11 Replies Latest reply on Feb 1, 2011 7:34 PM by niehs

    Sequence Slows Down Project

    niehs

      I'm problems working with a specific project.

      When the project is opened everything in Premiere Pro functions as it normally does accept for the Sequence that the media is being edited within. If I click anywhere within the sequence I immediately receive the processing mouse icon which lasts for about 10 -15 seconds, then the premiere icon in the task bar quickly moves as if making room for another program, but then reverts back to it original spot. The action from my click will take place (such as a selection) but then the next click will result in the same 10 - 15 second slow down.

      I'm editing QuickTime H.264 (I'm aware that it's not the best editing format).

      This all started happening at a seemingly random point while editing the sequence, so at one point everything worked normally. I've closed and re-opened the project and it's still a problem. I've opened other projects and they all run fine. I have cleared the media cache.

      I have 600 GB of scratch disk space. 4 GB of system RAM (2.5 dedicated to Adobe), a 6 core AMD processor, and a GeForce GT 120 video card. I'm running Windows 7 64bit.

      Has anyone experienced this? Any help would be appreciated.

      Thanks!


        • 1. Re: Sequence Slows Down Project
          Harm Millaard Level 7

          Systems like that are around 10 - 15 times slower than a fast system, especially with limited RAM, a very weak video card and possibly a lacking disk setup, and when you start editing in a 32 bit environment with Quircktime you are making life miserable for the PC and yourself. It is like hauling a 40 ton truck uphill when all you have is your granny's bicycle.

           

          Also consider the possibility your project got corrupted, so try importing into a new project.

          • 2. Re: Sequence Slows Down Project
            niehs Level 1

            did you even read my post? the system is not slow. the card is high-end as far as consumer cards go. 4 gb of ram is about average (system monitor shows only 40 % use). who said anything about a 32 bit OS? i'll also add that everything is running on a two disk raid 5 setup.  i'm only dealing with one media file in this project.

            anyone else have any thoughts?

            • 3. Re: Sequence Slows Down Project
              the_wine_snob Level 9

              Can you increase the RAM on the MoBo?

               

              Four GB is just about what it takes to run Win7-64 bit.

               

              I am not sure of the entire I/O sub-system. Do you only have one HDD, though in RAID? Maybe I just missed some important details, and if so, please accept my apologies.

               

              If so, then everything will be on that HDD (Array), and will be fighting for reads/writes - OS, Page File, program, media, Scratch Disks - everything.

               

              Also, that source material is very CPU intensive. I do not know that AMD, but it would be one of the first things that I would look at.

               

              Also, for an editing session, this ARTICLE might prove useful. Be sure to see Black Viper's Win7 Tune Up Tips, linked mid-thread.

               

              Good luck,

               

              Hunt

              1 person found this helpful
              • 4. Re: Sequence Slows Down Project
                the_wine_snob Level 9
                who said anything about a 32 bit OS?

                 

                Here, Harm was not referring to the OS, but to Apple's QT, which is still limited to 32-bit.

                 

                Good luck,

                 

                Hunt

                • 5. Re: Sequence Slows Down Project
                  Harm Millaard Level 7

                  Several things that show you do not know your stuff.

                   

                  did you even read my post?

                   

                  Yes.

                   

                  the system is not slow. the card is high-end as far as consumer cards go.

                   

                  Only 15 times slower than a fast system and unsuitable for editing due to AMD limitations, like lacking SSE4.1+ support, that are sorely needed with editing.

                   

                  4 gb of ram is about average (system monitor shows only 40 % use).

                   

                  That was in the last century. Today the average is about 12 GB.

                   

                  who said anything about a 32 bit OS?

                   

                  AFAIK nobody. I remarked about the 32 bit nature of QuiRcktime, that destroys the 64 bit nature of CS5. Nobody in his right mind would willingly destroy the 64 nature of CS5, unless he is on a MAC or has no other alternative.

                   

                  i'll also add that everything is running on a two disk raid 5 setup.

                   

                  That is completely impossible!!! A raid5 requires at least three disks, and even then it would be below minimum requirements.

                   

                  Your video card is overage and unsuitable for current video applications.

                   

                   


                  • 6. Re: Sequence Slows Down Project
                    niehs Level 1

                    Bill,

                    4 gb is below what a system should have, that's something i'll need to expand soon anyways.

                    the os is running on a separate SSD.

                    the media exists on a hardware raid5.

                    the mobo is a gigabyte ga-870a-ud3 (supports up to 16 gb).

                    the processor ia the amd phenom II x6 which i've had a very good experience with so far.

                     

                    Harm,

                    i still think the card is fine. compared to the best of the best it benchmarks low, but still qualifies as above average. i'm not trying to render in autocad.

                    you're right about QuiRcktime and the raid5. it's 3 disks not 2.

                     

                    i really think we're putting too much on the system when i 've edited similar content with much more system intensive projects before without issue. i'm not even playing anything before it starts hanging. the previews of the media alone play fine. i'm wondering it's my project settings.

                    could it be an issue with the sequence settings not meshing with the file?

