This content has been marked as final. Show 26 replies
Two good questions.
If Premiere Pro can spawn 5 independent threads, and each can get assigned 4 GB of memory by a 64-bit OS, then that would account for the 20 GB reference.
How Pr spawns them, and what those spawned processes are, however, is still a mystery to me.
Premiere doesn't spawn multiples. Neither does AME.
Look in the task manager.
When you render in After Effects you can see AE multiples. In AE you have the option of how much Ram to leave other components and how much ram to give each Core.
>Premiere doesn't spawn multiples. Neither does AME.
Ever? Even with Dynamic Link active and all possible dynamically-linked apps open and running?
And I didn't necessarily restrict things to "processes that are visible in Task Manager". Some processes in some applications are multi-threaded yet only have one process listed.
I've currently got PP, AE, and AME open, working in PP and AE while AME chugs out multiple DV AVIs from half-a-dozen projects or so. In the Task Manager, there are no multiple PP EXEs, but it's different than with CS3.
Currently in Task Manager Processes pane:
PhotoshopServer.exe (2 copies of this)
Adobe Media Encoder.exe
AfterFX.exe (2 copies of this)
Adobe Premiere Pro.exe
Some of those are familiar, but some would appear to be new. I'd guess that that's how the program (as a whole) is able to address more than 4GB of RAM, in that each of these modules is running its own process. And as Jeff suggested, some of them could be multi-threaded... I don't know if there's a way to discover that or not.
So, potato, potato. Hmm, doesn't work quite as well in print.
The above explains about the way AE works with multi-processing and more ram when Vista 64.
"After Effects can also use multiple processes to accelerate rendering of a single frame. This form of multiprocessing can take advantage of hyper-threading."
So we know exactly how AE uses the extra RAM with 64bit OS. Because you can see mutiple AE programs in the project manager (based on how many you set).
Obviously AE renders different than AME. So how exactly does AME work?
What's the difference between the way AE renders and AME?
Does AE's way of rendering and the manual setting you control (Ram per Core) give you better Render flexibility?
>Three different Mpeg 2 presets 29.976 and 29.97 drop frame and 23.976 progressive. Render a clip with each one. They all end up the same size so whats that difference? Point me to a link that explains it. Or hell just explain it. If you put a 23.97 mpeg2 next to a 29.97 and zoom in it obvious that they were compressed differently.
I have been to Hell (a place in my country), so...
Using the same clip, and if those mpeg2 presets are CBR and with the same bitrate, then I would expect the file-sizes from each preset export to exactly the same size.
Reason: Mpeg2 have a bit-rate, meaning that it's the bit-rate only that determines the file size. Bits (or kb, or Mb) per second will give an easy calculation. For example: Having a 20 second clip, decide a total bit-rate of 8 Mbps CBR, then file size will be: 20s x 8Mb/s = 160Mb, and since it's in bits, one will have to divide by 8 in order to get the size in Bytes, which say the file size will be 20MB.
1 Byte = 8 bits (1B = 8b).
And now, k and M (kilo and Mega) in the metric system means k=1000 and M=k*1000 , and in the digital system 1k will in the metrical system mean 1024, so you'll see some numbers that will be reported in different ways (like why the heck doesn't my 500GB disk have more than 465GB, oh it's because the marketing dep. figured out that approx 500 000 000 000 bytes sounds better as 500GB divided using 1000 instead of 1024).
So, what if those pre-sets were VBR? Well, that should give some differences, but since (I assume) the same clip was used, and that the same mathematichal routins were used for both one-pass or two-pass, the sizes would probably be more or less the same for all three pre-sets anyway.
Short and clear: Bit-rate tells the file size, nothing else.
PS! I know I know I know, all those of you out there that are familiar with digital thinking, you all probably saw a couple of wrongs I did. Yes, it's acually not digital vs metric, it's a two-digits system vs. a ten-digits system (said with the ten-digits system's numbers).
>If you put a 23.97 mpeg2 next to a 29.97 and zoom in it obvious that they were compressed differently.
Of course, when the bit-rate per second is the same, it means having more data to put into each frame at a lower frame-rate (both still play the same amount of time).
Dag that's exactly what I was thinking and your explanation makes complete sense. Thank you.
And, I'm happy to see that an "anal retentive" answer gets to be read and understood! :)
Now if you can solve the other question I'd be great.
I just render a complicated AE file in both Vista 32 and Vista 64. They both took the same amount of time on the same computer with 6gb ram. q9550, asus pq5 pro, 6gb ram. Both OS's on different harddrives.
This leads me to believe that AME doesn't use the extra cores and Ram in Vista 64 like AE does. When I rendered the file in AE on both Vista 64 and 32 the Vista 64 was a good bit faster.
Got an 'anal retentive' answer for that?
I'm still on XP Pro 32 and CS3 (which by the way serves me fine right now), so your questions about that I can't have any sayings/solutions on.
You see, I'm, as well as "anal retentive", also behind everything way too new, at least for me. I never jump first! (oh, being 46 years old and having a daughter being 25, may make that statement a bit eh, phoney?!).
> I never jump first! (oh, being 46 years old and having a daughter being 25, may make that statement a bit eh, phoney?!)
Right now, I am using the AME to transcode a Pr CS4 sequence to H.264. The Pr project has 5 dynamically-linked AE comps. AE is closed (at least the UI is).
AME: 920 MB
Pr: 600 MB
AE: 1.9 GB
ImporterProcessServer: 700 MB
PPro Headless: 1.1 GB
Total memory in use by this project: 5.2 GB.
Total RAM in use by all processes: 7.9 GB.
Total RAM installed in system: 16.0 GB
Try that on 32-bit system! :)
I got that. But but what about a premiere project without dynamic link to AE? Can you get it to use the extra ram without AE?
>Can you get it to use the extra ram without AE?
How about without DL to Sb or Encore?
How about without exporting to the AME?
How about if no CC filters are used?
How about if no third-party plugins are used?
How about if no HD-sized source footage is used?
How about if no sequences are nested?
How about if only one type of sequence is allowed?
Do you have any other restrictions on what would constitute a valid memory footprint for Pr? :)
My point is that I can use the tools available to me in a single Premiere Pro project and get the RAM usage up pretty high. Maybe that's what Adobe meant when they said the RAM usage could go as high as 20 GB.
For a more definitive answer, you'll have to contact Adobe directly, I guess.
Sorry for wondering why there a ton of RAM/multicore options in AE (along with proper documentation) but none for AME.
>wondering why there a ton of RAM/multicore options in AE but none for AME.
Two different programing teams probably. And making AME a separate app is something new. Give it time.
I notice some posts talking about entries in Task Manager. One thing I notice (in CS3) is that when rendering all four CPU's suddenly have high utilization but there are no extra process entries created. This is likely because task Manager possibly reports only the parent task, not each child. I assume CS4 behaves likewise (note Adobe says it can handle 16 processors).
Regarding 64-bit, which I don't have, but in theory anyway 64-bit allows referencing files larger than 4gb, and removes the 4gb main memory limitation. Note in a 32-bit system the upper addresses of the 4gb range are reserved for device I/O and graphics, etc, leaving less than 4gb of real memory available for system use. Also, Windows gives a task only 2gb at a time. Those limitations are also probably removed in a 64-bit system.
One more note about 64-bit, the code has to be recompiled for 64-bit to accomodate memory addresses that are higher than the 4gb value; a 32-bit word size simply won't do. This, and the relocation of reserved address for I/O and interrupts etc., partly explain why device drivers have to be written differently for 64-bit.
I think Adobe's use of the word "rearchitectured" is a bit of over statement, since the raw architecture itself is probably not changed at all. Actually, the compiler does a lot of the grunt work.
"Give it time."
That should be Adobe's motto for Premiere CS4
>the code has to be recompiled for 64-bit to accomodate memory addresses that are higher than the 4gb value
That may not come into play as we're talking about Virtual Memory addresses here, which don't necessarily correspond to physical addresses.
>Sorry for wondering why there a ton of RAM/multicore options in AE (along with proper documentation) but none for AME
The RAM options have been in AE forever, and not in Premiere for the same amount of time. Ditto for Photoshop.
The multicore options to which you refer are only for processing multiple frames at the same time. AE, like Premiere Pro, will use all available cores on a single frame no matter how the preference is set.
Is there a different preference to which you were referring?
Yeah like being able to set the amount of Ram for other projects, being able set how many cores you want to render with.
There's a reason those options are there.
Again, josh, being able to set how many cores is only for rendering multiple frames simultaneously. AE will use all available cores for single-frame rendering.
At least do me the courtesy of reading my posts all the way through and digesting what I have to say before you bust me in the chops. ;)
I'm not trying to bust your chops my friend (not that it wouldn't be fun). I reread your post and I think I understand what your saying. You don't know how AME works with Vista 64 it just does.
I know how AE uses the extra ram, it's fully documented. AME is not.
Does AME render multiple frames simultaneously? If not then it would be faster to render in AE. What's the point of render an AE project in AME?
How come there is no mention of AME in the after effects help?
Not asking you this specifically to you Jeff.