Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › Technique › Editing › Background Processes
- This topic has 15 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by Anonymous.
May 5, 2006 at 8:44 AM #41029AnonymousInactive
I am new to this game and have just encoded my first full length feature and was horrified to find it took nearly 15 hours for a 1.45h clip.
So my question is, I want to dedicate all my processor power to the task of Transcoding, so how do i do this.
In the old Win ME, i could simply CTRL + ALT + DEL and then shut down processes that i dont need running to get more power, but i am using XP now and i dont have a clue what all the things are running in the Sys Tray.
Anyone got any ideas, which ones must i leave on? I switch the rest off.
May 5, 2006 at 9:05 AM #174929AnonymousInactive
You’re not going to gain that much by shutting down background process. Just because you see them list there doesn’t necessarily mean that they are currently doing anything. They could just be loaded in memory and that’s why you see them there. All you can really do is make sure that you don’t have any other programs running especially any virus software.
By looking at the amount of time it took, I would venture to say that you must have did a 2-pass encoding job in which case it will take twice as long as a single pass. I always set those up to run over night when I’m sleeping. Other influences would be compression settings but even bigger than that would be your CPU speed. Your CPU is the thing that is doing all of the work and if you have a slower one, it will just take that much longer. That’s just how it is.
May 5, 2006 at 12:26 PM #174930AnonymousInactive
I transcoded a 1h 20 min wedding video in just under an hour. There were minimal transitions and video filters applied so the processor just had to transcode straight video. I also have a dual core Pentium D 2.8GHz processor with 2Gig if RAM. As I explained to you before, transcoding will take a long time, especially if the video content has filters, titles, transitions, and such added to it. I don’t know what transcoder your using but I think the newer ones run a bit quicker.
The bottom line is that you can’t squeeze blood out of a stone. Try as you might, it just won’t happen. I transcoded a 1h 50min video that had a color correction filter applied to the whole thing and it took my older P3 1G with 256MBs of RAM 26 Hours! Sorry but thats the way it is. Get use to it.
May 5, 2006 at 2:27 PM #174931AnonymousInactive
I sort of kind of agree with you but I was under the impression that he was taking a fully rendered AVI file and transcoding that to an mpeg file via Encore (I think that’s what he’s using) in which case filters and transactions dont matter.
I think youre talking about rendering video footage on a timeline with all of the added in filters and what have you in which case I totally agree with you. Blurs, color correctors and even that stinking 3D filter used for different 3D movements are the worst.
I guess when I hear or say transcoding (encoding), I view that term meaning compressing and re-writing into a completely different mpeg style file format.
I view the term rendering as manipulating or altering existing video footage to achieve the newly added desired affect(s). In the end you still have an AVI file.
If he’s trying to do both at the same time, then this is the reason it’s taking a month of Sundays to encode everything. All of the articles and recomendations I read say avoid doing both at the same time because it’s very taxing and time consuming on the CPU and could lead to problems such as crashes or overheating even.
May 5, 2006 at 3:47 PM #174932AnonymousInactive
If he exported his timeline as a single AVI file and is letting Encore transcode it, it should be faster than 15 hours, unless its a 2 pass like you said. Or if he only has 1 hard drive. Or if its an external hard drive (though those are getting faster).
I let my system render and transcode at the same time. I’ve never had a crashing problem. Rendering alone can take quite some time and then to have to transcode it, seems to take just as much time in the long run. The only real difference is that once rendering is done, you have to interact with it again to transcode it. I set it and forget it overnight. In the morning, its done.
Every system is different and we could be going on for months trying to get it a little bit faster. I was the same way when I started making DVDs. Ultimately, I accepted the long transcode times and planned for it. My new system is faster, but I still plan on long transcode times just to be safe.
May 6, 2006 at 3:43 AM #174933AnonymousInactive
I agree with you on his transcode time. I’m thinking he has an under-powered CPU.
Boy you must have a super rocket of a system then. When I’m editing in Premier Pro my PC can’t really play an un-rendered timeline with certain applied filters and effects very smoothly. 😕 I have a friend that has a faster PC and even his hesitates a little bit here and there.
Personally I never do both because I want to see what my finished rendered AVI file looks like at full speed on a full screen (via Media Player) before I go ahead and transcode it. Call it a double check if you will. The last thing I want to do is waste 5 or 10 hours transcoding and then find out that a title was cut off or maybe the timing on something was off or I didn’t apply a de-interlace setting on a frozen clip or something.
