Premiere Pro CS6 still much faster than Premiere Pro CC

I am currently editing videos that were captured using screen recording software. The files have subsequently been converted to .WMV clips with a data rate of exactly 4.4 MB/sec (that's Megabytes/second). This data rate includes both video and audio.
There is no problem editing these clips in Premiere Pro CS6. Playback and scrubbing are fine at any quality setting and at any magnification size. Unfortunately, this is not the case with Premier Pro CC2014. This "new" version of Premier Pro chokes to death with attempting to play back or scrub the exact same clips. Even at 1/4 resolution, CC2014 struggles along. I can improve things a bit by turning off CUDA acceleration (which makes even less sense to me), however, CC2014 just can't do what CS6 does.
I introduced this issue a few months ago, but it obviously has not been resolved by Adobe. They are bringing new feature into CC2014 all the time, but I'd much rather they focus on getting the software to work properly, like CS6 does.

Totally agree! C'mon on Adobe...let's fix the performance and the memory leakage!

Similar Messages

Sun Studio 12 is still much faster than the newest express 11/08

I gave the newest Express 11/08 a try on my laptop. I found that Studio 12 is still
much faster than the express version at least on my laptop. See the old messge below.
http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5321607&tstart=15
I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.

I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.Thanks for noting :)
This has already been filed as a bug - http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6735472.
And as you can see it is even already fixed.
Unluckily it missed Express 11/08 integration time slot (by a mere week or so).
It is reasonable to expect it to be available at the next Express/whatever release happens next.
regards,
__Fedor.

Why is my iMac 450/128 much, much faster than my Powerbook 333/512?

Hey boys and girls,
I'm sort of new to the Mac world, but I'm working hard to become clever.
So, here's the story. I have a Powerbook Bronze 333MHz with 512MB of RAM and the Toshiba 6GB drive it was born with and 10.3.9. I have a Bumbleberry (I think that's the "official" colour) iMac at work with a G3 at 450MHz and only 128MB of RAM also running 10.3.9.
The iMac runs much, much faster than the Powerbook, despite barely meeting the minimum RAM requirements of 10.3. What are some possible reasons for this? I understand that this ain't no speed machine, but the Powerbook is so slow that there is a second or two second typing delay in an Adium chat window for heaven's sake.
OK, so the iMac is technically faster, but I feel as though there is something wrong with the performance of the Powerbook, especially with all the RAM I've thrown at it (the Activity Monitor says that the PB has roughly 140MB of free RAM right now). I have a newer 40GB 5400 RPM drive that I'm tempted to install, to see if the 6GB drive is just old and tired (it whines a bit, so I'm sure it is to some degree) -- am I wasting my time?
Thanks for any help in advance.
Ugli
PB Bronze Mac OS X (10.3.9)

ugli:
Welcome to Apple Discussions.
You are well on the way to becoming clever. Really. Just by logging in and posting here you have started a process of learning that can go on until you are really clever.
There are a number of reasons your iMac seems faster that the Lombard. One is that it has a faster processor. Secondly, even with more RAM your Lombard has a small, slow HDD. I don't know how much free space there is on your HDD, but 6 GB fills up quite quickly these days. I am sure the larger (and faster) HDD will make a difference. I had maxxed out the RAM on my Pismo, but it was when I installed a larger, faster HDD that I noticed the difference. And, of course, when I upgraded the processor I noticed the biggest difference. Still not match for the newer faster machines, but then, I'm not as fast as I used to be either.
Good luck in your quest.
cornelius
PismoG4 550, 100GB 5400 Toshiba internal, 1 GB RAM; Pismo 500 OS X (10.4.5) Mac OS X (10.4.5) Beige G3 OS 8.6

Encore cs6 not any faster than 5.1

Encore cs6 not any faster than 5.1
I opened up a cs5.1 project in cs6 and did a "Preview from here" of a motion background with 8 motion thumbnails...running 40 secounds. Each version of Encore took 2 minutes to render the motion menu so i could preview it.
A little dissappointing. 32 bit vs 64. Same speed:-(
I have 32 gigs of ram. i7-980

heres a test. try importing a single 42gb timeline of 1080p into encore cs5, and now do the same thing for cs6. rendering may or may not be faster for menus, but you can get right to work on your project in cs6, while it processes in the background, vs cs5 having to stare at the yellow status bar for 90 minutes (it seemed, lol)

If i export my project, it runs much faster than in the canvas. How can I fix that?

If i export my project, it runs much faster than in the canvas. How can I fix that?
I'm from germany, sorry for my english!

When you export your project, it is "compiled" into video format. Any player will play it at its frame rate.
Motion is a compositing application. It has to make many more times the calculations needed to animate everything and 90% of the time, it's just not possible for Motion to keep up with "real time". It's to be expected. Learning to live with that fact will make life a lot easier for you, I promise.
There are a few things you can do to help speed up Motion:
Reduce temporary play ranges to no more than about 5 seconds at a time. You can move the Play Range In and Out markers from section to section. Motion does all of its real time rendering in RAM. The longer the play range, to more it has to work managing that memory.
Remove Preview Icons from the Layers list ( View menu > Layers Columns > Preview will toggle the views)
When you play your animation, turn off on screen guides: (command - / will toggle onscreen guides)
In Motion 5, reducing the quality of playback from the Render menu does not make a lot of difference anymore, so you might as well keep the default settings of Dynamic, Full and Normal on. However, Motion Blur, Frame Blending, Field Rendering, as well as the lighting options will affect playback, sometimes by quite a lot. So if you have Lights, turning off Lighting, Shadows, and Reflections will get back a lot of real time playback speed (just remember to turn on all that you need before rendering, or these things will be left out of the export!)
HTH

3G much faster than WiFi now?

Ever since I purchased the 3G iPhone my 3G performance is MUCH faster than my WiFi connection. My old iPhone was very fast on my WiFi connection but the new 3G iPhone is MUCH slower using the WiFi connection. It's so much slower that I have permanently turned WiFi OFF. My WiFi network is exactly the same. The only thing that has changed is the phone. I thought it would get better with the latest update but it hasn't. Anyone else experiencing this??

Here are the results from my speed tests.
3G TEST:
262 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
317 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
572 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
293 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
589 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
AVERAGE SPEED IS 406kbps
WiFi TEST:
1763kbps (initial latency probe is 35976ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
1543kbps (initial latency probe is 36095ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
2239kbps (initial latency probe is 441ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
CRASH (Had to restart Safari)
1780kbps (initial latency probe is 22810ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
1656kbps (initial latency probe is 29863ms, 28364ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
2084kbps (initial latency probe is 411ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
AVERAGE SPEED IS 1844kbps
The problem with my WiFi is the initial connection takes forever. Once it gets going it is much faster. Looks like I have massive turbo lag. Since the initial WiFi ping takes longer than the entire 10 pings of the 3G test the WiFi connection “appears” much slower. Not good.
Anyone have any idea how I can fix this? Should I try and return the phone?

New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally. I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC. Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth. It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively). Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

Why is Chrome so much faster than Safari?

I'm an Apple and Safari lover, but love goes only so far. I have tried everything with Safari in Yosemite, but it's really in a sad state when it won't even open my Google account page, or my own website. Sadly, I have found so many pages that either load so slowly that I give up, or don't open at all in Safari, yet Chrome always works, and fast. In fact, Firefox and Opera, both of which I have never used regularly are much better than Safari right now.
Does anyone have a clue as to why Safari has turned into such a poor browser in Yosemite? But please don't suggest I go to safe mode. I only want a decent browser, which I would prefer was Safari and not Chrome, but I do not want to deconstruct or rebuild my Macbook Air OS installation.

Funny. I'm finding exactly the opposite to be true. I've used Chrome since it came out, and it used to be far superior to Safari. Lately I find it to be very buggy--lots of jittery, time consuming page loads and crashes. Frustrated, I imported all of my stuff to Safari where loading times, scrolling, and navigation are like butter. No crashes and no loading issues on my MB Pro. So far so good.
I do wonder if it has something to do with the "baggage" I developed on Chrome over the years. I kept things pretty tidy--purging history, cookies, etc-- but it still just kept getting worse.
I guess Firefox is an option, but one thing is certain: I will not be returning to IE ****.

Calling a library function node much faster than labview code?