                     

                    video info:

                    Format                           : MPEG-4
                    Format profile                   : QuickTime
                    Codec ID                         : qt 
                    File size                        : 364 MiB
                    Duration                         : 59mn 16s
                    Overall bit rate                 : 858 Kbps
                    Encoded date                     : UTC 2011-01-10 18:17:44
                    Tagged date                      : UTC 2011-01-10 18:17:58
                    Writing library                  : Apple QuickTime

                     

                    Video
                    ID                               : 1
                    Format                           : AVC
                    Format/Info                      : Advanced Video Codec
                    Format profile                   : Main@L3.0
                    Format settings, CABAC           : No
                    Format settings, ReFrames        : 2 frames
                    Codec ID                         : avc1
                    Codec ID/Info                    : Advanced Video Coding
                    Duration                         : 59mn 16s
                    Bit rate mode                    : Variable
                    Bit rate                         : 786 Kbps
                    Width                            : 512 pixels
                    Height                           : 384 pixels
                    Display aspect ratio             : 4:3
                    Frame rate mode                  : Variable
                    Frame rate                       : 29.946 fps
                    Minimum frame rate               : 1.111 fps
                    Maximum frame rate               : 61.163 fps
                    Color space                      : YUV
                    Chroma subsampling               : 4:2:0
                    Bit depth                        : 8 bits
                    Scan type                        : Progressive
                    Bits/(Pixel*Frame)               : 0.134
                    Stream size                      : 333 MiB (92%)
                    Language                         : English
                    Encoded date                     : UTC 2011-01-10 16:34:43
                    Tagged date                      : UTC 2011-01-10 18:17:58
                    Color primaries                  : BT.601-6 525, BT.1358 525, BT.1700 NTSC, SMPTE 170M
                    Transfer characteristics         : BT.709-5, BT.1361
                    Matrix coefficients              : BT.601-6 525, BT.1358 525, BT.1700 NTSC, SMPTE 170M

                     

                    Also, this may lead us back to RAM, but if i let is sit for awhile and revisit the project, the sequence plays fine!

                     

                    thanks to everyone who's responded so far (even harm).

                    • 7. Re: Sequence Slows Down Project
                      Scott Chichelli Level 3

                      the AMD is actually ok for editing. not great but ok. about as good as an 870/920.

                       

                      lack of ram

                      crap video card

                      Raid 5 onboard controller not good.. break it into 2 x raid 0

                       

                       

                      Scott

                      ADK

                      • 8. Re: Sequence Slows Down Project
                        Harm Millaard Level 7

                        Scott, you forgot to mention the 2600K/980X and possibly dual Xeons. They are about as good too... at least as long as you disregard benchmarks.

                        • 9. Re: Sequence Slows Down Project
                          niehs Level 1

                          i upgraded the memory to 12GB, but before i did it occurred to me that it wouldn't help.

                          because apple doesn't offer 64-bit QT, why would increasing my memory make a difference? isn't it still limited to the 4GB contraints of a 32-bit application?


                          i still pulled the trigger on the memory purchase because why not.

                           

                          i'm going to keep the rest of the system as is. maybe one day migrating to a raid10, but definitely not just a raid0 because i like the redundancy. coincidentally, i actually had to rebuild the drive after a disk failed last weekend.

                           

                          editing anything else is no sweat for this machine even if everyone else keeps telling me i need to sink more money into "the fastest" everything. i edit multiple tracks of hd and numerous effects on top of that without any result that's like this.

                           

                          since i don't have a choice on the matter and have to work with what i got, quicktime or not, i've decided to just convert the damn video to something more windows friendly. i'll lose some in the process, but it's worth it. And don't tell me to buy the fastest mac pro on the market!

                          • 10. Re: Sequence Slows Down Project
                            Harm Millaard Level 7
                            maybe one day migrating to a raid10

                             

                            Exactly the same question comes up whenever I see someone using QT on a PC, as with your remark about Raid10.

                             

                            QT: Why would anybody willingly sacrifice the 64 bit nature of CS5 and use only 32 bit QT?

                             

                            Raid10: Why would anybody willingly sacrifice 50% disk capacity and around 20 - 30% disk performance when a raid3/5/6 performs better and offer better safety?

                             

                            4 Disk example (1 TB drives, 100 MB/s):

                             

                            Raid10: 50% capacity of all drives, around 170 - 190% performance over a single disk. Capacity 2TB, speed around 170 - 190 MB/s

                             

                            Raid3/5: 75% capacity of all drives, around 230 - 250% performance over a single disk. Capacity 3 TB, speed around 230 - 250 MB/s

                             

                            If you feel uncomfortable with only only single parity, use Raid6 or a hot-spare.

                            • 11. Re: Sequence Slows Down Project
                              niehs Level 1

                              raid5 250% performance bump? not sure that's going to happen on my  controller. a raid10 doesn't need to manage parity like a 5 would.

                               

                              did i mention that i'm aware of the pitfalls of QT?

                              I'm editing QuickTime H.264 (I'm aware that it's not the best editing format).

                              i'm not sure how else to say that. but please continue to explain and make references to why you can't understand why people edit QT on windows. it's helping.

                               

                              converting the file fixed it.