Better rendered previews, or better real time previews?
I have a timeline with about four minutes right now, and the estimated time to "render work area" is about three and a half hours. So clearly rendering the work area isn't very useful to me (it would take less time to just export media to a final format).
If I could have 1/2 quality real time preview that would be great. Runner up would be rendered preview of the whole timeline in a couple minutes (that seems pretty unlikely given the current estimated render time).
I'd be okay with the preview being smaller (even quite a bit smaller), or even 15fps (real-time), in exchange for better quality.
3. Adding effects:
A. Top adjustment layer for fast color correction (white balance)
B. Next adjustment layer: 3-way color, shadow/highlight, unsharp mask, fast blur
C. Video 1 layer has the clips with warp stabilizer applied to each, and dissolves
B & C are massively resource intensive. Particulalrly C.
I doubt anyone can get anywhere near realtime (unrendered) preview on any system with what you are doing.
I would expect massive render times.
Interestingly, if I disable Warp Stabilize, previews are the same speed (only realtime at 1/4 quality), but if I hide the two adjustment layers (Warp Stabilize enabled), then I can play back at 1/2 quality.
I'm still concerned that I only see 1-5% GPU usage for all of this. Does that mean my bottleneck is elsewhere and I could speed things up some other way? Or do I need to do something to better utilize the graphics card / CUDA?
Any insight into preview codecs and preview sizes?
..and what happens if you do not apply a Blur plus a Sharpen effect on to the same clip?
Turning off blur does nothing. After testing lots of combinations, it seems that the best way to speed it up is to turn off Shadow/Highlight AND Unsharp Mask. If either are on, the I go from green to yellow at 1/2 quality in about 1 second. Both off and I can do 1/2 quality.
But I really do want to preview what I'm working on, more or less approximating the output, at a decent quality.
Given your specs, your system ought to be able to handle your source material with reasonable ease, even with non-accelerated effects. It might be that you have not properly tuned your system and that the overhead incurred is slowing things down noticeably.
Have a look at Adobe Forums: Guide for installing and tuning a Vista... which also applies to Win7.
Second, run the PPBM5 Benchmark to see how your system performs in comparison to similar systems.
Notice that there should not be more than 40 - 50 processes running on a properly tuned system. If you have more, it is time to kill superfluous processes. You can see how many are running with Process Explorer (my favorite) or Task Manager and clicking Show Processes from All Users.
Thanks. I'll check that out.
When rendering, I have about 80 processes running. But my cpu usage is only 30-40%, RAM usage 2-3 GB (of 16), and GPU usage around 2%. It seems like there's a bottleneck or PP is being slow for some reason. There are plenty of other programs that ramp up and max out my CPU and RAM.
I downloaded the PPBM6 tests but they won't run (some error given in PP when trying to open). I emailed the person who runs the site about the problem.
I haven't received your mail about that, but PPBM6 is not yet out. In fact I'm still struggling with the conversion to a Joomla! site, but the test you should run is the PPBM5 Benchmark
The PPBM6 download is still incomplete, it contatins no instructions, does not have some required presets for exporting and lacks the scripts to gather the data. When it is ready, we will announce it here.
I downloaded 5.5 v.1 and got the same error when trying to open. should I try the 5.0 benchmark on CS6?
I uninstalled CS6, then re-installed, installed the 6.01 update, and installed the bonus material (separate, large, download). Now I can open the files.
Do I use the 5.5 benchmark or the 5 benchmark? Seems like I should use 5.5, but you said 5 in your post here.
Okay, I guess I'll try the 5.5 one. Will post results here after running.
note that for the disk test I had to choose "AVI" because there was no "Microsoft AVI".
software only test:
Haven't yet received your submission form.
OK submitted. Thanks.
It's very interesting to watch the Windows performance monitor and GPU-Z while these tasks are running. Sometimes the CPU is at 100%, sometimes only 30%. Sometimes very little RAM is used, sometimes all of it. Sometimes the GPU is not used at all, sometimes at 50%.
I wish I knew what any of it means for getting me faster previews
Well I'm still pretty clueless about this, but for anyone who is looking at this and wondering, here's what I've gleaned:
1. After Effects, especially CS6, makes much more and better use of graphics cards than does Premiere Pro. I'm guessing that PP will, in future versions, make better use of them. For now, no need to spend more than a couple hundred bucks on one.
2. Update the software. PP and AE both performed substantially better after installing the .01 update from adobe. After you install the update, be sure to re-do the CUDA hack, if necessary.
3. As it stands, money for a PP system is best spent on a processor, as in the newest Intel (currently Ivy Bridge), and overclocked. This is where performance happens. I'd say on a 2012 system, 16 GB RAM should be considered a minimum for video editing, and 24 or 32 if you can afford it. More than that probably won't be utilized. Hard disks can affect performance, but I don't think it's a bottleneck unless you're doing something that requires VERY fast/large reads and writes (4k source?). Most people who have high-end editing stations also have a bunch of drives in RAID, but if you look at the performance chart, the SECOND highest scoring tester did not use RAID (though did use a presumably fast and large SSD).
Keep in mind that all of this has to do with RENDER speeds. I still don't know what the bottleneck is for PREVIEWS, but I'm just going to assume it's the same.