Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

First export test in CC, Very Slow

Nov 12, 2013 1:42 PM

So, I made a test with a 1:30 min. sequence.

 

In CS6 the export time is 00:03:52

In CC: 27:43!!!!!

 

 

Exactly the same sequence, same export settings, both via Media Encoder CS6 & CC respectly.

 

What could be the problem?

 

Title was changed to be more clear. Rendering and exporting are not the same thing. Message was edited by: Kevin Monahan

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 1:20 AM   in reply to Jorge Jaramillo Hdz

    That is not correct.

    Make a new project and try again.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 2:01 AM   in reply to Jorge Jaramillo Hdz

    AME carries a huge overhead, slowing things down very much. That is the reason we changed our benchmark to only use Direct Export. AME was already crippled in CS6 and still is in CC.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 2:20 AM   in reply to Jorge Jaramillo Hdz

    Let me give you an example of how AME deteriorated in performance in time.

     

    With CS5.03 the MPEG2-DVD test in our benchmark using AME on my old system took 25 seconds. That system now ranks # 49 in the benchmark and is a lowly i7-920 with 24 GB and a GTX 480, overclocked to 3.7 GHz.

     

    With CS6.03 the same test on my new system using AME takes 44 seconds. That is the system that ranks #1, an i7-3930K with 64 GB and a GTX 680, overclocked to 4.7 GHz. If anything, it should have been much better, not worse by 76%.

     

    I have not seen a noticeable improvement in CC yet.

     

    So, clearly, AME has serious performance problems since CS5 and Adobe is aware of that. It is the internal caching algorithms that cause this behaviour. Unfortunately, the bug has been deferred to somewhere in the future.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 4:05 PM   in reply to Jorge Jaramillo Hdz

    So...the new AME CC is basically going to make using PP useless for me if I cannot edit while I exportin the background with AME. I just tried to export a 3 min 1920x1080 Canon DSLR footage sequence with AME and it wanted 1 hour to export. I did a direct export through PP and it only took 6 min. I am going to go back and open the project in CS6 and see what I get. I too never had problems with AME CS6, nothing ever seemed crazy long....this is AWFUL!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 4:53 PM   in reply to Dmart Films

    I'm also seeing up to 100% longer render times in AME CC versus AME CS6.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 5:14 PM   in reply to Jorge Jaramillo Hdz

    Just did same!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 6:28 PM   in reply to Jorge Jaramillo Hdz

    That's a shame...

    i use AME a lot as i need to batch render differents projects in different formats.

     

    I have always had great results with my configuration in CS5.5, those poor AME performances are one reason keeping me away from upgrading to CS6 or CC.

    How come this keep getting worse?? What's the point of AME then?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 8:02 PM   in reply to Jorge Jaramillo Hdz

    this won't be good. It already takes longer than realtime to export my videos

     

    why did I leave apple again?

     

    Can companies please stop "fixing" things that aren't broken and making software for teenagers

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 8:07 PM   in reply to Jorge Jaramillo Hdz

    I ran a short test of the MPEG2 sequence from PPBM5.5 and got a 3:45 export from CS6 and a 4:31 export from CC, identical settings, going through AME.

     

    I haven't tried a Direct Export yet.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2013 9:07 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    I ran some more tests.  Here's what I have so far:

     

    Windows 8 Pro 64 bit

    i7 2500

    8GB DDR3 1333 RAM

    1TB HD (single drive)

    GTX 560 Ti 2GB, 320.18 driver

    CUDA acceleration turned on in both versions

     

    I imported a 4 minute AVCHD clip with a lot of action.  I created a sequence based on that clip.  I exported that clip with no edits or effects to BD and DVD settings identical in both versions.

     

    Using AME for Export:

    CC7_BD = 5:58

    CS6_BD = 5:43  <---Winer CS6

     

    CC7_DVD = 3:07  <---Winner CC7

    CS6_DVD = 3:12

     

    Using Direct Export

    CC7_BD = 5:49

    CS6_BD = 5:40  <---Winner CS6

     

    CC7_DVD = 1:39  <---Winner CC7

    CS6_DVD = 2:55

     

    So, it looks like MPEG2 is faster with CC7 and H.264 is faster using CS6.  The biggest difference is for DVD using CC7.  Look at the times for AME and Direct, nearly cut in half!