Hi, I wrote a labview routine to perform a multiple tau autocorrelation on a large array of integers. A multi tau autocorrelation is a way to reduce the computation time of the correlation but at the expense of resolution. You can taylor the multitau correlation to give you good resolution where you need it. For instance, I require good resolution near the middle (the peak) of the correlation, so I do a linear autocorrelation for the first 64 channels from the peak, then I skip every second channel for the next 32, then skip every 4th channel for 32 more, then skip every 8th for 32 channels... etc.
Originally, I wrote my own multitau calculation, but it took several hours to perform for just 1024 channels of the correlation of around 2million points of data. I need to actually do the the correlation on probably 2 billion or more points of data, which would take days. So then I tried using labview's AutoCorrelation.vi which calls a library function. It could do a linear autocorrelation with 4 million points in less than a minute. I figured that writing my code in C and calling it using a call library function node would be faster, but that much faster?
Finally, I wrote some code that extracts the correlation data points that I would've got from my multitau code from the linear correlation function that I get from the AutoCorrelation.vi. Clearly this is not optimal, since I spend time calculating all those channels of the correlation function just to throw them away in the end, but I need to do this because the final step of my procedure is to fit the correlation function to a theoretical one. With say 2million points, the fit would take too long. The interesting thing here is that simply extracting the 1024 point from the linear autocorrelation function takes a significant amount of time. Is labview really that slow?
So, my questions are... if I rewrite my multitau autocorrelation function in C and call it using a call library function node, will it run that much faster? Can I achieve the same efficiency if I use a formula node structure? Why does it take so long just to extract 1024 points from an array?
I've tried hiding indicators and this speeds things up a little bit, but not very much.
I'll attach my code if you're interested in taking a look. There is a switch on the front panel called 'MultiTau'... if in the off position, the code performs the linear autocorrelation with the AutoCorrelation.vi, if in the on position, it performs a multitau autocorrelation using the code I wrote. Thanks for any help.
Attachments:
MultiTauAutocorrelate.vi ‏627 KB

Hi,
The C routine that AutoCorrelation.vi is using is probably a higly optimised routine. If you write a routine in LabVIEW, it should be less then 15% slower. But you'd have to know all ins and outs of LabVIEW. How data is handled, when memory is allocated, etc. Also note that the AutoCorrelation.vi has years of engineering behind it, and probably multiple programmers.
It might even be possible that the c code uses an algorithmic improvement, like the Fast Fourier Transform improves speed on the Fourier Transform. I think the autocorrelation can be done using FFT, but that isn't my thing, so I'm not sure.
For a fair comparation, posting the code in this forum was a good idea. I'm sure together we can get it to 115% or less of the C variant. (15/115 is just a guess, btw)
I'm still using LV7.1 for client compatibility, so I'll look at the code later.
Regards,
Wiebe.
"dakeddie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Hi,  I wrote a labview routine to perform a multiple tau autocorrelation on a large array of integers.  A multi tau autocorrelation is a way to reduce the computation time of the correlation but at the expense of resolution.  You can taylor the multitau correlation to give you good resolution where you need it.  For instance, I require good resolution near the middle (the peak) of the correlation, so I do a linear autocorrelation for the first 64 channels from the peak, then I skip every second channel for the next 32, then skip every 4th channel for 32 more, then skip every 8th for 32 channels... etc. Originally, I wrote my own multitau calculation, but it took several hours to perform for just 1024 channels of the correlation of around 2million points of data.  I need to actually do the the correlation on probably 2 billion or more points of data, which would take days.  So then I tried using labview's AutoCorrelation.vi which calls a library function.  It could do a linear autocorrelation with 4 million points in less than a minute.  I figured that writing my code in C and calling it using a call library function node would be faster, but that much faster?Finally, I wrote some code that extracts the correlation data points that I would've got from my multitau code from the linear correlation function that I get from the AutoCorrelation.vi.  Clearly this is not optimal, since I spend time calculating all those channels of the correlation function just to throw them away in the end, but I need to do this because the final step of my procedure is to fit the correlation function to a theoretical one.  With say 2million points, the fit would take too long.  The interesting thing here is that simply extracting the 1024 point from the linear autocorrelation function takes a significant amount of time.  Is labview really that slow?So, my questions are...  if I rewrite my multitau autocorrelation function in C and call it using a call library function node, will it run that much faster?  Can I achieve the same efficiency if I use a formula node structure?  Why does it take so long just to extract 1024 points from an array?I've tried hiding indicators and this speeds things up a little bit, but not very much.I'll attach my code if you're interested in taking a look.  There is a switch on the front panel called 'MultiTau'... if in the off position, the code performs the linear autocorrelation with the AutoCorrelation.vi, if in the on position, it performs a multitau autocorrelation using the code I wrote.  Thanks for any help.
MultiTauAutocorrelate.vi:
http://forums.ni.com/attachments/ni/170/185730/1/MultiTauAutocorrelate.vi

LR 4.1 photos (still) MUCH darker than in PS CS5 - why?

