Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Premiere Pro painfully slow rendering?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 30, 2004 4:05:49 AM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.

Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.

Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
very wrong?
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 12:48:05 PM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I think 80 minutes is outstanding.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:05:49 -0700, John <usenet@nospam.org> wrote:

>Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
>commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
>it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
>an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
>AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
>
>Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
>
>Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
>very wrong?
September 30, 2004 1:26:41 PM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

80 minutes isnt that bad for a full render to high-quality DV.

I just rendered a 15-min. video with about 35 transitions and output to
high-quality MPEG-4 and it took close to 7 hrs with a P4 3.06 GHz & 1.5GB
RAM......


"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:t1cnl092enmjhbkp8p4bsr57dhh744mfvq@4ax.com...
> Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
> commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
> it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
> an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
> AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
>
> Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
>
> Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
> very wrong?
Related resources
September 30, 2004 1:26:42 PM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I appreciate the comments, and would especially appreciate input from
anyone who has hands-on experience with Premiere Pro, especially in
comparison with Premiere 6.5. My 6.5 is on a mediocre Celeron 1.2G
and - although I have yet to render that exact same video for
comparison - from past experience I'd expect it to only render the
transitions, which would take less than a minute. I'd expect mpg
conversion will be 2:1 or a bit slower.

I'm really shocked at the huge step backward in performance, and am
trying to decide if I'm doing something really wrong. Other than a
'pro' moniker and some editing metaphors designed to wag tongues in
the "yeah, that's the way it's *supposed* to be done" direction, I
haven't read anything compelling about the new product. On the
contrary, there are disturbing comments about problems that didn't
seem to exist in the previous product.

Anyway, someone tell me I'm wrong and I'll probably believe them.

"TJM" <tjm@nospam.com> wrote:

>80 minutes isnt that bad for a full render to high-quality DV.
>
>I just rendered a 15-min. video with about 35 transitions and output to
>high-quality MPEG-4 and it took close to 7 hrs with a P4 3.06 GHz & 1.5GB
>RAM......
>
>
>"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
>news:t1cnl092enmjhbkp8p4bsr57dhh744mfvq@4ax.com...
>> Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
>> commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
>> it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
>> an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
>> AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
>>
>> Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
>>
>> Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
>> very wrong?
>
September 30, 2004 1:35:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
> commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
> it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
> an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
> AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
>
> Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
>
> Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
> very wrong?

Render time should take (for a simple fade) quite the same time as the real
duration of the fade, the heavy part is the mpg conversion... this is a high
cpu occupation task... this means it will take LOONG...
Dunno how long the episode was, but 80 minutes is not that much if the mpg
conversion parameters aren't set for speed (dunno about premiere, I usually
convert video files with external encoders).
Maybe 80 minutes is A BIT too long, but not that much IMHO

--
rIO.sK
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 6:50:48 PM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

yes.. mpeg compression takes a long time. Much longer than most.
"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:t1cnl092enmjhbkp8p4bsr57dhh744mfvq@4ax.com...
> Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
> commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
> it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
> an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
> AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
>
> Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
>
> Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
> very wrong?
September 30, 2004 9:33:29 PM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

John,
I am not clear on what you are converting to?
You captured it in dv format through 1394, took out a few commercials and
now
are rendering the entire file to mpeg2 format to make a dvd? Is that
correct?

If so, 80 minutes is about right, but if you edited out commercials and want
to save back to the same
dv format you captured at, it shouldn't take that long, it should only
render the parts of the file that changed, smart rendering I would think.
I assume that you are converting to mpeg2 but you mentioned saving to high
quality dv, so it confused me.
If you can clear this up it would help,
Thanks,
Anthony



"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:D o2ol0panbk5fcvtepge794825k1n5vv2h@4ax.com...
>I appreciate the comments, and would especially appreciate input from
> anyone who has hands-on experience with Premiere Pro, especially in
> comparison with Premiere 6.5. My 6.5 is on a mediocre Celeron 1.2G
> and - although I have yet to render that exact same video for
> comparison - from past experience I'd expect it to only render the
> transitions, which would take less than a minute. I'd expect mpg
> conversion will be 2:1 or a bit slower.
>
> I'm really shocked at the huge step backward in performance, and am
> trying to decide if I'm doing something really wrong. Other than a
> 'pro' moniker and some editing metaphors designed to wag tongues in
> the "yeah, that's the way it's *supposed* to be done" direction, I
> haven't read anything compelling about the new product. On the
> contrary, there are disturbing comments about problems that didn't
> seem to exist in the previous product.
>
> Anyway, someone tell me I'm wrong and I'll probably believe them.
>
> "TJM" <tjm@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>80 minutes isnt that bad for a full render to high-quality DV.
>>
>>I just rendered a 15-min. video with about 35 transitions and output to
>>high-quality MPEG-4 and it took close to 7 hrs with a P4 3.06 GHz & 1.5GB
>>RAM......
>>
>>
>>"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
>>news:t1cnl092enmjhbkp8p4bsr57dhh744mfvq@4ax.com...
>>> Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
>>> commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
>>> it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
>>> an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
>>> AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
>>>
>>> Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
>>>
>>> Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
>>> very wrong?
>>
>
September 30, 2004 9:48:39 PM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote:

>John,
>I am not clear on what you are converting to?
>You captured it in dv format through 1394, took out a few commercials and
>now
>are rendering the entire file to mpeg2 format to make a dvd? Is that
>correct?
>
>If so, 80 minutes is about right, but if you edited out commercials and want
>to save back to the same
>dv format you captured at, it shouldn't take that long, it should only
>render the parts of the file that changed, smart rendering I would think.
>I assume that you are converting to mpeg2 but you mentioned saving to high
>quality dv, so it confused me.
>If you can clear this up it would help,
>Thanks,
>Anthony
>
Premiere Pro offers a couple of mpg conversion choices - two cbr and
one vbr. They call cbr 6 mb/sec "high quality". I just meant that was
what I was using, and was keeping the output unchanged - DV in, DV
out.

Premiere Pro seems to insist on rendering everything. Others have
asked "isn't there a way to enable 'smart rendering' but afaik they
answer is no.
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 9:50:59 PM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I agree with Anthony R. If at all possible you should always capture and edit in
the exact same video and audio codec. This way when you output the file, Pro
should only "render" the differences, which in your example are real small. This
means rendering would take about as long as it takes to transfer the file from
one location to another.

If you are converting things to DVD mpeg2 format, I don't care how fast your
computer is, it is going to take time.

One more thing. If your input and output settings are the same, make sure an
item called "always recompress" isn't checked. This should be in your video
settings.


"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:JrX6d.49457$Ot3.24712@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> John,
> I am not clear on what you are converting to?
> You captured it in dv format through 1394, took out a few commercials and now
> are rendering the entire file to mpeg2 format to make a dvd? Is that correct?
>
> If so, 80 minutes is about right, but if you edited out commercials and want
> to save back to the same
> dv format you captured at, it shouldn't take that long, it should only render
> the parts of the file that changed, smart rendering I would think.
> I assume that you are converting to mpeg2 but you mentioned saving to high
> quality dv, so it confused me.
> If you can clear this up it would help,
> Thanks,
> Anthony
>
>
>
> "John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:D o2ol0panbk5fcvtepge794825k1n5vv2h@4ax.com...
>>I appreciate the comments, and would especially appreciate input from
>> anyone who has hands-on experience with Premiere Pro, especially in
>> comparison with Premiere 6.5. My 6.5 is on a mediocre Celeron 1.2G
>> and - although I have yet to render that exact same video for
>> comparison - from past experience I'd expect it to only render the
>> transitions, which would take less than a minute. I'd expect mpg
>> conversion will be 2:1 or a bit slower.
>>
>> I'm really shocked at the huge step backward in performance, and am
>> trying to decide if I'm doing something really wrong. Other than a
>> 'pro' moniker and some editing metaphors designed to wag tongues in
>> the "yeah, that's the way it's *supposed* to be done" direction, I
>> haven't read anything compelling about the new product. On the
>> contrary, there are disturbing comments about problems that didn't
>> seem to exist in the previous product.
>>
>> Anyway, someone tell me I'm wrong and I'll probably believe them.
>>
>> "TJM" <tjm@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>80 minutes isnt that bad for a full render to high-quality DV.
>>>
>>>I just rendered a 15-min. video with about 35 transitions and output to
>>>high-quality MPEG-4 and it took close to 7 hrs with a P4 3.06 GHz & 1.5GB
>>>RAM......
>>>
>>>
>>>"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
>>>news:t1cnl092enmjhbkp8p4bsr57dhh744mfvq@4ax.com...
>>>> Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
>>>> commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
>>>> it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
>>>> an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
>>>> AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
>>>>
>>>> Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
>>>>
>>>> Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
>>>> very wrong?
>>>
>>
>
>
September 30, 2004 9:58:38 PM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Vincent Cruise" <nospam@no-spam.col> wrote:

>I agree with Anthony R. If at all possible you should always capture and edit in
>the exact same video and audio codec. This way when you output the file, Pro
>should only "render" the differences, which in your example are real small. This
>means rendering would take about as long as it takes to transfer the file from
>one location to another.
>
>If you are converting things to DVD mpeg2 format, I don't care how fast your
>computer is, it is going to take time.
>
>One more thing. If your input and output settings are the same, make sure an
>item called "always recompress" isn't checked. This should be in your video
>settings.
>
Yeah, well, input was from an ADS Pyro 1394-out box that captures DV
including 48khz stereo, and I'm asking Adobe to write it in exactly
the same format. I don't think that's the problem - the mpg encoder is
going to encode the whole thing no matter how alike the input and
output are, and probably is moving along hastily.

I think the problem is that the Premiere Pro designers forgot how neat
an idea it is to only render stuff that needs rendering, and there is
no way to get it to render just the transitions. Someone posted in
another forum that the silly thing absolutely insists on rendering
each time you export. If you tell it to render the timeline, and when
it's done tell it to render it again, it goes right to work, quite
unlike 6.5 where once it's rendered it you have to do some serious
changes to get it to do it again. (I wanted to re-render something
over and over for benchmarking, and it's a challenge. Hooray!)
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 1:59:27 AM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

LOTS of new stuff including HD and 24P to name 2. But as for transcoding Pro
has to set up the audio too...called conforming. Takes time and a lot of
drive space. Not sure about why but it does. But the color correction is
MUCH better for another example. How it handles clips of different aspect
ratio is strange and I feel sub standard compared to 6.5. If like me you did
A/B editing on 6.5 the new single timeline for video and effects is a pain.
But it's encoder BLOWS AWAY 6.5. Higher quality but I will; say its slow.
But I tested a simple 1 hour project on both and the time wasn't much
different but the Quality was.
Mike

"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:D o2ol0panbk5fcvtepge794825k1n5vv2h@4ax.com...
>I appreciate the comments, and would especially appreciate input from
> anyone who has hands-on experience with Premiere Pro, especially in
> comparison with Premiere 6.5. My 6.5 is on a mediocre Celeron 1.2G
> and - although I have yet to render that exact same video for
> comparison - from past experience I'd expect it to only render the
> transitions, which would take less than a minute. I'd expect mpg
> conversion will be 2:1 or a bit slower.
>
> I'm really shocked at the huge step backward in performance, and am
> trying to decide if I'm doing something really wrong. Other than a
> 'pro' moniker and some editing metaphors designed to wag tongues in
> the "yeah, that's the way it's *supposed* to be done" direction, I
> haven't read anything compelling about the new product. On the
> contrary, there are disturbing comments about problems that didn't
> seem to exist in the previous product.
>
> Anyway, someone tell me I'm wrong and I'll probably believe them.
>
> "TJM" <tjm@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>80 minutes isnt that bad for a full render to high-quality DV.
>>
>>I just rendered a 15-min. video with about 35 transitions and output to
>>high-quality MPEG-4 and it took close to 7 hrs with a P4 3.06 GHz & 1.5GB
>>RAM......
>>
>>
>>"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
>>news:t1cnl092enmjhbkp8p4bsr57dhh744mfvq@4ax.com...
>>> Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
>>> commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
>>> it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
>>> an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
>>> AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
>>>
>>> Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
>>>
>>> Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
>>> very wrong?
>>
>
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 7:07:59 AM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

When you export a movie, under the settings, video tab, there is an item called
"Recompress." Make sure this is unchecked.

I just tried this with a simple four minute project and it appeared to export
the resulting video in pretty close to the time it takes to copy the file.
October 1, 2004 7:08:00 AM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"CC Baxter" <nospam@no-spam.apt> wrote:

