Adobe Media Encoder cs4 slower?
 

I just tested a simple project in CS4, I am slowly migrating to it. It was 20 minutes of HDV footage dropped into the timeline, I increased the brightness just a smidge and went to render it out to SD mpg for a DVD.

After choosing the exact settings that I use in cs3 (ntsc 16x9 8000kbps CBR, I hit render and it brings up the new Adobe Media encoder seperate from premiere. I hit render there, and away it goes. All 4 processors of my quadcore are pumping at full 100%. Yeah!

However this simple 20 minute render is going to take 48 minutes.

In Cs3 I just rendered a 45 minute wedding in HDV using a ton of Magic BUllet effects and it took only 26 minutes. This piece is less than half as long, with little effects and it's taking double. By this measurement my wedding would take close to 2 hours versus 26 minutes in CS3.

Anyone else seeing longer render times in CS4? I expected it to stay the same or get faster, not lag way behind previous versions. Also, since all 4 processors are cranking, it is not an issue of not being multithreaded properly.

Anyone have any ideas here? I hate moving forward in software and simultaneously moving backward in performance...which seems to happen frequently with Adobe! :)

The wild card in your comparison is MBL. What's your video card? MBL can use the nVidea GPU to process the effects which may be faster than your CPU. You may have an apples to armadillos comparison here.

If you want an accurate comparison, take the same footage and drop it into CS3. Do the same tweaks and render. That will give you better data.

I plan to try that but even though magic bullet utilizes the GPU to accelerate the Magic Bullet sections, I can't fathom that it would ever actually accelerate it beyond how the CPU can render a simple color coorection. I did remove the brioghtness and contrast filter in that same project in CS4 and it seemed as though it was going to render in about 20 minutes. So at this point a straight, no cuts, no effects render to mpg2 is taking 20 minutes when the project is only 20 minutes? I still don't unerstand how a CS3 project that is 45 minutes long and has mucho effects and transitions can render in 26 minutes yet a 20 minute no effects and no transitions takes 20 minutes in cs4.

SO has anyone else noticed a slowdown?

Same exact file imported into CS3 and applied brightness and contrast filter is currently rendering out and is estimating 15:10 to complete. Again, in CS4 this same exact clip and settings is taking 47 minutes, over three times as long.

Is there something in CS4 media encoder that I am missing? Both CS3 amd CS4 are using 100% of all fours cores so that is not the issue. After this is done I will go back into CS4 and see if there is a setting that I am missing somewhere. In the meantime, can anyone verify if they have seen this massive increase in rednering times to mpg files?

Thanks.

If I may ask, what computer and processor are you using, and what OS with how much RAM?

Intel Q6600 running at 3.2 GHZ
Windows XP professional SP3
4 GB of DDR2 1066MHZ RAM (XP only uses 3.2GB of this)
Various 7200 RPM Sata Drives

Does this help any?

Whoa. Something smells a bit of fish but it's not completely surprising. New software releases almost always involve more code than the one it replaces. That means it will generally run a bit slower, but newer, faster hardware tends to mask that. I had 20 years in the computer systems biz and it's a story I've seen over and over again.

I don't know how much of AME Adobe overhauled in CS4, but if one believes their marketing it could have been substantial. Performance optimization is one of the last things in the development cycle. Could be that they didn't have all the time they wanted. It could get a kicker in the dot release. Regardless, three times longer is pretty pathetic.

A simple test has proven that CS4 is slower than CS3 by a large margin.

1 minute HDV 24P clip from Canon XL-h1 imported into CS3, dropped directly on the timeline, and a brightness and contrast filter applied. Increased brightness and contrast slightly.

Same process repeated for CS4 with exact same clip on exact same PC.
I then rendered this out to mpg2 DVD compliant files at 8000kbs CBR on both CS3 and CS4

the results:

CS3: Rendered this in 30 seconds
CS4: Rendered in 1:21 second (81 seconds) not quite 3x slower.

What gives here? There is no need for this kind of a performance hit for something so simple.

