Skip navigation

Mercury, CUDA, and what it all means

Feb 22, 2013 6:11 AM

  Latest reply: Jim Simon, Jan 7, 2014 10:10 AM
Branched to a new discussion.
Replies 1 2 3 4 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2011 10:21 PM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Is that because Adobe simply hasnt tested this card?

     

    If that is the case, that's quite unfair....especially from Palit's perspective. And from mine too, as i have invested a lot of time and energy to find this card which seems economical and powerful at once; plus, i have tried others, here on the forum, in making my decision about that specific card.

     

    And while i do appreciate, am profoundly glad to discover this now, before actually buying the card, there's a great disappointment from Adobe's lack - they ought to be testing all cards for their software. In fact, I have submitted a request for this card to be tested, can you look into that?

     

    And BTW, have looked at your tutorial, find it great for someone like me - fully new to Premier and at once putting together a rig for it.

     

    thanks.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2011 10:25 PM   in reply to minimalcomfort

    Thanks for ur information.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 13, 2011 1:40 AM   in reply to minimalcomfort

    I think you have to consider Adobe's position here.

     

    They have limited resources and limited time to get a new (and very stable) new version out of the door. While it would be nice to have more video cards rated as being supported, that effort would mean that sorely needed resources would be diverted from other development tasks that are just as needed, before release of new versions. In a certain amount of time you can only do so much and then you have to take into consideration as well that we are not talking about just Premiere Pro, but about whole suites that have to be ready for release at the same date, Production or Master Collection Suite or any other suite and you can understand the need for prioritizing.

     

    Personally, I'm very happy with the back door solution of 'hacking' the text file. For one, it means that the limited resources are put to better use in adding functionality and improving performance and solving bugs/issues instead of testing each and every card available. Second, with a pretty active user community here and a number of very knowledgeable people around, including senior Adobe engineers, there are many resources to tell those, that may still lack the expertise, where possible pitfalls are in configuring a system. Lack of expertise is not meant in a derogatory way, that is where we all started. But with the practical experiences around and - not to applaud Bill or myself - a usable database of test results with more than 500 systems and over 83 different video cards used, there is enough information available to help others and free the limited resources to do some very useful work on new versions.

     

    Just my $ 0.02

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 13, 2011 2:14 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Hi Harm. Okay, i hear you; and i do appreciate your & Bill's presence in the forum, Scott's, RjL190365's and others' who have hlped me personally as you all have helped others.


    In fact, i shall turn to you momentarily with my new dilemma re video cards, because i dont feel enough confidence to hack video cards, at this young point of my "expertese", and because i doubt i'll be hearing from Adobe about testing the 560TI; and i have no doubt that i will be needing Adobe's help as much as yours, once my system is in place....


    And i am very thankful for Todd's help, in case i came out pissy in my previous response.

     

    So thank you all, because i absolutely relish this forum

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 13, 2011 4:28 AM   in reply to minimalcomfort

    I run a GTX 460 and it really is very easy to do the hack it's just a case of putting the model of your card in a text file. There's lots of help on the net I wouldn't be scared.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 13, 2011 7:37 AM   in reply to minimalcomfort

    i suggest you call these guys at ADK...they know their stuff, and

    would probably bid a system that is cheaper that what you will buy

    from

    most.

     

    Eric

    ADK

    859-635-5762

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 3, 2011 2:50 AM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Please I'd like to know if my card supporting CUDA feature?

     

    GV-N550OC-1G1 - NVIDIA GTX 550 Ti/PCI-E 2.0 - 1 GB GDDR5/192 bit - Dual-Link DVI-I/mini HDMI GEFORCE GigaByte.

     

    Thanks and much appreciated.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 3, 2011 4:17 AM   in reply to MGadAllah

    All NVidia cards support CUDA, but Adobe only supports a limited number of NVidia cards.  In particular, your GTX 550 is not supported by Adobe.

     

    At this point, your options are:

    1) Buy an NVidia card that Adobe supports http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/tech-specs.html

    2) Use the unsupported method to enable your current card http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/PremiereCS5.htm

     

    If you use the unsupported method above, and then have problems with CUDA, Adobe support probably won't help you resolve this.  But since there are many people using the unsupported method, there is a lot of information on the web to help resolve issues.  So odds are high you'll get it to work, but it might take you longer to resolve any issues.

