Yes if I was trying to play a ton of streams in real time I can see that effecting performance but once rendered the Avid is only playing the render which seems unlikely to create a performance hit as much as the very complex sequence with lots of nests etc.... That the render is 1:1 SD instead of 10:1 seems less likely to be the lagging performance factor. We are on fibre so a 1:1 SD render shouldn't choke the system IMHO.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Terence Curren" <tcurren@...> wrote:
>
> Disk drive throughput could be affected by the larger bandwidth. That could slow things down performance wise.
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "johnrobmoore" <bigfish@> wrote:
> >
> > What do you mean by "memory footprint"? Are you talking about raw size of the media file or is this something that is more taxing in a RAM sense. The theory proposed was that one to one SD renders make the Avid timeline response slow relative to 10:1 renders. Given these are heavily nested and layered sequences I feel it is there complexity that is bogging down the response of Avid when navigating the timeline etc.... For example the spinning ball before the image updates to a new position is more lengthy in heavily nested areas as opposed to other parts of the timeline. I really don't see how the resolution of the render would effect this kind of performance after all once rendered the Avid is using pointers and I feel it's the excess of pointer and tracking of all the layers that slows things down for the operator.
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Dom Q. Silverio" <domqsilverio@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The memory footprint of large media like 1:1 should be higher than 10:1 or
> > > other older codecs like Meridien.
> > > While heavily compressed media like 15:1s and 10:1 have higher CPU overhead
> > > the processing is not much compared to modern codecs and they are very easy
> > > memory wise.
> > >
> > > So something to consider
> > >
> > >
> > > Dom Q. Silverio
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think you're missing the issue. It's not how long it takes to render it
> > > > is being proposed that because the renders in offline were done to 1:1, a
> > > > fact I can not confirm, the sequence response is slow. I'm well aware of
> > > > how heavy layers slow down a sequence but it's never in my experience been
> > > > related to the resolution of renders.
> > > >
> > > > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, John Coldiron <jciron2005@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > OH YES....
> > > > > 19 layers produces sluggish renders.
> > > > > I had a show that had ten layered EFX in the V1 layer plus another 5-6
> > > > video tracks above.
> > > > > I was finally able to work with the show after the first episode.
> > > > > I found that I could eliminate much of the 10 BCC EFX in V1 by making
> > > > stills of the BG layers.
> > > > > Offline editors don't think about the render issues they create when
> > > > their show goes to Online.
> > > > > I'm sure at 10:1 in offline resolution it worked fine. At 1:1 in
> > > > Symphony not very well.
> > > > > First episode took DAYS to render.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:
> > > > http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment