Author Topic: I tried a Mac for video editing...  (Read 124089 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online kripton2035

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1758
  • Country: fr
    • kripton2035 schematics repository
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #75 on: April 08, 2013, 08:00:41 pm »
You'd likely get slightly better times using an SSD RAID Stripe as the Destination.

Don't think so, a video of this size can be written in 1-2s by a modern HDD. So give it some additional seconds for seeks, and you're still on the safe side.
+1 dont need ssd to encode movies.
I had a bunch of movies to encode from avi to mp4 and I changed the drive from 500Go 7200tr to 512go ssd
the encoding time was almost the same, no visual difference.
only the true power of the cores counts for video encoding, drive speed is not important.
also if the encoding software uses all the cores count !

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3756
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #76 on: April 08, 2013, 08:03:34 pm »
Dave : Why 1440X1080 ? that may be one of the problems.... sony software may upscale to downscale again... should be 1920x1080. filming in 4:3 ?

I also dislike filming in 4:3 a 16:9 video, I see it as cheating  :o

them in youtube it will reencode it from 1440x1080 to 1920x1080, kind of a mess.


That's how the camera saves the video on the card.  It's the same with my Sony Handycam HDR-SR5E, the highest format is 1440x1080 interlaced at 15 mbps, and it saves to HDD. 

You might want to perform the deinterlacing yourself and stretch to 1920x1080 but you're just adding more stuff to squeeze down later before it's uploaded to youtube.

Youtube will recompress the video either way, so that it works better with their streaming strategies.  Either way, it's several recompressions. Could be even argued that leaving it 1440x1080 is better for the cases when Youtube resizes the video down to lower resolutions such as 720p and 480p.

If anyone really cares, I can do a test on my FX-8320 to see how fast it encodes video at various crf presets.

I usually just write a quick Avisynth script in which I load the video I want to recompress (usually just using DGAVCIndex, because I don't have a nvidia card to do hardware decoding) and then I load the avs script straight into x264
 

Offline M. András

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1020
  • Country: hu
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #77 on: April 08, 2013, 08:11:19 pm »
if you are in no hurry im going to get a fx8350 within 2 weeks (waiting on the stabilisation of our currency), and i can do a test run for you with an ati 6970card 32 gig of ram so ram drive in ram drive out folders or using only the ssd as only drive. or could try it with my current 1090t which isnt much slower then the fx8350, note that this config rendered a 1080p bluray disc faster then a high-mid end nvidia card running on cuda support, dunno the editor software now but it wasnt any of the sony stuffs,  under a 2700k intel cpu about twice as fast
 

Offline marmad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2979
  • Country: aq
    • DaysAlive
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #78 on: April 08, 2013, 08:13:13 pm »
only the true power of the cores counts for video encoding, drive speed is not important.

I love pronouncements from people with no data to back them up  :)
There are good reasons that people and companies have been using Stripe arrays for video-editing for decades.

With this small test video:
Encoded to HD: 1:09
Encoded to HD RAID Stripe: 1:07
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 08:20:30 pm by marmad »
 

Offline moemoe

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: de
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #79 on: April 08, 2013, 08:21:57 pm »
Don't think so, a video of this size can be written in 1-2s by a modern HDD. So give it some additional seconds for seeks, and you're still on the safe side.

This is just a test video - I assume the videos Dave would actually be encoding would be much much larger - which is what I was referring to.
Yes, but as the encoding also takes much longer, there is more time available to write…

It's not like encoding the whole software in some magic black hole and after finishing warping it back as one big blob from the n-th dimension onto your hard disk ;)
https://github.com/maugsburger/
Breadboard Adapters featured in EEVBlog #573 on Tindie
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #80 on: April 08, 2013, 08:33:29 pm »

I don't think so - I agree with Eliminateur, who suggested that Dave would be better off building a system around the AMD , thereby getting ~83% of the 3930K encoding speed at ~35% of the price.

Dave may waste his money however he wishes, But really AMD  FX-8350 :-DD My Q6600 can piss higher than that.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2333339
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 08:42:39 pm by dimlow »
 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3756
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #81 on: April 08, 2013, 08:43:25 pm »
FX-8320 , 16 GB of ram, video in a 8 GB ramdrive.

Source is 1440x1080 h264 stream  2m 30s = 452,290,777 bytes , so about 24 mbps , using the following AVS script:

Code: [Select]
loadplugin("c:\Programs\MeGUI\tools\dgavcindex\DGAVCDecode.dll")
AVCSource("sequence.dga")

No video card acceleration, the Radeon 4850 is not supported well and it's AMD so I can't use the DGAVCIndex made for nVidia cards.

