You need to set your comps to render as image sequences, and use the multi-machine settings so that each renderer will look for the next unrendered frame. Of course the speed-up comes at a price, which is a slight increase in complexity of your workflow. The project would simply not have got done without this technique, or I would have had to farm it out to a commercial render farm. I went to the effort because I had a project involving very long and and reasonably complex comps. YMMV, depending on how many cores and how much ram your machine has. In that example the per-frame speed of each renderer barely decreased compared to a single instance, so I achieved a speed increase of roughly 4000%.
Degraining adobe premiere pro cc 2014 windows#
Each one of those windows is a new instance of the AE render engine: I have a 40 physical core machine and it takes a lot to max out the CPU but here's a screenshot where I finally managed it. What I normally do is keep adding instances until I start running low on memory. The beauty of it is that you can run as many instances as you like. Using it is a bit challenging for people unused to the -= awesome -=power of the command line, but it is definitely worth doing if you're doing some heavy lifting in After Effects, and you want to be able to harness all the power of your machine. However there is something you can do about it.Īfter effects comes with a command line renderer called aerender.exe plain ol' aerender on mac). I'm not happy when I'm rendering unless I can actually smell burning plastic, nothing is more frustrating than AE telling you that your render won't complete until the heat death of the universe, while at the same time your CPU is barely raising a sweat. They can go for a lot less if you don't mind waiting for renders (I work on a $2,350 system for my video work) but they can also get very high.
Degraining adobe premiere pro cc 2014 professional#
It isn't unheard of for a professional video editing workstation to be able to get up in the $15,000 to $20,000 range or even higher, just for hardware. These are often included in high end professional video editing workstations, but the price can be quite high. There are professional cards designed specifically for processing video and provide real time processing and encoding of video. They can often reduce video processing tasks quite a bit.Ī further improvement can be found in purpose built hardware. GPUs, on the other hand, are designed for doing simple operations very quickly. They are designed for doing a wide variety of general purpose operations, but aren't super efficient at basic operations. General purpose CPUs aren't really ideal for many audio/video processing tasks. There are two main things that can improve the performance.
There are some things that may need to be tracked over time, but for the most part, it is a stream operation with data going out as fast as it comes in, so there isn't much accumulation of data. Similarly, RAM wouldn't be expected to cap on encoding as it is a stream operation.
If this is the case, there isn't an easy way to break it down across multiple threads and that would make it impossible to hit 100% CPU usage on a multi-core computer. The problem is most likely that some of your effects require the result of the previous frame to begin processing on the next frame.
By default, Premiere has always done as much parallel processing as possible for me and I frequently see it hit 99% CPU usage on my hyper-threaded quad core desktop. While the video encoder itself is able to do multi-threaded processing, the image processing you are doing may not be able to. Based on your description of the problem, it sounds like the processing is the slow part.
0 kommentar(er)