Right: Photo in LR4.1, shown using Process 2010 to be compatible (as good as possible) with PS and ACR 6.7 (a switch to 2012 shows a difference regarding darkness, but not too much)
Left: Top the same photo opend via LR (it matches the LR version), bottom the same photo opend directly via PS. This bottom version is how it should look like IMO.
Photo is a Canon .CR2 RAW file. Of course all parameters for the RAW converting process are the same for LR and PS.
Screen is Eizo CG243W, hardware calibrated with the Eizo Color Navigator (coming with the monitor) and Spyder 4. Win7 64Bit, all currently Adobe Updates installed, no RC versions.
Simply ALL photos are shown way too dark in LR, not only RAWs but also jpgs. Photos match between PS and e.g. Firefox, which supports color management.
It is also clearly visible how different the histograms between the two open versions in PS look like:
Dark version (opend via LR):
Opend via PS directly:
No clou what to check anymore, and quite desperate already... it makes no sense to spend a lot of work to improve the photos in LR with high effort (and all drawbacks of going to the limits with Exposure etc.) if this is all only based on some wrong interpretation of LR, which it looks like to me...
Ah yes, I read about that LR cannot handle V4 ICC monitor profiles correctly, but I checked this, mine are V2.2, so this should be fine... but maybe still some incompatibility between the profiles produced by the ColorNavigator and LR!? I also found the other topics regarding similar problems here in the forum, but as we are already talking about LR4.1 final and ACR 6.7 for PS, it seems like the bugfix mentionend there did not solve this issue...
Anybody any clou?
Thanks!
Klaus
UPDATE: OK, now it is getting really weird... I just saw that I opend the file with PS as 8 bit only, so I tried to do again with 16 bit. Result is that I now cannot reproduce my screenshot from above at all, no matter if using 8 or 16 bit - but what I can manage is to have the photo opend twice in PS, looking exactly the same, both 16 bit, but with totally different histograms!?

With Nikon raw files I can't reproduce what you're seeing.
I'm also using LR4 (.2RC in my case) and PS CS5.
Provided the raw file is set to PS2010 in LR, then it looks the same in LR as in CS5. CS5 evaluates histograms differently, so they don't exactly compare - but the histogram in LR looks the same as the histogram in ACR.
Have you got LR, Catalog settings, Metadata tab, "Automatically write changes into XMP" checked? If not, you need to right click the image in LR, select Metadata, then "Save metadata to file" to make sure the xmp data that ACR sees in the .xmp file is the same as the edit data LR sees. And, as you say, set the process in LR to PS2010 or there may be slight differences, even though ACR6.7 is supposed to be able to read PV2012 files (in my experience, ACR6.7 does not render PV2012 files identically to LR4.2RC, or it didn't when I was using them last weekend).
Can't help you with the Spyder or Eizo kit - I have two different monitors both calibrated with a ColorMunki Display, set to create v2 profiles. As everyone says, v4 profiles seem to be more trouble than they're worth.

Why is CS6 so much slower than CS5 was

Setup: Sager laptop NP8760 - CPU: QuadCore Intel Core i7 820QM, 2648 MHz (20 x 132)
8GB ram running win 7 64 bit
I've found that trying to use the CS6 (cloud) version of Adobe bridge is not really possible unless you don't mind having 4-8 second pauses for nearly any use. Right clicking for any reason is guaranteed to cause a good 5 second wait to see the right click menu. The first click on any menu bar item also gauranteed to cause a 5-8 second wait. Repeatedly (happens whenever focus leaves bridge, no matter how momentary)
Of course if you are intent on working with your images you can't really put up with that much delay.
I end up using CS5 bridge with CS6 photoshop or any of the other CS6 tools, but some things are then impossible to do from bridge, to me the worst one is not being able to send selections of images thru the photoshop image processor. I have to start CS6 bridge and put up with its incredible contrariness to do that job.
Something that was done to bridge between CS5 and CS6 seems to be the likely place to look for the solution to this problem, but while I can read the lsted changes I don't know enough to be able to tell which might be responsible or what I can do about it.
My hardware is nothing breath taking but should be well adequate to run Bridge... especially when I've carefully turned off any other application that I am using.
I've noticed lots of talk here of redoing cache and moving cache etc. My cache is on a different disk than the program and I've purged it a time or two to make sure that wasn't the problem.
I've made no customizations to bridge so it should be installed all vanilla.

