5

There might not be a way. Based on your description of the problem, it sounds like the processing is the slow part. While the video encoder itself is able to do multi-threaded processing, the image processing you are doing may not be able to. By default, Premiere has always done as much parallel processing as possible for me and I frequently see it hit 99%...


5

1) Everytime the GPU has to process something, it will load the necessary data (in that case your video frames) into the VRAM. Simple as that, the GPU cannot work with your system memory. Though the GPU gets it's data from the system memory, so your system memory will act as a buffer and you don't need to load that much data at once into the VRAM. Though ...


4

I use Sony Vegas 12pro and it uses CPU rendering OR certain codecs can render to GPU. I have used GPU rendering and found that it is only slightly faster but way buggier. GPU rendering is a pretty new thing so I'd stay away from it and I wouldn't expect it to be good for a few more years. So the faster your CPU the faster the video will render. The GPU is ...


4

Not likely. Graphics card memory is more about loading information on to the card for textures and such for rendering. It isn't really a key component of pushing information through the GPU itself. When using a GPU for rendering, we are interested in the high level of parallel performance that a GPU can reach for relatively simple calculations. The rate ...


4

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. However there is something you can do about it. After effects comes with a command line renderer called ...


4

At 14ms, you can still get an effective 71 frames per second. It should be fine for working with video. The frames might not show up exactly at the start of their time interval, but it still should be ok. Faster response is still better, but it isn't going to be critical for anything other than really high frame rate gaming. 5ms is very VERY fast for a ...


3

There are a couple factors which can be giving you lagy playback.You don't specify your bit rate or codec. If you are editing a processor intensive codec like h.264 (not a good idea) -the processor could start to be a bottleneck. If you are editing a less compressed format like ProRes your drive or RAM can start to become the bottleneck. Since that is the ...


2

The performance should not take the decision for you which tool you are better off with in your case, since there won't be a huge difference, as tomh has stated correctly. Rather let the style / type of animation be a reason for a specific tool. For example, an adjustment layer or a solid with an animated mask to which you apply a stroke effect gives you ...


2

Rendering a series of expanding circles (say less that 20) should not be a particularly slow task. Check this page about how to improve performance in AE. http://helpx.adobe.com/after-effects/using/improve-performance.html AE doesn't render the same way as non-linear editors like Final Cut or Premiere, so rendering can take longer (but users are usually ...


2

I have read that the extra ram (4 gb vs 2 gb) might be utilized when you are working with 4k footage, but there are a lot of other factors at play here (cpu / data throughput etc). This is a good article about choosing the right components for your editing pc (including graphics card): http://ppbm7.com/index.php/tweakers-page/83-balanced-systems/94-balanced-...


2

There are a number of comparison algorithms available beginning with PSNR through SSIM/SSIMPLUS to VMAF. VMAF is implemented as an ffmpeg filter.


2

Setting your graphic card to work at a lower resolution will provide a small increase in performance in the case you described. For example: 1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600 1280 * 720 = 921,600 2,073,600 - 921,600 = 1,152,000, or 56% fewer pixels. If you spend all your computer's time working to create text to fill the entire screen with new information ...


2

I think browsers usually don't have configurable buffer sizes for streaming. If you can get the video URL out of the browser, you could stream with mpv or something. mpv --cache-secs=15 http://example.org/video.mp4 mpv has several other cache-tuning options. As far as using a VPN: your ISP still sees the traffic. It just doesn't see that it's an HTTP ...


2

Something that isn't mentioned, but has a direct impact on performance obviously would be what effects (even fixed effects like motion & opacity) are applied on the footage while trying to cut. Other things to consider (some mentioned before, some not), in no particular order: Overall effects applied (including color correction). The number of non-...


1

I use Cinegy Daniel2 codec for editing in Premiere Pro. This codec take more space on disk, but work veeeeery fast compare to H264. Also it work more fast for me compare to ProRes. Cinegy Daniel2 can be replaced with DNxHD MXF OP1a or MXF OP1a. Try these codecs. In Premiere it works very good. You can convert all your raw files to one of this codecs before ...


1

A GPU will give you the best performance boost, but your rendering software has to be optimized to use the GPU; most is. Upgrading the CPU is the best option if your software doesn't support GPU rendering. Upgrading RAM won't give you a noticeable performance if you have 8 or more gigabytes. You might see some slight increase in performance if you have ...


1

I assume you record video game footage? Recording and rendering on one machine is something I wouldn't recommend with a regular PC if you play modern games that take a lot of your CPU and GPU resources. I usually recommend getting an SSD but in this case it seems you are heavily CPU limited. You could theoretically encode on the GPU but I'm not sure if that ...


1

As I can see, you know duration of your song, it good. I can suggest this trick: Generate 5 second of video with static image. With good settings, good fps, slow encoding and so on. Video must be without audio. Join this video with itself as many times, as you want, so duration will be a little more of your clip. This operation not requires reencoding, so ...


1

Usually in these situations I'd say maybe you have a bottleneck from your storage media. But with those bit rates any Ssd or hdd should be fine unless the files are really large. Thus it sounds to me that you have either a bottleneck with your GPU, Cpu, or Ram. All are equally important for smooth playback. I'm guessing the issue is the increased resolution ...


1

The above answer by Adam is not really accurate... There are different bottlenecks to consider. Bitrate x Time = Size of File. means Higher Bitrate requires Faster Hard Drives Compression / Codec / Ratio of Compression is either processor intensive, gpu processor intensive, or both (depending on your GPU/editing software). Adobe for example, makes use of ...


1

I have discovered that this problem is specific to GoPro cameras from the Hero3 and range and later. For Premiere CS6, the problem can be solved by updating to version 6.0.5. The update can be downloaded here. After installing this update I get flawless playback in Premiere and others have reported that this solution worked for them too.


1

They are all forms of hardware acceleration, which broadly, just means that specialized hardware is doing things faster than the basic CPU normally could. The exact nature of what each type of acceleration does depends entirely on the software you are using and the hardware you are using. Some hardware is very purpose specific. Something like Intel ...


1

When you press space bar, After Effects tries to playback the composition out of the current playhead position instantly. Theoretically the playback depends on your machine, but an instant playback of a composition (in real time) is a very computing-intensive process and with conventional computers not possible at the moment. This also is the simple reason ...


1

Sadly this isn't really answerable in an exact way. There is simply too many variables at play. How much motion is in your source and final videos as well as how computationally and memory dependent your effects that you are applying will all impact the overall performance. Your best bet for getting an idea of the performance increase is to look at what ...


1

I haven't seen any difference between 2GB and 4GB. My GTX680 2GB is practically the same as a friend's GTX680 4GB in terms of PP performance. I don't know if this is just on our systems, but even with a fast GPU PP just can't handle more than a couple of filters without dropping frames. It's kind of infuriating, really. My GPU can create beautiful ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible