Best File Location for Performance

RTX3060 might be considered "low end" when compared to all those 3090s and 4090s out there but in the grand scheme of things it isn't a bad card.

I agree with you. I could obviously pore more $$ on higher model of GPU and CPU but wanted to see if i could build a decent PC under $2K. I think the results are pretty good and I'm pleased.

Until recently I was thinking new PC CPU and GPU would be needed in my future. Now I'm not so sure and starting to feel I would get much more out of my money if I started using Mac.

In some scenarios this may be actually true with Mx chips.

I thought "quarter" or "half" size proxy means quarter/half of the resolution of the source?

It does, but consider the following example based on Panasonic video settings. I chose these mainly because the the tables show these exact values.

• UHD 30p h.264 8bit 4:2:0 100 Mbps -> 12.50 MB/s
• UHD 30p h.264 10bit 4:2:2 150 Mbps -> 18.75 MB/s
• UHD 30p h.265 10bit 4:2:0 72 Mbps -> 9.00 MB/s
• UHD 30p h.265 10bit 4:2:0 150 Mbps -> 18.75 MB/s

1/2 resolution drops you to FHD, and these are the options for DNxHR

• DNxHR LB - 8bit 4:2:2 -> 5.39 MB/s
• DNxHR SQ - 8bit 4:2:2 -> 17.21 MB/s
• DNxHR HQ - 8bit 4:2:2 -> 25.99 MB/s
• DNxHR HQX - 12bit 4:2:2 -> 25.99 MB/s
• DNxHR 444 - 12bit 4:4:4 -> 52.10 MB/s

So the only way to use less disk space at half resolution than the actual source files, is to use LB or SQ depending on encoding.

This makes sense for 8bit 4:2:0 h.264. for anything else it doesn't because you will drop from 10bit to 8bit. When you start pushing stuff around in color grading, you can start getting banding that wouldn't be there in your source video.

strait transcoding makes no sense either because you will always end up with larger files, and will loose bit depth in a lot of cases.

If you go down to 1/4 resolution HQX you can save space and not lose bit depth, but then you are talking about 960 × 540 qHD.

I agree with you. I could obviously pore more $$ on higher model of GPU and CPU but wanted to see if i could build a decent PC under $2K. I think the results are pretty good and I'm pleased.

If you are working mainly with h.265 files, timeline perfomance will depend on your CPU.
If you are on DR 18 and you are using mostly h.265 files, you should uncheck the "NVIDIA" box in DR -> Preferences -> Decode Options -> Decode H.264/h.265 files using hardware acceleration. Intel's 12th and 13th generation CPUs are deling much better with h.265 files than even RTX 4090 and DR 18 still donesn't "know" quite good when it should use GPU and when to use CPU for hardware decoding of h.265 files and it often uses GPU for decoding of h.265 files. I'm not sure if this is corrected in 18.1.3 but in 18.1.2 decoding of h.265 files wasn't that good with all boxes checked. Unfortunately, unchecking this box will (probably) degrade a little bit your timeline performace for h.264 files, but this is (for now) something that you have to choose, depending on type of files you are working with.

My little test result.

I shot two files on my GH6

First file 3840x2160 60P 10bit 4:2:0 MP4 100 Mbps to get as close as requested.

Second file 4096x 2160 60P 10bit 4:2:2 MOV 200 Mbps both of 1 min length to push decode a little.

Proxy media was set to DNxHR LB resolution as source. So full resolution files like source.

On the Studio Max took 1 min 59 sec to convert the MP4 and 2 min 13 sec for the MOV
On the PC time 1 min 20 sec for MP4 and 1 min 45 sec for MOV.

Files sizes of proxies were of course identical.

Source MP4 source 717M 100Mbps to DNxHR LB 2690M 360Mbps
for MOV source 1538M 200Mbps to DNxHR LB 2878M 386Mbps

Playback on both my systems make no difference !! I put several versions on timeline to make it longer and it still made no difference for this single track playback. I do however know that adding another native source C4K 10bit 4:2:2 track in multicam and my PC will not play but Studio Max will. You can see why I do not want to convert source as two hour shows would need close to 700G for two cameras in DNxHR LB and take almost 7 hours to convert. Not needed on the Mac and would use power and make noise on the PC ? I am really a PC fan and been so since early 1980's and have always made my own PC's. Did not want a Mac because I wanted the ability to use parts I wanted. However when the cost of a GPU is close to the cost of a whole Mac that works faster for some files I changed. Still do most on PC as the only software on the Mac is Resolve and Topaz Ai. I think a Mac Mini M2 may very well be a better solution than a new GPU for a PC !! As I did the Studio Max is lower cost in Canada than a 4090.

My little test result.

I shot two files on my GH6

First file 3840x2160 60P 10bit 4:2:0 MP4 100 Mbps to get as close as requested.

Second file 4096x 2160 60P 10bit 4:2:2 MOV 200 Mbps both of 1 min length to push decode a little.

Proxy media was set to DNxHR LB resolution as source. So full resolution files like source.

