Why did you turn shadow files off? They help with exactly what you're trying to do.

Also, what resolution do you have the Preview window set for? Lower is faster.

Also, I just read that there's a new nVidia driver that makes games play 50% with threadripper.

Quote Why did you turn shadow files off? They help with exactly what you're trying to do.

Also, what resolution do you have the Preview window set for? Lower is faster.

Also, I just read that there's a new nVidia driver that makes games play 50% with threadripper.

I have set the preview all the way down.. and Shadow files are off because I semed to find a lot of talk all over the internet about how they can cause issues (what i'm not exactly sure) and that they really shouldnt be needed unless you have a pretty low-end system. Is that not right?

Probably not necessary to turn preview down all the way. (Too grainy for me.) But wanted to make sure you didn't have it all the way up.

It can't hurt to enable Shadow files. If you do, wait for the green check mark(s).

I have an old quad core AMD and PD15 does fine on my system. If it's not the nVidia big with Threadripper, then all I can think of is that your fx's and speed changes are very demanding.

For a "CUT" try this for a far more precise and laggy free experience:

Click/Select the clip on the timeline
Above on the left you will see scissors. Click them and play with this valuable option.

Good luck

Quote For a "CUT" try this for a far more precise and laggy free experience:

Click/Select the clip on the timeline
Above on the left you will see scissors. Click them and play with this valuable option.

Good luck

Yup thats what I do to get figure out where I want the picture to cut. The problem is then that I'm trying to line up the speedramp and whip cut wit a music track - thats when things start getting bad.

Maybe what I'm doing is just really really intense and I shouldnt be expecting it to work well - but still.

Besidse turning on shadow files, is there any way to "produce" a final version of only a part of a project? So I dont have to wait for the full video to be produced to check on it but maybe just produce 10-15 seconds from the middle?

Quote
..... is there any way to "produce" a final version of only a part of a project? So I dont have to wait for the full video to be produced to check on it but maybe just produce 10-15 seconds from the middle?

Yes their is and I watched the youtube vid. VERY valuable in your case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Lt-1LMpUg&t=61s


Also just to make sure: in Win 10 is your power options/performance set to MAX? It also can't hurt to pop into your Bios and make sure that beast of a CPU is running at max.

Good luck

Quote


Yes their is and I watched the youtube vid. VERY valuable in your case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Lt-1LMpUg&t=61s


Also just to make sure: in Win 10 is your power options/performance set to MAX? It also can't hurt to pop into your Bios and make sure that beast of a CPU is running at max.

Good luck

Thanks! I'll check that out when I get home later... I couldnt find anything telling me how to do that, but maybe just didnt think of the right search terms.

Power settings are maxed out.

The problem in preview is probably the 120 fps Full HD clips at 66 Mbps. Users in the past use the 30 and 60 fps clips with no problems. Unable to find a 120 or 240 fps 1080p short raw GoPro clip sample to download and test out here.

Quote The problem in preview is probably the 120 fps Full HD clips at 66 Mbps. Users in the past use the 30 and 60 fps clips with no problems. Unable to find a 120 or 240 fps 1080p short raw GoPro clip sample to download and test out here.

Thanks, I'm beginning to suspect that maybe what I'm trying to do is just too intense for preview.. which is fine if that's truly the case - I think the ability to render a full quality preview of just a short segment will get me by just fine. It's certyainly ALOT less time consuming than rendering the ENTIRE project everytime I need to check on it.

I'll probably take more of my footage at a lower framerate in the future.. but man 120fps lets me slow action shots down to 20% and looks soo smooth.

Quote they recommended setting my project to 30fps instead of 24fps

Sure... that'll help. Thanks, support! <facepalm>

I've had decent luck with shadow files so you may want to give it a try. It works well for timing -- not so much for color correcting/tweaking.

Also, as referenced in that video link above, there is a way to "render preview" and to "produce range". Both of these options are activated by first selecting a range (with the yellow IN/OUT handles) and then selecting the corresponding option on the contexutal menu strip of buttons just above the timeline.

Quote


Sure... that'll help. Thanks, support!

I've had decent luck with shadow files so you may want to give it a try. It works well for timing -- not so much for color correcting/tweaking.

Also, as referenced in that video link above, there is a way to "render preview" and to "produce range". Both of these options are activated by first selecting a range (with the yellow IN/OUT handles) and then selecting the corresponding option on the contexutal menu strip of buttons just above the timeline.

I know, right? So far I've gotten much better info from this thread!