Also, with this simple 1 minute HDV clip being the only file loaded in CS4, my memory usage shot up to 2.6gb of ram while rendering. I only have 4GB and XP only sees 3.15 or so. How can I expect to get anything major done when having a single app (Premiere CS4) and a single clip in the project uses near 3 gig? The original file was only 200MB too!

In addition, when playing from the timeline without rendering, both CS3 and CS4 did a decent job keeping up, but I noted that CS3 was only using about 15-20% CPU whereas CS4 was more like 50-60% for the same exact effect.

Unless someone tells me that CS4 is actually doing some kind of deep 12bit processing and therefore that is why it is such a dog, I just have to throw my hands up and say why? All 4 cores are cooking at 100% in both instances but CS4 is just not moving fast at all.

I hated moving from cs2 to cs3 because it was much slower. NOw CS4 is trumping CS3 in that dept.

And to refresh everyone this is on a Intel 3.2GHZ quadcore too!~

I'm going to bed a fustrated man.
G'night all...

Welcome to the world of Premiere CS4.. My editor knew what he was doing when he rejected my in-depth review of it. Adobe is strong advertiser...

just wondering, i have not used cs4 but use cs3 and do not use it to output to mpg because the quality is so poor even when i choose the maximum settings. compare the quality and see if it is worth it. i usually output it raw and use a 3rd party program to output to mpg.

I have not had issues with CS3 exporting quality mpg files since I discovered the "deinterlace" check-box bug in the CS3 media encoder. So I see no difference in quality for CS3 or CS4, just CS4 is taking mucho longer with no perceived benefit.


I recently tested CS4 on a different machine to make sure it wasn't my primary system causing the slow encode issue. The machine was an XP pro box with 2.13GHz dual core with 4 GB ram. My main machine is much faster but since I am comparing cs3 encode to CS4 encodes it should be relative and I am just trying to get a 2nd machine to verify the performance gap between CS3 and CS4.

First in CS3:
I loaded an empty Premiere project at 1080P 24F HDV with the simple universal counter.

I applied a fast color correct effect to bring the brighness down slightly. I then rendered it out in CS3 media encoder to a 1080P 24F mpg at 17mbps. Took 51 seconds.

Same exact project opened in CS4 and exported using the new CS4 media encoder took 1:51 seconds.

Once again, both CPUs of the Dual Core were crunching away, so if there is not some real reason it is taking so much longer, then CS4 is just poorly coded and is essentially half as fast as the previous version. Well worth the cost of the upgrade I'd say! :)

Marty, it's been hinted at in another thread that your issues might stem from XP 32-bit, and CS4 not being able to make full-use of the OS. When I upgraded to CS4, I did not notice a substantial difference in render times on Vista-64... but I've been running this OS on an 8-GB RAM, quad-core Q6600 system for over 18 months. I know there's a lot of Vista-haters out there, but I've seen nothing but substantial improvements in stability over my old XP CS2 system back in the day.

And while I've never performed an A-B test between CS3 and CS4, the massive gains in productivity with the Render Queue and two-way Dynamic Link between PPro and After Effects haven't made me too critical about anything to do with CS4. My workflow is just so much better with CS4. Heck, going from PPro HDV edits right into Encore to make SD-DVD's and Flash web-versions are now renderless. Talk about time-savings...

But seeing the issues you're having with render times, I think you'll be looking at either an OS upgrade OR going back to CS3 until you're ready to make the plunge. Or just perform renders during off hours or while you're sleeping... and then it won't much really matter. ;-)

Lest I end on a flippant note... here's something to try: if you have the full Adobe Production suite, go ahead and bring your PPro project into After Effects via Dynamic Link and test your render times there. AE has always had better rendering engine(s) than PPro... and has had a Queue for a very long time. Plus, you'll get a chance to put some effects on your footage that PPro can't shake a stick at...

HTH,
Brian Brown

thanks for the extended reply. I have thought about moving to Vista 64 recently anyway, but find it odd that Adobe doesn't write 64bit versions of most of their applications, yet because of poor coding may actually need the extra memory of the 64bit OS to perform the same functions that it can already do in CS3. There is no doubt that my little experience in CS4 show that is uses so much more RAM for basic stuff.

