18 replies to this topic

[Doctor Who]

Over the weekend I purchased my first DVD burner.  I wasn't happy with the included software, so two days ago I purchased Roxio's Easy Media Creator 9.  I Saturday I also purchased 30 DVD-R disks at Sam's Club.

I was very excited, after purchasing EMC 9, that I wanted to burn some videos that I had to the DVD.  They are in 6 .WMV files and 1 .AVI file.  The total size of all 7 files is 276 MB, which of course is much smaller than the 4.7 GB DVD-R.

Since this is the first time I've ever done anything like this, I had the manual that came with EMC, and was trying to figure out how to do it.  After experimenting with it I finally got the process going at about 7 PM.

It did not finish until 11 PM!  That is way too long, I think.  

This leads me to think that I did something wrong in the setup of when I burned it.  Of course, being a newbie at this, I choose all of the defaults.  What could I have done wrong, to make it burn so slow?  Or is that just the way it is?  Does it take 4 hours to burn 276 MB to a DVD-R disk?

[Beerman]

Doctor Who, on Oct 11 2006, 08:38 PM, said:

Over the weekend I purchased my first DVD burner.  I wasn't happy with the included software, so two days ago I purchased Roxio's Easy Media Creator 9.  I Saturday I also purchased 30 DVD-R disks at Sam's Club.

I was very excited, after purchasing EMC 9, that I wanted to burn some videos that I had to the DVD.  They are in 6 .WMV files and 1 .AVI file.  The total size of all 7 files is 276 MB, which of course is much smaller than the 4.7 GB DVD-R.

Since this is the first time I've ever done anything like this, I had the manual that came with EMC, and was trying to figure out how to do it.  After experimenting with it I finally got the process going at about 7 PM.

It did not finish until 11 PM!  That is way too long, I think.  

This leads me to think that I did something wrong in the setup of when I burned it.  Of course, being a newbie at this, I choose all of the defaults.  What could I have done wrong, to make it burn so slow?  Or is that just the way it is?  Does it take 4 hours to burn 276 MB to a DVD-R disk?

You don't mention computer specs which would be helpful.  But, all your files are not dvd compliant and need to be made so.  Doing that takes processing power AND time.

[ggrussell]

Doctor Who, on Oct 11 2006, 09:38 PM, said:

The total size of all 7 files is 276 MB, which of course is much smaller ........  Does it take 4 hours to burn 276 MB to a DVD-R disk?

Since you are new to editing, I HIGHLY suggest you do some reading on the net on how all this works.  Making statements like these only shows your inexperience.  If you had taken any time to peruse this forum, you would have found that SIZE means nothing in video editing especially when trying to burn NON-compliant video DVD files like WMV and AVI (which mostly likely are DivX or Xvid from the net).

To read up on understanding digital video editing and burning, you can start at www.videohelp.com. Great site with tons of articles and their own help forum.

As answered above, the files you have chosen are not video DVD compliant and must be converted.  It's this conversion process that takes time and lots of CPU power. The slower your CPU, the longer it will take. WMV, DivX and Xvid are much more compressed than MPEG2 which is required for video DVD.  This will cause the files to be much LARGER, too. How much more will depend on the project quality setting.

Edited by ggrussell, 11 October 2006 - 07:57 PM.

[Doctor Who]

ggrussell, on Oct 11 2006, 09:56 PM, said:

Since you are new to editing, I HIGHLY suggest you do some reading on the net on how all this works. Making statements like these only shows your inexperience. If you had taken any time to peruse this forum, you would have found that SIZE means nothing in video editing especially when trying to burn NON-compliant video DVD files like WMV and AVI (which mostly likely are DivX or Xvid from the net).

To read up on understanding digital video editing and burning, you can start at www.videohelp.com. Great site with tons of articles and their own help forum.

As answered above, the files you have chosen are not video DVD compliant and must be converted. It's this conversion process that takes time and lots of CPU power. The slower your CPU, the longer it will take. WMV, DivX and Xvid are much more compressed than MPEG2 which is required for video DVD. This will cause the files to be much LARGER, too. How much more will depend on the project quality setting.

I had thought that this forum was the place to seek information on how to learn how to make DVD videos using EMC 9.  But if it isn't the place to learn how to make video DVD creation using EMC 9, then OK, fine.  Thank you very much for directing me to video help, I will go there instead.  I do have to ask, though, what should I use this forum for, if not for learning?

Beerman, on Oct 11 2006, 07:43 PM, said:

You don't mention computer specs which would be helpful. But, all your files are not dvd compliant and need to be made so. Doing that takes processing power AND time.

The PC I am using EMC 9 on, has 1 GB of RAM, with a 3.0 GHz CPU.

[ggrussell]

Doctor Who, on Oct 12 2006, 08:52 PM, said:

I do have to ask, though, what should I use this forum for, if not for learning?

Don't read more into my statement that isn't there. The questions I highlighted do not directly relate to EMC, but are more general.  To understand how EMC works, you need to know more about how digital video works - in general. And No... I do not think that is within the scope of this forum.

[cdanteek]

Quote

The PC I am using EMC 9 on, has 1 GB of RAM, with a 3.0 GHz CPU.

That seems to be a sufficient system for V9. Is it a Laptop or pc? Do you have a onboard video chip or a video card?

Quote

But if it isn't the place to learn how to make video DVD creation using EMC 9, then OK, fine.

Quote

And No... I do not think that is within the scope of this forum.

Doctor who,
That is one persons opinion, on a public forum. Many come here with little or no knowledge of the software after there purchase.

IMO, you spent your money on there software. All of the people here started where you are at one point in time. The same info has been asked and answered here before.
Don't take one persons opinion to hard!

If you have questions ask. Here or in general chat, I think would be fine.

cdanteek

[d_deweywright]

Doctor Who, on Oct 12 2006, 08:52 PM, said:

I had thought that this forum was the place to seek information on how to learn how to make DVD videos using EMC 9.  But if it isn't the place to learn how to make video DVD creation using EMC 9, then OK, fine.  Thank you very much for directing me to video help, I will go there instead.  I do have to ask, though, what should I use this forum for, if not for learning?

The PC I am using EMC 9 on, has 1 GB of RAM, with a 3.0 GHz CPU.

This is a forum for information on using EMC 9.  Along with that information, you'll get information pertinant to the project you're working on.  Your original question regarded the length of time it takes to burn a DVD disc.  To be specific, it should take a minute or two to burn your 267MB files to a DVD as a Data DVD disc.  You received more information stating that to make your Video DVD disc, the files had to be converted, which takes a lot of time and CPU power.  So, you received an answer, and some information on burning DVD videos.  

You didn't ask any other questions on how to use EMC 9, so there was nothing else to answer, but you were also offered a site to read up on more general video DVD information.  When you have questions about how to use the applications in EMC 9 to do a specific job, please ask here.  The folks that hang out here are fellow users like yourself, not Roxio/Sonic employees.  For the most part we only ask you to help yourself as much as possible, and then help us help you by providing details.

Hope that helps clear things up!

[Doctor Who]

I failed to mention that I only have an on-board video card.  May that also contribute to the speed at which EMC 9 would burn to a DVD?   Would a separate video card with at least 256 MB of dedicated RAM have helped, or is that purely a function of the CPU and RAM on the motherboard?

[cdanteek]

Quote

Would a separate video card with at least 256 MB of dedicated RAM have helped

Stand alone video cards do help. They off load some work to the ram on the video card. How much it will help depends on the overall system.
How many hard drives do you have?

cdanteek

[d_deweywright]

Doctor Who, on Oct 13 2006, 08:59 PM, said:

I failed to mention that I only have an on-board video card.  May that also contribute to the speed at which EMC 9 would burn to a DVD?   Would a separate video card with at least 256 MB of dedicated RAM have helped, or is that purely a function of the CPU and RAM on the motherboard?

A better video card could help, though a fast processor with plenty of RAM should make the actual rendering time about equivalent, though you'll get more transition options (the 3D ones) if you have it set to hardware rendering.

Again, the actual time to "burn" your DVD is only a small fraction of the time required to do the rendering to DVD compliant video.  If you had everything in a ready-to-burn .ISO file, then a 1 hour video, at 4X speed, would be done in about 15 minutes.  It's the rendering, not the burning that takes so much time.

[grandpabruce]

d_deweywright, on Oct 13 2006, 08:25 PM, said:

A better video card could help, though a fast processor with plenty of RAM should make the actual rendering time about equivalent, though you'll get more transition options (the 3D ones) if you have it set to hardware rendering.

Again, the actual time to "burn" your DVD is only a small fraction of the time required to do the rendering to DVD compliant video.  If you had everything in a ready-to-burn .ISO file, then a 1 hour video, at 4X speed, would be done in about 15 minutes.  It's the rendering, not the burning that takes so much time.