I would like to add:
I'm running a test - Producing 3D movie. It is a 00:02:51;11 clip, running for 00:42:25 and the result is 1%.
Can you believe this?
The computer is very powerful but this doesn't matter - CPU load is 6.1%

Quote


I have set the preview all the way down.. and Shadow files are off because I semed to find a lot of talk all over the internet about how they can cause issues (what i'm not exactly sure) and that they really shouldnt be needed unless you have a pretty low-end system. Is that not right?

You are absoltuely right, especially with a CPU that hot.

What you are going to find is that the Threadripper caught everyone with their pants down and some software products are written witht the assumpotion that you're running an Intel CPU with no more than 6 cores, 8 max.

Just know that you are not alone. This forum is filled with Ryzen CPU owners complaining about PD's performance even though the Ryzen absoluely shreds most all other software products without any problems. So for now, the crickets are still chirping in here as far as the Ryzen goes. As soon as this changes, I'm buying myself a Threadripper 2990WX.

Quote some software products are written witht the assumpotion that you're running an Intel CPU with no more than 6 cores, 8 max.

I tested PD 15 on an HP Pavilion 590-P0040 with Ryzen 5 2400G (Passmark Performance test 8151 for the CPU) and Veaga 11 GPU integrated (Passmark was only 2453). Didn't have time for an extensive test in PD15 5min .mts from my Sony 3D camcorder with only one FX that utilizes the Radeon iGPU. I'm assuming it uses OpenGL only. Preview was at default and was very smooth. Render to 720p had no hiccups and render time was acceptable ( for that price range $463US). This model was chosen for it's feature set at the price my sister could affort. She doesn't do video editing so good deal for her. But I still feel for those on a budget, it would be acceptable. HP has a similiar model with Intel i5 8th gen with 16GB of Octane RAM which would have been a better choice, but over her price limit.

Would be nice if PD17 or 18 would have better support for Threadripper and future high-end CPUs.

Quote
I tested PD 15 on an HP Pavilion 590-P0040 with Ryzen 5 2400G (Passmark Performance test 8151 for the CPU) and Veaga 11 GPU integrated (Passmark was only 2453). Didn't have time for an extensive test in PD15 5min .mts from my Sony 3D camcorder with only one FX that utilizes the Radeon iGPU. I'm assuming it uses OpenGL only. Preview was at default and was very smooth. Render to 720p had no hiccups and render time was acceptable ( for that price range $463US). This model was chosen for it's feature set at the price my sister could affort. She doesn't do video editing so good deal for her. But I still feel for those on a budget, it would be acceptable. HP has a similiar model with Intel i5 8th gen with 16GB of Octane RAM which would have been a better choice, but over her price limit.

Would be nice if PD17 or 18 would have better support for Threadripper and future high-end CPUs.

Transcode to an intermediate CODEC and edit that. 1080p 120 FPS is more demanding than 4K @ 24 FPS.

If this footage is H.264 or (God forbid) HEVC, you will not be able to get real-time playback. It's just too much work for the CPU.

Video editors are not hte same as media playback apps,a nd those CODECs are not designed for editing. They're designed for playback and streaming; and for environments where keeping file sizes as small as possible is preferable.

This means they compress data heavily, and use a GOP structure that is very unfriendly to tasks like "video scrubbing" in an NLE that prefers full picture frames in succession (think Film).

H.264/HEVC use a GOP structure that stores a full frame and then only the changes in successive frames. GOP stands for Group of Pictures. Everytime you scrube through a copy, the CPU has to recompose those frames. This is made even harder by the fact that the files are heavily compressed. The solution for this is to use an intermediate CODEC that stores each frame individually (either by recording directly to it - does yoru GoPro record to Cineform; or by transcoding the files to one). This gives better performance in pretty much any NLE. IT will always be much better performance compared to H.264 or HEVC. They were invented specifically for this reason. They are the digital equivalent to film rollls.

If you're recording and rendering to 720p then you can do that just fine on an old mid-range AMD laptop from 2013 Richland Era or something. It's not really a good gaugh of performance. Any Atom CPU would chew through that without a hardware decoder, because the data rates aren't challenging enough to bottleneck them - nevermind any desktop CPU.

I think people overrate the GPU acceleration in PDR, because Cyberlink markets it so heavily. It really isn't that extensive, or effective to be frank. THe primary bottleneck in video editing is the CPU; especially when you're dealing with 4K video or FHD at very high framerates (like 120-240).