CS6 render time

Ladies & gentlemen, I work on a 2 y.o. top of the line imac, 16G of RAM running snow leopard. A comp takes 15 min to render in 5.5 and same comp when opened in CS6 takes 40 minutes to render (same settings - 1080, photojpeg).
Mmmmm?

Actually that was probably the case, I adjusted the memory settings to what I think they should be in cs6 and now the render is actually faster than in 5.5.
Also, this is a MBP:
if i want ae to be as fast as possible, what should i do here?
thanks

Similar Messages

  • After Effects CS6 super long render times.

    I am trying to render multiple 30 second long compositions and the renders are reaching over 5 hours each. There is nothing special in any of the compositions. I have rendered these same compositions in the past with minor changes in AE CS5 and they finished in seconds using the Open GL renderer. I understand CS6 uses a different engine for rendering. I have ensured my video card is in the supported list (added it), and ray tracing is set to the GPU. I triple checked all the drivers and everything is up to date. I have tried every combination of settings I can think of with no results. Help!
    System Specs:
    i7-3930K
    GTX 770
    32gb ram
    Windows 7 64bit

    Five hours is not an unusual render time for a 30-second composition, depending on the details of the composition.
    See this page for resources about making After Effects work faster: http://adobe.ly/eV2zE7

  • Help - Getting slower render times with AE CS6

    Hi everyone
    Wonder if anyone else is getting as described?
    I have a 3m37s project which is predomnantly motion graphics using live shot footage (.MXF files), Illustrator and a few JPGs.
    In CS5 AE I get render times which average around 45mins, so I thought I'd see how quickly CS6 could crank it out by - as you can see I'm getting times which are in excess of 2 almost 3hours!
    The project contains a few 2.5D moves as well as tiny bit of Trapcode 3D Stroke
    I have mentioned on this forum that I'm having the Error 5070 problems with start up and Ray Trace is unavailable but these times seem seriously wrong to me.
    Mac Pro 3,1 (2x 2.8GHZ)
    20GB RAM
    OS 10.7.4
    NVIDIA GeForce GT8800
    NVIDIA Quadro 4000 both on GPU Driver 207.00.00.f06
    CUDA Driver 4.2.10
    All files are on a 2TB drive (7200rpm)
    Rendering to a 1TB drive (7200rpm)
    Corsair SSD 60gb Cache drive
    As an observation when I watch the frames counter ticking over, CS5 seems to steadily work it's way through the render at around less than a frame a second, CS6 seems to crank out 2-6 frames then hold for 30secs before working on another batch. It crawls to a halt near the end.
    Can anyone offer any help or advice?
    So far I'm not having a great time with my CS6 transition
    Thanks
    Rob
    Message was edited by: Bokeh Creative Ltd
    because of a Typo

    Thanks Rick - Yes what confused me was that it only took 45mins in CS5 even with MP 'on'
    Still having no joy with Ray Tracing though, even though I have a Quadro 4000 card, I get the 5070 error on start up. Any ideas?

  • AME render time 2x SLOWER in CS6 than CS4

    I just upgrade to CS6.  A good portion of my projects are very long continuing professional education videos for streaming on the web.  AME4 could render an 8-hour video into baseline, H264 700x290 in about 12 hours.   (I know, strange, custom frame size.  It's for side-by-side speaker and overhead presentation.)  I opened the same CS4 project in CS6.  It was resaved for the new version. I also created a new sequence and copied the files over, just to be sure.  With EXACTLY the same export settings, render time is about 27 hours!
    AME4 was not a 64 bit app, whereas AME6 is.  So, my 16 GB of ram should be put to better use, I would think. According to Premiere, ram available for other apps is around 13GB.  In task manager performace, processor is at the ceiling but memory use is only 6GB:
    System specs are:
    Media drive is Western Digital Caviar Black 2 TB SATA III 7200 RPM 64 MB Cache
    GPU= AMD RADEON HD 6570 DP 1GB PCI EXPRESS 2.0 X16
    How can I get AME6 to access more memory?  Why in the world would the render speed more than DOUBLE with a newer version?!?  Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

    Yes.  A CUDA card is on my wishlist, but my company may be tapped out for a while after new ram and an upgrade to CS6. 
    I did queue this one.  I wasn't aware that this would make a difference.  I'll try the direct export method next time.
    RE: "encoding times have increased with the newer more feature rich versions"  Really?  So was I just mislead/misinformed that a 64 bit version of this encoder would be faster?  Wow, that sucks.  But is there no way for AME to access more than 6GB of my ram?  I guess the slowness may be the price you pay for stability.  My 8-hr project failed two times in AME4.  I have 5 hours left of encoding on AME6.  It's my last, best hope for being able to deliver this project on time.