     

    Now it should be noted that a brand new project was started in each version.  I've seen reports of older projects opened in CC7 behaving slowly, so I wanted to take that into account.  And in fact my first test was done opening an older project, Harm's 5.5 benchmark project, in fact.  So far, it's looking like where the project was created makes a difference.  Of course, Harm's project was full of effects, and this round of tests used none at all.  That's the next step, repeating these tests with effects, both accelerated and not.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2013 7:13 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Harm Millaard wrote:

     

    AME carries a huge overhead, slowing things down very much. That is the reason we changed our benchmark to only use Direct Export. AME was already crippled in CS6 and still is in CC.

    I did a quick test with AME vs Pr exporting with CC this morning.  Harm's right on the money.  It took 15 minutes for an export with AME, and less than 8 minutes with Pr.  Same project, same footage, same export settings, same everything.

     

    That's just... silly.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2013 7:40 AM   in reply to Jason Van Patten

    That's not just "silly" but totally unacceptable!

    What's going on ?

     

    In my case, not beeing able to use AME efficiently is just a deal breaker...

    Just to illustrate my case:

     

    I run a Yoga lesson-videos streaming site. We upload 3 videos a week, about 30min to 90 min each, currently streamin 170 videos and counting.

    For every single videos i edit, i batch export in 4 different optimized formats: 1 master for us, 1 for vimeo, 1 for brightcove  and 1 teaser for Youtube

     

    So any single project ends up in AME CS 5.5 in 4 different outputs. Of course, i usually render multiple projects in a row, making it a dozen tasks in line.

    (Thanks to Harm Millard advices when i rebuild my editing station 2 years ago, everything is just working so smoothly it is outrageous )
    In the mean time,  i can just keep doing something else, like a shooting or going for dinner, or well you know...

     

    Now, imagine me doing direct render in Premiere, waiting for one task to end to manually start another one...just plain impossible.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2013 9:34 AM   in reply to Jason Van Patten

    same export settings

     

    What were those export settings?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2013 11:18 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Jim Simon wrote:

     

    same export settings

     

    What were those export settings?

    It shouldn't matter, Jim.  But compressing down from 1080p to 720p and converting AVCHD to MP4.  Same frame rate (29.97), 1 pass VBR, and 5Mbps bitrate.

     

    I've never been able to use AME with PrP CS6 because I can't edit my AVCHD with it.  All I know is that AME 5.5 is considerably faster than AME CC with the same footage.  It's a 20 minute video, and 5.5 can do the deed in half real time. (10 minutes or so).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2013 11:29 AM   in reply to Jason Van Patten

    I ask because in my tests, the H.264 Blu-ray settings showed AME and Direct export times within seconds of each other.  (Post 15)  The Direct was barely faster, not enough to cause concern with using AME.  It was a very different story with MPEG2, which showed a significant decrease in export time going Direct.

     

    Also, was that project created in CC, as that does seem to make a difference?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2013 12:05 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Jim Simon wrote:

     

    Also, was that project created in CC, as that does seem to make a difference?

    Yes, it was created in CC.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2013 12:20 PM   in reply to Jason Van Patten

    Thanks.

     

    Any effects?  (My test had none.)  Were any of them accelerated?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2013 12:26 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Jim Simon wrote:

     

    Thanks.

     

    Any effects?  (My test had none.)  Were any of them accelerated?

    Crop and Horizontal Flip, both of which are accelerated.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2013 3:43 PM   in reply to Jason Van Patten

    Thanks.  Testing now.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2013 4:11 PM   in reply to Jason Van Patten

    Ran another test and I'm seeing the same as you.  AME was 16:33 and Direct was 9:14.

     

    I wonder if my earlier test using a 4 minute clip just wasn't long enough for significant differences to manifest.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 7:03 AM   in reply to Jorge Jaramillo Hdz

    So I don't have a direct to test this and I'm not sure if it helps but;

     

    Intel Core i7 2600K water cooled and clocked at 4Ghz

    32GB 1866 DDR3 RAM

    SSD - Samsung 840 256gb - WIndows and Adobe install

    10,000RPM drive - effects files and scratch/cach

    7200RPM 2TB WD red - Raw files storage

    Nvidia GTX680

     

    I have a premiere cs6 upgraded to cc (by opening the file in cc) that has a 24minute timeline at 4K using all R3D files that has some AE dynamic link mixed it, some AE edited r3d files, and some text plates.

     

    I exported the project in 4k with 5.1 audio (it was a 5.1 project) using h.264 and queued it in AME CC... Well this export with nothing else open or running on the above PC took 20hours over the weekend. I did it last week in Premiere CS6 exporting to AMECS6 and it took about 10hours. That's at least double the time but these export times are guestimates as I wasn't doing this to post here lol.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 12:24 PM   in reply to Jorge Jaramillo Hdz

    Yeah this is insane. I updated to CC on day one and now am seriously regretting it. I cut a weekly 30min television show on my work station. A lot of different clips, titles and graphics, a mix of HDV and DSLR footage, all 1080 at 29.97fps.

    The HDV footage is dynamically linked to AE and keyed out with a simple solid BG behind it. So obviously that is a bit of a chore for any system to render it. But in CS6, using AME I could render out the final show in about 2.5 to 3 hours.

    But since I upgraded a couple unfinished shows from CS6 to a CC project I'm getting render times of 14+ hours.

     

    That simply can't be right. I've tried making previews of select areas and it's the same insane ammount of time.

     

    Why is there no one from Adboe responding to this forum?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 1:21 PM   in reply to jwilliamsrfcu

    No offense but why on earth are you using untested software for such important work?  

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 1:35 PM   in reply to tclark513

    cool man, thanks for being so helpful

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 2:40 PM   in reply to Jorge Jaramillo Hdz

    It looks like I may have solved my problem, though I'm not sure if it will be any help to the rest of you. I noticed that the render times were only getting seriously clogged because of the AE comps I had dynamically linked into my timeline. These were clips that I had keyed out in AE using a third party plugin. When I went back into AE and used a different effect to get my green screen key (this time I used the buil in Keylight effect) everything seemed back to normal. By which I mean a few hours to render instead of 20.

     

    So maybe check any effects you are using, if they are the CS6 version they may not work to well with CC

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 2:47 PM   in reply to jwilliamsrfcu

    jwilliamsrfcu wrote:

     

    So maybe check any effects you are using, if they are the CS6 version they may not work to well with CC

    Glad you found a solution.  On this end, I don't use/own AE, so that's not what's causing any of my slow-downs.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 3:47 PM   in reply to Jorge Jaramillo Hdz

    Well I guess that didn't totally fix the issue. It still takes quite a bit longer, actually way longer, than CS6 would take to render it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 5:16 PM   in reply to tclark513

    tclark513 wrote:

     

    No offense but why on earth are you using untested software for such important work?  

    Actually, i think you've just nailed it (without knowing it?)

     

    CC is, by design, a constantly evolving software suite.
    Adobe already proved they are willing to add or scratch features any time, without any real notice from now on.

    So there we have a  software suite in a constant "untested" state, which may be working now but become buggy with the add or removal of something in coming months...

     

    Since this looks a bit like gambling to me, I would propose a new definition for Adobe CC :

     

    For a monthly bet of 30-50 USD, you can now join  the  Adobe Casino Cloud

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 6:31 PM   in reply to Rishaar

    Hopefully it won't turn into another "Mac CS6 'Serious Error' thread" for PPro which was NEVER resolved by Adobe! It caused quite a bit of problems for a lot of people, including me

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 6:35 PM   in reply to Kurrykid

    Kurrykid wrote:

     

    Hopefully it won't turn into another "Mac CS6 'Serious Error' thread" for PPro which was NEVER resolved by Adobe! It caused quite a bit of problems for a lot of people, including me

    It actually was solved by new video card drivers.  It took a while for them to release them but it did fix it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 6:39 PM   in reply to tclark513

    Hmmm...I followed that thread for a long time and don't remember a posted fix but with 14 pages of threads, I may have missed it

     

    Sorry for getting Off Topic...please resume!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 6:57 PM   in reply to Rishaar

    Rishaar wrote:

     

    tclark513 wrote:

     

    No offense but why on earth are you using untested software for such important work?  

    Actually, i think you've just nailed it (without knowing it?)

     

    CC is, by design, a constantly evolving software suite.
    Adobe already proved they are willing to add or scratch features any time, without any real notice from now on.

    So there we have a  software suite in a constant "untested" state, which may be working now but become buggy with the add or removal of something in coming months...

     

    Since this looks a bit like gambling to me, I would propose a new definition for Adobe CC :

     

    For a monthly bet of 30-50 USD, you can now join  the  Adobe Casino Cloud

    That's great!

     

    I would never use new software for anything important until I tested it on my own.  I've read posts from people actually stating that they updated in the middle of a project and having clients in to see their progress the same day.  That is business suicide!

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next
Actions

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