-
Anyone experience decreased performance with DNxHD?
We had to get the AVID plugin for a job and to my surprise the footage plays back poorly. I’m working with 1920×1080 DNxHD 175 footage at 24fps (24 not 23.98). In contrast when I work with a QT based format at the same resolution and framerate I have good performance. Does this make sense to anyone? Is DNxHD more processor intensive or something?
Thanks,roman hankewycz
harbor film company // colorist -
4 Replies
-
[Roman Hankewycz] ” Is DNxHD more processor intensive or something?”
It may have something to do with the MXF wrapper. I don’t really know, but I do see a big difference in rendering performance. A ProRes render looked like it was playing in real time (rendering at about 24 fps), but DNxHD/MXF exports average about 16-18 fps with similar node counts.
jPo
You mean “Old Ben”? Ben Kenobi?
-
Yup, that’s what I’m experiencing.
Just sucks since the ability to play DNxHD comes with a significant price tag and an additional processing lag too.roman hankewycz
harbor film company // colorist -
Yeah ditto on the playback performance problems with DNXHD MXF’s (and quite a bummer that it costs $500 for the privilege). I’ve been pretty frustrated with the decrease in performance (as compared to prores or DPX files). On projects that haven’t had to go back to AVID, I’ve actually taken the DNXHD based project from AVID, imported into resolve, converted the whole thing to a flattened DPX sequence (chopped it up again, using and EDL) and graded that. Its better to have consistent performance (and rendering speeds) when clients are in the room, that’s my 2 cents anyway. Obviously if you’re roundtripping or need handles, this isn’t the best option.
Chris Hall
Colorist – Basher Films
Pasadena, CA -
Yes I’m experiencing the same problem with Dnxhd 185x. Its quite frustrating with clients in the room when I also want to playback audio…
I’d like to know what to upgrade, is this a cpu or gpu problem?
Best
Lee
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up