     

    Bottom line: Using an Adobe supported graphics card is quicker and easier, but generally costs more money.

     

    Hope this helps

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 1, 2011 6:50 PM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Todd,

     

    you are writing that Mercury/CUDA won't speed up encoding.

     

    In a thread the Intel forum they claim the opposite: That Mercury/CUDA actually will speed up encoding.

     

    I'm confused now... What's true?

     

    I have just ordered a GTX 580 because encoding of AVCHD videos takes 1:1 on my Quad core machine (DG45ID with on-board graphics) and timeline playback is glitchy. I was hoping to speed up encoding significantly...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 1, 2011 7:06 PM   in reply to KlausKi

    With differing answers provided by an Adobe employee and an average Joe, I'd be inclined to go with the Adobe employee answer.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 1, 2011 7:46 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    @KlausKi:  if you watch the video in the link you refer to, the nVidia guy is using a different encoder plugin provided by nVidia (when he picks the accelerated H.264 encoder, he's picking something called ETI RapiHD from the dropdown list - that's the nvidia encoder plugin)  that is doing H.264 encoding via CUDA.

     

    How do you get it?  Apparently it's thrown in the pot as a sweetener incentive to purchase the Quadro CX, pulled from the nVidia website:

     

    "*Exclusive CUDA-based RapiHD Accelerator is developed by Elemental Technologies and only included with Quadro CX."

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2011 2:51 AM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Oh, OK, thanks guys...

     

     

    I have just read about a "hack" being available to use other CUDA cards in Adobe Premiere Pro. After I have been going a long way now, I must admit that I'm angry about this hoodwinker information policy by Adobe:

     

    In the Adobe forums and articles I read that CUDA is the thing to speed up processing in Premiere Pro. So two weeks ago I bought a passive GTS 450 to speed up rendering. Then, after installing, Premiere Pro plainly refused to accept my new CUDA card. It just didn't provide the CUDA rendering project option... After doing some research why this could possible happen, I find a note that Premiere Pro only uses CUDA with some "premiere selection" graphics cards in the Premiere Pro specs... OK, in order to get my new graphics card refunded I immediately returned the card, went to a computer shop and bought a graphics card from the list... a GTX 580, plus a brand new computer case and a new power supply. I spent € 700 on this... And NOW, I accidentally read that there is some "hack" available, enabling Adobe Premiere Pro to go with my previously bought, silent (passive) GTS 450? I just have to enter the graphic card's name into some plain text file??????

     

    I feel to have thrown € 700 out of the window just because some lazy programming team at Adobe decided to refer to some text file instead of sniffing the currently built-in graphics card's properties and decide dynamically whether to use CUDA for rendering - just like the GUPSniffer tool does that actually comes with Premiere Pro!

     

    The project setting's Mercury Playback drop-down box selection currently doesn't make any sense at all... Let's be honest: Who in the world, after having spent € 600 or more on a graphics card, would ever - EVER - select Software Rendering?? --- This drop-down menu only made sense if Premiere Pro would make an educated guess on the capabilities of the currently built-in graphics card and leave it to the user whether to try CUDA rendering if capability sniffing yielded a chance of successful CUDA rendering, or stick with software rendering if not.

     

    I feel frustrated and disappointed on Adobe's information policy regarding this whole rendering issue. I'm just a hobby user, using Premiere Pro just once and a while, e.g. after my vacations. I feel I have thrown € 700 out of the window for a noisy graphics card I never wanted to have, a computer case and a power-supply I don't actually need. Just because of a bloody text file....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Jon-M-Spear
    969 posts
    Jan 27, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2011 3:45 AM   in reply to KlausKi

    Feeling better now that's off your chest?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2011 4:24 AM   in reply to KlausKi

    I'm using the GTS450 and it works great.  Using the NVidia System Monitor tools, I've never seen the GPU go beyond 50% usage.  And that's with multiple HD video layers and multiple effects.

     

    However, I wouldn't call Adobe's support policy "lazy".  I'm sure it takes them a lot of time to test each type of graphics card with all of their software.  So I understand their policy, and for people who take the time to read Adobe's hardware requirements, there should be no surprise about which cards are supported.

     

    My issue is that Adobe only seems to support very high end graphics cards.  As I said, my GTS450 never seems to go beyond 50% usage, and that's a $100 card.  And as you mention, the higher end cards require larger power supplies and more cooling, so the whole system gets more expensive and has more fan noise.

     

    So that's why I decided to go with an unsupported graphics card.  I didn't want to spend hundreds of dollars more for a system that has the same performance and a lot more fan noise.  If Adobe chose to support just one mainstream graphics card, I would have bought that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2011 5:21 AM   in reply to KlausKi

    KlausKi said: "In a thread the Intel forum they claim the opposite: That Mercury/CUDA actually will speed up encoding."

     

    Remember that CUDA is a programming language, not a feature.  It may be possible to develop many features using CUDA, but it's not reasonable to expect one software company to do it all.  I think Adobe Premiere CS5.5 has done an excellent job implementing many features in CUDA, and I'm sure they'll add to the CUDA feature list as time goes on.

     

    As I understand it, at this point in time, Premiere Pro CS5.5 runs the video encoding and decoding in the CPU, and all the effects and multi-layer processing in the GPU.  This means adding effects is basically free, but when you render out to a complicated codec like H.264, the CPU will probably be the weak link.  Also if your footage uses a complicated codec like DSLRs, then the CPU will be stressed more in the Mercury Playback Engine, especially if you use a lot of layers.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2011 6:11 AM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    I believe that was the H.264 encoder provided by Elemental Technologies as part of the Quadro CX bundles.

     

    For those currently neding or wanting faster endcoding to H.264, check out the Matrox MAX technology available with their MXO2 I/O devices or as a stand alone PCIe card called COmpressHD

     

    http://www.videoguys.com/Guide/E/Videoguys+FAQ+Matrox+MXO2+Family+of+P roducts/0xed2e1ac833665213dad05e751614837f.aspx#mxo2-part2

     

    Gary

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2011 8:24 AM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Yes, I do feel better now, indeed.

     

    I was able to stop the shop from re-doing my machine and to cancel the order. I promised to buy the Sparkle GTS 450 and have them build it in again ...hoping that with the text file tweak it will perform better somehow in the end.

     

    But my post was not only about writing off my frustration. It contained some valid points of improvement suggestions:

     

    • Mercury CUDA benefits should be listed at one place. Clearly. Easy. Simple list. Which tasks will be improved - which won't.
      .
    • Hardware requirements should be loosened. Those who need a warranty on Mercury CUDA should be pointed to a list of tested hardware. All others should be able to try for themselves. -- I don't need a warranty from Adobe. Apparently others don't, either. Premiere Pro should query a graphic card's hardware properties and enable Mercury CUDA whenever it meets the minimum requirements. Leave the rest to your users.
      .
    • Speed up transcoding! (I have contacted BaDaBoom, ETI only delivers to industries. They have forwarded me to BaDaBoom for a fast CUDA transcoder for end-users. Hopefully it integrates with Premiere Pro so far.)

     

     

    Thanks, Dave and Gary, for sharing your experiences with me (and others).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2011 9:34 AM   in reply to KlausKi

    Who in the world, after having spent € 600 or more on a graphics card, would ever - EVER - select Software Rendering??

     

    I select it every now and then.  Sometimes the GPU acceleration doesn't give me the results I want in the image (it uses different processing techniques than software mode).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2011 12:00 PM   in reply to KlausKi

    @KlausKi:  for points 1 & 2, allow me to redirect you here:

     

    http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2011/02/cuda-mercury-playba ck-engine-and-adobe-premiere-pro.html

     

    That article explains everything about CUDA, what it does & doesn't do, why we have only certain cards approved, etc.  (In case you haven't noticed, that list of supported cards has been steadily increasing as we certify new ones.)

