-
Using the Cores and Codec Efficiency Question
This question is about efficiency among various codecs.
I’m recording hi-res screencasts with iShowU, which allows me to record what I’m doing onscreen in pretty much any format.
Thus far, I’ve tried both the apple animation codec and ProRes 422. I’m shocked by the difference in encoding speed — which seems related to the fact that PR422 utilizes MUCH more of my processor (when rendering to scratch in FCP).
The image below is my CPU usage history (top/bottom = 2 cores) — the initial big mountains are when I’m doing PR422 and the smaller, later ones are when rendering with apple animation codec.
So I’ve got two questions:
1) Why the huge difference in processor uptake between the two codecs?
2) Does anyone recommend a different codec that may be more suitable/faster/generally high quality, for my screencasts (recording a large patch of screen, editing in FCP, exporting high quality h.264 mp4’s).
Thanks in advance.
—Dean
-
4 Replies
-
The advantage of ProRez 422 is that it can be played back in realtime without rendering. I normally only use the animation codec when I need to transfer an alpha channel (transparency) and you always have to render to play back.
Drew
Chaos is the beginning of everything.
-
That definitely makes sense (that it’s easier to use because you don’t constantly need to render it), but what I don’t get is why there is such a huge difference in the amount of CPU cycles I can actually throw at each codec, when I do finally need to render something.
-
That is a question for “the writers of Code” I tend to lean more towards “if it works it works” approach
Drew
Chaos is the beginning of everything.
-
Rendering to ProRess there is a big job of compression. With Animation this do not happens. Is a looseless codec and the data is just optimized to make smaller files than the NONE Apple codec.
Rafael
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up