PC hardware, Premiere CC and GH5 clips

[jcs]

3 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

2) Don't have your project media on a platter drive. SSD or raid. Complete a project then store it on the platter. 

When PP CC was heavily leaking memory, the more one had the better (time required before having to restart). Perhaps best to monitor memory usage and see how one's projects are doing before adding more DRAM (same for VRAM, which would require a card swap). I put 64GB in the new box thinking I need a ton more DRAM (and is so cheap now). However after Adobe and Nvidia fixed their software, the 24GB box is working OK again.

Have you done tests with drives? While I have a 2TB M.2 drive in the new machine (3.5GB/s read), I can edit smoothly off the internal 4T 7200, and on the 2010 MacPro, can edit without issue on external 5400RPM USB3 WD drives. Perhaps drive speed is more of an issue when cutting between multiple clips frequently (music video, short commercial, etc.)? The max bitrate for the 4K files for the C300 II and 1DX II are still under 1MB/s, so that's a lot of video streams which can be read before bandwidth is an issue.

[Orangenz]

Adjustment layer has vlog convert lut. Plays very smoothly, no lagging at all, identical to just having one clip there. 4-2-2 10 bit files. 

Note - media and project files and any other files (like the lut file) need to be on the SSD to get the full effect which is at least 7% up to 5 or 6 times faster (500-600%)

Someone linked these guys the other day. Lots of good info I think. https://www.pugetsystems.com/all_articles.php 

[jcs]

@Orangenz - makes sense you needed fast random seek (SSD) with this many clips. For 1-2 clips I can get away with 5400RPM USB3 external drives (smooth 4K editing; any hiccups are PP CC optimization issues (2010 12-Core MacPro on OSX Sierra; Win10Pro box and latest Nvidia drivers is generally much faster (faster 10-Core (single chip), Win10Pro and Nvidia drivers just plain faster than same hardware under OSX, GTX 1080 8GB probably only has a slight real-world improvement over the GTX 980ti 6GB)).

Perhaps try your test again with all video tracks (except the bottom) set at 50% opacity (or crop them so all clips are at least partially visible)  . The last time I tried a test like that FCPX beat the pants off PP CC.

[Orangenz]

1 minute ago, jcs said:

@Orangenz - makes sense you needed fast random seek (SSD) with this many clips. For 1-2 clips I can get away with 5400RPM USB3 external drives (smooth 4K editing; any hiccups are PP CC optimization issues (2010 12-Core MacPro on OSX Sierra; Win10Pro box and latest Nvidia drivers is generally much faster (faster 10-Core (single chip), Win10Pro and Nvidia drivers just plain faster than same hardware under OSX, GTX 1080 8GB probably only has a slight real-world improvement over the GTX 980ti 6GB)).

Just a test. Maybe I should retry with the 7200 platter? Yes I will! Running a 780GTX 6GB into 4k and HD screens. Was running the HD screen with a 560Ti but I think it was causing issues with various plugins and the nice man at Filmconvert suggested it was not supported so I took it out. 

[jcs]

Just now, Orangenz said:

Just a test. Maybe I should retry with the 7200 platter? Yes I will! Running a 780GTX 6GB into 4k and HD screens. Was running the HD screen with a 560Ti but I think it was causing issues with various plugins and the nice man at Filmconvert suggested it was not supported so I took it out. 

Yeah, try the 7200 HDD. You might be surprised how far you can get.

[Orangenz]

19 minutes ago, jcs said:

Yeah, try the 7200 HDD. You might be surprised how far you can get.

I have a feeling the main thing is the new wrapper I'm using, it's so much faster. 

Hah, yea played the same project fine with everything moved to the platter. Maybe a little pause after hitting play sometimes but hard to say.

Anyway, here's the link to the performance article which prompted me to get the media SSD. https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CC-2015-4-Storage-Optimization-854/ 

[jcs]

7 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

I have a feeling the main thing is the new wrapper I'm using, it's so much faster. 

Adobe's .MXF importer is probably more optimized since it's for the higher-end professional cameras (and must handle 8-12-bit (perhaps as high as 16-bit?)).

[Orangenz]

Just now, jcs said:

Adobe's .MXF importer is probably more optimized since it's for the higher-end professional cameras (and must handle 8-12-bit (perhaps as high as 16-bit?)).

It's very fast. Maybe a second for all those clips vs 10 for the mp4s. Although that's complicated by the mp4 files only importing the audio.

[Stab]

Anyone here who edits native GH5 clips that can check for me how much RAM is used when you do a playback of the timeline with multiple tracks?

I'm putting together a new Ryzen build (only CPU / MOBO / RAM, I keep the rest of my system) and trying to figure out if 16GB will be enough or if I should stretch it to 32GB.

[jcs]

1 hour ago, Stab said:

Anyone here who edits native GH5 clips that can check for me how much RAM is used when you do a playback of the timeline with multiple tracks?

I'm putting together a new Ryzen build (only CPU / MOBO / RAM, I keep the rest of my system) and trying to figure out if 16GB will be enough or if I should stretch it to 32GB.

Get the 32GB (I've seen PP CC use well over 16GB (not GH5 specific)). Looks like AMD doesn't support Quad Channel, though 4 8GB sticks are usually cheaper that 2 16GB (only a minor performance difference on Intel boards).