I have been tempted to setup a dual boot machine with Vista 64 anyway.......hmm.

Marty, the CS4 Production Suite comes with a 64-bit application: Photoshop. Again, I haven't performed any A-B testing between the 32 and 64-bit versions. But in general a 64-bit OS allows multi-tasking to take place in a much bigger arena, since you're no longer hampered by 3GB total system memory limitations. Each app. can take up to 4GB, so it's nice when I've got AE, PPro, PS, and Encore running (which is pretty often). And having up to 4GB of RAM preview in AE is nice indeed.

As long as you have Vista-64 drivers for all of your hardware and peripherals (printers were the most "hit or miss" for me)... I'd say go 'fer the dual boot and I don't think you'll be sorry.

HTH,
Brian

Brian,
I know that photoshop has a 64bit version but the rest of the production sweet.....nada. Anyway, my frustration is that I am not asking anything more out of my software at all....I currently run Photoshop, Premiere, After effects and sometimes Illustrator simultaneously with just 4GB of RAM 32bit XP and most of the time is ok. I occasionally use it all up. Now, just Premiere with a single HDV 1 minute clip and exporting to media encoder is eating 2.8GB of RAM with CS4.

Believe me, I am all for multitasking and using multiple programs at once, but when a single application with one assett is running so slow as to require a 64bit OS, it seems a bit ridonkulous (that worse than riduculous). Is CS4 the new Vista? Hardware requirements way beyond what has been stated just to do mundane tasks?

I understand that when using all the apps and loading up tons of layers and effects and large graphics and animations and switching between multiple CS4 apps that 64bit and more RAM would be a huge hit. But why, should I have to have all that extra hoopla to render a simple HDV clip to mpg in the same time it takes on the same PC with a program that is 18 months old.

Don;t get me wrong, I want to upgrade to more RAM, but it seems a bit over the top to think that simple tasks would require this. I mean, what happened, Adobe now has the code written so that encoding a simple clip requires 3 times as much RAM....just because they were lazy, or they are trying to push hardware sales of RAM.

Again, I see the benefits of the 64bit OS and oodles of ram, but I fail to see why simple encoding of an HDV file requires it when a lowly 32bit OS can already do it faster with CS3.

Rant over. Carry on. Sorry for the frustration.

Hey Marty:

Other than the ranting part (which is totally understandable), I guess you'll ultimately have to ask yourself IF the extra features available to you in CS4 are worth the render hit with your existing OS setup.

Adobe clearly put themselves out on a limb with the whole Media Encoder thing, and some folks hate it (esp. for simple things like still frame grabs, which is honestly pretty inane). Even in a perfect OS world, it's likely to add clock cycles to render this way, just due to the extra overhead of AME (maybe not triple the time, like you're experiencing... but something). Others that have asked for a render queue for years are pleased as punch to be able to set up a whole slew of renders, even in multiple output formats, hit the go button and then go to bed, go shoot video (or basketball, the breeze, or whatever), and aren't going to sweat too much about the extra render time.

So ask yourself: Which category are you in?

And seriously, dude... did you try to render in After Effects CS4 via Dynamic Link?? I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

HTH,
Brian

Hey Marty:

A few more resources for you:

A post over on the Adobe Forums with some dude that did A:B testing of CS3 vs. CS4: Adobe Forums - Encoding Times - CS3 vs CS4

And an Adobe whitepaper: http://www.adobe.com/products/creati...m_64bit_wp.pdf

Reading these, I think it's pretty clear that Adobe's coding with CS4 has been optimized for 64-bit OS's (PCs and Macs). When and if you do upgrade to 64-bit, the first time you see four distinct processes for PPro or AE (one for each processor in your system)... I think you'll be happy that you took the plunge.

HTH,
Brian

Brian,
I actually have seen both of these and they are great resources. I guess I can try that dual boot scenario but I will be real surprises if it makes any difference. As I said, the simple little experiment that I am running has so little resources, I cannot really see how having extra memory for the program to access will speed this process up. The extra memory aside, if somehow the code is optimized for 64bit, then how does that explain these tests?

Other than the encode to Ipod, his Cs3 vs. CS4 encodes were near identical, which tells me that CS4 needs 64bit to do the "same" thing CS3 could already do! It's not any faster....it's the same but utilizing 64bits to accomplish the same. Still, I get the whole 64bit advantage overall, when I am loaded up with 3-4 applications and tons of videos and effects. I just don't get the tiny jobs needing it just to retain the performance of previous version of the software.

Peace.

It will speed up your system by allowing four processes, one for each CPU, instead of funneling everything through a single process. And your memory rates will not be nearly as high. I've never had PPro ask for more than 1GB total of RAM from my system... even whilst rendering complicated greenscreen stuff in conjunction with AE.

Where I think the error in your expectations lies in that rendering speed alone is THE metric to a successful upgrade. The test in the above link shows that rendering speed is not nearly as impacted by the "thread-ier" code of CS4 WHEN used on a 64-bit OS as what you are experiencing with your old 32-bit OS. Again, relegating rendering speed as a moot point... it's sometimes better (vs. CS3), sometimes worse, but statistically irrelevant.

Again, no one promised that a 32-bit app like PPro would render any faster in a 64-bit OS. By its very definition... it can't. Until Adobe writes a 64-bit app AND every codec-author also jumps on-board and writes 64-bit codecs (MainConcept, Apple, Lagarith, Cineform, etc., which is a point missed by most Adobe-bashers), we're stuck in 32-bit world. But the 64-bit OS's can and do make significant enhancements to productivity, workflow, and multi-tasking, even while running 32-bit applications.

The fact that I get a whole heap of productivity enhancements by upgrading to CS4 and only seeing negligible hits in rendering times on the proper OS (and getting a honest-to-gosh render-queue to boot) I see as a "glass WAY half full" scenario.

And the fact that you don't see improvements in rendering speed alone... it seems you want to view as a "glass WAY half empty" scenario. Is that fair?

Naturally. The code is likely optimized for big jobs, not the tiny ones. Maybe tiny jobs are best left to CS3 or below. But if you really want to leverage workflow, effects, and integration of the suite applications, I'm here to tell you that I save hours off of my old CS3 workflow on any given project... even on the tiny ones. ;-) And that even includes render time, because I don't have to render until the very end of a project... not all the way through them like I used to do.

In fact, I rendered three little FLV files and uploaded them to an FTP for a client automatically via AME while I wrote this response... would have been impossible to do in CS3 without lots of intervention. Multiply this times 20 or 30 and you'll start to see why I'm so happy with CS4. Imagine a DVD author project I had to do three years ago in Encore 2 that involved 120 different renders out of PPro... one after the other... for days. Yes, I would have literally saved days out of my life with CS4. And received the same $. Or I might have been able to work on other projects during those same wasted days and made lots more $.

See my point... it's not about the render, man. Or maybe it is about the render... it's just how you choose to view it. You're comparing "apples to armadillos" in my world.

So examine your workflow and see if there's any reason to step up to a near-renderless workflow. And then maybe when you do actually have to render... you just won't worry so much about it!

Cheers,
Brian

I'll make a few other points and then we'll move on to less "debating".

Currently, I do render out frequently to HD mpg files and upload different revisions many times a day. So I do rely on fast renders throughout the day and cannot wait until evening all the time. When I am used to exporting complex projects to HD mpgs in 20-25 minutes and I now tell my boss that since the upgrade to newer version of Adobe, it takes 60 minutes....it doesn't fly. At home I have access to Vista 64, at work...they'd have to buy it and with the economy like it is, that is not an upgrade that I want to hit them with! Ouch.

Also, My early sampling may not be adequate to make a determination. Here is all that I had to go on initially and perhaps you will understand my "knee-jerk" reaction.

I had just finished a 40 minute 1080P video in CS3 with numerous effects and blurs and color correction and even a bunch of Magic Bullet effects (these are ususally render intensive). I rendered it out in CS3, down to NTSC SD mpg file. It took 26 minutes to render this 40 minute project with oodles of effects, all four cores crunching away happilly.

