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-X is... slow

Ruairi Robinson

Ruairi Robinson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
398
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
48
Website
www.ruairirobinson.com
Unless working at 1/4 rez, it's way slower than the old Redcine...

This can't be normal, right? I'm working on an 8 core mac pro with the geforce 285, so it should be pretty snappy...

(I noticed older versions of redcine have been pulled from the red site!)

R.
 
Whether you work with Redcine-x or not, Clipfinder is a great tool anyway. We use it all the time to quickly have a scan through a folder for example. But it has many more useful purposes.
 
Ruairi Robinson said:
Unless working at 1/4 rez, it's way slower than the old Redcine...

This can't be normal, right? I'm working on an 8 core mac pro with the geforce 285, so it should be pretty snappy...

(I noticed older versions of redcine have been pulled from the red site!)

R.
Click to expand...

Yes it is quite slow... the only usefulness right now with redcine-x is with redrocket. Unless you are happy with a tiny 1/4 rez preview on a large desktop monitor. Quite ridiculous indeed not to even have redcine playback performance in something that is suppose to be its successor.
 
Andrae Palmer said:
Yes it is quite slow... the only usefulness right now with redcine-x is with redrocket. Unless you are happy with a tiny 1/4 rez preview on a large desktop monitor. Quite ridiculous indeed not to even have redcine playback performance in something that is suppose to be its successor.
Click to expand...

Quite ridiculous to categorize a beta release as "ridiculous", rather than providing useful feedback, IMO.

You DID read the disclaimers, right? (heck, it's even called out as an "early beta" on the download page).

You DO know that they are working towards rolling the Rocket acceleration from RocketCine in to RedCine-X, right? As such there are likely lots of rendering/display pipeline architectural changes going on under the hood. Broken features are to be expected for a beta.

So where's your useful feedback. System specs? Software/OS versions? Graphics card configuration?

C'mon people... Jim's already said he's no longer going to be posting early footage because "he's learned his lesson" (aka the forum-jockey's gave him enough of a headache). Keep this up and he'll stop posting beta software too. Be part of the signal, not the noise.

-sc
 
Steven Caesare said:
Quite ridiculous to categorize a beta release as "ridiculous", rather than providing useful feedback, IMO.

You DID read the disclaimers, right? (heck, it's even called out as an "early beta" on the download page).

You DO know that they are working towards rolling the Rocket acceleration from RocketCine in to RedCine-X, right? As such there are likely lots of rendering/display pipeline architectural changes going on under the hood. Broken features are to be expected for a beta.

So where's your useful feedback. System specs? Software/OS versions? Graphics card configuration?

C'mon people... Jim's already said he's no longer going to be posting early footage because "he's learned his lesson" (aka the forum-jockey's gave him enough of a headache). Keep this up and he'll stop posting beta software too. Be part of the signal, not the noise.

-sc
Click to expand...

You DO know that Redcine has not been updated in six months and only supports up to Build 20 right? You know that Redcine Build 20 is a beta right (yes the old version from back in July)?

You DO know that camera firmware version Build 21 is a RELEASE BUILD and no software out of Beta supports it.. including the old Redcine or Redalert?

You DO know that Redcine is not available for download on RED dot com right (at least not in a manner that can be easily found)?

You DO know that the Recine-X beta is what is currently available for "RELEASE" BUILD 21 footage?

You DO know that Redcine has not been updated for the recording formats or been updated in months... heck its not even available anymore (surely not highlighted as the default software to use).

Heck I expect a beta to crash, to perhaps be unstable or have missing features.. do I expect a beta being out for months not to even have any decent playback performance... while the previous version is not up to the new recording formats and is not being updated... scratch that... discontinued? No. I would post my specs if it is not already known that this is a general issue.

Ruairi Robinson said:
This can't be normal, right?
Click to expand...

It is very normal. Ruairi the good news is that at least cached playback performance seems to be working in the new Build 82. That's a huge improvement in the beta.

Link: http://red.cachefly.net/REDCINE-X_build_82e.zip
 
Andrae Palmer said:
It is very normal. Ruairi the good news is that at least cached playback performance seems to be working in the new Build 82. That's a huge improvement in the beta.

Link: http://red.cachefly.net/REDCINE-X_build_82e.zip
Click to expand...

Andrae, is this the latest build of Redcine-x? If so, i don't see it on the red support/download page. The latest posted i see is build 54, then build 1720 if you are using red rocket.

Or is this a former build?
Thanks...
 
Redcine was a program that actually worked very well. It was very very fast to use in the field, and if you are used to Scratch, it´s even more handy.

Redcine X was sold like a great application but it does the same exact thing as redcine. Except being way way slower to work.

It would have been much easier to add the edit timeline in redcine and keep updating it. I guess it might have something to do with licenses, red, assimilate...
 
Andrae Palmer said:
You DO know that Redcine has not been updated in six months and only supports up to Build 20 right? You know that Redcine Build 20 is a beta right (yes the old version from back in July)?

You DO know that camera firmware version Build 21 is a RELEASE BUILD and no software out of Beta supports it.. including the old Redcine or Redalert?

You DO know that Redcine is not available for download on RED dot com right (at least not in a manner that can be easily found)?

You DO know that the Recine-X beta is what is currently available for "RELEASE" BUILD 21 footage?

You DO know that Redcine has not been updated for the recording formats or been updated in months... heck its not even available anymore (surely not highlighted as the default software to use).
Click to expand...

All of which may be perfectly true. But have no bearing on if it's "ridiculous" for an "early beta" app known to be undergoing video pipeline changes has bugs in those very areas undergoing revision.

If your issue is "I'm concerned I do not have an available released tool for dealing with build 21 footage.", than clearly stating that the specific issue is likely to get you heard in a constructive manner more so than piling on about something broken in a beta for whcih you give no other constructive details for.

Andrae Palmer said:
Heck I expect a beta to crash, to perhaps be unstable or have missing features.. do I expect a beta being out for months not to even have any decent playback performance... while the previous version is not up to the new recording formats and is not being updated... scratch that... discontinued? No. I would post my specs if it is not already known that this is a general issue.
Click to expand...

Then you and I have participated in very different software testing groups.

If the devs say "Hey, we are re-vamping this code to incorprate new hardware", and that code branch subsequently has problems, I'd expect that providing some feedback about the environment in which the problems could be reproduced is a lot more valuable than "Why the hell does this version that has new hardware-accelerated code not behave a well as the previous version which didn't have fresh code?"

-sc
 
Steven Caesare said:
All of which may be perfectly true.
Click to expand...

All of which is perfectly true. If a company keeps their primary software available to the public in beta mode... because there is no software out of beta from RED to handle Build 21 footage. Then yes I consider the playback rate... ridiculous. Sir all red users are the testing group for a beta product... there is no other stable release product.

I have stated my hardware specs on these forums and have asked if this abysmal playback rate is normal... the response has been that it is. you may want to look at my post(s) in this thread:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38385

Miguel "Macgregor" De Olaso said:
Redcine was a program that actually worked very well. It was very very fast to use in the field, and if you are used to Scratch, it´s even more handy.

Redcine X was sold like a great application but it does the same exact thing as redcine. Except being way way slower to work.

It would have been much easier to add the edit timeline in redcine and keep updating it. I guess it might have something to do with licenses, red, assimilate...
Click to expand...

I could suffice with the caching feature in Redcine-X if only it allowed for more footage... currently it's only buffering around 5 seconds of footage. According to Deanan the memory buffer is 2GB (it will be more once its 64 bit)... it sucks that 2GB only gives you a few seconds. I love the changes in Redcine-X except for the critical problem of horrible slow 4fps or less playback at 1/2 res when compared to Redcine which could playback at 12fps or more at the same res.
 
