[Davd Keator]

Way over priced…Build your own system, from my testing and experience, Sony vegas likes 4 cores the most. I get a whopping 3% performance boost on my six core 980x. I found that hyper threading reduced performance by 2.5% as well.

Find some one with an AMD 16 true core system. See if it helps, I doubt it.

A home built system for $1700 AMD’s fastest quad core, GTX 460 & GTS 250, 3 monitors, 3 HD’s is all you need for quick easy editing of R3D files.

Edit raw: render to Neo4k by Cineform, then when completed render to final delivery format.

Nothing at the moment does RealTime 4k with out RED’s Rocket…You can’t see it anyhow, unless you have a special $50K monitor…

[Davd Keator]

Crazy man… Never needed to do any of that. I suggest 2 gigs ram per core. Then Vegas will not run into the Swap file… That is the most stable possible. Vegas only uses 5 to 10 megs a second while rendering. HD’s are not the sourse of issues. Perhaps you have bad codecs installed… Many generic aps like FFDSHOW can mess up rendering stability.

[Davd Keator]

Pull up the scopes and make sure that *some* of the clips are not exceeding the legal range 255. Or simply throw on broadcast safe filter. This will require a slight adjustment in your curves and saturation again but it will balance the color range for everthing projected.

Good Luck

[Davd Keator]

Don’t have too much to say, compression codecs while standard throw out alot of color information to save space… A perfectionist does not use youtube or quick time to showcase their work… My suggestion and simply put what we have to do to solve the problen is bump the brightness and ajust saturation and re-upload it. A little trial and error is needed to get Youtube’s lousy compression algorithum to look slightly similar to your desired results…

Good luck.

[Davd Keator]

I have done extensive testing on this subject. Vegas does not care what you have or where the files are saved… I went as far as setting up a RAMDRIVE, that is turning 5 gigs or my 12 in my system into a hard drive. That gave me 4.5 gigabyte transfer speed and over 800,000 IO/s…Vegas didn’t care….No noticeable increase in scrubbing the timeline, panning, etc… Rendering didn’t care either…

My own recomendation: RAID 5 with 3 or more HD’s.
partitions:

C: Boot – 64 gigs
D: Work – 2.5 TB or LARGER…
E: Libary 200 gig – audio / video / Fx .. etc…
F: BAckup or your Boot Drive – 45 gig’s

I like the backup partition, just incase I get a virus, or mess up my boot in some other way…This is all the safest way to handle footage and HD failure.

[Davd Keator]

I’d love to test it out. Might make grading my RED footage faster, I do not know why VEGAS skipped that option when they copied the SDK from RED so well…

David at Newportpictures dot TV

Thanx,
Dave

[Davd Keator]

Sounds like a codec issue from the default stuff that comes with Win7. Now ufortunately it’s not recomended to but FFDSHOW does have a good set. Many claim that it can adversely affect Vegas’s built in codecs. I have not seen this issue.

A simple test: Down load VLC player, it’s free and it’s codecs do not interfere with VEGAS. See if your vids play back better…

Either use that player or download the FFDSHOW set.

Good Luck.

[Davd Keator]

To put simply, the cheapest HD’s you want. Sony Vegas could care less which hard drives you have. I wrote an article on this forum, about render speeds, HD speeds, and video acceleration. I found that on average Sony vegas render only uses 2 – 7 mb/s…thats SLOW. Now of course that is at highest quality, Cineform 4k. Now if you are to render some low quality low bit rate, Sony AVC 512k Then your hard drive sppeds will hit 70 Megs a second.

Even Western Digitals Green peace line can handle that rate. Just consider most renders that you would use for a client do not excede 10 megs a second requirment.

Therefore: If heat is an issue just use a green line HD from Seagate0 or WD. If heat and saftey is a concern then use
3 or 4 (1 terrabyte hd’s) and a cheap RAID 5 card. Preferably with 512 megs of cache or more, but it’s not really important.

Avoid Hyperthreading, if you are running a I7 processor, it actually reduces performance by 25%

[Davd Keator]

That was the poupos of my long winded report. I tested all sorts of HD configurations. The ram Disk speed was astonishing… 850,000 I/O’s and 4.6 gigabytes persecond! Even if divided in half, or even fourths, it’s still faster than any other HD storage method out there.

Upon more thinking I don’t even see the GTX 480 making a dent in performance. In my testing the GTS 250 didn’t get passed 5% load, and 4mb into the card at a time. I used a program called GPU observer for that test, and all core cpu gadget. They both work well. So even 112 cores vs 480, only if the GPU hit 30% or more would it make sence to upgrade

Sony Vegas just has a slow rendering core cruncher…However, I truely beleive it’s better than anyone elses at the moment.

[Davd Keator]

Perhaps, Sony’s marketing does say may speed up on slo-mo computers. However, transcoding using ATI’s stream processing is a noticable speed increase even compaired to that of my 980x! I think Sony backed the wrong boat, why not just use OPEN GL / CL…Cuda not so impressive…And Nvida cards can do Open GL acceleration as well…Adobe after effects uses GL acceleration for years now and supports both card manufacterers.

But then Nvidia has been behind for years.
Perhaps they paid off Vegas…

Things that make you go hmmm…