11 Replies Latest reply on Jan 26, 2011 7:09 AM by the_wine_snob

    Efficient workflow


      Im am looking for an effiient workflow. Everything is up and running but it is soooo slow in reality. I'm shooting with an Xacti  HD2000. So far I have been shooting at "full-SHQ" 1920x1080 60fps HR. My problem is slow performance in premiere elements running on my MAC. I have got the suggestion to use MPEG Streamclip to convert to a more efficient format and with "intermediate codec" but I don't know how! In the end, I wish to publish to HD TV, mediacenter etc. As it is underwater videos  and I am just a beginner my quality demands are not extreem.  So my questions, What is the best workflow for me? If I should use MPEG Streamclip, what are the right settings in my case? How should I use Organizer? Should I reduce the resolution already in the camera? I have tried to get answers in many different forums but without any luck so far! PS I am using Premiere elements9 DS  Br Bo

        • 1. Re: Efficient workflow
          Steve Grisetti Adobe Community Professional

          According to the spec page, the Xacti shoots in AVCHD at 1920x1080 (stereo) in Full HR mode.


          When you start your project, you should choose that project setting.


          If you've selected the right project settings for your video, when you add the video clips to your timeline there will be no red lines above them.


          You don't say what specs your Mac has -- whether its a basic PowerBook, an iMac or a PowerMac -- but it can sure make a difference when working with AVCHD! AVCHD often requires a pretty powerful computer to edit it.


          What processor is your Mac running and how much RAM do you have installed?

          • 2. Re: Efficient workflow
            the_wine_snob Level 9

            I thought that the newer ones did pretty straight-forward AVCHD (H.64), but could well be wrong. I know that the older models caused many issues.


            If the material IS fully-compliant AVCHD, then the limiting factor would be CPU.


            Also, I'm not sure what the possible FPS and methods would be, for use in PrE. There are some schemes, that it does not offer a Preset for, and if one of those has been chosen on the camera, there will be issues.


            Just thinking here,



            • 3. Re: Efficient workflow
              the_wine_snob Level 9

              Are you shooting 60p(Progressive), or 60i (Interlaced)?


              What Project Preset are you choosing at New Project?


              Do you have a red line over the Clips, when placed onto the Timeline?


              If so, when you Render the Timeline (Enter on the PC, and Return on the Mac), do those red lines turn green, and how does playback look?


              What is the CPU design, number of cores and speed?


              Good luck,



              • 4. Re: Efficient workflow
                scubaduba59 Level 1

                Hi Steve, well it is a iMAC, Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.8 GHz and 4 GB Ram. The video files are stored on an external USB disk WD MyBook 1110 Media  ..


                  Modellnamn: iMac

                  Modellidentifierare: iMac8,1

                  Processornamn: Intel Core 2 Duo

                  Processorhastighet: 2.8 GHz

                  Antal processorer: 1

                  Totalt antal kärnor: 2

                  L2-cache: 6 MB

                  Minne: 4 GB

                  Busshastighet: 1.07 GHz

                  Boot ROM-version: IM81.00C1.B00

                  SMC-version (system): 1.30f1




                • 5. Re: Efficient workflow
                  scubaduba59 Level 1

                  No red line ... but a yellow one ?!


                  • 6. Re: Efficient workflow
                    scubaduba59 Level 1

                    This is what MPEG Streamclip report from the original file ...


                    Stream: MarsaShagra-040.MP4

                    Path: /Volumes/Bilder/Filmer/MarsaShagra-040.MP4


                    Duration: 0:00:26

                    Data Size: 52.34 MB

                    Bit Rate: 16.34 Mbps


                    Video Tracks:

                    H.264, 1920 × 1080, 59.94 fps, 16.22 Mbps


                    Audio Tracks:

                    MPEG-4 Audio stereo, 48 kHz, 128 kbps


                    Stream Files:

                    MarsaShagra-040.MP4 (52.34 MB)

                    • 7. Re: Efficient workflow
                      Steve Grisetti Adobe Community Professional

                      A yellow line? I've never heard of that!


                      But I'm also concerned that your specs don't show that as an AVC video file. It must be true AVC in order for Premiere Elements to be able to work with it.


                      That said, if there is no red line above your clips when you add them to your timeline (You do see one when you add an effect to the clip, right?), then you're working as efficiently as possible.


                      Those Mac specs should be enough to edit AVCHD to some degree. It could be sluggish if you've got a lot of footage -- but you should be able to do some basic work at least.

                      • 8. Re: Efficient workflow
                        the_wine_snob Level 9

                        The Yellow Line is in PrPro CS5, but I have never heard of it in PrElements. Are we talking about PrElements, or PrPro CS5 here? If the latter, then the correct forum is: http://forums.adobe.com/community/premiere/premierepro_current


                        A Duo-core 2.8GHz CPU will never likely be able to playback AVCHD material, and especially if it's being fed through a USB 2.0 connection.



                        • 9. Re: Efficient workflow
                          the_wine_snob Level 9

                          In PrPro CS5 There are 4 possible indicators above a Clip in the Timeline.


                          1. Nothing, in which case no rendering is required.

                          2. Red, in which case rendering is required for the most fluid playback.

                          3. Yellow, in which case rendering is likely not necessary for playback, but is required on export

                          3. Green, in which case the timeline is rendered.


                          Hope that this helps,



                          • 10. Re: Efficient workflow
                            Ted Smith Level 3

                            I would have though that a USB external drive would be much slower than an internal drive? Have you compared the specs?


                            Put some video files on an internal disk and see it it is faster.


                            Also as stated in numerous other posts, two or more internal hard drives is much faster again.

                            • 11. Re: Efficient workflow
                              the_wine_snob Level 9
                              I would have though that a USB external drive would be much slower than an internal drive? Have you compared the specs?


                              A USB external IS much slower than an internal. Even if the contained HDD in the external housing is 7200 RPM, the connection is much slower. Against a SATA II internal, it will be at best about 4x slower, and is more likely to be more like 10x slower. This is one reason that USB externals can be plagued with read/write errors - the OS and the program (PrE in this case), are shoving a lot of data, and demanding a lot of data, and the OS is expecting things to go smoothly and quickly. It has a certain amount of Buffers, but these can be used up quickly, and when that happens, one gets a read/write failure, or error. The dreaded Delayed Write Failure can even corrupt the entire external, as necessary structures file/folder do not get written at all. So, besides having to wait for data transfer, the very data are subject to being lost forever. Even a pretty slow computer will outstrip the ability of the USB external to keep up the pace. FW-400 (IEEE-1394a) is faster, less prone to read/write errors, but is still very slow, compared to an internal SATA II. FW-800 (IEEE-1394b) gets closer, and eSATA is virtually as fast as that SATA II internal. In real-world terms, one will not be able to see/experience a difference. There will be a slight difference, but it would be measured in times that a user could not detect.


                              USB externals are great, when just archiving material. There, one only has either the read, or the write, and also the program is not also reading and writing at the same time.


                              I do not have any experience with USB 3.0's, but the tests that I have seen indicate that they are still much slower in real-world terms, than an internal SATA II, regardless of what the published specs. are. I would stick to SATA II internals, or eSATA externals, with FW-800 externals coming in third.