May 6, 2006 at 7:37 AM #174934AnonymousInactive
I spot render if I need to. I’ll render a portion of something just to double check it. Once I know its right, I move on.
My "rocket" of a system is a Pentium D 2.8GHz dual core with 2Gig of RAM. My graphics has 256MBs of RAM just for video. I’m also using the 975 chipset, 5 DVD burners and a 550 watt PSU. I built it in late March and cost me around $1500. That includes shipping.
May 6, 2006 at 9:20 AM #174935AnonymousInactive
kkmac: I remember your system and am totally jealous. 2 of my 3 PC’s just have a single 2.1 Mhz AMD with 128meg NVIDIA vid cards and 2 GB of RAM/ea. They work very well but no where near as fast as yours. I think I built them like 4 years ago. One of these days I’ll bring them up to speed. Probably when HD steps into my life. :'(
compuslover: For the most part I don’t usually go to DVD for inspection because it seems like a waste of time and materials <BUT> it never fails that even when I think I have it all dialed in and I burn to DVD, I always seem to find a flaw somewhere. Then I’ll just go back, fix it and then do all of the rendering/transcoding again. Usually it’s spelling. :-// I SUCK at spelling. My wife is usually the one that finds the mistakes. One of these days Adobe will incorporate a spellchecker into their video editing stuff of which I will be eternally thankful for. I guess in the end I’m doing the same thing you are only not by choice.
May 6, 2006 at 3:17 PM #174936AnonymousInactive
what a topic.
Ok, heres the skinny.
I have previously discussed with kkmac what setting i needed to use for Transcoding ( i dont know if this is the right word for it, i mean to have premier make the corrections and add the effects and then save it as a DV AVI file which it already was, ready to import into Encorer) in Premier (pro 1.5 if that helps), but this Thread was intended to be for Encore settings, but when i actually used Encore i found that they are the same setting as Premier anyway, and going from a DV AVI file to an MPEG2 took less than the 6 hours i was asleep, so i guess i only really have a problem in Premier.
Anyway, if we set asside what word means what or what program i am using, or even what speed or system i have, Can anyone answer my question:
What can i close down in the sys tray to make the process faster (no matter how small the increase, for the effort it takes to shut down a few utilities, its worth it) while transcoding in Premier?
Compu, i will check the link you gave me as soon as i have clciked submit.
oh yeh, i am using a Pentium 2.6G, with 1G of DDR Ram and have an external (USB 2) 10,000rpm HD that has the files on.
May 6, 2006 at 5:11 PM #174937AnonymousInactive
I honestly don’t think anything you turn off in the sys tray will make any difference. I don’t know much about that area of the system so I never F@#K with it. Exporting times will vary based on the content in the timeline and how much you changed it, (color correct, blurs, titles, transitions, etc). I may be wrong about the sys tray, but I doubt it.
May 7, 2006 at 6:57 AM #174938AnonymousInactive
kkmac is right! The various icons listed in the system stray are just representations of TSR programs that are loaded and possibly running (but not necessarily) which are stored in a certain memory sector. Some of these programs can be active like a virus protection program and some will become active when you click on them. Other than making sure that your virus program is disabled, the other items wont really do anything. When youre rendering or transcoding, its the CPU that is doing all of the work along with the allocated memory section used by your PC. 1gig of memory is plenty for Premiere Pro to operate with.
Can you give us a feel as to what your project is all about? What kind of filters and effects are you using and about how many. Also how many layers are you stacking up on top of each other. Based on that info, we might be able to decipher why it seems to take so long and if it’s normal or not. Also, do you have more than one physical HD and are you using a scratch disk setup? Rendering a timeline in Premiere Pro should be WAY faster then transcoding to mpeg.
Other little tidbits that can help is to make sure that you de-fragment you HDs, make sure you have plenty of HD room, make sure you have no viruses which can cause poor PC performance and if you have a fulltime internet connection, disable that so there is no unnecessary activity going on in the background.
May 9, 2006 at 2:25 AM #174939AnonymousInactive
cheers for all the replies, these are really helpfull.
I dont know if i already said this, but i encoded the finished project from DV AVI to MPEG2 in Encore and it took less than 8 hours (not sure how long as i was asleep).
As for the project, it was a test project, i shot my mates Band in a pub, so it was very dark, so i had to apply the following Filter / Effects:
Sharpening over the Whole 1h 45m project
Brighten over the whole project
Contrast over the whole project
Brought the red down on the whole project
Had Titles at the begining, end and some through the project, i had some of these flashing, so had keyframed their opacity. Thes titles were on track 2.
I also had some Audio mess up so had to insert my second (live) Audio track into the space (the main audio was from the PA)
I think that is about it, i cant actually remember if i had any significant transitions, but i know i did have a couple.
I do have an external HD which these files are on, this is USB (i think 2) and i have an IDE Hd with my programs on.
I have looked carefully at the items in the Sys tray and have realised it tells me how much of the processor they are using, and it is as you all say, nearly all of them are dormant and not using any processor resources at all.
I will dissable my Antivirus software (when i find out how), but do i need to dissable the Firewall as well? (I am using Norton for both)
I seriously need to get some speed from somewhere as i have just (sunday night) filmed my first pro project, which will end up being between 2 and 3 hours when finished, so i assume that means even longer Transocde times. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh.
May 9, 2006 at 6:24 AM #174940AnonymousInactive
That explains it! The first 4 filters you applied are CPU grinders. Especially the sharpen filter. The fact that you did the whole 1hr 45min clip makes it even more tasking. What happens is that your CPU has to take each frame (approx 189,000 if using 30 fps) and has to re-write each pixel of each frame to accommodate your desired filter settings.
IMO, I dont think it took the whole 8 hours either because like you said you were sleeping. Im thinking that maybe around 5 hours would be more like it and based on the filters you used. I dont think that this is all that out of the ordinary based on the CPU you have. My only suggestion is to make sure you do a good job with the initial video so you dont have to use those filters. As the saying goes, An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
BTW: The audio, transitions and simple titles doesnt really affect render speeds at all. Premiere Pro should blow right through those areas.
May 9, 2006 at 7:58 AM #174941AnonymousInactive
Ey up mate,
cheers for that reply, i am interested now, could you tell me what Filter / Effects to avoid using as they are very processor intensive?
I think you have got a little confused, it took Premier nearly 15 hours to export the Movie file (my edited DV AVI to one complete DV AVI) for me to use in Encore, but it then only took Ecnore about 5 hours to Builb the MPEG2 DVD file.
I totally agree with you about the prep, i am into photography and use digital, but realise that even though i can do what every i want in photoshop (well within reason) i still need to make the initail shots as good as poss.
As this was the first thing i had filmed and it was in a very dark Pub, i am still pretty pleased with the subtle changes that i needed to do.
The contest that i have just shot does not need any of the video editing, just simply needs cutting. I learnt a lot from the Pub gig and have learnt even more from the contest.
As i say, thanks for the reply, if you could give me an idea of filters / effects to avoid it would be very much appreciated.
May 9, 2006 at 8:28 AM #174942AnonymousInactive
I am always confused! Ask my wife X-D
The 5 hours it took for Encore to transcode 1hr 45min of video to mpeg sounds about right for your CPU. I know it takes me about 4 hours to transcode an hours worth of video and my CPU is a little slower than yours. IMO, I dont see a problem there. It is what it is!
As far as Premier Pro goes, 15 hours does seem like a long time but there again I have never applied those filters that you did on an entire 1hr 45min clip before. All I know is that it will probably take a while to do. 15 hours could very well be normal and about as good as youre going to get.
The filters that seem to dog me the most during rendering are any of the blur filters, some of the color correcting and adjustment filters and that 3D filter. On one project I took a whole bunch of video clips and tilted them using the 3D filter and it took forever to render. Its almost to the point where I hate even using it. There could be other filters too but the ones I listed are very slow to render on my machines.
As I stated earlier, just make sure you have your camera settings right and you can save oodles of time rendering by not having to use adjustment filters.
May 9, 2006 at 10:20 AM #174943AnonymousInactive
cheers for the replies, you have been a great help and it is conforting to know that my system is running right even if it means i am stuck with very slow render times.
Hopefully this project will be quicker as i shouldn’t have to apply many effects, other than lightening it a little.
Does cropping slow things down, as i cropped the whole of the last file and want to crop things on this file.
thanks for that reply, do you know how i can check the transfer rate of that drive? I cant believe the difference, thats huge.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.