  • Render times: CS6 vs CS 5.5

    I'm working on a project that relies on expressions: the card wipe pixel storm, a fade in fade out expression and text animation using expression selectors (amortype).
    My computer is not a current speed demon, nor is it a slug: a MacPro 12 core with 64GB of RAM.
    All media, boot, cache and render drives are SSD's. The project has a few images total under 6 MB and a rendered uncompressed QT as a background layer.
    FWIW the OS is 10.8.5.
    With MP set to use 12 cores with 3GB per core CS5.5 renders the 22 second 1280x720 Comp in 3 Min 29 seconds.
    Identical settings in CS6 render in 29 Min 4 secs.
    Are expressions really to blame for render speeds that are nearly 10 x longer in CS6?
    CS5.5 = version 10.5.1.2
    CS6 = version 11.0.4

    There are 2 temporal expressions in the Comp, the fade out is applied to 2 layers, the text expression selector to 1 layer.
    The video BG is an uncompressed render from After Effects using the Animation Codec, its 1.3 GB, 3 smaller rendered Animation Codec QT's total 180 MB. All other layers are .psd files (total < 10MB per comp), and 6 shape layers.
    As an experiment I converted all expressions to keyframes – though the AmorType did not convert properly.
    CS6 rendered the file in 2 min 16 sec more than 10x faster than with expressions. 
    I'll continue to experiment to determine which expression(s) cause the glacial render slowdown.
    Many thanks for your input.

  • CS6 Render with Sound Question

    Hi Guys,
    Is there a way to turn on the render sound option for all comps in a large list of comps in the CS6 Render queue?  I know CC fixes this as I am using both versions but I need to use CS6.  I tried shift clicking and selecting all comps but the change only effects one comp.
    On similiar lines, is there a way to send a large list of comps to the media encoder, I can only get it to ingest one comp at a time through the dialogue box.
    Thanks for considering these issues for me.
    Mandy

    > Is there a way to turn on the render sound option for all comps in a large list of comps in the CS6 Render queue?
    Create an output module template with audio output enabled. Apply this template to each item in the render queue.

  • Render times of certain project slow down

    Hi,
    i have a certain tv-promo-project where i have to render several comps which all include the same amount of text and just a hand full of additional graphic elements, e.g. a lensflare and a glowing line which separats the text blocks.
    The text of the specific promo-comps are read out of a "main text comp" by expressions. The expression is as follows:
    txt = comp("Master Textkomposition").layer("Textebene").text.sourceText;
    txt.split("\r")[0]
    The rendertimes of the project are constantly slowing down as the render queue and the process goes on. The first comp takes about 8 Minutes to render (it is only 10 sec long) and the second already 20 min, where the third comp reaches like 2 hours of render time.
    I also recognized that even the preview in the timeline is really slow, although the used effects are usually not that performance heavy.
    My System specs:
    After Effects CS6 11.0.4.2
    Mac Pro 5,1
    Processor       2 x 2,93 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon
    RAM                24 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 ECC
    Graphic          NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 2048 MB
    Software         OS X 10.8.5 (12F45)
    Drive c:           500 GB SSD (Apps & Disk Cache)
    Drive d:           2 TB HDD (Project & Source Media)
    Drive e:           1 TB HDD (Render & Media Cache)
    Does anybody have a clue what this problem could be about?
    Any help is appreciated
    Cheers
    paul

    Thanks for the advice aka danke für den Tipp!
    I'll give it a try!
    Paul

  • Extremly bad previews and render times.

