9 Replies Latest reply on Jul 15, 2010 12:27 PM by the_wine_snob

    Low performance on Encoding.

    Alberto Huerta

      Since March 2010, I purchased Premiere Elements 8.0, at this time I bought a computer with I7-920 processor, 12 GB HyperX Ram, 2 500GB Hard Disk and 1 1 GB graphics card GTS 250 NVIDIA GE Force, Windows 7 Ultimate, Nero 9, Quick Time and Bitdefender Antivirus, no more software. As you can see, I have made a significant investment in hardware to work with Pre 8.

      At the begining of all, I had many problems with crashing and after I installed version 8.0.1, the problems were less than before (At less is a bit more stable). And also implement the solutions that Adobe had indicated in a document to crashings troubleshooting.

      When I first bought the software, I noticed that the encoding menu 2  was very fast, less than half a minute, now takes to complete that section a little more than a minute.

      I need to say that I use Premiere Elements 8, it is the only practical software even makes DVD authoring.


      I usually work against the clock, I edit content that should last an average total of 18 minnutes, editing time is on average 5-10 minutes and make the process of Encoding and burning an average of five minutes.

       

      The edited material is as simple as possible: no filters, very few transitions, remove the audio clip and insert the music, I add two menu markers and that's it.

      However, the reality is often not well, most of the time my encoding times have been 12 minnutes, when at the begining it was of 4 and 5 minnutes.

      Until yesterday, the material that was used was, MOV, AVI, MP4, WMA and most MPEG2, but I decided made all that stuff MOV, AVI, MP4 to MPEG2 format and WMA audio format I have made PCM 48khz WAV, to standardize my project and when the process does not use many codex Encoding.

      Working with cameras Sony standard-definition handycam that records on hard disk. Using High Definition in my circumstances would be suicidal in terms of time.

      The settings I use for my projects is NTSC - Hard Disk Camcorder - Widescreen 48khz.

      Really, if time were not problem, opt for Adobe Premiere Pro and Adobe Encore or Sony Vegas and Sony DVD Architect.

      With this software, time is killing me, I need improve my times, What I have done? What else can I do?

        • 1. Re: Low performance on Encoding.
          Steve Grisetti Adobe Community Professional

          The challenge is that you are using a number of different formats, which is requiring Premiere Elements to continually assimilate and re-render these files.

           

          You will find your rendering time increasing greatly if you use a single input format and use the right project settings for that input. Using miniDV footage in a project set up for DV, for instance, rendering time is almost instantaneous!

           

          You don't say what kind of work you're trying to do but, if you have no choice but to work with whatever format is being thrown at you, you may want to consider using another editing platform. Final Cut Express on an iMac will handle a wider variety of video formats much more seamlessly. However, there, too, rendering time is going to kill you -- even on a very fast iMac. It's just sort of the nature of throwing so much random stuff into a single project.

           

          If you do have control over what format you use, we can certainly recommend project settings and a workflow that will maximize your system's performance. (Unfortunately, a hard drive camcorder is not the best format for editing quickly.)

           

          Meantime, do go to Windows Update manually and ensure you have even the non-critical updates and patches. Many of these non-critical updates include drivers that can improve your system's performance. (Hopefully Windows 7 SP1, due later this summer, will make the 64-bit version of the operating system work better with Premiere Elements too.) And, of course, make sure you have the latest version of Quicktime from Apple.com, which plays an important role in all PC-based video editing.

          • 2. Re: Low performance on Encoding.
            CruelRhetoric Level 1

            what about the scratch disks option Steve??? would that help this user as well???  I'm still up in the air about changing my scratch disks but in another post I remember you mentioning something about that...

            • 3. Re: Low performance on Encoding.
              the_wine_snob Level 9

              I agree that standardizing on a single source type at Import will benefit you regarding processing time.

               

              Also, having processes and programs, like real-time AV scanning going, will slow things to a crawl, as can Windows Indexing. This ARTICLE will give you tips on setting up your computer for video-editing. With Win7, be sure to see Black Viper's Web site (linked near the end) for optimizing the OS.