The recompression will be a bit faster with streams that have lower bitrate.
Also, the speed will be a bit higher with a better multithreaded h264 decoder. Using "DirectShowSource" instead of AVCSource to decode the h264 stream using another codec resulted in 26.8 fps for the CRF 28 test, about 3 fps more.

FX-8350 may be slightly faster but probably a few more frames. FX-8320 defaults to 3.5 Ghz and turbo boosts to 4 Ghz from, fx-8350 defaults to 4 ghz and turbo boosts to 4.2 ghz.  Throughout the tests, the 8 cores stayed at about 88-93% cpu usage.

CRF 19

Code: [Select]
y:\>x264.exe --crf 19 -o seq.mp4 sequence.avs
avs [info]: 1440x1080p 0:0 @ 25/1 fps (cfr)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX XOP FMA4 FMA3 SSEMisalign LZCNT BMI1
x264 [info]: profile High, level 4.0
aborted at input frame 1605, output frame 1550
encoded 1550 frames, 16.59 fps, 10689.29 kb/s

CRF 23

Code: [Select]
y:\>x264.exe --crf 23 -o seq.mp4 sequence.avs
avs [info]: 1440x1080p 0:0 @ 25/1 fps (cfr)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX XOP FMA4 FMA3 SSE Misalign LZCNT BMI1
x264 [info]: profile High, level 4.0
[..]
aborted at input frame 1466, output frame 1411
encoded 1411 frames, 21.72 fps, 5333.93 kb/s

CRF 28

Code: [Select]
y:\>x264.exe --crf 28 -o seq.mp4 sequence.avs
avs [info]: 1440x1080p 0:0 @ 25/1 fps (cfr)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX XOP FMA4 FMA3 SSE Misalign LZCNT BMI1
x264 [info]: profile High, level 4.0
[..]
aborted at input frame 1534, output frame 1479
encoded 1479 frames, 24.16 fps, 2685.54 kb/s
 

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1038
  • Country: nl
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #82 on: April 08, 2013, 08:47:05 pm »
I've just tried Mediaconverter 8 trial with proper Intel Quicksync setup. QuickSync doesn't seem to help Handbrake though. CPU i5 3570K @ 4GHz (light overclock, but irrelevant for GPU rendering), 16GB RAM

CPU core; "Youtube" output (=1080p, 30fps; VBR, seems to around 6000Kbps, 48kHz AAC audio): 120MB output, took 0:35
Intel Quicksync: "Youtube" output; 180MB output (doh), took 0:18
Intel Quicksync: custom Youtube output (1080p; 30fps; 6000Kbps, 48kHz AAC 128kbps); 104MB output in 0:23

Pretty quick, but don't see a lot of options in Mediaconverter 8 :(
Quality for me personally is still very good, no complaints. Although 30fps is maybe a bit too much (seems to be fixed), and 128kbps is a bit low (ah well..)
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 09:02:07 pm by hans »
 

Offline marmad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2979
  • Country: aq
    • DaysAlive
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #83 on: April 08, 2013, 08:50:21 pm »
Dave may waste his money however he wishes, But really AMD  FX-8350 :-DD My Q6600 can piss higher than that.
Seriously? Wow, a literal pissing contest - complete with the requisite boasts and lack of data  ;)

Here - let me help: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-AMD-FX-8350
 

Offline Eliminateur

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • Country: ar
  • Electronic's Technician
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #84 on: April 08, 2013, 08:56:52 pm »
whilst the Q6600 is a very good cpu, it's completely outclassed by an FX-8350 in anything, SPECIALLY encoding, and you can check the benchmark i pasted in last page...

about ssd output, for the bitrates dave uses a SSD is unnecessary, simply reading from a hdd and writing to a different hdd should do the trick (the extra times can be because of the reading AND writing to the same HDD at 10~12Mbps*2).
after all 10/12mbps or 24mbps is hardly enough to bother a mechanical hdd and it's a sequential workload, perfect for HDD
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #85 on: April 08, 2013, 08:57:07 pm »
 ;D
 

Offline marmad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2979
  • Country: aq
    • DaysAlive
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #86 on: April 08, 2013, 09:03:53 pm »
about ssd output, for the bitrates dave uses a SSD is unnecessary, simply reading from a hdd and writing to a different hdd should do the trick (the extra times can be because of the reading AND writing to the same HDD at 10~12Mbps*2).
after all 10/12mbps or 24mbps is hardly enough to bother a mechanical hdd and it's a sequential workload, perfect for HDD

