Well, as I wrap up this Motocross promo I have a better understanding of how PrP works. This piece had lots of everything...animated multiple split screens, AE flying cameras in "3D" environments. sizing, color correction, speed triggers and various combinations of the previous. PrP seems to differ greatly from FCP in the way it previews then exports. The preview process was using MPG I frames so it was quick and the Nvidia 4000 did a lot of the work. But the "dirty secret" with PrP seems to be how long it takes to export things at full resolution (Prores master in this case). My promo was 1 minute and it took about 8 minutes to export it. My system is optimized and on simple cuts only projects flys when exporting. But it seems with effects pieces the time you save on the front end (previewing as you create) is compensated with long export times. I am OK with this, but had my first taste of the "long export" situation that others have mentioned in posts on forums.
If you export through Adobe Media Encoder, you lose GPU acceleration. That comes only with a direct Export.
Second, if you preview using a lossless codec, you can use those previews in the export and save a LOT of time, without losing any quality from the preview process.
Jim, I always use export so I can take advantage of the GPU. I will test out using a loseless codec, but my instincts tell me that will slow down any renders that are necessary during the creative process. This might just be a case of "pay now or pay later".
Jeffrey, Im not sure if the question was addressed to me, but I can answer the first part. If you create a new sequence and make a Custom one you have the option at the bottom of the sequence creation screen to select the preview codec.
"If you export through Adobe Media Encoder, you lose GPU acceleration. That comes only with a direct Export."
Jim, are you postive about this? Because I thought I've observed CUDA being used by Media Encoder, I thought Media encoder was just a headless Premiere Pro instance when using Premiere pro sequence and it used whatever premiere pro would use.
Todd Kopriva - "If you use the Export command in Premiere Pro, then the rendering phase can take advantage of CUDA (GPU) processing. If, however, you use the Queue command, then the rendering will be done entirely on the CPU."
The one area that may lead to confusion is the final scale from sequence size to output size is in some cases not accelerated for queued exports while it always is for direct exports. With this exception the rest of the render for export will be accelerated and we are working on resolving this last issue.
Joe, the reason that I was surprised with your statement that the queued AME job would not use GPU is that I observed, actually observed different behavior that led me to believe that the GPU was used in AME.
I use Digital Anarchy's Beauty Box, I like it a lot, but it is slow. For CS5 and up they enhanced it to use the GPU, there is a little checkbox in the plugin's interface that allows you to use GPU or not. With GPU on it was about 5-10 times faster than just CPU. However, with it checked, it caused my Mac to be hard to use when it was rendering (either generating a preview or exporting) because the mouse became unresponsive, like somehow using the GPU in this plugin stole cycles away from the system that monitors the mouse position. I would move it, and nothing happened, then it would jump to another position. If I moved the mouse really slowly I could control it.
Anyway, when I had GPU setting checked in Beauty box, even with AME queued sequences the render went a lot faster. I could see it going fast in the AME preview window with GPU on. I also experienced the jumpy mouse problem. With GPU off it was really slow but no jumpy mouse. Maybe plugins go around Premiere's native use of the GPU, not sure. But I was pretty sure CUDA GPU is used in AME.
So maybe this should be clarified again, I've always heard and thought that AME used GPU, this is in some Adobe marketing demos as well.
I don't think this is a GPU issue at all. When you say you have "an after effects heavy project" do you mean you are dynamically linking to AE? If so then you are having a CORE issue. When you render in premiere you lose the multiple frame rendering capability of after effects. For us we have 8 cores in all 8 of our editors and when we link AE into premiere it takes forever to render as our cores are sitting unused. If we render directly in AE we can max out all 8 cores.
There are just 2 - 5 second AE segments that are dynamically linked in my 1 min PrP timeline. The rest of the Premiere Pro 1 min. timeline has lots of everything. This includes animated multiple split screens, scaling, color correction, Trapcode Rays, Trapcode Starfilter, speed triggers, dual layers to fill out SD footage to HD screen size and various combinations of the previous.
So the 2 AE dynaically linked stuff probably is part of the 8:1 export time ratio I am experiencing.
queued sequence exports with accelerated effects will [use GPU acceleration]
Well how about that! I loaded up a 1 minute clip with several accelerated effects, and queued the sequence in AME. Sure enough, with MPE off it took about 1:20 to export, with MPE on it took about :20 to export.
Soooo...did Todd get it wrong? Did we misunderstand what he meant? Waz up wit dat?
> Soooo...did Todd get it wrong? Did we misunderstand what he meant? Waz up wit dat?
I just sent Steve a message to ask the same thing.
I'm going to spend some time this week writing up the definitive details.This comes up a lot, and there's clearly a lot of confusion. And, if I added to the confusion, it's especially my responsibility to fix it.
(Hint: If Steve and I disagree on a technical detail about Premiere Pro or AME, Steve's probably the one who's correct.)