Was wondering if it usually take this long

[Walter Soyka]

[John Høeg] “As soon I wrote the last post the process finished and my ram usage dropped to 24%. Though shortly after ram usage kept rising until it reached 10 gb of ram usage cause I clsoed the program down after saving the project. this sounds really unhealthy and makes no sense to me.”

4 hours is really long. Your output may have seemed to freeze after it finished encoding, but while it was still multiplexing the very long audio and very long video together into a single file. I imagine your hard disk usage was high during this period, too.

I’m not sure why your RAM usage starting climbing after the encode finished. That is weird.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

[John Høeg]

Might be.

premiere pro is located on a ssd ocz agility 4 128gb
But due to space issues i am exporting it into my hitachi deskstar hdd running at 7200 rpm (average write speed of 60-90mb/s

nvm what I wrote earlier. forgot to put sound through the proper channels.

[Tim Kolb]

Also keep in mind that the quantity of effects, etc that you have on your video makes a difference. Certain effects take some time to process, and RAM usage could be affected by what effect is being processed at any given point.

How available space and speed of the destination drive is a factor, but where the media is caching can make a difference too.

TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,

Adobe Certified Instructor

[Jeff Pulera]

My understanding of the Adobe Mercury Engine GPU Acceleration is that if you use a supported Nvidia card, that could speed up H.264 exports, but no one has mentioned that yet. Am I off course? The poster has a Radeon card installed.

Thanks

Jeff Pulera
Safe Harbor Computers

[John Høeg]

I am using a ATI Radeon card yes.

[Walter Soyka]

[Jeff Pulera] “My understanding of the Adobe Mercury Engine GPU Acceleration is that if you use a supported Nvidia card, that could speed up H.264 exports, but no one has mentioned that yet. Am I off course? The poster has a Radeon card installed.”

Mercury Playback Engine’s hardware acceleration would accelerate some processing tasks like scaling or deinterlacing, and would accelerate supported effects, but it does not accelerate encoding or decoding video. These tasks are still performed entirely on the CPU.

The rendering pipeline (reading the video, applying effects, etc.) is separate from the encoding pipeline (taking the uncompressed video frames from memory, compressing them, and saving them on disk). Mercury Playback Engine’s hardware acceleration can speed up the former, but not the latter.

On render-heavy comps, hardware acceleration can help your total output time drop noticeably. On render-light comps, it wouldn’t make much of a difference.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

[John Høeg]

Actually I am kind of confused right now.

I started another format, just for the heck of it. But I stopped it as soon I noticed the duration.

If I made the video in FLV same resolution lower bitrate and lower audio quality (15gb aproximately 12gb less) it would take me 22 hours according to premiere pro.

Why is there such a big difference. with such lower quality?

[Walter Soyka]

[John Høeg] “If I made the video in FLV same resolution lower bitrate and lower audio quality (15gb aproximately 12gb less) it would take me 22 hours according to premiere pro. Why is there such a big difference. with such lower quality?”

The times aren’t going to be directly comparable to H.264 since you are using a different encoder.

Video compression is asymmetric — that is, encoding it is more computationally difficult than decoding it. Trying to squeeze your encode into a smaller file may actually increase the amount of work the encoder has to do, and that can drive times up.

For a project of this length, I’d suggest doing a smaller test encode to make sure you’re happy with your settings.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

[John Høeg]

I am happy for the H.264 quality no doubt the size just kinda makes it hard for me to use on youtube.

Which format gives the best quality compared to time investment/size

[Walter Soyka]

[John Høeg] “I am happy for the H.264 quality no doubt the size just kinda makes it hard for me to use on youtube. Which format gives the best quality compared to time investment/size”

Totally subjective. Compression is about managing trade-offs: quality vs. file size vs. encode time vs. decode complexity.

I would ordinarily go for H.264 myself; I’m not sure why you had that audio problem.

Isn’t it possible to split your ten-hour extravaganza into significantly smaller segments somehow?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events