Andrae Palmer said:
All of which is perfectly true. If a company keeps their primary software available to the public in beta mode... because there is no software out of beta from RED to handle Build 21 footage. Then yes I consider the playback rate... ridiculous. Sir all red users are the testing group for a beta product... there is no other stable release product.

I have stated my hardware specs on these forums and have asked if this abysmal playback rate is normal... the response has been that it is. you may want to look at my post(s) in this thread:

I could suffice with the caching feature in Redcine-X if only it allowed for more footage... currently it's only buffering around 5 seconds of footage. According to Deanan the memory buffer is 2GB (it will be more once its 64 bit)... it sucks that 2GB only gives you a few seconds. I love the changes in Redcine-X except for the critical problem of horrible slow 4fps or less playback at 1/2 res when compared to Redcine which could playback at 12fps or more at the same res.
Click to expand...

2GB doesn't mean the app will have 2GB available to it. All the little things like Quicktime, MXF, browser, timeline, etc all add up to a fair amount of memory usage. As stated before, this will change when we are able to pull MXF and Quicktime out of the application.

REDcineX archicture is different than REDcine because we have alot more planned for REDcineX that we couldn't evolve with REDcine.

We've added MXF, ALE, better Quicktime encoding, a more flexible timeline, a robust browser, and continually improving playback functionality/speed.
Speed improvements will continue as will many more features like auto BWF syncing, hooks for confirming, 3rd party modules, etc.

As Jim says, RED(cineX) is a trajectory, not a moment in time. Look at where it started and where it's going...
 
Andrae Palmer said:
All of which is perfectly true. If a company keeps their primary software available to the public in beta mode... because there is no software out of beta from RED to handle Build 21 footage. Then yes I consider the playback rate... ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I'd recommend the constructive criticism approach. Histrionics doesn't help the situation. Reading your past comments, there's alot of negativity where there could be constructive and positive criticisms.
 
Mike Gross said:
I'd recommend the constructive criticism approach. Histrionics doesn't help the situation. Reading your past comments, there's alot of negativity where there could be constructive and positive criticisms.
Click to expand...

How can I constructively express that the playback speed is ridiculously slow? Should I state that I've seen a continual improvement to 3ish fps and that is a huge improvement from less than one?
 
Ruairi Robinson said:
Unless working at 1/4 rez, it's way slower than the old Redcine...

This can't be normal, right? I'm working on an 8 core mac pro with the geforce 285, so it should be pretty snappy...

(I noticed older versions of redcine have been pulled from the red site!)

R.
Click to expand...

Ruari, RedCine-X only seems to use one of the CPU cores at the moment. I imagine this is for ease of debugging - which they want since they're adding many features at the moment.

When you're writing a program and adding lots of new features you usually introduce bugs along with the new features. It's really tough to debug multi-threaded stuff once you have tons of things going on in parallel.

So, make a good single-threaded algorithm. Then make it parallel later. I think that's their plan.

I just leave RedCine-X to go overnight - unlike RedCine it can actually process my footage reliably so I am happy here.

Yes, of course I can't wait for multithreaded and/or GPU based decode! Even bigger is going to be proper EDL input so that we only process the footage that's in the cut.

But this works okay for me for now and though slow, it is at least consistent for me - unlike RedCine which would do things like not display the file browser after I'd imported too many clips.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Andrae Palmer said:
How can I constructively express that the playback speed is ridiculously slow? Should I state that I've seen a continual improvement to 3ish fps and that is a huge improvement from less than one?
Click to expand...

Typical beta feedback that's useful to developers include details pertinent to the behavior.

If it's a bug (not in your case), the steps to reproduce it. Any work arounds that you may observe.

If it's performance (your case), the specific performance charactersitics for your system, along with system specs, including base computer hardware, GPU/card, storage subsystem info, OS version, add-in version (QT, drivers, etc).

Perhaps for the couple of dozen internal machines they tried it on, the software-only performance was no worse than the previous version, and the new Rocket acceleration code worked like a charm. But perhaps you have a SW/HW combo they don't have. Providing that feedback gives them something to work with.

-sc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top