Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Are my render times normal?

Jul 3, 2012 10:20 PM

I've been editing DV footage with PP for several years. I'm now working on my first couple of HDV projects and want to check whether the astoundingly long render times I'm finding are due to settings errors on my part or are simply what one must expect with HDV rendering.

 

One project is chroma keying and general cleaning up on a 107-minute .mp4 file, which is requiring an average of approximately 15 minutes render time per minute of video (as opposed to my experience of between one and three minutes per minute with DV footage).

 

The other project is a three-camera multiscreen shoot, working with HDV .mpeg files, and again rendering seems to be somewhere in the order of 10 minutes per minute of video.

 

I'm on a nice fast quad core HP Workstation (Windows 7), and have had no major issues with PP over dozens of DV projects.

 

Can anyone shed any light, please, as to whether I may have some majorly incorrect project settings here or whether this is just a case of "Welcome to the world of HDV"?  Thanks.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 3:12 AM   in reply to Aidan Bell

    Aidan,

     

    Run the PPBM5 Benchmark test and submit your resutls. That will tell us how well your system performs in comparison to other systems and may show you where to look for improvements.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 8:18 AM   in reply to Aidan Bell
    I'm on a nice fast quad core

     

    What model?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 12:24 PM   in reply to Aidan Bell

    Aidan,

     

    I have received your submission. It has been added and you are currently at rank # 853, around 25 times slower than a fast PC.

     

    You can find your entry easily by clicking on the Date column twice to sort decendingly and then your entry will be at the top.

     

    One project is chroma keying and general cleaning up on a 107-minute .mp4 file, which is requiring an average of approximately 15 minutes render time per minute of video (as opposed to my experience of between one and three minutes per minute with DV footage).

     

    15 minutes render time per minute of footage translates to about 35-40 seconds per minute on a fast PC and that does not sound unreasonable to me. The problem you have is an outdated CPU and no CUDA enabled card, limited memory in an odd configuration (10 GB) and limited disk setup. It may be further complicated by a lack of tuning, not removing MSN, Sidebar, Games and other Windows crap, by not turning off Indexing and Compression on all you disks, by not setting Services that are not needed to manual, by letting processes like mDNSResponder and other Apple crap and JAVA Updater run in the background, etc.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 12:01 PM   in reply to Aidan Bell

    Pentium4

     

    Yep, those render times are not surprising with such an old and slow CPU.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 2:03 PM   in reply to Aidan Bell

    Aidan,

     

    My system is over two years old and it used to be in the top performers range. It has dropped down to rank # 26 now.  But still one of the top performing 4 cores around.

     

    Has technology really moved on so much? I guess that's a stupid question; three years is a long time!

     

    Yes, it has.

     

    Being in the UK makes your life miserable. Sorry to say but the UK prices for components are extravagant. Luckily there is Internet and you can order from anywhere in the world to get better prices. I got a camera recently that went for € 7,500+ in the UK and I got it from New Zealand (part of the Commonwealth) for less than € 4,500.

     

    Still, there may be things you can do to extend the life of your system, without having to buy a new system. Consider these tuning tips which also apply to Win7: Adobe Forums: Guide for installing and tuning a Vista...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 2:30 PM   in reply to Aidan Bell

    That p4 was realeased sometime around 2004-2005 most likely. So it's actually a 7-8 year old CPU. So for computer parts a 7 year old part is basically going to be totally big pain to have to use. It is also a single core CPU.  Now days intel CPU's  are quad-cores and are also clocked higher than 2.8Ghz. The workstation you listed is also a 32-bit workstation so it doesn't take advantage of cs5 (or a higher versions) 64-bit abilites. It also means you can't have more than 4Gb of RAM. (actually like 3Gb though)

     

    The mobo on that workstation also doesn't have 3 Gbps or 6 Gbps sata connections which is rather limiting.

     

    Here is a benchmark that will show you that a i7-2600k cpu is almost 10 times faster than your current CPU in almost every benchmark.

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/92?vs=287

     

    My recommendation would be to do a totally new edit system. There just simply isn't any way it would make since to keep trying to upgrade your current one. What would your budget be if you wanted to do a new build? IMO if it's a tight budget then you should go with a Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge CPU, but if it's big then you'll go with a Sandy Bridge-E,  or a Xeon setup.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 3:06 PM   in reply to ComputerNovice25

    This is NOT a Pentium 4 CPU, so your remarks, as well as Jim's, are way off-line. Look at his submitted results and you will see we are talking about a Xeon 5430 CPU, which is indeed a few generations old, but fully capable of running in 64-bit mode. The OP made a typo when he mentioned P4.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 3:47 PM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Harm Millaard wrote:

     

    This is NOT a Pentium 4 CPU, so your remarks, as well as Jim's, are way off-line. Look at his submitted results and you will see we are talking about a Xeon 5430 CPU, which is indeed a few generations old, but fully capable of running in 64-bit mode. The OP made a typo when he mentioned P4.

     

    Well I do apologize for not taking the extra time to check his benchmark results. I just simply read his post. A Xeon is obviously a much better CPU than a p4.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 3:55 PM   in reply to Aidan Bell

    Aidan Bell wrote:

     

    Thanks for pointing out the inaccuracies Harm, however I stand by my last post; I certainly accept that if I want to start editing HDV as well as old-faithful DV, I really do need to think about a new machine.

    Sadly since I live in the USA I don't know of good places to shop in the UK for computer parts, since I mainly shop at newegg.com 90 percent of the time and they don't ship internationally. (That I know of)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 5, 2012 8:26 AM   in reply to Aidan Bell

    I suspect that your system is ill-configured to show such results in comparison to an i3. If anything, I would expect your Xeon 5430 to be only marginally slower than an i3 or around equal, but certainly not a factor X slower. Have a look at Adobe Forums: Guide for installing and tuning a Vista... which also applies to Win7.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points