P
PapaJohn
In Windows XP, a movie project can get too complex for the computer's memory
to handle when publishing the movie. Movie Maker in Vista is completely
different under the hood. If more memory is needed, it uses part of the hard
drive.
My first test was a movie of 8 hrs, 22 minutes... all video clips...
rendering a movie takes time... 18-1/2 hours later I had a 4.1+ GB wmv file
that was complete and played fine.
Sometimes a super slide-show is harder to render than a long string of video
clips. My second test was a 5-1/4 hour show that used 5,000 7-megapixel JPG
files from our recent vacation, a transition between each, and music
provided by 64 MP3 music tracks. Publishing to Vista's option for DVD
quality took 10-1/2 hours of rendering, and it produced a great looking and
sounding 2.4 GB WMV movie file.
to handle when publishing the movie. Movie Maker in Vista is completely
different under the hood. If more memory is needed, it uses part of the hard
drive.
My first test was a movie of 8 hrs, 22 minutes... all video clips...
rendering a movie takes time... 18-1/2 hours later I had a 4.1+ GB wmv file
that was complete and played fine.
Sometimes a super slide-show is harder to render than a long string of video
clips. My second test was a 5-1/4 hour show that used 5,000 7-megapixel JPG
files from our recent vacation, a transition between each, and music
provided by 64 MP3 music tracks. Publishing to Vista's option for DVD
quality took 10-1/2 hours of rendering, and it produced a great looking and
sounding 2.4 GB WMV movie file.