Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Redcine - Long output times

Rick Darge

Rick Darge

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
3,775
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
I am using a 2.33 ghz dual 2 core Macbook Pro w/ 3 GB of RAM..


Using Leopard.

My render times for Jims R3D file are all taking 20 minutes, whether or not I make color adjustments or output at a higher or lower quality.

What kinds of times are you guys getting?
 
My understanding is that with Redcine, your CPU is not important. It is the graphics card that makes the difference because the rendering is done by the GPU. (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) In other words, high speed output requires a high-end graphics card.
 
jbeale said:
My understanding is that with Redcine, your CPU is not important. It is the graphics card that makes the difference because the rendering is done by the GPU. (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) In other words, high speed output requires a high-end graphics card.
Click to expand...

WURD...and a little bit of RAM:biggrin:
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
Why is it then that when I load the R3D file into RedAlert, I can ouput a draft quality quicktime in 2 seconds? Do we have that same option in Redcine?

Redcine is kinda scaring me. These output times are insane.. I can't imagine shooting an hours worth of footage only to have it take 20 hours to output it.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
Hmm. So besides the awesome GUI, the enhanced CC options, the easier workflow.. why couldn't they make it easier just to output a draft quicktime?

For time sake, I don't see the point in using RedCine if its going to take 20+ minutes to render out less than 300 frames.. I mean, I could drop $5K on a Mac Pro... but that's still $5K..

Maybe this will get better over time?
 
rgdfilmsRED said:
Why is it then that when I load the R3D file into RedAlert, I can ouput a draft quality quicktime in 2 seconds? Do we have that same option in Redcine?

Redcine is kinda scaring me. These output times are insane.. I can't imagine shooting an hours worth of footage only to have it take 20 hours to output it.
Click to expand...

Because that is just a proxy of the actual raw file. Red Cine will add this feature soon....for now you are rendering standalone clips which take time from a 4K original.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
Ah.. yes.

What kinds of times are you guys getting and what are your machine specs?
 
On the mac side its slow...I have a MB Pro, 2.4, 4gb ram that we bought for the camera. I am waiting for the new Macs in Jan to get the 8 core system for the studio.

On the PC side we have 8 core machines...I'll do some tests tomorrow and compare.
 
I am getting 10 minutes on a PC - 2.3 dual core with 4 gigs
 
You don't want to be running nvidia cards on OS X with REDCINE. At 4K resolution this will be extremely slow (while the same card works fine under Windows), it's an issue with Apple's graphics drivers.

So for Mac we advice to go with the ATI options and for Windows get a good NVidia one
 
jbeale said:
My understanding is that with Redcine, your CPU is not important. It is the graphics card that makes the difference because the rendering is done by the GPU. (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) In other words, high speed output requires a high-end graphics card.
Click to expand...

This is partially true. All the decompression and some other stuff is still done on the CPU and say an 8-core helps a lot here actually. The GPU stuff is doing the image processing so you can change parameters in real-time while the movie is playing, etc.
 
Rob Lohman said:
You don't want to be running nvidia cards on OS X with REDCINE. At 4K resolution this will be extremely slow (while the same card works fine under Windows), it's an issue with Apple's graphics drivers.

So for Mac we advice to go with the ATI options and for Windows get a good NVidia one
Click to expand...

This almost makes me think building an 8-Core PC with a good nVidia card might be the best way to use RedCine. I guess we'll have to compare the fastest Macs to the fastest PC and see what people think. Have you guys tried that there?
 
The rendering time maybe a problem especially when working on tv series which for us, needs to be completed quickly.

If it takes too much time to render all the footages to the format we want, it may not be feasible.

Any idea on the render times for an hour of footage, let's say on a decent Core 2 Duo processor with decent memories and good video card?
 
I have a quad-core Mac Pro with the ATI card 8GB RAM and a fast RAIDed disk array....

According to calculations I did today, it would take a full 24 hours to render an hour's worth of 4K to 1080 ProRes at full debayer quality.

Hopefully I'm doing something wrong, or these transcode times will come down with more optimizations in the program....

Or maybe I just have to buy an 8-core.
 
My Mac Pro 8-core 16GB rendered Jim's 4K clip to HD1080 prores in 3 min 40 sec.
That means 22.3 hours of rendering for an hour's worth of 4K.
Not much improvement for an 8-core vs 4-core.

A 'make quicktime' option like in RedAlert would be nice.
 
Yes, we definitely need faster options.
 
Okay, my calculations were wrong due to the fact that I had Jim's 2K clip mixed in with the 4K clip. Sorry about that....

New Calculations:

Mac Pro - 2.66GHz Quad

4K to 1080P Full Process 35 frames per minute. It took 6:44 to process Jim's clip. It would take my machine 41 hours to process 1 hour of 4K.

In Draft mode, my machine cranked out 100 frames per minute. Processing 1 hour of 4K in draft mode would take 14.4 hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top