Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
FORUMS:listlist (w/ descriptions)archivetagssearchhall of famerecent posts

slower renders in X

COW Forums : Pinnacle CineWave

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
steveslower renders in X
by on Mar 4, 2003 at 8:26:34 pm

This may have been talked about before but...
Has anybody noticed slower renders in the X version of Cinewave as compared to the 9 version?


Return to posts index

Walter BiscardiRe: slower renders in X
by on Mar 5, 2003 at 2:09:07 pm

Not really. If anything, it seems a bit quicker here. Any particular effects you notice that are slower?

Walter Biscardi
Final Cut Pro / CineWave Forum / Atlanta FCPUG Host
Owner/Creative Director, d'Arte media creations
http://www.dartemedia.com

Class on Demand Producer
http://www.classondemand.net


Return to posts index

steveRe: slower renders in X
by on Mar 6, 2003 at 5:50:52 pm

Our edit does a test on all systems that he is on. Take a 10 sec clip set the opacity to 50% and time the render. Between Kona, Cinewave for os 9 and Cinewave for X he claims that Cinewave for X is the slowest. I just want to see if anybody else is having this problem.


Return to posts index


Bart HarrisonRe: slower renders in X
by on Mar 6, 2003 at 5:54:45 pm

Since this is realtime on Cine OS X what does it matter ??

Bart

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Build `em right... support `em well... let our customers do the talking !"

Bart Harrison
Multimedia Programming America
The HD Suite

America's VAR
Apple, Shake, CineWave, Kona, & Rorke SAN
http://www.mpa.net


Return to posts index

Johan EdstromRe: slower renders in X
by on Mar 6, 2003 at 9:28:45 pm

Any QT rends in OSX seems slower slower than under OS9. If Kona or Cinewave is slower than the other has to do with how the codecs are written. I can't see that the difference could be much more than mariginal.


Return to posts index

chrispyRe: slower renders in X
by on Mar 7, 2003 at 2:43:26 am

I don't think we are ever going to see any major rendering improvement until the next gen of FCP which from what I've read is going to be more OSX native than current version...or maybe they may take some of the super Shake rendering architecture over to FCP...and that will make Bart (and everyone else) a happy man.

I did a 1080/50i HD render test (5 secs title over video) on a single 733/G4 and a dual 1Ghz/G4/mirror-door and the rendering speed is almost the same.

Heh Bart, is it really that fast...I mean the Shake's rendering speed. How does it compare to Combustion's rendering speed assuming both run on same hardware specs.

-chrispy




Return to posts index


Bart HarrisonRe: slower renders in X
by on Mar 7, 2003 at 3:52:35 am

[chrispy] "Heh Bart, is it really that fast...I mean the Shake's rendering speed. How does it compare to Combustion's rendering speed assuming both run on same hardware specs. "

Shake is in an entirly different class from Combustion. Regular Shake users consider it to be faster than Flame (fastest Mac/PC vs. fastest Octane). Add a four or five Mac/PC rendering farm and Shake can actually outperform an Inferno. We estimate Shake to be roughly twenty times faster than After Effects on the exact same hardware. The more complex the comp the bigger the difference. And quality is even better. What can I say, it's really an amazing piece of software.

Bart

P.S. Kathlyn and Ron have promised a Shake forum is right around the corner !

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Build `em right... support `em well... let our customers do the talking !"

Bart Harrison
Multimedia Programming America
The HD Suite

America's VAR
Apple, Shake, CineWave, Kona, & Rorke SAN
http://www.mpa.net


Return to posts index

nazc* vs. Shake
by on Mar 7, 2003 at 8:35:12 am

combustion actually, slower than AE. but render is nearly good as Shake. but if we need speed... and ultimate quality... SHAKE!!!

All the best, sorry for my english


Return to posts index

Brian WillardRe: slower renders in X
by on Mar 7, 2003 at 8:27:16 pm

try to animate type on a curve and see if shake is still faster than a discreet box.

I have a great fondness for shake (having actually used it rather than just seeing a demo) and there is no way you can begin to compare it to flame or inferno by just benchmarking render times.

shake's is a tool designed for a the needs of film effects work, and it's node based compositing style does require a solid technical background to understand how the software builds a compositing tree.

as a compositing station with no clients in the room, shake is great. but it also lacks the tools for motion graphic design (better off with after effects) no video I/O, and speed is horribly slower on a mac as compared to a pc.

FYI, the only render farm support for shake (right now) is through 3rd party software.

if you are interested in shake, checkout the forums and mailing list archive at http://www.highend2d.com and get yourself a copy of "The Art and Science of Digital Compositing" by Ron Brinkmann


brian willard
-radar studios-
radarstudios.com


Return to posts index


nazRe: slower renders in X
by on Mar 7, 2003 at 8:46:57 pm

>shake is great. but it also lacks the tools for motion graphic design (better off >with after effects) no video I/O, and speed is horribly slower on a mac as >compared to a pc.


what about TREMOR ? it HAVE i/o, and who cares mac or pc? we cutting on macs, and 3D and compose done on dual p4 Xeon PC - qood combo thanx to Grant Petty.


All the best, sorry for my english


Return to posts index

Brian WillardRe: slower renders in X
by on Mar 7, 2003 at 9:06:33 pm


Tremor was windows only and sales discontinued after Apple bought Nothing Real. I don't think apple is selling new licenses for shake on windows, so you're out of luck. on the windows side, take a look at digital fusion - eyeonline.com (demo available)

Digital Domain is also releasing their in-house compositing software Nuke for windows/linux shake users after apple shafted them - d2software.com - close match to shake, with a stronger caching method. wait until NAB for new announcements.


brian willard
-radar studios-
radarstudios.com


Return to posts index

steveWhat kind of answer is that!?!?!
by on Mar 7, 2003 at 8:01:12 pm

I hope you don't act like that to your customers... Yes its real time - but its a good test to render it - and lets say we wanted 50% opacity and plus one other effect, then we would have to render it.


Return to posts index


francois.starkRe: Realtime?
by on Mar 8, 2003 at 6:43:52 pm

I beg to differ: If you have two video tracks on top of each other, the top one with 50% opacity, Cinewave does it in RT. You can then still add one grading or one title to this effect - still realtime. Only when you add a second grading or second title to the two live video tracks will you have to render.

I can not begin to tell you how many hours of rendering my Cinewave saves me.

regards
Francois


Return to posts index

steveBTW, it looks like the real answer is that...
by on Mar 7, 2003 at 8:04:12 pm

we were testing this system to see if we wanted to upgrade to OS X. Since this was just a test and we didn't have the correct video card to replace our two video cards, we took out most of the RAM. This left only 512mb which would explain the slow rendering. If we were going to upgrade for real we would of course get a video card that would allow us not to have take out the RAM to use cinewave in X.

Low RAM = slow renders (of course!)


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]