>When you export a movie, under the settings, video tab, there is an item called
>"Recompress." Make sure this is unchecked.
>
>I just tried this with a simple four minute project and it appeared to export
>the resulting video in pretty close to the time it takes to copy the file.
>
Thanks very much for the suggestion, but I think when I want to export
to an m2v + wav to create a DVD, I have to use Export | Adobe Media
Encoder. That path doesn't include any such options.
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 2:56:22 PM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <23apl0p3oa2gpq40md6b9hbu6gpus8jvhn@4ax.com>, John
<usenet@nospam.org> writes
>"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote:
>
>>John,
>>I am not clear on what you are converting to?
>>You captured it in dv format through 1394, took out a few commercials and
>>now
>>are rendering the entire file to mpeg2 format to make a dvd? Is that
>>correct?
>>
>>If so, 80 minutes is about right, but if you edited out commercials and want
>>to save back to the same
>>dv format you captured at, it shouldn't take that long, it should only
>>render the parts of the file that changed, smart rendering I would think.
>>I assume that you are converting to mpeg2 but you mentioned saving to high
>>quality dv, so it confused me.
>>If you can clear this up it would help,
>>Thanks,
>>Anthony
>>
>Premiere Pro offers a couple of mpg conversion choices - two cbr and
>one vbr. They call cbr 6 mb/sec "high quality". I just meant that was
>what I was using, and was keeping the output unchanged - DV in, DV
>out.
>
But if you're converting to mpeg, it isn't DV out, and Premiere will
have to render/convert the whole thing.
--
Tim Mitchell
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 4:07:46 PM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

when you say evaluating do you mean the evaluation version that expires
in 30 days or the full program, because the eval version doesn't come
with mpeg 2


John wrote:

> Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
> commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
> it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
> an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
> AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
>
> Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
>
> Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
> very wrong?
>
October 1, 2004 4:07:47 PM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

anray <anray@optonline.net> wrote:

>when you say evaluating do you mean the evaluation version that expires
>in 30 days or the full program, because the eval version doesn't come
>with mpeg 2
>
>
Full program - 'eval' meant that I was personally deciding whether to
stick with 1.5 or continue with 6.5.

It's difficult because one has to separate personal lack of experience
with the new product from Adobe's design errors, but my conclusion is
heading toward 6.5. For my casual work I think I'll insist on a
product with smart rendering.

Adobe's had some serious birthing problems with the new product -
first calling it 7.0, then 1.0, then learning from their customer base
that 1.0 wasn't a satisfactory product and rather quickly bringing
forth 1.5. At 1.5, the internals and the interface still have a long
way to go before they become as fast and friendly as 6.5. Presumably
the only design goal was to make it appeal to the 'professional' to
capture that market, but the result seems to be akin to forcing nedit
onto someone used to Visual Studio because it's 'more professional.'

Being a fan of latest-and-greatest, I hope I'm wrong.
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 11:53:25 PM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

It does in fact render in the background many things. The audio is one. Let
your project sit while you eat and see what happens.
Mike

"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:23apl0p3oa2gpq40md6b9hbu6gpus8jvhn@4ax.com...
> "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote:
>
>>John,
>>I am not clear on what you are converting to?
>>You captured it in dv format through 1394, took out a few commercials and
>>now
>>are rendering the entire file to mpeg2 format to make a dvd? Is that
>>correct?
>>
>>If so, 80 minutes is about right, but if you edited out commercials and
>>want
>>to save back to the same
>>dv format you captured at, it shouldn't take that long, it should only
>>render the parts of the file that changed, smart rendering I would think.
>>I assume that you are converting to mpeg2 but you mentioned saving to high
>>quality dv, so it confused me.
>>If you can clear this up it would help,
>>Thanks,
>>Anthony
>>
> Premiere Pro offers a couple of mpg conversion choices - two cbr and
> one vbr. They call cbr 6 mb/sec "high quality". I just meant that was
> what I was using, and was keeping the output unchanged - DV in, DV
> out.
>
> Premiere Pro seems to insist on rendering everything. Others have
> asked "isn't there a way to enable 'smart rendering' but afaik they
> answer is no.
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 11:56:03 PM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I definitely do NOT have that problem on my system. Now I am using a Canopus
Storm 2 but I am about to yank it as I see little benefit from it as opposed
to using it on 6.5 which was a necessity.
Mike