               

              Good luck, and hope that the speed improves,

               

              Hunt

              • 4. Re: Low performance on Encoding.
                Alberto Huerta Level 1

                You don't say what kind of work you're trying to do:

                 

                 

                What we  do every day is to record and edit video footage to create a DVD with  the best of the stay of tourists in an extreme adventure park.

                We use  pre-recorded and edited material as entry and exit curtains, photographs  for the two DVD menu, background music, we add to this recorded  material during the tour, with cameras Sony DCR-SR68, which records only  in MPEG2 .

                The material  prior to Saturday I had it in various formats, now all I have come to  MPEG2, in order to test if the process goes faster, and indeed this has  been improved encoding time: 4 minutes, 30 seconds .

                When adding  filters or more than 5 transitions, the process goes to 8 minutes.

                • 5. Re: Low performance on Encoding.
                  the_wine_snob Level 9

                  Different Effects can really alter the Transcode time. Some are much less processor intensive, than others are. For instance, Neat Video will come very close to doubling the processing time, and some Color Correction Effects can come close to that. Others, will not slow things down by much.

                   

                  Good luck,

                   

                  Hunt

                   

                  PS - it's a shame that you are starting with MPEG-2, as a bit of quality has been compressed out to start, and then a bit more, when you go to DVD-Video, which is MPEG-2 again. However, you do save the time required to Capture, which is in real-time, and with the immediacy of your needs, that extra Capture time might well be a make/break deal. Shooting on P2 media might improve things, without the Capture, BUT you're then talking high-end pro-sumer, or full pro cameras, and the expense will certainly go up, and exponentially.

                  • 6. Re: Low performance on Encoding.
                    Alberto Huerta Level 1

                    the_wine_snob wrote:

                     

                     

                    PS - it's a shame that you are starting with MPEG-2, as a bit of quality has been compressed out to start, and then a bit more, when you go to DVD-Video, which is MPEG-2 again. However, you do save the time required to Capture, which is in real-time, and with the immediacy of your needs, that extra Capture time might well be a make/break deal. Shooting on P2 media might improve things, without the Capture, BUT you're then talking high-end pro-sumer, or full pro cameras, and the expense will certainly go up, and exponentially.

                     

                     

                    I agree with you,  then, as additional information: What would be your suggestion to  improve my time? Let's see: My original  clips are mpeg2, is what my video camera with hard drive generates, I  have another video camera high definition as expected records in AVCHD  H264, I do not use it when rendering the process time is doubled .

                    I wonder what you would do to have a lightweight  workflow and effective.

                     

                     

                    Albert,

                    • 7. Re: Low performance on Encoding.
                      the_wine_snob Level 9

                      Albert,

                       

                      The pure MPEG footage, is easier to work with, than the AVCHD (a particular "flavor" of MPEG). AVCHD is highly CPU intensive - more so than any other format, that PrE can handle. To improve all aspects of editing with that material is to have an i7 in the 930 range. More RAM will help everything, but is way behind the CPU, regarding importance, with AVCHD material.

                       

                      Good luck,

                       

                      Hunt

                      • 8. Re: Low performance on Encoding.
                        Wayne Tj

                        All else being the same - you will nearly halve you rendering time if you switch to a Crucial SSD drive for your OS and scratch disk.

                        • 9. Re: Low performance on Encoding.
                          the_wine_snob Level 9

                          I would be interested in seeing the benchmark for this claim.

                           

                          Now, I can see an improvement if the media drive is a RAID 0, the Scratch Disks are on a RAID 0, and the Export drive being a RAID 0 (or one of the X0 setups, depending on the number of HDD's in the Array), and even then would not expect to see THAT much improvement, unless a dedicated RAID controller with on-board memory (like the Areca ARC-1170) was employed. If the source footage is AVCHD, the CPU will still be the biggest bottleneck.

                           

                          An SSD drive is great for boosting boot times, but do not play that large a part in Video editing. They are also quite small, so their use in Video editing is not that realistic.

                           

                          Now, if you have some real world examples of a 2x performance boost, I would love to learn something here.

                           

                          Thanks,

                           

                          Hunt

                           

                          PS - this ARTICLE might be worth a read.