Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5180009 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:13:08 +0200 Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id uz19so5178853obc.21 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:25:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=7UnbBlqPZ4PWjLMyAXH4h3bFVnDzUEg3zpyPX4dVujk=; b=P2p0HT+2chVhJFRUKu/Ml2LRUX1F3Qod9ApB/ZlQgmiqZ6h8CDEO0sEmsO0iwqBKit svN1yVkjXbh8mTod4q4WqWYBpzL2CBycV5jVkpNUSplRIfAoTYyeVVqtxF1MHgN1LnRF 921Otj7KJa1ZipHs+dhRZTUhN+PcPeQt80M2wlQiaNGrU0jmf4bCv79ZlasIil1sqQWU A7TGZ7Dp3kwQ7r9Hjx6dNkjWj7E7hgdxfhvEg6XtGNCegR5FSDSqnyePdBZyvfXcms/Z k9iQwz4/fWhtmGLPygEkgMj1DEAP5Sd67IPrGPIL1tbA5muhw5zQ8W40fg3Gq4i9e+Dx pdqQ== X-Received: by 10.50.39.51 with SMTP id m19mr3583463igk.51.1376915113140; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:25:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.168.105 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:24:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Mr. Eric D. Kirk" Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:24:53 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Adobe Premiere To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc1312346db904e44c08f1 --047d7bdc1312346db904e44c08f1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Teddy, Yes, I know they are old. So, what is the recommendation then to maintain best quality? In the projects I've been getting, I'm receiving ProRes files, adding VFX and sending back. I've been rendering that Quicktime, YUV, then converting to ProRes with that little plugin for AE that someone I believe mentioned on here a while back. I'm trying to ensure they get back a copy as clean as was received. What do you recommend? Appreciate it. Eric On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Teddy Gage wrote: > you do know those codecs are like ten years old? That is definitely what'= s > slowing you down. They require massive disk IO bandwidth and storage. Eve= n > image sequences would play back faster at equal quality and smaller size > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Mr. Eric D. Kirk < > kirkproductions@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I do normally use the avi uncompressed yuv 4:2:2 CODEC for my projects >> and the Quicktime Uncompressed YUV 4:2:2 for others that I then convert = to >> Pro-Res using that cinec thing or whatever it is. lol I have the DNXHD = one >> - first time I've heard anyone refer to it is the Windows version of >> Pro-Res. Good to know. >> >> I had attempted using that before as a comparison to ProRes(LT) 422 but >> the guy didn't seem to like it. I actually found it by searching the mo= st >> comparable to ProRes so I suppose I was on to something 6-8 months ago. >> >> Eric >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Teddy Gage wrote: >> >>> what codec are you working in? how big are your files (ie are they huge >>> raw uncompressed AVIs?) try re-encoding to Avid DNxHD, you can download >>> from Avid the LE codec pack. works with all CC/CS apps. it is the pc >>> equivalent of prores, and should playback in realtime on your system. i= t >>> works in either .mov or .avi. Sounds like a drive / bit rate bottleneck= , or >>> sequence settings mismatch to me. The whole point of Premiere is you do= nt >>> have to render (as much). if your timeline is red, you may have a diffe= rent >>> working codec set for the sequence than your footage, or your footage i= s in >>> an inefficient format. Also you will not get realtime performance from >>> external / internal drives unless you are using FW 800 connection or >>> better. What does windows report when you copy a huge file from / to yo= ur >>> media drive? Anything under 60 MB/s is going to be slowing you down. ju= st >>> some ideas. if you have any technical questions about hardware I'd be h= appy >>> to help. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Mr. Eric D. Kirk < >>> kirkproductions@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi David, >>>> >>>> Thanks. Some good pointers in there. I never thought that using the >>>> same drive as your installations would have an impact. That said, I r= arely >>>> do that and try to use all separate drives for projects that way if th= e >>>> boot drive crashes, I don't lose my important files. Instead, it just = makes >>>> for a week long effort to rebuild. lol >>>> >>>> I will have to check out the speed test and verify cache location. >>>> >>>> My first thought however was that there was just some procedure, >>>> similar to RAM preview so I was blaming Premiere for sure. :) lol Now >>>> Vegas, which I really have loved for years did seem to have that lag a= s far >>>> back is like 2005 or so when I began using it. >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:27 PM, David Baud wrot= e: >>>> >>>>> From my point of view it is not controversial :-) =85we sometime have= a >>>>> tendancy to put the blame quickly on a piece of software when the pro= blem >>>>> might be with our own system configuration=85 >>>>> >>>>> When you say AVI file, what kind of codec are you using? uncompressed= ? >>>>> you may have to create a RAID array if you are looking for realtime a= nd >>>>> consistency=85 but first I will make sure that your media is located = on a >>>>> different hard drive than your system/application drives=85 ideally t= he >>>>> fastest hard drive on your system=85 as well as your cache folder=85.= you may >>>>> want to use Disk Speed Test from Blackmagic or any other program to t= est >>>>> the throughput you get with your hard drives=85 >>>>> >>>>> HTH, >>>>> >>>>> David Baud >>>>> K O S M O S P R O D U C T i O N S >>>>> david@kosmos-productions.com >>>>> www.kosmos-productions.com >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 18, 2013, at 18:08 , Mr. Eric D. Kirk < >>>>> kirkproductions@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm using an avi file, 29.97fps, no RAID. My storage is a combination >>>>> of internal SATA drives and externals, however this project is on an >>>>> internal. I have a radeon 6900 (I believe) with 2GB RAM. System has= an >>>>> I7, 36GB RAM. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Eric D. Kirk | **Kirk Productions* >>>> *The Night Visitor | VFX* >>>> *443.206.1347 >>>> www.kirkproductions.com >>>> kirkproductions@gmail.com* >>>> *IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3351363/* >>>> * * >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Animator & Editor >>> www.teddygage.com >>> Brooklyn >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Eric D. Kirk | **Kirk Productions* >> *The Night Visitor | VFX* >> *443.206.1347 >> www.kirkproductions.com >> kirkproductions@gmail.com* >> *IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3351363/* >> * * >> > > > > -- > Animator & Editor > www.teddygage.com > Brooklyn > --=20 *Eric D. Kirk | **Kirk Productions* *The Night Visitor | VFX* *443.206.1347 www.kirkproductions.com kirkproductions@gmail.com* *IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3351363/* * * --047d7bdc1312346db904e44c08f1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Teddy,
=A0
Yes, I know they are o= ld.=A0 So, what is the recommendation then to maintain best quality?=A0 In = the projects I've been getting, I'm receiving ProRes files, adding = VFX and sending back.=A0 I've been rendering that Quicktime, YUV, then = converting to ProRes with that little plugin for AE that someone I believe = mentioned on here a while back.=A0 I'm trying to ensure they get back a= copy as clean as was received.
=A0
What do you recommend?
=A0
Appreciat= e it.
=A0
Eric

On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Teddy Ga= ge <teddygage@gmail.com> wrote:
you do know those codecs ar= e like ten years old? That is definitely what's slowing you down. They = require massive disk IO bandwidth and storage. Even image sequences would p= lay back faster at equal quality and smaller size


On Sun,= Aug 18, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Mr. Eric D. Kirk <kirkproductions@gma= il.com> wrote:
I do normally use the avi uncompressed yu= v 4:2:2 CODEC for my projects and the Quicktime Uncompressed YUV 4:2:2 for = others that I then convert to Pro-Res using that cinec thing or whatever it= is. lol =A0I have the DNXHD one - first time I've heard anyone refer t= o it is the Windows version of Pro-Res. =A0Good to know.=A0

I had attempted using that before as a comparison to ProRes(= LT) 422 but the guy didn't seem to like it. =A0I actually found it by s= earching the most comparable to ProRes so I suppose I was on to something 6= -8 months ago.=A0

Eric


On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 9:05= PM, Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com> wrote:
what codec are you working in? how big ar= e your files (ie are they huge raw uncompressed AVIs?) try re-encoding to A= vid DNxHD, you can download from Avid the LE codec pack. works with all CC/= CS apps. it is the pc equivalent of prores, and should playback in realtime= on your system. it works in either .mov or .avi. Sounds like a drive / bit= rate bottleneck, or sequence settings mismatch to me. The whole point of P= remiere is you dont have to render (as much). if your timeline is red, you = may have a different working codec set for the sequence than your footage, = or your footage is in an inefficient format. Also you will not get realtime= performance from external / internal drives unless you are using FW 800 co= nnection or better. What does windows report when you copy a huge file from= / to your media drive? Anything under 60 MB/s is going to be slowing you d= own. just some ideas. if you have any technical questions about hardware I&= #39;d be happy to help.



On = Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Mr. Eric D. Kirk <kirkproductions@gm= ail.com> wrote:
Hi David,

Thanks. =A0S= ome good pointers in there. =A0I never thought that using the same drive as= your installations would have an impact. =A0That said, I rarely do that an= d try to use all separate drives for projects that way if the boot drive cr= ashes, I don't lose my important files. Instead, it just makes for a we= ek long effort to rebuild. lol

I will have to check out the speed test and verify cach= e location.

My first thought however was that ther= e was just some procedure, similar to RAM preview so I was blaming Premiere= for sure. :) lol =A0Now Vegas, which I really have loved for years did see= m to have that lag as far back is like 2005 or so when I began using it.

Eric


On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:27= PM, David Baud <david.baud@gmail.com> wrote:
From my point of view = it is not controversial :-) =85we sometime have a tendancy to put the blame= quickly on a piece of software when the problem might be with our own syst= em configuration=85

When you say AVI file, what kind of codec are you using? unc= ompressed? you may have to create a RAID array if you are looking for realt= ime and consistency=85 but first I will make sure that your media is locate= d on a different hard drive than your system/application drives=85 ideally = the fastest hard drive on your system=85 as well as your cache folder=85. y= ou may want to use Disk Speed Test from Blackmagic or any other program to = test the throughput you get with your hard drives=85

HTH,

David Baud
K O S M O S =A0 =A0 P R O D U C T= i O N S
<= /div>
david@kosmos-productions.com<= /span>
On Aug 18, 2013, at 18:08 , Mr. Eric D. Kirk <kirkproductions@= gmail.com> wrote:

I'm using an avi fi= le, 29.97fps, no RAID. My storage is a combination of internal SATA drives = and externals, however this project is on an internal. =A0I have a radeon 6= 900 (I believe) with 2GB RAM. =A0System has an I7, 36GB RAM.




<= /div>
--
Eric D. Kirk |=A0Kirk Productions
The Night Visi= tor | VFX
=A0



--
Animator & Editor
www.teddygage.com Brooklyn



--
Eric D. Kirk |=A0Kirk Pro= ductions
The Night Visitor | VFX
=A0



--
Animator & Edit= or
w= ww.teddygage.com
Brooklyn



--
Eric D. Kirk |= =A0Kirk Productions
--047d7bdc1312346db904e44c08f1--