Project load times long

[jparnold]

Since upgrading from VS8 to VS9 I have noticed that when I load an existing project there is a much longer delay reading the project and associated files than when using VS8.
I thought at first it was due to some small incompatibility problem between project created on VS8 when loaded using VS9 but I have also noticed that projects created with VS9 still take longer to load (note that these projects were orginally created with VS8 and then simply SAVED in VS9 without doing anything).
While the project is loading each video clip file name is displayed for short periods.

Could this be because each clip in the project (video, stills and sound) are NOT in the respective libraries?

If not what is VS9 doing to make the loading process so long?

Lastly does anyone know what features may be missing in the version of COOL 3D on VS9 disk 2?

John

[Ken Berry]

I can't answer you first question specifically. All I can say is that, while quite liking it, I nonetheless found VS9 generally a bit slow in its reaction time. This started from its load up time when you first opened it (which I found rather unconscionable and longer than Adobe Premiere Pro, which also takes a fair while to load). And I also found that opening files took longer than in VS8. I can't specifically remember opening times for projects, and I never opened a VS8 project in VS9, so cannot comment on this.

As for Cool 3D, I think it is just missing some of the selection of motions and other presets (eg text motion, tool motion). But you still get a good collection. In fact, I first used Cool 3D which came with VS7. I quite liked it and still do, but I quickly bought Cool 3D Production Studio. In some respects, though, I think Cool 3D did as good a job, and it beats Production Studio hands down in terms of rendering times (which are long in either case for what are after all titles or sequences which are usually only a few seconds long).

[jparnold]

Thanks Ken,
It seems that every major upgrade to VS results in slower execution times and the need to upgrade one's PC but that is also the case with lots of other software.
I am running a Pentium 4 2.4Ghz with 1 Gb RAM but I get frustrated at times with how long it takes VS to do things especially with large projects (heaps of video and audio clips, transitions, etc). For example when I have a video clip in the timeline 'selected' and then click on an overlay clip or audio clip it sometimes takes 2 or 3 seconds before the selected clip is highlighted (and is selected). Also after modifying something in the timeline (clip length etc) and then select the JOG SLIDER to manually pull it to the right to view the result (or select the jog slider and then click on 'play' to view the result). All these actions take what seems to be an eternity.
I have read that VS is 'resource hungry' and therefore you should buy the fastest PC which you can afford but would I see a marked improvement by upgrading from say a Pentium 4 2.4Ghz to one 3.0Ghz or faster? Basic arithmetic tells me that a 3Ghz would only run 25% faster than a 2.4Ghz and therefore I would still be frustrated (but less so).
John

[Ken Berry]

I suddenly realise that I did not fully answer your original question in my earlier post -- though I had intended to. In saying that VS9 was generally slow, I had meant to add that by contrast VS10+ is remarkably quicker. Others have noticed the same thing. Don't know what they did, but it is very noticeable, even on start-up. Perhaps input from Ulead's new partner/owner InterVideo, helped in this regard...

As for VS being resource hungry, I would have to ask in response -- "What video editing program is not?" Video editing generally is a very demanding process and requires a lot of both human endurance and computer resources. So I would certainly not single out VS for this. I also use very regularly Adobe Premiere Pro (and occasionally CyberLink Power Director 5), and both are equally demanding of computer resources. Nature of the beast I am afraid.

It thus stands to reason that the better the computer (in the sense of resources), the 'easier' the job of video editing is likely to be. I am not sure, though, that you can apply a slide scale which says having 25% more resources will 'only' give me 25% better results. You will certainly get better rendering times, but other aspects of the editing process will still take exactly the same time they currently do... And this includes the actual burning process itself which depends on the burn speed selected, not the power of the computer. I have an LG 16x dual layer burner, believe it or not, connected to an old clunker P2 600 MHz, and it burns a DVD in exactly the same time, to the second, that my best computer P4 3.0 with HT, 2 HB RAM etc, using an equivalent Pioneer burner, does.

[sjj1805]

You could try creating a Video Editing Profile to speed things up.

[jparnold]

Thanks Ken and Steve,
I'm not concerned at all how long a movie takes to render as I usually do rendering when I am in bed asleep (start it just before retiring) and so I couldn't care if it took 6 hours or more to render.

What annoys me (maybe I didn't explain properly) is the DELAYS when EDITING.

For example when (for example) a video clip is selected in the time line view and then I want to adjust say an overlay clip (or an audio clip). I select the clip (left mouse click on it) and there is a real delay before VS actually selects (highlights) it. The actual editing process of changing the clip I want selected takes a couple of seconds which in itself doesn't sound long but when I have an idea in my head which involves a few changes the delays can cause me to forget what I was thinking.
This is more frustrating when after a change I want to view the result of the changes and select (click on) the JOG SLIDER to drag it there is a real delay before it is selected.

Is VS10 faster in this respect?

I used to run VS6 on a Pentium III 400Mhz and can't remember these frustrations.

I am not sure what does and what doesn't improve a systems overall speed. I once read that increasing RAM can speed things up and so I did 512Mb to 1Gb but didn't see any noticeable improvement.

Thanks again
John