unsharp mask renders time ? at DVinfo.net

Alkim Un · October 9th, 2006, 05:37 PM

hi,

I apply unsharp mask (amount :80 treshold:1.5 radius:1) to an 20 second clip and hit enter(for playing back properly in time line), render time was nearly 15 minutes ! is this normal or is there a problem with my compter ? if this time is normal, then what will I do while rendering the whole 40 min film ?

I use premiere pro 2.0,
my pc config: intel d820 dual2.8, 2 gb ram, ati x700 256mb video, 750 gb hard drive..

thanks

Jon Jaschob · October 10th, 2006, 10:54 AM

Last year I used MB Auto Art on 20 minutes of footage, it took over 10 hours to render on a amd 1500+ system! Welcome to computing 101 ... lol.

Lars Siden · October 13th, 2006, 02:21 PM

Hi,

25fps
720x576 pixels

20 seconds

25*20*720*576 = 207360000 pixels to process

Alas operations as unsharp mask and noise remove is VERY cpu intensive due to the numbers of pixels to process!

// Lazze

Alkim Un · January 13th, 2007, 08:58 AM

you guys are wrong or didn' understand one thing. if I export the same 20 sec video with unsharp mask and levels applied, it takes 40 seconds(_avi). but for the real time preview if I adjust teh work area slide and hit enter for render, it takes 15 mins. that is what I want to know.

is it probable that the timeline uses cinepac ? codec and it is really hard to render it. or why premiere use the same method like after affcts ram prewiev ?

thanks,
alkim.

Alkim Un · January 13th, 2007, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lars Siden

Hi,

25fps
720x576 pixels

20 seconds

25*20*720*576 = 207360000 pixels to process

Alas operations as unsharp mask and noise remove is VERY cpu intensive due to the numbers of pixels to process!

// Lazze

but if you consider the transistor count of pentium D 230 million, 207 million is not the huge number that cpu cannot cope with. though I understand that the sharpening is cpu hungry application

alkim.

Alkim Un · January 13th, 2007, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alkim Un

or why premiere use the same method like after affcts ram prewiev ?

thanks,
alkim.

I correct my question was "why premiere doesnt use ram preview like aftr affcts"

October 9th, 2006, 05:37 PM	#1
Alkim Un Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Ankara, Turkey Posts: 136	unsharp mask renders time ? hi, I apply unsharp mask (amount :80 treshold:1.5 radius:1) to an 20 second clip and hit enter(for playing back properly in time line), render time was nearly 15 minutes ! is this normal or is there a problem with my compter ? if this time is normal, then what will I do while rendering the whole 40 min film ? I use premiere pro 2.0, my pc config: intel d820 dual2.8, 2 gb ram, ati x700 256mb video, 750 gb hard drive.. thanks

October 13th, 2006, 02:21 PM	#3
Lars Siden Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sweden, Stockholm Posts: 469	Hi, 25fps 720x576 pixels 20 seconds 2520720*576 = 207360000 pixels to process Alas operations as unsharp mask and noise remove is VERY cpu intensive due to the numbers of pixels to process! // Lazze __________________ Sony HDR-CX130,Canon 5DMKII,i7 930@4.0, 12gb memory, 3x SSD + 2x1Tb(stripe), Geforce 480, Dual 24", Win 7 x64

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

October 10th, 2006, 10:54 AM	#2
Jon Jaschob Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 232	Last year I used MB Auto Art on 20 minutes of footage, it took over 10 hours to render on a amd 1500+ system! Welcome to computing 101 ... lol.

January 13th, 2007, 08:58 AM	#4
Alkim Un Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Ankara, Turkey Posts: 136	you guys are wrong or didn' understand one thing. if I export the same 20 sec video with unsharp mask and levels applied, it takes 40 seconds(_avi). but for the real time preview if I adjust teh work area slide and hit enter for render, it takes 15 mins. that is what I want to know. is it probable that the timeline uses cinepac ? codec and it is really hard to render it. or why premiere use the same method like after affcts ram prewiev ? thanks, alkim.