I snag a 20 minute continuous HDV clip of my daughters dance rehearsal, drop it in the timeline of CS4, add a simple brightness and contrast effect, and export to same NTSC SD mpg format using new AME CS4 and it take 57 minutes.

So complex, tons of effects and 45 minute video in cS3 = 26 minutes
simple, color corrected 20 minute clip in CS4= 57 minutes

That is what I am seeing as a serious time waster. Had I been exporting a 45 minute clip it would have taken near 2 hours or 4 times longer than Cs3

So that is why I am so frustrated. Obviously more testing needs to be done, but I will be surprised if 64bit OS fixes this issue directly. I am sure the workflow has it's advantages but for now....it's hard to deal with.

Thanks.

Hi Marty:

Thanks for the heads-up on your workflow. Based upon what you told me (single renders, stuck with the XP OS), I'd say you are indeed better off with CS3 for the time being.

I've never seen the kind of render speeds you talk about (45 minute runtimes coupled with lots of effects including MB ones) on any version of PPro with my hardware. More like 1:1 or even 1:2 ratio... but never less than 1:1. That's amazing. But, I was never really happy at all with SD downconverts until CS4... I used to use a frameserver and TMPGEnc XPress to do the downconverting... and it was never speedy, but always looked amazing with the XH-A1 footage I shoot.

And my workflow is more long-form, typically big greenscreen productions, multiple renders to multiple outputs, but never more than a dozen or so a week and never more than a couple projects on my desk at a time. I work from home and never render during editing hours, since it's often a 1:30 ratio with the keying... 60 minute render for a 2 minute clip. Yeah... glacial renders. So being able to cue up a half-dozen of those and go to sleep is a big deal for me.

It's too bad that CS4 has impacted your renders so hard, but hopefully they haven't added anything to this upgrade that you can't live without with CS3. Time is $ if you're having to wait for a render... I think the i7 will be the next big purchase for your boss to consider when your firm has $ to spend. That setup should cut render times less than half of what you see, based upon what I'm reading.

Take care and nice chatting with you,
Brian

Just got my dual boot xp and Vista Ultimate 64 and I'm installing Adobe CS3 Production Suite and CS4 production suite for some testing. Hopefully it will make a difference.

An odd thing about vista 64bit is I installed the latest version of Nero and was copying a dual layer DVD that I needed to backup and task manager showed nero was using 6.5GB of RAM while backing it up. It appears Nero loaded the entire DVD contents into RAM instead of writing to an image file. Odd to think that 1 single dvd copy would utilize so much RAM.

As soon as I get some testing in CS3 and CS4 I will post some additional insight about this.

Thanks.

Same basic test in 64bit world nets similar results.

In CS3, encoding a 20 minute hdv project to SD mpg2 for dvd takes exactly 16:32. The clipd is dropped in the timeline and I adjust the brightness by +31. That is the only effect.

In CS4, encoding the same exact 20 minute hdv project to SD mpg2 for dvd takes exactly is scheduled to take 38 minutes.

Both of these tests are performed on a brand new clean install of Visa Ultimate 64bit OS with 3.2GHZ Quad-core and 8gb of RAM.

The results are very similar to my tests in XP with the only difference being CS4 is using 4.3GB of Ram whereas in XP it was lower obviously.

So my initial test is that 64bit OS with 8gb Ram has not significantly increased encoding speed at all, or the Brightness and contrast filter in CS4 is doing a something more intense.

I'll keep testing and poste more results, but initially, the whole 64bit will speedup renders in CS4 seems a bit of a misconception. At least with this project.

Marty... thanks for your efforts and test. Great to have real world benchmarks with one-to-one comparisons.

I have C4, awaiting Cineform's full implementation.

Can you comment on any other pluses or minuses of C4 as compared to C3?

Marty,
Honestly, I am waiting for Cineform to really begin using it so I cannot comment on any other new features really. It didn't take long to figure out how much slower it renders though......I had decided to just try a very simple HDV project in it to make sure it was working okay before doing something complex and it was the render that killed it.

For what it is worth, I tried rendering it without any effects, and it was about equal to Cs3 encode with brightness contrast effect (16 minutes +/-). So I went to CS3, and removed Brightness and COntrast effect there, and the render time dropped from 16 minutes around 13 minutes.

So an brief synopsis would be that brightness and contrast filter in CS3 increases a 13min render to around 16min.

The same exact project and settings in CS4 renders in 16min and adding the brightness and contrast filter increased render time to 47 minutes. This is in 64bit land, in 32bit land the CS4 render was more in the 57min range. So 64bit OS helped a little, but bot much.

I was hoping to get to the bottom of all this but the more tests I do the more it seems that CS4 is just coded in a much less efficient manner. I am almost ready to just accept that if I want to use CS4, I am going to have to live with horrendous render times compared to CS3.

I'll post if anything changes regarding this.

THanks.

The latest update 4.1 for AME fixes the slow encoding a bit.

a 3:54 sd project with various post edits (plugins etc) now takes 1hr 30mins instead of 2hr 47mins before.

However, i still have the feeling it is not as fast as it used to be. (cs2, cs3)

Also, i have a quad core processor and the media encoder only uses 25-30% of its power. (so ~ 1 core)

I also skip using CS3 AME to encode to MPEG-2 because of the quality issue. In low bit-rate, the output from AME is noticeably worst. So I output to AVI with an intermedia codec. Then use Procoder 3 to convert. It works so much better.

I have heard the MPEG-encoding engine is improved in CS4. Didn't have a chance to test it out yet.

beware Newbie posting
 

Im no where near you guys technically but...I do have a comment regarding CS4.

I purchased a "upgrade". copy of CS4 for my PP2.0 software.
Its been a nighmare getting CS4 plus updates to 4.2 to work.

Im only have a Intel dual processor with 4gig ram.

Adobe Encoder will not even boot sometime...along with other weird problems...Ive never experienced with Pre 2.0.

Im considering staying with PP 2.0 since I have the Canon xh settings now installed to capture.

Guess Im ranting.....will post any successes I have getting PCS4 to work.

Thanks for the shoulder to cry on....
Jeff

So, what is everybody using for 3rd party encoders that is superior to AME for output to MPEG?

Anything cheaper than Procoder 3 which runs $350-400?

While we are on the topic of rendering... does this sound unusual to you:

I've finished editing a wedding in CS3, total run time is 96 minutes, and it's broken into 4 sequences which I've nested into a main sequence.

All HDV footage, with RGB curves applied to most clips and 3-way colour corrector to a few as well some other effects.

I'm rendering to mpeg2 widescreen DVD preset using AME.

I'm on a 2.8ghz i7 with 8gb ram, running windows 7 64 bit.

I started rendering at 11pm last night, came back to it at 8:30am this morning and it was only at 60%.

That works out to a total render time of about 15 hours & 50 minutes. Is this normal? This is the first wedding I've done in CS3, as I've been using Vegas recently and have just done the switch. This would've rendered in about 4 hours in Vegas and I expected similar results from Premiere. I've had to cancel the render halfway because I've got other things to work on, so is there any way to speed things up when I restart it?

There's always a few little mistakes that slip through in the first render so I normally render, burn to DVD, review, make changes and re-render. If I do that it will take me three days - I'm tempted to start the project again in Vegas as I know I could do it faster, and I won't have my computer out of action while rendering for three days.

Re: Adobe Media Encoder cs4 slower?
 

Reviving an old thread here. I am rendering 4 videos to FLV using adobe media encoder CS4 and noticed that A.M.E is only using 16% of the cpu and as such the system is parking 4 cores. These renders are taking close to 25 min each. I have gone through all the adobe preferences menus I can find, is there anyway I can tell it to use all cores and feast on the processor and ram? To put in perspective, when I render with Vegas Pro 10, it uses any available cpu overhead on all cores and is super fast but offers no flash options.

Any recommendations on setting changes I could make to force Media Encoder to use more resources and render faster?

Thanks!

System overview:
-i7 processor
-win 7 64 bit ultimate
-12 gb DDR3 ram