Editready transcode gh5 footage darker professional#
In a recent interview with editor Scott Simmons and Andrew Page (nVidia Product Manager for Professional Video Technologies), they explained: Parallelizing transcoding for an interframe codec like H.264 is extremely difficult. If the timeline is not rendered, then exporting may require rendering as one phase but they are distinct actions. The terminology is confusing since we often refer loosely to exporting the file as "rendering", or we say "render it out". However technically you render an *effect*, but but encode or export to a video stream or file. I believe liork is correct - significant GPU acceleration of long-GOP encode/decode/transcode (e.g, H264) is almost impossible. Yes, it does use GPU even for the final rendering and can save you A LOT of time. Its not that you cannot do it but as you say for heavy 4K editing a desktop should not be avoided. High end gaming GPUs (GTX980m/GTX980) or the high end Quadros can be enough though. Since any transcoding only reduces the quality of the footage, the original XAVC-S files should be used as the final render to any final codec. The article from pugetsystems that I mentioned is an excellent source for a new build. For a new build I would suggest an overclocked 6 core. I went with the maximum number of cores (8) that can still be overclocked at 4.5MHz. So you may want to use a desktop.ĭefinitely. People may not realize even if they have the same number card, they're "M" versions, with less memory and power. For final render, that should be up to the destination requirement?įinally, another point of your analysis may be that laptops simply do not have strong enough GPUs for heavy 4K editing yet. The latest i7 chipsets give maybe 5% improvement, from what I've read, so one shouldn't pay a premium for the absolute latest.Īlso, I think you may mean for maximum output quality as an intermediate clip, use Cineform YUV10bit. If you want to optimize your render times, then a liquid cooled, RAID 0, over-clocked CPU is probably your best bet (though I have no direct experience). And it doesn't really matter if the GPU is above 50% because that's all it's doing, it shouldn't effect CPU business, yes? So it's less important if you have a slow CPU. On optimization, depends on what you want to optimize, right? If you're more interested in viewing 4K playback with effects, the more powerful GPU you have, the better. Because there's only so much parallel processing that can be done on a render, a faster CPU clock speed / data bus will shorten render times? Yes? So better to have 4 core at 4.5MHz, then 8-core at 3.2. If one looks at the data above they can see that they have little effect on each other. Essentially, the CPU does the rendering and your GPU (graphic card) does the playback.
Very interesting! Thanks! Some further explanation may help some readers.
For maximum output quality avoid using the transcoded files for the final render. Use proxies and low playback resolution if you want a smooth experience.Ģ. Don’t try to optimize your computer to edit 4K XAVC-S natively. Removing the effects does that too, but usually you need to preview them more than you need the extra resolution.Īs you can see there are very few transcoded files come close to the quality/colors/exposure of the original XAVC-S! I did not expect the banding issues with the Prores.Ĭonclusions for 4K XAVC-S, Premiere CC and Windows users:ġ. Lowering the playback resolution makes your GPU happy. For editing optimized codecs, you don't need many cores.
0 kommentar(er)
