This content has been marked as final. Show 13 replies
1. Not worth it.
3. Definitely not.
4. Better disk setup. Yes.
Wait for 4.1 to see if they iron out the many bugs and performance issues. Then see what you need.
Read the other posts about performance issues first.
Thanks Harm...going from a 2.67 to a 3.33 with a 6MB cache will I see an improvement or just small difference?
Also, going from dual to quad make any real improvements? I know most Adobe stuff isnt really opt for Quad.
CPU upgrades will be noticeable, but relatively small. From 2 cores to 4 will generally lead to around 70% performance gain at the same clock speed. Faster FSB will also be noticeable, but the biggest affordable gain can often be achieved by a better disk setup. What is your current setup? Can you go for at least 4 independent physical disks and possibly a good raid controller?
Its possible the most performance gain can be your workflow. What are you typically doing with mutliple PS layers? What frame size?
>I know most Adobe stuff isn’t really opt for Quad
Huh,... and from where did you get that?
It's CS3 though, exporting mpeg2.
Seems to me like "all 4" are taken into "the heat".
Except from that, see if Curt has a point!
EDIT: Oh, I have to admit that it sometimes drops all the way down to 98%, but still...
Hopefully wrong about quad, but I was under the impression that most of the quad uses and advantages were in the rendering process versus things like preview and so forth. My biggest problem is trying to scrub, or even preview, a frame that has so many PS layers on it.
What I have been doing.
Getting black and white, hand drawn story boards in layered PS files of 3200x1600 at 200 DPI for a finished Widesceen project.
Optimizing to 72 DPI for smaller file size and importing into PP.
Often having as many as 15 separate layers of characters (arms, legs, mouths..etc). Many have to be animated.
I would normally do this in AE, but have to synch mouths, so I have to scrub sound.
One suggestion was to cut sound sequences in PP and then imnport to AE, which I did, but doubles the workload.
Containing so many layers makes doing any animation. Moving a layer by dragging, and especially moving anchor points, which was always necessary, a unique chore unless I nested all the layers for each PS file:
I just might be pushing the limits of a "consumer" system.
I'm not set up on a raid. Program on C drive, main file on seperate internal disk and preview divided up to USB externals. (probably part of the problem).
Thanks for any thoughts.
>I would normally do this in AE, but have to synch mouths, so I have to scrub sound.
In AE CS4, Ctrl+Scrub gives you audio and video, and Ctrl+Alt+Scrub gives you just audio.
The "." key on the Number Pad gives you a real-time preview of audio.
3200x1600 at 200 DPI "optimized" to 72 dpi doesnt really tell us anything. What is the final frame size imported into Pr?
DPI is about as relevant in video editing as miles per gallon when making orange juice.
Thanks for replay...Taking DPI down is jsut a quick dirty way to reduce file size of each PSD.
Final frame size into PP is 720 x 486.
> Taking DPI down is jsut a quick dirty way to reduce file size of each PSD
Only if you instruct PS to resize the image when adjusting dpi.
But, you now answered the question.
Based on that, your usb drives are probably your bottleneck. Plus the number of effects you are putting on multiple layers.
I agree with Curt. I'd look into eSATA (or next best, FW-800) externals. Even for simple editing, I found USB drives to be all but unusable.
Given what you are doing, I'd even consider scrapping the externals for several more internals, and just copying over my Assets.