     

    For point 3, Mercury does already help accelerate the encoding somewhat (not in the compression itself, but as others pointed out, freeing up the CPU to concentrate on the encode feature by alleviating it of other things, such as transforms, filters, etc).  We have been requested by other users to try to accelerate H.264 compression itself via CUDA.    There's also another open feature request to accelerate rendering via 'smart' rendering, which is to skip recompressing MPEG GOPs when no filters/effects are present.  As always, if you feel strongly about a need for these (or any other features), please add your voice here:

     

    http://www.adobe.com/go/wish/

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2011 12:53 PM   in reply to Wil Renczes

    Wil, I would be ecstatic if "smart rendering" could be utilized on any sequence export from PrP. Add that capability to the ability to drop any clip on the timeline with no transcoding needed, and PrPs work flow would be accelerated to "light speed". It would do what Avid and Apple cant do and video professionals would gravitate even more to the product. (i.e. more sales). As it stands, export on graphics intensive or long form projects borders on the painfully slow (i.e hours)  .

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2011 1:17 PM   in reply to lasvideo

    @lasvideo: smart rendering is something that we've been asked a lot about, esp. lately by all the broadcasting partners we've been working with. Specifically, their interest lies in smart rendering from XDCAM HD sources, as they're all working with XDCAM 420 / 422 material (either camera captured OP1a MXF sources, or else material captured/ingested via Harmonic MediaDecks, Telestream, etc).  Let's just say that we're very actively looking into what we can do here.

     

    Keep in mind though that this isn't magic - the minute you apply any kind of effect (realtime or not) on an MPEG source, you nullify the ability to copy/paste/splice GOPs. Notwithstanding, smart rendering  has a broad appeal to people in for instance news workflows, where the bulk of effects involve at best transitions between clips, so most of the edited material is 'naked'.

     

    I'm not sure what your workflow is, but reading between the lines, where I'm imagining you're doing a lot of post effects (CC & the like) using CUDA, I think a different methodology might help things: I'm imagining something along the lines of hardware compression at the output of PPro, so if you have some kind of output card (ie BM/AJA/Matrox) and feeding SDI into a secondary capture device, so you could effectively get 1x output speeds;  that, or else some kind of hardware accelerator plugin for Adobe Media Encoder such as the Elemental plugin for H.264 encoding...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2011 3:17 PM   in reply to Wil Renczes

    Thanks for the reply Wil. Yes , you nailed what I do very closely. Pretty standard post production stuff like short form (commercials, promos) and long form (marketing,corporate).Lots of potential for bells and whistles. I have a variety of formats thrown at me and I tend to master to the Prores codec. Here is the jist of my set up.

     

    Mac Pro 3,1

    2 x 3.2 ghz Quad Core Intel Xeon

    10.6.8

    Nvidia Quadro 4000

    24 gigs ram

    Kona 3

    Maxx Digital / Areca 8tb. raid

     

    It sounds like the reality of smart rendering wont help expedite my exporting. Are you suggesting I take the Kona 3 secondary SDI out and feed it to a Ki Pro Mini or similar device and just playing back the timeline in real time? That is a very creative suggestion. Are you familiar with any other devices that some Adobe customers have had lots of success? I mentioned Ki Pro Mini because I am a BIG fan of AJA products and support.

     

    So in this work flow, I would hazard a guess that I should change Preview settings to a higher resolution format (like Prores) so when I do realtime playback I get the best quality of imagery.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2011 5:20 PM   in reply to lasvideo

    It's hard for me to comment on I/O, as I have a fairly big bias - I worked for several years @ Matrox before joining Adobe.  I'm impressed by the MXO2 mini, it's amazing how the tech has evolved from the RTX & DigiSuite cards back in my time there.  I haven't personally tried out AJA or BM products, so it wouldn't be fair for me to even attempt to compare.

     

    On the accelerated encoder side, you might want to check out MainConcept's offerings - they have a demo version available for download.  (I have no idea what kind of performance numbers this has compared to stock PPro renders.)

     

    http://www.mainconcept.com/products/apps-plug-ins/plug-ins-for-adobe/c odec-suite.html

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2011 5:31 PM   in reply to Wil Renczes

    I appreciate your candor. Im going to communicate this real time alternative workflow (as opposes to exporting) to AJA. I already beta test for them so I know jus the folks to contact. I think high end facilities and customers would really be happy with this realtime creation of master files. The alternative being a several hour render / export for a project  that has lots of motion graphics and effects or is a long form piece with color correction. Thank you for your creative solution to this bottleneck. It could keep doors open to new Adobe customers that otherwise might have been shut.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 3, 2011 1:01 AM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    @Todd:

     

    Thanks, Todd, for sharing this link.

     

    I had read this article. But to me it didn't get clear on two facts:

     

    • Only - and ONLY - the cards in the list will work

      (the article reads: "The official and up-to-date list of the cards that provide the CUDA processing features is here:" -- There is no note on the fact that Premiere Pro actively blocks CUDA cards not in the list, regardless of their hardware capabilities. -- "If you don’t have one of these CUDA cards ..." had been interpreted by me as: "So if you have one of these non-CUDA cards ...".)
      .
    • An easy workaround is available to get Mercury use CUDA cards which are not in the list

      (If it's so easy, simple and harmless to activate a CUDA card that's not in the list, the workaround should have been mentioned in the article, accompanied with a note that Adobe makes no warranties on the result.)
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 3, 2011 1:26 AM   in reply to Wil Renczes

    @Will:

     

    Thanks, Will,

     

    my wish would be that these yellow and red bars in the timeline would turn green so that I don't just see a still in the Preview window as soon as I add two or three effects to a clip.

     

    If CUDA cards won't do the trick, then Premiere Pro should run a low-priority thread in the background that automatically renders temporary versions of clips in the timeline, while the computer is running idle, to get these clips green. This thread should prefer clips in vicinity of the recently edited area, because these clips are most likely the ones to be watched in the Preview window.

     

    Currently, you have to actively trigger a pre-render, and after doing so, you have to   w a i t ...

     

    Tonight, when I'm back from the office, I'll add this wish...

     

    Thank you for pointing me to the right destination for such things.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 3, 2011 3:27 AM   in reply to KlausKi

    KlausKi wrote:

     

     

    my wish would be that these yellow and red bars in the timeline would turn green so that I don't just see a still in the Preview window as soon as I add two or three effects to a clip.

     

    ...

     

    Currently, you have to actively trigger a pre-render, and after doing so, you have to   w a i t ...

    Huh?  I usually add 2-3 effects on every clip, and with CUDA there's no need to pre-render.  Yellow bars might as well be green.  The program windows runs smooth at 1080p, full playback resolution.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 3, 2011 3:42 AM   in reply to KlausKi

    KlausKi wrote:

     

    • An easy workaround is available to get Mercury use CUDA cards which are not in the list

      (If it's so easy, simple and harmless to activate a CUDA card that's not in the list, the workaround should have been mentioned in the article, accompanied with a note that Adobe makes no warranties on the result.)

    To be clear, Adobe is saying that if you enable CUDA with a card that's not on their list, then they're not going to support you if you have a problem.  However, since many people are doing this, there's a lot of information on the web to help users resolve CUDA problems on their own. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 4, 2011 3:44 AM   in reply to Dave_Gish

    Dave_Gish wrote:

     

    Huh?  I usually add 2-3 effects on every clip, and with CUDA there's no need to pre-render.  Yellow bars might as well be green.  The program windows runs smooth at 1080p, full playback resolution.

     

    Yes, presumingly this is the case when you're using a CUDA card that's supported by Adobe. But as you may have read from my previous posts, I am not using a CUDA card that's supported by Adobe yet.

    Dave_Gish wrote:

     

    To be clear, Adobe is saying that if you enable CUDA with a card that's not on their list, then they're not going to support you if you have a problem.  However, since many people are doing this, there's a lot of information on the web to help users resolve CUDA problems on their own.

     

    1. Can you please point me to this piece of information in the official documentation?
    2. I'm a customer, not an information scout. So: I'm paying, Adobe is supposed to deliver. No-one else, and not vice versa.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 4, 2011 4:17 AM   in reply to KlausKi

    KlausKi wrote:

     

    Dave_Gish wrote:

     

    Huh?  I usually add 2-3 effects on every clip, and with CUDA there's no need to pre-render.  Yellow bars might as well be green.  The program windows runs smooth at 1080p, full playback resolution.

     

    Yes, presumingly this is the case when you're using a CUDA card that's supported by Adobe. But as you may have read from my previous posts, I am not using a CUDA card that's supported by Adobe yet.

    Dave_Gish wrote:

     

    To be clear, Adobe is saying that if you enable CUDA with a card that's not on their list, then they're not going to support you if you have a problem.  However, since many people are doing this, there's a lot of information on the web to help users resolve CUDA problems on their own.

     

    1. Can you please point me to this piece of information in the official documentation?
    2. I'm a customer, not an information scout. So: I'm paying, Adobe is supposed to deliver. No-one else, and not vice versa.

    If you read my previous posts, you'll notice I'm using a GTS450, which is an unsupported card.

     

    You won't find any mention of the unsupported method in official documentation, precisely because its unsupported.

     

    If you're not comfortable hunting for information, then I suggest using one of the supported cards.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 4, 2011 11:45 AM   in reply to Dave_Gish

    my wish would be that these yellow and red bars in the timeline would turn green so that I don't just see a still in the Preview window as soon as I add two or three effects to a clip.

     

    Just a note, background rendering is a nice to have feature, but in theory, if you're leveraging everything that CUDA gives you, you should be able to avoid rendering most, if not all of the time.

     

    Yellow should still play; red is the only thing that requires rendering here for previewing, and that only happens when you're not using CUDA accelerated effects. Just making sure you know how to pick the realtime ones: look for "Filter effects by type" in the following link for how to quickly filter for CUDA effects in the Effects Panel:

     

    http://help.adobe.com/en_US/premierepro/cs/using/WS774370E7-584E-40e2- B2E0-B33A0228BF02.html

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 5, 2011 7:54 AM   in reply to Dave_Gish

    Dave_Gish wrote:

     

    If you read my previous posts, you'll notice I'm using a GTS450, which is an unsupported card.

     

    You won't find any mention of the unsupported method in official documentation, precisely because its unsupported.

     

    If you're not comfortable hunting for information, then I suggest using one of the supported cards.

     

    Yes, Dave, you are right about the impact of my suggestion on CUDA cards...

     

    My suggestion tends to be kind of a general one, addressing all users of Premiere Pro, even those using ATI graphics cards, on-board graphics cards or other graphics cards... It would generally be a good thing if Premiere Pro would (optionally) automatically pre-render preview clips in the background, e.g. while the user is editing Premiere Pro effect settings, or creatively thinking about what to do next, or answering the phone... That's plenty of spare time for the machine to perform pre-rendering without requiring the user to actively trigger this process.

     

     

    And for the other issue: you are right again, Dave, because that's exactly my point:

     

    The documentation is misleading. And this fact needs to be corrected. So other users, who can't afford spending their time hunting for pieces of information they even don't surmise that they would be in need to know about, won't get into the same expensive and time consuming mistaking situation I got.

     

    Todd's blog post reads: "The official and up-to-date list of the cards that provide the CUDA processing features is here:" ... This sentence is - as we all know by now - technically wrong. There are other NVIDIA cards on the market providing "the CUDA processing features" indeed. Adobe can't possibly track all available cards on the market, so a "list of the cards that provide the CUDA processing features" provided by Adobe is basically irrelevant.

     

     

    BTW: I just went to the shop today to undo the GTX 580 update. I have re-ordered a Sparkle GTS 450 Passive and have them build-in that card again. Now I'm aspiring the same great results you get with your GTS 450

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 5, 2011 7:57 AM   in reply to Wil Renczes

    Thanks, Will, for sheding light on this and sharing your knowledge with me!

     

    OK then, in the meantime I have also read this blog post by Todd...

     

    So I'd like to amend my wish from stating "yellow and red" to "anything that Premiere Pro recognizes as not being able to render in realtime in an acceptable quality, i.e. frame rate".