On the Studio Max took 1 min 59 sec to convert the MP4 and 2 min 13 sec for the MOV
On the PC time 1 min 20 sec for MP4 and 1 min 45 sec for MOV.

MP4 and MOV are just containers. I presume these are ProRes files. Although Windows PC these days aren't much behind MAC when it comes to performace on ProRes, for video editing I'll allways use Intel before AMD. You should check perfomance of your multicam on some (newer) Intel based PC. Because of much better codecs implementation. For now, Intel 12th and 13th gen (K series) has much better performance on h.265 files than even rtx 4090 So, you'll probably get better results on newer Intel with rtx 3080 or 3090 than on some beastly AMD with rtx 4090

My little test result.
I shot two files on my GH6

First file 3840x2160 60P 10bit 4:2:0 MP4 100 Mbps to get as close as requested.
...
Playback on both my systems make no difference !!

Thank you! Would it be possible, please, for you to share first file with me so we could compare your system against mine?

My little test result.

I shot two files on my GH6

First file 3840x2160 60P 10bit 4:2:0 MP4 100 Mbps to get as close as requested.

Second file 4096x 2160 60P 10bit 4:2:2 MOV 200 Mbps both of 1 min length to push decode a little.

Proxy media was set to DNxHR LB resolution as source. So full resolution files like source.

On the Studio Max took 1 min 59 sec to convert the MP4 and 2 min 13 sec for the MOV
On the PC time 1 min 20 sec for MP4 and 1 min 45 sec for MOV.

MP4 and MOV are just containers. I presume these are ProRes files. Although Windows PC these days aren't much behind MAC when it comes to performace on ProRes, for video editing I'll allways use Intel before AMD. You should check perfomance of your multicam on some (newer) Intel based PC. Because of much better codecs implementation. For now, Intel 12th and 13th gen (K series) has much better performance on h.265 files than even rtx 4090 So, you'll probably get better results on newer Intel with rtx 3080 or 3090 than on some beastly AMD with rtx 4090

These are from my GH6 so both are h264. New Intel would work I am sure because that is what I looked at before buying the Studio Max. With a 3090 ( at that time ) an Intel PC with 32G RAM and 1T drive was almost 3 times the cost of the Studio Max. Decision was easy ? Even for a Windows fan.

These are from my GH6 so both are h264.

Per the manual file #1 is h.265, and #2 is h.264.

#1 will be hardware decoded on the following.

• Amd 5000 series gpus or newer
• Nvida 1000 series gpus or newer
• Intel Quick Sync 10 or newer

Nothing will touch #2 though, it's going to be on the CPU to brute force the decode. For some unknown reason when it comes to h.264 decode the manufactures only care about 8bit 4:2:0!

If you are working mainly with h.265 files, timeline perfomance will depend on your CPU.
If you are on DR 18 and you are using mostly h.265 files, you should uncheck the "NVIDIA" box in DR -> Preferences -> Decode Options -> Decode H.264/h.265 files using hardware acceleration. Intel's 12th and 13th generation CPUs are deling much better with h.265 files than even RTX 4090 and DR 18 still donesn't "know" quite good when it should use GPU and when to use CPU for hardware decoding of h.265 files and it often uses GPU for decoding of h.265 files. I'm not sure if this is corrected in 18.1.3 but in 18.1.2 decoding of h.265 files wasn't that good with all boxes checked. Unfortunately, unchecking this box will (probably) degrade a little bit your timeline performace for h.264 files, but this is (for now) something that you have to choose, depending on type of files you are working with.

That's interesting. I'm on DR 18.1.2 (build 6) Studio and about to upgrade to 18.1.3
Before adding the RTX to the system, I was using the integrated Intel UHD 770 GPU and was getting really bad performance with h.265 files. I couldn't play more than 5 seconds without stuttering. Adding the RTX 3060 changed the behavior completely even before tweaking the options. But I will give your recommendations a shot.

Until recently I was thinking new PC CPU and GPU would be needed in my future. Now I'm not so sure and starting to feel I would get much more out of my money if I started using Mac.

If you can build your own PC, I think you would be able to get better performance for less $$ overall.
I looked at the apple store, the MAC Pro starts at $6K and would probably end up closer to $8K-$9K after adding the storage.

I built mine for less than $2K so there is plenty room to upgrade some of the components and still stay below half the cost or slightly above it.

I'm happy to offer my knowledge and experience if you are up to it

Before adding the RTX to the system, I was using the integrated Intel UHD 770 GPU and was getting really bad performance with h.265 files. I couldn't play more than 5 seconds without stuttering. Adding the RTX 3060 changed the behavior completely even before tweaking the options. But I will give your recommendations a shot.

were you only using integrated graphics?

If so, i could see that's being the issue. Monitors, DR, & h.265 decode is asking an awful lot of integrated graphics.

Per the manual file #1 is h.265, and #2 is h.264.

#1 will be hardware decoded on the following.

• Amd 5000 series gpus or newer
• Nvida 1000 series gpus or newer
• Intel Quick Sync 10 or newer

Nothing will touch #2 though, it's going to be on the CPU to brute force the decode. For some unknown reason when it comes to h.264 decode the manufactures only care about 8bit 4:2:0!

For #1 you are just partially right



This chart is taken from https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/what-h-264-and-h-265-hardware-decoding-is-supported-in-davinci-resolve-studio-2122/#HardwareDecodingSupportinDaVinciResolveStudio

Before adding the RTX to the system, I was using the integrated Intel UHD 770 GPU and was getting really bad performance with h.265 files. I couldn't play more than 5 seconds without stuttering. Adding the RTX 3060 changed the behavior completely even before tweaking the options. But I will give your recommendations a shot.

were you only using integrated graphics?

If so, i could see that's being the issue. Monitors, DR, & h.265 decode is asking an awful lot of integrated graphics.

Yes, the integrated GPU was the only one in the system.

Until recently I was thinking new PC CPU and GPU would be needed in my future. Now I'm not so sure and starting to feel I would get much more out of my money if I started using Mac.

If you can build your own PC, I think you would be able to get better performance for less $$ overall.
I looked at the apple store, the MAC Pro starts at $6K and would probably end up closer to $8K-$9K after adding the storage.

I built mine for less than $2K so there is plenty room to upgrade some of the components and still stay below half the cost or slightly above it.

I'm happy to offer my knowledge and experience if you are up to it

No one buys Mac Pro today as it's outdated.
We are talking about Apple Mx chip based machines, like MacBook Pro, Mac Studio etc.
Even Mac Air (1200$) will do some tasks very well thanks to Apple video engine. We are talking specific cases, not overall performance.

For #1 you are just partially right

#1 is 10 bit 4:2:0 h.265, the second part of the table, i'm fully correct.

This chart is taken from https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/what-h-264-and-h-265-hardware-decoding-is-supported-in-davinci-resolve-studio-2122/#HardwareDecodingSupportinDaVinciResolveStudio

I'm aware, i'm the one who originally posted it to the forum a few weeks back, and referenced it earlier in this thread.

These are from my GH6 so both are h264.

Per the manual file #1 is h.265, and #2 is h.264.

#1 will be hardware decoded on the following.

• Amd 5000 series gpus or newer
• Nvida 1000 series gpus or newer
• Intel Quick Sync 10 or newer

Nothing will touch #2 though, it's going to be on the CPU to brute force the decode. For some unknown reason when it comes to h.264 decode the manufactures only care about 8bit 4:2:0!

Yes Dan you are correct. I just went through the options on the camera to get 100Mbps 10 bit as requested and that mp4 was the closest. I assumed for mp4 it was h264.

For # 2 the Mac M1 or M2 will decode 4:2:2 fine with hardware decode and encode. That is one reason I switched from making my own PC's. My Studio Max is close to cost of a 3090 that would not decode the 4:2:2 10 bit files. Also my reason for suggesting that having a Mac Mini etc for first cut through is not a bad idea. Fine tuning, NR, sharpening etc may be better done on the PC. As I have found rendering the export is not too different on my systems but working the timeline is more enjoyable on the Mac because of the hardware decode of the M1 silicon.

As I have found rendering the export is not too different on my systems but working the timeline is more enjoyable on the Mac because of the hardware decode of the M1 silicon.

I wish they provided more details about what they will and won't hardware accelerate. The only thing i've ever found is codec level stuff, and i'm sure they have caveats with regards to bit depth and chroma sampling just like all the other manufactures.

Yes I have not seen any detailed spec on this topic but have practical experience of it working that way decoding h264 10bit 4:2:2 from GH cameras. Even my h265 10 bit 4:2:0 5.7K files play better on the Studio max but stutter on PC.

No one buys Mac Pro today as it's outdated.
We are talking about Apple Mx chip based machines, like MacBook Pro, Mac Studio etc.
Even Mac Air (1200$) will do some tasks very well thanks to Apple video engine. We are talking specific cases, not overall performance.

I see, thanks for clarifying....

There is no Mac Pro with Apple silicon yet (will there ever be?), but there is something faster, cheaper and smaller:

(Neither do I like his style, but the tests are impressive. I didn't count how often he says 'insane', but if you want to avoid a few of these, go to 11:35.)

As I mentioned before anyone thinking of upgrading their GPU should have a close look. When I set out last year to upgrade my 1080Ti it was about the same price to get the Studio Max as a 3090 that was not available anyway. Now, in Canada locally the prices are RTX 4090 $2249, RTX 4080 $2049. An M2 Mini with 10 core CPU, 16 core GPU, 16G RAM, 512G drive the base at this level is $1699. If the task is timeline playback of h264 and h265 camera files the choice is clear ! The other choice is a full new PC, say a Dell i9 13900K, RTX4090, 32G RAM 1T drive at $6000 ? That was a similar choice I had back last March, it was a 3090 then of course but price was the same. Then I chose the Studio Max with 32G RAM and 1T drive for $2800. That is the same price now for a M2 Mini with 12 core CPU, 19 core GPU, 32G RAM and 1 T drive. Current Studio Max price with 10 core CPU, 24 core GPU, 32G RAM and 1T drive is $2749. All Canadian dollars of course.