Activity › Forums › DaVinci Resolve › DPX render speed
-
DPX render speed
Posted by Kaspar Kallas on September 24, 2012 at 12:10 pmHello
What is normal renderspeed for DPX?
I get about 40-60fps when rendering to DNxHD but DPX goes 4-5fps. The raid system gives 900MB/s W and bit over 1000MB/s read according BMD diskspeed test.Is this normal?
Win7 V9 beta3 (would not like to upgrade in mid project)
Thank You
KasparKaspar Kallas replied 13 years, 7 months ago 4 Members · 5 Replies -
5 Replies
-
Arno Beekman
September 24, 2012 at 1:39 pmehm ehm start by defining “normal”…
if you have your attic full of tesla-towers and your source is 2×2 pixels jpeg then you should be able to render faster than 5 fps… unless your foot is on the cable…
no seriously, you give way too little info to say anything interesting about this.
no wait… why are you running a production on a beta release? maybe there are lots of debugging tools slowing the processing down, or maybe some experimental code in the dpx encoders…
oh and rendering hasn’t got much to do with disk access.
-
Sascha Haber
September 24, 2012 at 1:55 pmI have 40 fps on DPX.
Dual Areca 12 disks eachA slice of color…
Resolve 9.01 OSX 10.8.2
Colorist / Aerial footage nerd
https://vimeo.com/saschahaber -
Kaspar Kallas
September 24, 2012 at 7:38 pmHi
Is there a major difference say proRez or DPX?
I have noticed that HFS volumes handle single frame formats much more efficiently than NTFS so there might be something there. Anyhow I got all rendered and will continue trials with final V9 to see if there is any help.The Raid is Atto R680 with 8x3TB disks in Raid5 so the data throughput cannot be the problem.
Thank You
Kaspar -
Eric Johnson
September 25, 2012 at 7:18 pmnot to be nit-picky, but 3TB drives are slower than 2TB, 1.5TB, 1TB and 500GB due platter size, platter density and sector size… they may be slower by an infinitesimal amount, yet they remain slower.
And there is, in my experience, a significant difference between compressed formats (be they lossy or lossless) and formats such as DPX which are more traditional uncompressed formats (though there are different “compression” schemes for DPX, TIFF, etc)
Some of those differences are where the computing is done (gpu/cpu), others would be the efficiency of the Decode of your source at a system level and then there is drive speed, drive throughput, caching and pretty much the sum of your total machine…
-
Kaspar Kallas
September 27, 2012 at 8:49 pmUpgraded to 9.0.1
still the same issue…
Now testing a little has interesting outcome by rendering 16bit TIFF (way larger file than 10bit DPX) is 44FPS!?Anybody want to chew on that?
Kaspar
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up