I've been talking about using SSD Stripe arrays - and yes, it would only shave off a couple of seconds if Dave is only doing encoding and nothing else. But I assumed Dave was going to be doing some editing as well, no? And if he's putting together a new desktop machine for that, then he should be outfitting it with a Stripe array.
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #87 on: April 08, 2013, 09:13:08 pm »
OK, I saw that this was about to turn into a pissing contest and stuck my toe in to test the water. You both bit it right off! >:D

But seriously he should buy a good CPU, nothing out there is better for encoding than the 3930k add an overclock to that and he will be seriously happy. It may seem like a waste of money, but look at it this way I have have my Q6600 now for 7 Years and only one person on this forum has had better encoding speeds. This CPU has lasted me. i have had no need to upgrade for 7 years. Think of all the other upgrades people have wasted their money on in that time. Whilst i have kept my money in my pocket. Really did i waste my money when i bought the Q9900 many many years ago and paid top dollar? I dont think so. Yes maybe now its time to upgrade, but to be honest the only thing that stresses this machine is video encoding and i don't do a lot with that. Again its faster than most people machines 7 years later.

Raid would be for editing, not encoding.

 

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1038
  • Country: nl
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #88 on: April 08, 2013, 09:13:41 pm »

I don't think so - I agree with Eliminateur, who suggested that Dave would be better off building a system around the AMD , thereby getting ~83% of the 3930K encoding speed at ~35% of the price.

Dave may waste his money however he wishes, But really AMD  FX-8350 :-DD My Q6600 can piss higher than that.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2333339

A 4.2GHz overclock is pretty high. 1.6V core voltage... How much power is that consuming? Probably more than a toaster. Not very practical easy-to-use and reliable setup.
 I pushed my old Q6600 further than 3.4GHz or so without increasing the core voltage too much (and thus creating a local heater).
I have to say, it's amazing how fast a Q6600 chip today still is. In many tasks it can keep it up, even though it's already 6 years old.... Too bad my old motherboard memory controller got dementia on every bank so Windows wouldn't install anymore.

Also, the bitrates here are pretty low indeed.. 24Mbps is still only 3MB/s raw data. If you do have something like Quicksync that can encode at 7-8x at 1080p, it's still only 24MB/s input data rate.
However, copying files, loading, editing, etc. is A LOT faster.
 

Offline _Sin

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Country: gb
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #89 on: April 08, 2013, 09:20:33 pm »
FWIW, my aging Mac Pro encodes the file in under 50s using HandBrake, but that's with less than 50% CPU usage. If I encoded two files at once I could probably average better times.

« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 09:23:07 pm by _Sin »
Programmer with a soldering iron - fear me.
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #90 on: April 08, 2013, 09:22:35 pm »

A 4.2GHz overclock is pretty high. 1.6V core voltage... How much power is that consuming? Probably more than a toaster. Not very practical easy-to-use and reliable setup.
 I pushed my old Q6600 further than 3.4GHz or so without increasing the core voltage too much (and thus creating a local heater).
I have to say, it's amazing how fast a Q6600 chip today still is. In many tasks it can keep it up, even though it's already 6 years old.... Too bad my old motherboard memory controller got dementia on every bank so Windows wouldn't install anymore.

I runs at 3.8, water cooled with 6x120 rads, its speed stepped, runs at 2.4 at idle consumes 90 Watts at idle. Pulls 240 watts when running at 4.2



Edit: Added a pic for you all
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 10:02:07 pm by dimlow »
 

Offline marmad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2979
  • Country: aq
    • DaysAlive
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #91 on: April 08, 2013, 09:28:32 pm »
But seriously he should buy a good CPU, nothing out there is better for encoding than the 3930k add an overclock to that and he will be seriously happy. It may seem like a waste of money...

Raid would be for editing, not encoding.

This thread has become all about encoding - but that's not where it started. It was about Dave getting a new machine for editing, rendering, and encoding - and that's what I've been speaking to. He already expressed a desire to save money - and benchmarks clearly show the AMD CPU as an excellent bargain in regards to encoding - so my advice for Dave would be to save money on an expensive CPU - and either invest it in an SDD RAID subsystem - or pocket it and just use a normal HDD RAID. Anyway, my final two cents.
 

Offline ivan747

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2013
  • Country: us
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #92 on: April 08, 2013, 10:03:11 pm »
Dave, if you still have some hope left for Mac:

Quote from: MacRumors
Apple will announce its replacement for the company’s Mac Pro lineup this month, a source who has been correct about Apple product matters in the past has just informed us.