    i have been working on a video in AE CS6 for a couple of days now but something changed after i added a 3D Solid layer with render set to ray-traced 3d, and now i can barely see my project in the compositon window as it gets
    extremly pixelated. whith extreme difficulty i managed to complete the project but when i started the render of the viedo it gave me an estimated render time of 104 hrs for just one 3d layer that is only present in the
    video for about 5 seconds out of the 4min long viedo. unfortunatly i cant enable GPU Ray-tracing because it says its not complatible even after i updated my drivers.
    Specs
    Gpu: AMD HD-7870
    Cpu: A10-5800K (APU)
    RAM: 8 gb

    That GPU is not one that After Effects will use for PGU acceleration of the ray-traced 3D renderer.
    The ray-traced 3D renderer is quite slow when it is just running on the CPU.
    For details of GPU processing, see this page:
    http://blogs.adobe.com/aftereffects/2012/05/gpu-cuda-opengl-features-in-after-effects-cs6. html

  • Same Computers/Settings - Different Render Times

    Hello, great and powerful Adobe Community.  My coworker and I have identical machines (Dell Precision T7600 - Xeon 2GB, 32 GB RAM, NVIDIA Quadro K5000, Windows 64 bit OS), both running Adobe CS6.  Our render set-up for After Effects is to pull source footage from the main HD (2 TB), render to a second HD (150GB), with a third HD (150GB) set up for cache, media cache, and database folders.  Both machines are set up to render multiple frames simultaneously.  However, for some reason his machine is taking ridiculously long to render.  For the same file, my machine finishes rendering in about 2hrs, while his is showing an estimated time of 17 hours.  When left to run overnight, his machine still hasn't finished the next morning and shows 60+ hrs remaining.  This is a recent problem and his computer has had reasonable render times up until recently.  Software is up to date across the board, no new software has been installed on either machine lately, and any updates required by our system admin would have been applied to both.
    Other than checking that the above listed conditiions are identical between our two towers, I'm not sure where to look for the problem.  Can anyone suggest a reason for his machine's poor performance?  Any insight would be appreciated.  My thanks in advance for your help.

    I wouldn't call it a bug. 
    Besides, although the effects you use in all these comps might all be precisely the same, you didn't breathe a word whether the codec of the footage used in these comps is precisely the same... and codecs can make a big difference. 
    Sure, you may have rendered to the same codec.  Did you START with source footage that's all the same codec?  If not, you're not comparing apples to apples.

  • Render times: what is expected?

    Hello,
    I recently went to render a project, and it estimated that it would take 44 hours to complete. That is, shall we say, less than ideal.
    Some specs about my machine:
    MacBook Pro
    2.6 GHz Intel Core i7
    16 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 RAM
    The Disk Cache:
    LaCie USB3 External SSD (200 GB allocated for cache)
    Details about my AE project:
    AE version: CS6
    3:15 (3 minutes 15 seconds) duration
    1920 x 1080 (1080p) resolution
    Ray-traced 3D environment
    17 light layers
    3 cameras
    All other layers are either shapes, solids, pictures, or pre-comps
    I'm trying to render out to h.264 format. It seems to me that 40+ hours is extremely excessive for a 3:15 long video, but I'm not positive that's the case. I'd love to hear thoughts back on expectations and how I can reduce this time (either through settings or better hardware).
    Thank you!