"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:7eapl0tarvkst7u0c2rsc6fvn9j98oniom@4ax.com...
> "Vincent Cruise" <nospam@no-spam.col> wrote:
>
>>I agree with Anthony R. If at all possible you should always capture and
>>edit in
>>the exact same video and audio codec. This way when you output the file,
>>Pro
>>should only "render" the differences, which in your example are real
>>small. This
>>means rendering would take about as long as it takes to transfer the file
>>from
>>one location to another.
>>
>>If you are converting things to DVD mpeg2 format, I don't care how fast
>>your
>>computer is, it is going to take time.
>>
>>One more thing. If your input and output settings are the same, make sure
>>an
>>item called "always recompress" isn't checked. This should be in your
>>video
>>settings.
>>
> Yeah, well, input was from an ADS Pyro 1394-out box that captures DV
> including 48khz stereo, and I'm asking Adobe to write it in exactly
> the same format. I don't think that's the problem - the mpg encoder is
> going to encode the whole thing no matter how alike the input and
> output are, and probably is moving along hastily.
>
> I think the problem is that the Premiere Pro designers forgot how neat
> an idea it is to only render stuff that needs rendering, and there is
> no way to get it to render just the transitions. Someone posted in
> another forum that the silly thing absolutely insists on rendering
> each time you export. If you tell it to render the timeline, and when
> it's done tell it to render it again, it goes right to work, quite
> unlike 6.5 where once it's rendered it you have to do some serious
> changes to get it to do it again. (I wanted to re-render something
> over and over for benchmarking, and it's a challenge. Hooray!)
October 2, 2004 6:53:59 AM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:23apl0p3oa2gpq40md6b9hbu6gpus8jvhn@4ax.com...
> "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote:
>
>>John,
>>I am not clear on what you are converting to?
>>You captured it in dv format through 1394, took out a few commercials and
>>now
>>are rendering the entire file to mpeg2 format to make a dvd? Is that
>>correct?
>>
>>If so, 80 minutes is about right, but if you edited out commercials and
>>want
>>to save back to the same
>>dv format you captured at, it shouldn't take that long, it should only
>>render the parts of the file that changed, smart rendering I would think.
>>I assume that you are converting to mpeg2 but you mentioned saving to high
>>quality dv, so it confused me.
>>If you can clear this up it would help,
>>Thanks,
>>Anthony
>>
> Premiere Pro offers a couple of mpg conversion choices - two cbr and
> one vbr. They call cbr 6 mb/sec "high quality". I just meant that was
> what I was using, and was keeping the output unchanged - DV in, DV
> out.
>
> Premiere Pro seems to insist on rendering everything. Others have
> asked "isn't there a way to enable 'smart rendering' but afaik they
> answer is no.
>
>
John,
I have to agree with Tim, if you are going DV in and then Mpg2 out, it is no
longer the same and it will need to encode the entire file. If you were
going dv in and dv out, it would then just smart render the little pieces.
You then could import the new dv file into a DVD authoring software and have
it do the mpg conversion as it imports it.
maybe then you can find software to do it faster?
But either way converting to mpg2 takes time, unless you have a realtime
card that can handle that, like the matrox or canopus. But if you are only
doing a few movies a week, set it up to convert overnight and save yourself
the $1000 for the real time card. :) 
AnthonyR
Anonymous
October 4, 2004 6:46:35 PM

Archived from groups: adobe.premiere.windows,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>> Evaluating Premiere Pro 1.5: captured a Simpsons episode, replaced the
>> commercial breaks with fades to black for a couple of seconds, and
>> it's going to take just under 2 hours to export to mpg. Capture used
>> an ADS svideo to 1394 box and export is 'high quality' DV. System is
>> AMD 2800 with 1GB of ram onto a Seagate 120gb 7200 rpm EIDE.
>>
>> Just asking it to render was going to take about 80 minutes.
>> Is this the price of "optimized for Intel" or am I doing something
>> very wrong?

w/o seeing the system, sounds fine. DV to MPEG conversion does take
time, and usually can't be done in real-time in most video editing programs.

why? each frame is 1/60th of a second. Adobe techs have already
said that in order to render in real-time, you'd have to load that part
of the video from the HD, decode that frame from DV, render into MPEG2,
then save to disk in 1/60th of a second or less time -- this already
means that you'll have 1:1 or slower render times. Thus, if you have a
60 minute TV episode, 2+ hours isn't 'abnormal' considering this is
occuring.

naturally, faster systems, smarter 'effects segments only rendering'
software video editors, and 3rd party DV to MPEG converters can help
speed things up, but realistically, everyone's waiting a few extra
minutes/hours to see the DV-to-mpeg conversion being done.

at the minimum, test with Cinema Craft Encoder to see how long it
takes your system to do a basic 1 hour DV to MPEG-2 conversion at
default settings. That'll be the fastest your system will ever convert
to MPEG-2 in general since CCE is one of the fastest converters you can
get today.
!