     

    Full resolution rendering would not necessarily be a feature required for automatically rendering previews in the background, because most of the time the preview window is just a small part of the full screen. If speed is an issue, Premiere Pro could provide an option to render previews in a two-pass process: Low resolution rendering first, then high resolution rendering when there's no more clip/effect left to be rendered in low resolution. Parallel processing should be performed, i.e. Premiere Pro should spawn multiple background rendering threads, one per idle CPU core.

     

     

    Just like Windows 7 is able to calculate a system performance rating according to some benchmark tests, Premiere Pro should be able to do the same at installation time in order to being able to estimate which of the clips/effects in particular whould require pre-rendering - depending on the built-in hardware.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2012 7:56 PM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Hi! I read your blog, but still there is something I do not understand. I hope this is the right thread to ask.

     

    I have Premiere Pro CS 5.5 Installed with a processor i7 950 with 12MB in RAM, some months ago I upgraded my graphics card to an NVIDIA QUADRO 2000 (previously I had and FX1800) as I wanted to have a more fluid editing and rendering process.

    But I have not seen at all the difference.
    Premiere, does recognize the card, as know I have enabled the GPU option in the software, but that's it.

     

    A few weeks ago I got a Laptop, which has a newer processor i72820QM, but slower one and a good Nvidia card GEFORCE GT 525M, but not one approved for Mercury GPU acceleration and 8MB in RAM.

    Amazinlgy, editing with 2 or 3 layers of AVCHD multicamera video works much better, running more fluid than the first one and seems to render faster.

     

    So, I got a software to see what is the ussage of the GPU during different processes (gpuz) and  I found out that none of them, neither the laptop or the PC are using the GPU at all during my editing process.

    Is this correct? I would expect to see some usage here, but no, GPU usage stays between 0 and 1% all the time.

     

    I kept doing tests and found at that when encoding to MPEG2 for DVD creation. I sent a 27 seconds clip, using Adobe Media Encoder and it took 4.5 minutes to finish and NO GPU usage at all. Then I sent exactly the same clip with same output requirements through the direct export of premiere pro and it took only 15 seconds, and the GPU was used at 96%.

    That is a great difference!! but using the Premiere Export, instead of the Encoder Queue is not as useful.

    So how can I get Premiere to use the GPU like that as much as it cans? Shouldn't it be using it all the time?

     

    Best regads,

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 10, 2012 11:45 AM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    I'm new to PPCS5.5 and need to get a GPU card that supports CUDA - before I buy a Quadro 4000 (I'm on a Mac) to replace my outdated ATI Radeon HD 3870

    - there won't be any change/compromise in my ability to use openGL in Photoshop, correct?  I'm assuming that a better video card is better accross all software?  I just need to make sure that my performance in PS is as good (or better)...

     

    many thanks!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 10, 2012 1:11 PM   in reply to jason dewey

    jason dewey wrote:

     

    I'm new to PPCS5.5 and need to get a GPU card that supports CUDA - before I buy a Quadro 4000 (I'm on a Mac) to replace my outdated ATI Radeon HD 3870

    - there won't be any change/compromise in my ability to use openGL in Photoshop, correct?  I'm assuming that a better video card is better accross all software?  I just need to make sure that my performance in PS is as good (or better)...

     

    many thanks!

     

    I'm not a heavy Ps user, but I am a heavy Ae user.  The only diff I noticed after replacing my GE Force 8800 with the Quadro is that it hobbled some of my GPU accellerated effects, such as Optical Flares, Shapefifter and Freeform.  I've read that the issue is with the drivers for 10.6.8, and that when I upgrade to Lion, I should be able to use Freeform and Shapeshifter again.  I can use Optical Flares now, but I have to turn GPU accelleration off, or Ae will crash every time.  Freeform and Shapeshifter both crash Ae upon invoking the effect with 10.6.8 and the current Quadro driver.  So, take that into your consideration.  You might hear similar stories in Ps forums.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 10, 2012 3:50 PM   in reply to Jim Curtis

    thanks Jim!  I'm also on 10.6.8 so I guess I should pose the question on a PS forum as well.  I can't imagine that it would impact most PS tasks, but I do work with very large layer files and ocassionaly some render-intensive filters like warp, liquify,  and lens correction etc.

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (1)