    rhannebaum wrote:I chose H.264 because it seemed the most common HD video output, and I didn't want to use QuickTime (.mov) because the resultant .mov files were huge. Very hard to transfer around after the fact.
    Oh, I was pretty sure that was your reasoning.
    Yes, the resulting file will be huge (unless you're rendering to an image sequence in which case the mass of resulting files will be huge ) . You then take that file (or image sequence) into Premiere or the Adobe Media Encoder to create your easy-to-transfer file - in your case, h.264 is probably your best bet. But, for the reasons I enumerated, you do not want to do the h.264 right out of AE.
    There are other options to a lossless Quicktime or an image sequence (although the crashing rescue alone is worth the image sequence option). Where I work we use the Cineform codec from GoPro. It's free and it's close enough to lossless for our workflow, but the file size is significatly smaller. Another great choice is the DNxHD codec which is free from Avid. It has the same benefits as the Cineform codec.
    rhannebaum wrote:
    Are image sequences simple to import into Premiere? Also, is Media Encoder faster at rendering than AE? I know the obvious benefit is that I can keep working in AE while a comp renders in Media Encoder, but not sure beyond that what ME's value is.
    Image sequences are as easy to import into Premiere as any other video format. It's great!
    Media Encoder is not faster than AE - and, in some cases (as others have mentioned), it can be much slower. However, it does a much better job of encoding H.264. The quality is higher for the same data rate. That (among other reasons) is why, in the new version of AE CC, the H.264 render option has been deprecated.
    For your workflow, I would not suggest sending your AE comp to the AME; render a lossless (or nearly lossless) file out of AE and then use the Adobe Media Encoder to create your final deliverable.
    One cool thing about the Adobe Media Encoder is that you can set up watch folders so that any time an uncompressed file lands in that folder, it gets encoded per your specified settings.
    rhannebaum wrote:
    Is Cinema4D a plugin native to AE CC? I'm afraid my upgrade options are limited to what my company approves, but if there is a legit improvement in render times in CC over CS6, that may seriously persuade them...
    Cinema4D is the industry standard 3d animation software for creating motion graphics. It's also got some good scuplting, modeling, and character animation tools and is fast becoming one of the big players in all aspects of 3d animation. One of the reasons for its rapid growth (besides the fact that its easier to learn than its competition) is that it integrates very well with After Effects.
    Bundled with (and integrated with) AE CC, you get a lite version of C4D. It doesn't have nearly the power of the full program, but it's worlds better than messing with the 3d ray-traced stuff and gives you a lot more tools to work with.
    Bottom line: if your company is going to want you to do more 3d stuff, you really need to get into a plugin like Element, 3d Invigorator, or ShapeShifter. They render much faster.
    And, if they really want you to do some great 3d, they'll need to get a full-fledged 3d program for you (and the requisite training). Upgrading to the CC version of AE is a great halfway step though.

  • Render time after installing 11.0.1 update

    I am experiencing longer render time, I.E. A project that I rendered yesterday before installing the upgrade took 1 hour and fourteen minutes. The identical render with the update has already taken 1 hour and thirty-six minutes and it isn't even half way rendered.
    The known issue of problematic ram renders still exists. AE error message asking for at least two frames to render appears frequently even though the work area is much greater that one frame. I can't pinpoint the cause or work-around for this issue. The pre-updated version of AE CS6 would allow me to ram render for a while. When it stopped I quit AE, returned and it would begin again. That doesn't do the trick anymore. I have been working in HD. That may be an issue.
    These two issues I see as critical. I can't work with AE CS6 on any jobs that have a tight deadline until they are addressed.

    I hardly consider my statement a rant. But here is the information you requested.
    I have a 2008 Mac Pro with 14 gigs of RAM. The OS is 10.6.8. The video board in an NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT with 512 MB of RAM.
    I spoke of two issues.
    1) Render speed. In both cases the render settings were set to the following: CPUs reserved for other applications: 4; RAM allocation per background CPU: 1.5 GB; Actual CPUs that will be used: 4.
    2) The second issue - "RAM Preview needs 2 or more frames to playback. The same problem occurs whether  "Render Multiple frames Simultaneously" is selected or not. I tried specifying the work area and selecting "From Current Frame." Both yield the same results.

  • Final Cut Studio 2 Render Times Exponetianlly  Greater

    Used to have Final Cut Studio, loved it, render times were very reasonable, I upgraded 2 weeks ago to Final Cut Studio 2 and the render times are not outrageous. What used to take 5-10 minutes to render is 3 hours or so. Am I missing something?

    Everyone who is experiencing this should report it to FCP Feedback. You can find that in the Final Cut Pro menu within FCP, or here:
    http://www.apple.com/feedback/finalcutpro.html

  • Slow render times with large jpegs - complete system lag

    In a project i'm working on I have two large jpegs with a small zoom scaling effect. Going from 100 to 103 percent.
    I've noticed that both Adobe Media Encoder and Premiere Pro experience a heavy slow down in render time as soon as the jpegs have to be rendered.
    Not only does the render speed almost come to a halt, the complete system lags very heavy, even the mouse cursor won't respond well.
    This happens when i have GPU acceleration enabled and when i do a 2 pass H264 encoding.
    When I have the GPU acceleration disabled the render goes very smooth, and doesn't seem to slow down...
    The jpeg is 4023  x 2677, and 6,97 MB large.
    Scaling the jpeg down to about 1920x1080 in Photoshop and put that one in the timeline made the render go a lot faster.
    I understand that a large picture takes a bit more time to be rendered, but we're talking about a 10minute render whit the large jpeg file and  a 2 minute render with the jpeg resized.
    The total time of the two jpegs in the video is 5 seconds in a 3 minutes video.
    So, that made me think that the render times are exponentially long.
    In the timeline everything runs really smooth.
    Is this considered normal, I can't remember having such big differences in CS5. It's not a major thing, but I wanted to share anyway.
    My system:
    Premiere Pro CC (latest)
    i7 4930K
    32 GB RAM
    2xGTX480
    Footage and project on a Raid0 disk
    Previews/Cache on a Raid0 disk
    System and Premiere on SSD
    Render to a single 7200 rpm drive.

    >wanted to share
    Yes... known issue... I think some of the below is about P-Elements, but the same ideas
    Photo Scaling for Video http://forums.adobe.com/thread/450798
    -HiRes Pictures to DVD http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1187937?tstart=0
    -PPro Crash http://forums.adobe.com/thread/879967

  • Looong render times with motion templates

    I've been a big advocate for FCPX as there are a lot of great features but there are some things that are just killing me, no.1 render time.
    I'm working on some simple presentation edits using motion templates I have built in motion 5 and published to fcpx. The templates all consist of a single dropbox for video with a type field for test messages next to it. These are against a flat white rectangle used to reflect (similar to the coverflow but against a white background) and a subtle camera sweep has been added so it slowly turns from one side to the other by 30 degrees. Each of these is 10 seconds long.
    I chop up my imported movie on the timeline (untouched by grade/fx/retiming) and add the template to each of the chopped clips. I then select each applied template in the timeline and use the video well to select the clip below it for the dropzone. I add my text. That's all good. I now have a timeline approx 3 minutes long consisting of these motion graphics templates.
    Now, if I chose to either render or export a QT with timeline settings, estimated time is 8 - 9 hrs (I have tried both) I left a 3:30 project exporting last night at 11:45. It finished at 9:00AM.
    That is just unacceptable. It is irritating because the functionality of building the sequences in FCPX far outweighs what FCP 7 is capable of but the so-called "renderless" abilities of FCPX
    are making life ****.
    I use Event Manager X to turn off everything I am not using except the individual project. I have reset preferences in Preference Manager to see if that helps. I have purged using terminal. I have my clips on an external firewire 800 HD. I have no other software running. I accept I need a more powerful Mac - I'm using a 2009 3 Ghz Intel Core Duo iMac with 6gig ram using Lion 10.7.2 and FCPX 10.0.2 but 9 hours for a 3:30 clip?
    Any suggestions for where I can cut down on render time are appreciated. The source clip for the video for the dropzones and the final exported presentation movie are HD ProRes.
    Cheers

    The situation you describe does not seem normal. It should not take nearly that long to render and export your 3:30 movie. Considering that your mac is not one of the most recent vintage, and your are editing in full HD, one could expect it to take a bit of time, but nothing like this.
    In the way of troubleshooting, you could try and export just one of these 10 second segments.
    I have no way of knowing for sure, but I guess that it might export in a much more reasonable amount of time.
    I suspect that memory may be running scarce, which, as has been repeatedly mentioned in these fora, is a problem affecting many of us using FCP X under Lion. You mentioned you used "purge" in the Terminal, but in such a long render you might have had to do it repeatedly...

  • Macbook Pro 2012 vs Retina Render time difference

    Just purchased the 13-inch: 2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 regular macbook pro.
    With my budget of a $1700, should I get the 13-inch: 2.6GHz with Retina display Intel Core i5
    instead for render work like After Effects? how big of a difference is render time??

    Just purchased the 13-inch: 2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 regular macbook pro.
    With my budget of a $1700, should I get the 13-inch: 2.6GHz with Retina display Intel Core i5
    instead for render work like After Effects? how big of a difference is render time??

Maybe you are looking for