Render Duration Factors...

[STUDIO32MID]

Hello i figured i will throw this question out there for the more experienced to address.

With rendering time in premiere pro what accounts for the duration and in order of most influence. Now i know that Sony Vegas seems to render faster than Ppro - now what accounts for that advantage?

With the introduction of the mercury accelerated card thing -Ppro has improved considerably but still seems slow when you have lots of effects thrown in ie. neat video, color correction, and most certainly the footage duration, etc.

So i was wondering what really will get this process lightning fast - will it be a graphics card with more than 2gb, or a quad/six core CPU with 4.0ghz or a c drive that is less than 10% used and perhaps even an SSD (solid state drive?) Or a system with memory (RAM) of 16gb and more?

What will it take to blitz thr-o----u---g ---h?

[Krane]

Hello i figured i will throw this question out there for the more experienced to address.

With rendering time in premiere pro what accounts for the duration and in order of most influence. Now i know that Sony Vegas seems to render faster than Ppro - now what accounts for that advantage?

With the introduction of the mercury accelerated card thing -Ppro has improved considerably but still seems slow when you have lots of effects thrown in ie. neat video, color correction, and most certainly the footage duration, etc.

So i was wondering what really will get this process lightning fast - will it be a graphics card with more than 2gb, or a quad/six core CPU with 4.0ghz or a c drive that is less than 10% used and perhaps even an SSD (solid state drive?) Or a system with memory (RAM) of 16gb and more?

What will it take to blitz thr-o----u---g ---h?

Not laying on a bunch of oddball effect?

Seriously, to answer your question, the GPU is the single most important item in speeding up your render times. Especially if you video is laden with layer of effects.

Essentially its the CPU that plays the video, while the GPU handles the effects.


BTW, advancing CPU speed is so yesterday.

[STUDIO32MID]

hello Krane, thanks for the input but didnt quite catch the last part about advancing cpu speed being so yesterday.Could you shed some more light please.

Not laying on a bunch of oddball effect?

Seriously, to answer your question, the GPU is the single most important item in speeding up your render times. Especially if you video is laden with layer of effects.

Essentially its the CPU that plays the video, while the GPU handles the effects.


BTW, advancing CPU speed is so yesterday.

[vince]

For Premiere Pro, only using effects that are optimized for CUDA is the biggest difference. If you have to use other effects, the CPU becomes more important. Optimal hard drive through put can be the next most important variable depending on the codec that is used. After that, gains in speed are minor. You can compare computers that have run a benchmark test using PPBM5 and see the differences.

[Krane]

hello Krane, thanks for the input but didnt quite catch the last part about advancing cpu speed being so yesterday.Could you shed some more light please.

Simply put cores are more important in editing than CPU speed. In other words, a 2.0 Ghz quad core i7 CPU will net better results than its 3.3Mhz dual core variety. That is, provided the software is optimized for multi core operation--which all recent editing software is.

My point was simply not to put all your focus just in getting the CPU with the highest clock speed. Nowadays, theres a lot more to it than that.

[Dr. Benway]

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/878520

I can't find it now but I saw a page on which some guy was recommending, and these are separate physical disks:

'C' Drive - OS and Applications
'D' Drive - source files (video capture drive)
'E' Drive - scratch disks and 'render to'/ 'export to' drive

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/662972

[STUDIO32MID]

Yes Dr Benway i think i saw that also when others listed their workstation workflow etc. Personally i have also noticed how the scratch disk takes lots of room and thus having its own disk is a great idea. Certainly a faster C dedicated solely to applications helps.

On the whole Krane i get your point, but with all these 'other things' on say two machines one with 4.0ghz quad and the other 2.3ghz duo, wouldnt the quad perform faster? I however heard and read that when the speed varies significantly in favour of the duo ie. 3.7ghz duo and 2.3ghz quad sometimes the duo comes out on top. Is that a similar phenomenon you referencing?

So in search for speed what are these things that we should look out for?

QUOTE=Dr. Benway;441685]http://forums.adobe.com/thread/878520

I can't find it now but I saw a page on which some guy was recommending, and these are separate physical disks:

'C' Drive - OS and Applications
'D' Drive - source files (video capture drive)
'E' Drive - scratch disks and 'render to'/ 'export to' drive

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/662972[/QUOTE]

[Daniel Rutter]

To be honest, I've used both Premiere and Sony Vegas. It might sound odd, but I generally use Premiere for Colour grading due to the fact that I can get my Magic Bullet software to work with Vegas.
I render out an AVI or M2t from Vegas, drop it into premiere and do my colour grading. I rendered a music video today from Vegas, it took about 8 minutes to render in 1920x1080 25mbps MPEG2. I dropped that into Premiere, did some light grading and then rendered it also to MPEG2 (same settings) and it took about 11-12 minutes to render.

Also, should mention that I'm using an i5 2500k, and a CUDA supported Graphics card. I know if I tried to render this video on my old machine (Core2Duo) I'd still be rendering now...

[STUDIO32MID]

Daniel does it make a difference if you render uncompressed avi instead of mpeg2? In terms of render time and image quality?

To be honest, I've used both Premiere and Sony Vegas. It might sound odd, but I generally use Premiere for Colour grading due to the fact that I can get my Magic Bullet software to work with Vegas.
I render out an AVI or M2t from Vegas, drop it into premiere and do my colour grading. I rendered a music video today from Vegas, it took about 8 minutes to render in 1920x1080 25mbps MPEG2. I dropped that into Premiere, did some light grading and then rendered it also to MPEG2 (same settings) and it took about 11-12 minutes to render.

Also, should mention that I'm using an i5 2500k, and a CUDA supported Graphics card. I know if I tried to render this video on my old machine (Core2Duo) I'd still be rendering now...

[STUDIO32MID]

Daniel just curious have you moved on to dslr? i just looked up your latest shoot bts on vimeo and i think i saw a dslr in there as well as hvxx set at av 25fps...etc ?

[Daniel Rutter]

I shoot with two HV30's and a GH1 (with a GH2 on the way).

As far as I know, the AVI is an uncompressed stream which gives you the highest quality file (at the expensive of file size). I use M2t files simply because file size and quality is nice. Probably just me sticking with what I know rather than moving to H.264 (which I don't really like as an archival format... I see artifacts on my renders).

[STUDIO32MID]

And are your hv30's naked ie. without lens/adapters? how o you usually light your shots?

Anyway back to the focus, so in your opinion you are faster now without the core2duo?

[Daniel Rutter]

And are your hv30's naked ie. without lens/adapters? how o you usually light your shots?

Yep, about the only thing that goes on the HV30's is a lens hood. Nothing else except the occasional wide angle lens. Most of the time I use whatever light is available, seeing as the only time I really put all three cameras into a multicam situation is if I do event work, such as live performances.