Our source offered no information as to whether the "Mac Pro replacement" would be a tower, mini-tower, or some other solution, but did caution that the announcement "could slip into May or even June, but currently April looks most likely."

Still, that doesn't justify they didn't update it for 3 years. And I know the hardware is expensive, but take into account the quality of the construction (although this is more relevant on laptops, I admit), service, replacement parts, aftermarket additions and such.

Something that adds value is the operative system. It is much simpler to use when you get used to it. It's just like the Qwerty vs. Dvorak battle. You lose some time getting used to it, but after that things are easy to figure out. Little details like drag and drop support in pretty much anything, text rendering and mouse gestures are great.

But I think I lost this battle.  :-\

One thing. When you work on Apple's stuff (specially things like iTunes and iPhoto) is either their way or the highway. Usually their way is excellent. One example: iTunes sorts audio files by their tags and it is the only way it works. If you buy the songs from iTunes or rip them from original CDs, no worries. If you got the MP3s from god knows where, you better add the tags before you en up with a total mess. Some players like VLC don't give a fuck and play music directly form your poorly organized folders or if you prefer, they use the tags.
 

Offline Lightages

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4295
  • Country: ca
  • Canadian po
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #93 on: April 08, 2013, 10:05:37 pm »
Like I said, these guys have a couple of good buying guides on hardware. They are a respected business too.
http://www.videoguys.com/Guide/E/Videoguys+DIY9+Its+Time+for+Sandy+Bridge+E+DIY+95+Update/0xe9b142f408a2b03ab88144a434e88de7.aspx
 

Offline SteigsdB

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 31
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #94 on: April 08, 2013, 11:01:37 pm »
No, no..

Dave, you're going about this all the wrong way.

Clearly, you need to pick up an Alexa and a copy of Media Composer to play nicely with your Matrox card.

Maybe even grab a 2nd Alexa and get a 3ality rig for those lifelike teardowns...

  >:D
 

Offline c4757p

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7805
  • Country: us
  • adieu
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #95 on: April 08, 2013, 11:07:12 pm »
Something that adds value is the operative system. It is much simpler to use when you get used to it.

Any operating system released after 2000, having more than three people who have heard of it, is going to be simple to use once you get used to it. That's kind of what "getting used to it" means.

Quote
Some players like VLC don't give a fuck and play music directly form your poorly organized folders or if you prefer, they use the tags.

I've never understood the need for anything else. It seems like every music player in the world has to reinvent the file system.
No longer active here - try the IRC channel if you just can't be without me :)
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29672
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #96 on: April 08, 2013, 11:08:44 pm »
Dave : Why 1440X1080 ? that may be one of the problems.... sony software may upscale to downscale again... should be 1920x1080. filming in 4:3 ?

The camera only has 24Mbps 1920x1080, 17Mbps 1920x1080, or 12Mbps 1440x1080 (or lower, which I use for the long live shows)
I keep all raw footage, so file space is important.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29672
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #97 on: April 08, 2013, 11:11:21 pm »
This thread has become all about encoding - but that's not where it started. It was about Dave getting a new machine for editing, rendering, and encoding - and that's what I've been speaking to. He already expressed a desire to save money - and benchmarks clearly show the AMD CPU as an excellent bargain in regards to encoding - so my advice for Dave would be to save money on an expensive CPU - and either invest it in an SDD RAID subsystem - or pocket it and just use a normal HDD RAID. Anyway, my final two cents.

Most sources I have read on the subject say RAID systems and SSD's do nothing to improve the situation for rendering or transcoding. The drive is not the bottleneck. Regular cheap 7200rpm drives are fast enough.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29672
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #98 on: April 08, 2013, 11:13:55 pm »
I've been talking about using SSD Stripe arrays - and yes, it would only shave off a couple of seconds if Dave is only doing encoding and nothing else. But I assumed Dave was going to be doing some editing as well, no? And if he's putting together a new desktop machine for that, then he should be outfitting it with a Stripe array.

I don't need to speed up my editing, it already has zero delay.
 

Offline c4757p

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7805
  • Country: us
  • adieu
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #99 on: April 08, 2013, 11:14:02 pm »
Most sources I have read on the subject say RAID systems and SSD's do nothing to improve the situation for rendering or transcoding. The drive is not the bottleneck. Regular cheap 7200rpm drives are fast enough.

Yeah, if your hard drive isn't thrashing, there's no point in upgrading. Don't tell that to the SSD fanboys though.
No longer active here - try the IRC channel if you just can't be without me :)
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf