- Posts: 329
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:48 pm
- Location: South Africa
I gather many users are finding 4k a challenge with compressed camera codecs.
I'm considering a PC upgrade for my move to 4k.
I have been following Dave Dugdale who has made the switch from Adobe Premiere Pro to Resolve and has published a series of very informative videos for us "technically challenged" users here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpPnsOUPkWcukhWUVcTJvnA
"Why I Switched From Premiere Pro to Resolve for Editing and Color"
His latest video is an in depth look a Resolve vs P/Pro cc 4k timeline performance comparison
You will see he has upgraded his PC to what I consider a fairly potent desktop.
Adobe seems to currently have a performance advantage.
Desktop editing from DV days to HD was fairly painless as hardware followed Moore's law. Now with 4k and beyond, AVC and HEVC compression is testing the desktop limits for NLE software using long GOP codecs so I was introduced to the world of intermediate codecs like Cineform, GV HQX, and now Dnx. I do understand why they ease the timeline workload but it seems cumbersome having to decode files to low res proxies or much larger (10x) high res edit friendly codecs just to get realtime edit playback. As codecs appear to be mathematical I've often thought a GPU optimized might help as editing is still cpu bound and only effects have been gpu optimized.
I have no idea what a studio workflow must look like using pro cameras with RAW or low compression formats requiring huge storage and high transfer speeds. A 30 min 4k/UHD documentary for broadcast must be quite a challenge - then there's backup!
For those of us who can't afford such professional equipment or a $10-20K workstation the best explanation I have seen of why compressed camera codecs are challenging our desktop PCs is from Juan Salvo:
"Long GOP formats, or really any interframe codec, can be immensely taxing. In order to show frame 14 (lets say) the computer has to process out frames 1-13. That mean 14x the processing is required vs an intraframe codec (like prores or dnxhr) which only has to draw the required frame. In the case of say HD image with reasonably powerful gear, this can happen in a fairly effortless way. But for UHD images, that’s 4*14 the processing required for the equivalent HD frame in a intraframe codec. Or up to 56X the processing required. Additionally, AVC based codecs even on I frames (intact frames where the frame doesn’t depend on previous frames) are still more computationally taxing than the same raster in ProRes or DNxHR."
So the move to 4k from HD is four time the amount of data per frame - the compressed camera formats can need 56X more processing power to decode on the timeline!!
Juan also mentions BM are working on the problem.
I'm considering a PC upgrade for my move to 4k.
I have been following Dave Dugdale who has made the switch from Adobe Premiere Pro to Resolve and has published a series of very informative videos for us "technically challenged" users here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpPnsOUPkWcukhWUVcTJvnA
"Why I Switched From Premiere Pro to Resolve for Editing and Color"
His latest video is an in depth look a Resolve vs P/Pro cc 4k timeline performance comparison
You will see he has upgraded his PC to what I consider a fairly potent desktop.
Adobe seems to currently have a performance advantage.
Desktop editing from DV days to HD was fairly painless as hardware followed Moore's law. Now with 4k and beyond, AVC and HEVC compression is testing the desktop limits for NLE software using long GOP codecs so I was introduced to the world of intermediate codecs like Cineform, GV HQX, and now Dnx. I do understand why they ease the timeline workload but it seems cumbersome having to decode files to low res proxies or much larger (10x) high res edit friendly codecs just to get realtime edit playback. As codecs appear to be mathematical I've often thought a GPU optimized might help as editing is still cpu bound and only effects have been gpu optimized.
I have no idea what a studio workflow must look like using pro cameras with RAW or low compression formats requiring huge storage and high transfer speeds. A 30 min 4k/UHD documentary for broadcast must be quite a challenge - then there's backup!
For those of us who can't afford such professional equipment or a $10-20K workstation the best explanation I have seen of why compressed camera codecs are challenging our desktop PCs is from Juan Salvo:
"Long GOP formats, or really any interframe codec, can be immensely taxing. In order to show frame 14 (lets say) the computer has to process out frames 1-13. That mean 14x the processing is required vs an intraframe codec (like prores or dnxhr) which only has to draw the required frame. In the case of say HD image with reasonably powerful gear, this can happen in a fairly effortless way. But for UHD images, that’s 4*14 the processing required for the equivalent HD frame in a intraframe codec. Or up to 56X the processing required. Additionally, AVC based codecs even on I frames (intact frames where the frame doesn’t depend on previous frames) are still more computationally taxing than the same raster in ProRes or DNxHR."
So the move to 4k from HD is four time the amount of data per frame - the compressed camera formats can need 56X more processing power to decode on the timeline!!
Juan also mentions BM are working on the problem.
Resolve 15.3 free Win 10 64bit