-
hdv (mt2) faster then avi in After Effects
hi there !
sorry for my bad english, can You help me understand this problem ? 🙂
I know that for effects, multiple files composing i must make the files to be easier for AE to work with – if i will work in the program with uncompressed avi, lagarith avi, cineform avi or other intermediate codecs the program will not have to mess with fields and frame rate – i am giving deinterlaced avi’s in the fps that the timeline is.
so the program can make his calculations faster – this is my logic – unfurtunatly i am doing something wrong or i don’t understand it right becous AE renders longer using avi.
i’ve made couple of tests , every test in the same circumstances (everytime system restart, the same file root etc .. ) and here are the results (rendering by after effects to avi no compression file) :
render from 24p timeline (23.976)
-34sec- using normal mt2 files (they are natural 23,97) interlaced
-37sec- using avi lagarith 23.976 fps deinterlaced
-39sec- using avi uncompressed 23.976 fps deinterlacedrender from 24p timeline (23.976) (with lot of effects and filers)
-1m12sec- using normal mt2 files (they are natural 23,97) interlaced
-1m18sec- using avi lagarith 23.976 fps deinterlacedI simply don’t get it – AE must make more work with the mt2 files, wich are a kind of mpeg2 file – and even the adobe says it’s not recomended – but the program works faster with them.
what am i doing wrong ? thanks ! 😉
//
PC vista 64 bit
intel quadcore q6600 2,4 ghz
8gb ram ddr2
300 gb raid 0 ( files were on this )
120 gb for vistathe mt2 files were captured using hdvsplit from canon hv30 via firewire
-
5 Replies
-
my initial suspicion would be that it is a data bottleneck at the drive or drive bus… if you have a bottleneck at the drive bus, then smaller, compressed files may work better than larger uncompressed files despite the higher cpu overhead for decompression.
you said you have a 300gb raid0. what type of bus is the drive using (sata, sata2, firewire…)? and is it using the system bus (on the mother board) or through an expansion card? to work most efficiently, your raid0 should be on a separate bus (like sata2 pci/pci-e card).
also, do you have disk caching enabled in ae? if so, it needs to be on a drive that is on a separate bus from your media…. so if you have a sata2 pci card for your media, set the cache to the internal boot drive. if you don’t have a separate bus, then disable disk caching, it will lead to a data bottleneck and reduce performance.
Kevin Camp
Senior Designer
KCPQ, KMYQ & KRCW -
Thanks Kevin !
Yes it must be a bottleneck problem.
The Raid0 is controlled by motherboard, sata2
I unchecked the disc cache, restart and ran the same test – no differance at all when rendering, the speed result was the same.
So in case of software problems I reinstalled a fresh vista 64bit and the new drivers – the “problem” is still here when rendering.
So I think that maybe this is simply too much for my motherboard and it needs an external card to control the raid ?
all of my hard discs are (all 7200rpm speed):
serial ata1 disc for system
serial ata2 disc for system page file
raid 0 with 2 serial ata2 discs for the media files and projectsis this realy too much and i need a controler?
_______________________
my motherboard has:
storage:intel ICH10R SOUTHBRIDGE:
-6 x SATA 3.0GB/S PORTS
-INTEL MATRIX STORAGE TECHNOLOGY SUPPORTS RAID 0,1,5,10MARVEL 88SE6111 CONTROLLER:
-1 x ULTRA DMA 133/100/66 FOR UP TO 2 PATA DEVICESSILICON IMAGE SIL5723 CONTROLLER (DRIVE EXPERT TECHNOLOGY):
-2 X SATA 3GB/S PORTS
-SUPPORTS EZ BACKUP AND SUPER SPEED FUNCTIONSAND THE CHIPSET IS INTEL P45 / ICH10R with intel fast memory access technology
___________________________I simply hope that the problem can be resolved by software way instead of buing a controller. Is there still a chance that something is not configuret correctly ?
cheers
-
Hey, new test after enableing “volume write-back cache” in software raid controller ( intel matrix storage console ) :
____________________________________
render time before / after this option turned on :with mt2 files :
34 sec / 26 secwith avi lagarith files :
37 sec / 32 secwith avi uncompressed files :
39 sec / 48 sec
_____________________________________the avi uncompressed file is the largest one so it’s normal to perform the slowest way if i have a bottleneck .. but when the others have speed up, this type of avi has even slow down more .. I’m confused 😛
-
Without knowing exactly what you call uncompressed (“None”, “Yuv 4:2:2”?), I am not surprised about MPEG-2 being faster than a third party codec. MPEG-2 is among the file formats that are handled directly by MediaCore, Adobe’s high-performance format handling library. With some exceptions, lossless encoders (like Lagarith)are more optimized for file size shrinking than performance. In any case, there’s no contradiction – MPEG-2 encoding should still be slower than non-temporally compressed formats handled by MediaCore.
Adolfo Rozenfeld · Adobe
-
Hi !
I made the problem dissapear , now the avi (render using lagarith’s default values) is faster than mt2 files when editing.
The solution was strange … i replaced my windows vista with windows 7 and it works faster now. With everythin the same – like page file placement and system adjustments .. the only differance is the windows version.
So .. as you can see if you have asus p5q motherboard or similar ( and you don’t screew your system like i did with vista), You don’t have to buy a hardware raid controller for working with full hd avi’s – at least for low budget productions of course 🙂
and one last thing, windows 7 is free to use in it’s beta version – You can download it from the microsoft’s website, everything that was designed to work in vista – is working 100% fine in windows7, i thought that it’s to early to work in such a new system – but everything works, drivers and all the programs – and it’s all a little faster than vista.
hey
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up