content. The generational loss will be super low. Especially if you are headed out to 1080p. You’ll never notice. This gives an editable archive without software dependence to open old files.  I would not archive in h.264 or h.265. These are delivery codecs. I’d store in a ubiquitous edit codec. ProRes or Avid DNX variants meet this bar easily. 
 

given a large historical backlog, you’ll have to decide what’s best. It could be a lot to re-render loads of old footage. But the day is coming that old project files won’t open, regardless of software. That’s why WAV archives for audio, and ProRes archives for video provide extra longevity. 
 

I’d draw a line in the sand and do all new projects in a sustainable, archived way. As you edit old ones, save them sustainably. Stuff you never re-edit, you don’t touch and it doesn’t matter.  
 

It’s easy to generate a few hundred GB a day in footage, but keeping it all forever can get pricey. This is why there are acquisition codecs, edit codecs and delivery codecs. Sure h.264 can be used for all of them, but it isn’t how to get best results. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Video nerd clarification. MP4 and MOV are file formats, not video codecs.  The default MP4 codec is usually H.264 for a video codec.  For figuring out edit performance, only the codec matters. In and out. The wrapper is not important for performance. 
 

You can output a variety of codecs into an MOV file….  The codec is what determines the compression, color fidelity, bit rate, etc.  

 

codecs are constantly evolving and exist for different purposes. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further nerd clarification for the thread…. You can still buy a “graphics card”.  In fact, modern CPU’s include one on consumer grade CPUs. This is not a GPU. It’s designed for 2D rendering of the OS and things like MSFT Word. These cards are useless for video editing. They will display the UI, but they don’t speed anything up.
 

For that, we want a GPU - the big two and three slot monsters used for gaming rigs. These have super fast RAM on them and thousands of stream processors to parallelize video processing. I don’t game at all, but my “gaming” NVIDIA 3070 regularly maxes out as though I were. 
 

As you look at video edit software it will say what GPUs and software layers are supported. CUDA = NVIDIA, Open-CL = AMD GPUs. NVIDIA has pretty much always had top performance (and price) for video content creation. Frustratingly, their drivers are worst for audio latency. Hence why i ultimately split systems…..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here is what I learned.

 

Apparently, Windows and/or Linux changed my BIOS settings WITHOUT TELLING ME !! The SHARED video memory was changed from 512 megs to AUTO as well as a bunch of Voltage settings for the CPU and memory running with Overclocking . So I reset the video back to 512 megs shared, overclocking from 200mhz to 150 (lowest option) and voltages SET to lowest voltages, because there was overheating....and it worked! Thanks Craig and Nathanael_I for your input as well.

 

I HAVEN'T taken the computer apart yet but the video is up......for whatever it's worth. BTW ....this stupid thing took almost 4 hours to render.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, techristian said:

BTW ....this stupid thing took almost 4 hours to render.

 

Sounds about right. 

 

I remember rendering videos back in the day when depending on the frame's complexity, you'd render ONE FRAME in a Mac IIci overnight, and retrieve it the next morning. Consider yourself lucky :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I guess that's another advantage of the full version, it gives estimated disk space, time of completion, memory required, etc. when you render. I think Movie Studio is probably more intended for consumers who want to take Baby's First Steps.

 

Circle back here when/if you try out DaVince Resolve, and let us know what you think.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the older versions of this would let me know. I thought that I had the PREMIUM version. Originally I think I paid around $200-$300...but these updates are like $39.95Maybe they downgraded me with the updates. Originally this was called Vegas.

I have 2 FAIRLIGHT MFX control surfaces.....if I could interface it somehow ????? Davinci here I come

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magix has marketed some of the video products side by side but Vegas is still pro. Here's an example.

 

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.com/us/upgrades-for-vegas-pro-and-vegas-movie-studio/

 

on this page they do make a clear presentation of what they added to Vegas in 18, 19, and 20.

 

That feature layout actually convinced me to upgrade to 20.  I had been using DaVinci Resolve when I needed something more than simple cuts.

 

Honestly, the Magix subscription product would probably be a good choice for me. I need different features at different times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Anderton said:

I've been advised by People Who Know Stuff that Windows 11, although annoying, is technically more stable and handles audio better. I'm going to take the plunge soon.

Good to know.  I've been ignoring the free upgrade messages for a long time now.... I use the system daily without issues, so I've been in no rush!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...