And rendering is CPU intensive, not RAM intensive.

[cdanteek]

Quote

And rendering is CPU intensive, not RAM intensive.

I said, a good video card will off load some work of the video encoding to the gpu! Does Roxio not have Software and Hardware  encoding setting? I never said it was not cpu intensive. The OP has "1 GB of RAM, with a 3.0 GHz CPU" that is well above the requirements for EMC9.
Bruce, pull a stick of Ram out and tell me how it goes! If the encoding time is equal I will concede! I do assume that is why you built the box with 2gb of Ram! If it was not a big deal 512 or 1gb would of been sufficient, right?

cdanteek

[james_hardin]

I did not keep any of the numbers as there was no significant change in render time… But I did try rendering with 512mb, 1gb & 1.5gb – no significant change in time!

If you track RAM use during rendering it is about 300mb regardless of the RAM installed.

[grandpabruce]

cdanteek, on Oct 13 2006, 11:16 PM, said:

I said, a good video card will off load some work of the video encoding to the gpu! Does Roxio not have Software and Hardware  encoding setting? I never said it was not cpu intensive. The OP has "1 GB of RAM, with a 3.0 GHz CPU" that is well above the requirements for EMC9.
Bruce, pull a stick of Ram out and tell me how it goes! If the encoding time is equal I will concede! I do assume that is why you built the box with 2gb of Ram! If it was not a big deal 512 or 1gb would of been sufficient, right?

cdanteek

I did not put 2GB of RAM in for encoding, because it would not help how much I put in.  The CPU is what is used when you encode, NOT RAM.

The RAM is for my business programs, and the actual video editing in EMC 9 (along with a good video card).

[ggrussell]

cdanteek, on Oct 14 2006, 12:16 AM, said:

I said, a good video card will off load some work of the video encoding to the gpu.

True, but only for certain 3D transitions and effects.  Videowave/MyDVD then uses the CPU for the rest of the rendering.

I think the poster is getting great results for an Athlon 3000+.  That's what I had in my last machine and most rendering was taking about 3 to 4 hr per one hour video.  Even with my new Dual Core Intel 3Ghz, one hour video still takes almost 2 hours to render and that's will little or no editing.

[cdanteek]

grandpabruce, on Oct 14 2006, 08:03 AM, said:

I did not put 2GB of RAM in for encoding, because it would not help how much I put in.  The CPU is what is used when you encode, NOT RAM.

The RAM is for my business programs, and the actual video editing in EMC 9 (along with a good video card).

Cpu, single core, hyperthreader, dual core, and core 2 duo. The larger the Processor and more cores with larger L2 cache the better. A software application that uses both cores, some don't! Ram, FSB, (bandwidth) and a good video card. Plus fast HD's sata over IDE,  better that the source file is on another drive than the target, and never on the os drive. All contribute to faster video encoding.  So I respectively disagree, that it is all cpu.

I will concede, Bruce! If you say it would not help how much I put in, I can live with that.

cdanteek

[ggrussell]

cdanteek, on Oct 14 2006, 10:21 PM, said:

A software application that uses both cores, some don't!

Seems like most don't. Just like 64bit, most software is not yet optimized for dual core.  In fact, most software doesn't even take advantage of hyperthreading which has been around for a long time.  The only video editor that I own that is optimized for dual core/hyperthreading is Premiere Elements. Unfortunately, I really dislike their interface and its way to complex to use.

[shigh]

ggrussell, on Oct 15 2006, 06:30 AM, said:

Seems like most don't. Just like 64bit, most software is not yet optimized for dual core.  In fact, most software doesn't even take advantage of hyperthreading which has been around for a long time.  The only video editor that I own that is optimized for dual core/hyperthreading is Premiere Elements. Unfortunately, I really dislike their interface and its way to complex to use.

why does it take you guys so long to render. i have a intel pentium 4 3.2 ghz and 1 gig of ram and my machine renders a 1 hour video in about 20 minutes. i do  use a dedicated sata hard drive for video. and my video card has 256 meg of ram. i was just wondering why it took you 2 hours to render. thanks

[ggrussell]

I would say that most likely you are using MPEG files which usually are NOT re-rendered if they are already DVD compliant.  20min sounds about right for 1 hour in that case. Render time can also be affected by editing. Adding transitions, overlays, special affects and extra audio will slow down rendering.   If you were using all 32 tracks at once, it would really slow down.  Very CPU intensive.