[Tiffany Klaus]

Okay. I got it. Sorry for sounding redundant. I just wanted to know all of options.

Anyways, thank you so much for your help, John. Your answers to my questions were really insightful and useful. You helped me dramatically improve the quality of my video. Also, thank you for the quick, simple, coherent, and concise responses. I truly learned a lot more about Sony Vegas from this thread. Thank you.

[Tiffany Klaus]

[John Rofrano] “[Tiffany Klaus] “Was rendering using OpenCL and also increasing the bitrate a good idea?”
I always rendering using OpenCL. It’s a lot faster as you have seen. As for the bit-rate, this is what determines your file size as well as quality. As long as you are OK with a larger file size then using a higher bit-rate will never hurt. Raising it from 12Mbps to 14Mbps isn’t going to show that much of a difference if at all. Where you will see more of a difference is at the lower bit rates. For example, going from 2Mbps to 4Mbps is doubling the bit rate and will usually have a dramatic increase in quality. You would need to go from 12Mbps to 24Mbps to double your bit rate. Even then at some point it will not look any better because it doesn’t need more bits. The trick is to find the point at which it has just enough bits to look good. That’s the balancing point between quality and file size.”

Are you talking about the max or avg bitrate?

Also, is there a way, if any, to make my video look exactly the same or very similar to my project? I just want to try to make it look very close to the project because the video is a bit too bright for me.

[Tiffany Klaus]

[Tiffany Klaus]

I recently rendered my video with the encode mode: Render using OpenCL if available. Surprisingly, it took about half of the day or even less than that compared to Render using CPU only, which almost took the whole day (22 hours). Everything was rendered out with no blackout parts and it turned out great on the vlc player. It was just slightly brighter than my project but all of the effects were there. I then rendered it again, but this time with the max bps being 28 mln and avg bps being 14 mln compared to the previous bitrate, which was 24 mln for the max bps and 12 mln for the avg bps. I did this because I believe I remember reading it somewhere on this forum that it would make my video have better quality. It turned out to kind of looked the same. Was rendering using OpenCL and also increasing the bitrate a good idea?

Also, how can you tell if your processor is soldered in or not? I have a toshiba satellite c55d-a with AMD A4-5000 APU with Radeon HD graphics 1.50 ghz. I was recently looking into the amd fx 8350 because I read online it was good for video editing and it was overall just a lot faster than the processor I have now and I was wondering if that would be compatible and how would I know (since I can’t use intel without changing the whole motherboard)?

[Tiffany Klaus]

[John Rofrano] “As Stewart has pointed out, you can’t upgrade the processor on a laptop. The questions is, does it have to be a laptop or can you use a desktop? You will get a lot more computer for your money by buying a desktop computer.
“

I’m already using this laptop. I don’t know about getting a new desktop. I, however, told my dad about the problem with my laptop and he did bring up that getting a new laptop is a possibility. Then again, I don’t know if I want to spend a lot more money on a new pc. I already spent a lot of money on a lot other things. I guess I will try just try to figure something out myself.

[Tiffany Klaus]

[John Rofrano] “That’s you’re problem right there! Your processor is woefully underpowered for video work and doesn’t even meet Sony’s minimum specs. Sony recommends 2.0Ghz and you only have 1.5Ghz. Also the AMD’s are horrible for video rendering. Even the 8-core AMD is considerably slower than the 6-core Intels. You want Intel processors for video work.

Take a look at this Passmark Score for your processor compared to the Intel Core i7’s you should be using. Your processor scored 1,911 while the slowest Intel was 8,299 (over 4 times faster) and the Core i7-3930K that I use is 12,153 (which is over 6 times faster. So your 22 hr render would take about 3.75 hrs on my computer.

Now you know why it’s taking so long.
“

Oh, I see. Now I really regret getting this computer that I’m using. I constantly have to upgrade it. First, with RAM (initially it had 4 GB and now it has 12 GB) and now with the processor. If I knew better, I would have gotten a better computer for video editing than this toshiba satellite laptop. Would you recommend any other processor besides the Core i7 that is reasonably fast too and is also fairly priced? I checked for the price of the Core i7 that you have and boy was it expensive for me. haha. I know this might sound really silly but can I add in a another processor to the one I currently have or do I have to completely replace the one I have with another one that will be better for computer?

[Tiffany Klaus]

[John Rofrano] “It depends on a lot of things. How powerful is your computer? You should have at least a Core i7 2.8Ghz w/8GB of memory on a 64-bit OS like Windows 7.
“

My Computer System:
-AMD A4-5000 APU with Radeon HD graphics (4 CPUs) 1.50 GHz
-12 GB (11.5 GB usable) of RAM
-Windows 8 64-bit
-Graphics Memory- 6144 MB
-Video Memory- 512 MB

I am using Vegas pro 12 and its requirements are:
– A 2 GHz processor (multicore or multiprocessor CPU recommended for HD or stereoscopic 3D)
-500 MB of disk space
-4 GB of ram (8 GB recommended)
– 512 MB GPU Memory

[Tiffany Klaus]

I downloaded VLC player and watched my video with it. It looked great. I’m planning to render the video again so it won’t have the blackout parts.

Is it normal for a 3 minute and 30 second video with f(x) and best rendering quality to take 22 hours to render? I set my computer to a “high” priority and “render with cpu” in vegas and thought it might render faster.

[Tiffany Klaus]

[John Rofrano] “Yea, that’s really odd. Do you have GPU Acceleration turned on? Look under Options | Preferences | Video and turn GPU Acceleration to OFF. Then render a small section by making a loop region on the timeline and when you render, check the box that says, Render Loop Region Only. See if that looks closer to what you want.

As for rendering black. I’ve had it happen to me. It’s a nasty bug. Sometimes I have to render to a different format like Sony MXF, and then render that in a new project to MP4 to get it to work.
“

I just turned GPU Acceleration OFF then restarted my computer because it said so. Then rendered a small section and it still looks the same. Still very fuzzy.

[Tiffany Klaus]

[John Rofrano] “What format did you render to? I’m surprised the video didn’t look exactly like the Best(Full) preview.

BTW, you should be judging the quality by dropping the rendered video back onto the timeline above the existing project and toggle the track on and off to compare what you see. Looking at it in a media player gives the media player a chance to change the look.

~jr”

I placed my rendered video above my project in the timeline like you said. I wasn’t sure what you really meant by “toggle the track on and off” but I did go ahead and just compare the rendered video to my project in preview(auto) and best(full). I took screenshots. haha

Project:

Preview(Auto)

Best(Full)

Rendered Video:

Preview(Auto)

Best(Full)

My rendered video looked really good on my timeline but completely different with the media player. From my timeline, I thought it looked good in preview(auto) and best(full). It even looked good in preview(half).

I’m also not sure what you mean by “Looking at it in a media player gives the media player a chance to change the look.” How do I do that? Sorry for my ignorance. I’m not the best with Sony Vegas.