I have the same issue. Customer chat has not been able to resolve.
: CS6 Unresponsive.
2 second lag after clicking on any menu item.
4-8 second lag after right clicking on any image.
3 second lag while selecting images with arrow keys.
2 second lag selecting multiple images
My system is high performance:
. 12 Core 3.3Ghz Xeon Processors
. 24GB RAM
. Primary drive is 8 SSDs in a RAID0 configuration
. Dual nVidia Quadro FX5400
. OS: Win7 x64
CS5 and CS5.5 were very “snappy” in responsiveness on this system. CS6 Bridge works fine on my laptop, perfectly responsive.
Once Camera RAW or Photoshop are open, no issue working in these tools, so, the issue is bridge.
Here’s my debugging steps which have not worked to fix the issue:
Installed the latest camera RAW plug in from Nikon. Nikon D800 RAW .NEF files work in windows explorer and in CS5.5.
Installed all windows updates
Installed the lastest nvidia FX5800 card drivers
Uninstalled all Adobe products (reader, media player, etc.)
Uninstalled all plugs ins (HDR, noise, etc.)
Checked there are no fonts on the system (no TTF files)
Uninstalled Office 2013 to make sure there were no system font issues.
Uninstalled all Nikon software except the RAW plug in.
Deleted C:\Program Files\Adobe and C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe
Searched for any Adobe reference in c:\Users\<my_username>\ (example AppData), and deleted it.
Cleaned the registry of any reference to Adobe or any dll related to Adobe or an Adobe plug in.
Rebooted multiple times.
Re-installed CS6 Master Collection. At this point it did not recognize my raw photos (.NEF from a Nikon D800).
Installed all Adobe Updates.
The updates fixed the camera raw issue
Ran FontTest.jsx – all fonts passed, none failed.
Tried Preferences:
Advanced -> Use Software Rendering : CPU utilization went up, but, no impact on the lag
Startup Scripts : Disabled all but Photoshop CS6
Increased Cache Size, Compacted Cache, Purged Cache, Different Cache organizations, etc.
bob

3.1.3 is much faster than 4.0 why?

I have conducted several speed tests. Its very disappointing. The only time 4.0 is faster is when multitasking and when the Apps are already open and eating battery. Why is 4.0 firmware soooo much slower?

kesajen wrote:
Does anyone know how to go back to 3.1.3? I have 16GB 3GS, running iOS4, and my phone runs VERY slow!! It's so frustrating. I don't really care about multi tasking, or any other goodie that came with 4. I want to go back to the old OS.
Any help out there?
I know how but can't say

Audio is much faster than video streaming to AppleTV 3

Trying to watch some music videos that play just fine in iTunes on the pc where they reside. But when streamed to ATV 3 via homesharing the audio speeds up quite a bit. Video is playing at the correct pace.

Master Lomaxus
Could you please post the Tree version of the MediaInfo readout? To get at it you can click on the arrow at the end of the message at the middle right side of the readout that you posted? I am particularly interested in the audio codec and if it is twos. I have found that to be a very problematic audio codec in at least one instance where I had to deal with it with a user.
Your video codec represented as AVC is probably H.264. And, it looks like the file has the .mov file extension. To me, the rest of those video properties appear atypical, that is, 848 x 480 16:9 @ 59.94 frames per second (probably progressive).
As a consideration for your troubleshooting, I would offer a manually set Premiere Elements project preset of:
NTSC
AVCHD
AVCHD 1080p60
But before all that, you might want to read about my prior encounter with twos audio and decide if the issues in the following apply to your situation as well. If they do, you may want to check out my suggestion to the user in that case. (See Post 8 in the thread cited)
http://www.elementsvillage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77558
I realize the brand of camera is not the same, but...
If any questions about that thread or this matter, please ask me here in your thread.
Thanks.
ATR

Writing Speed Much Faster than Transcoding Speed

Hello,
I'm creating an image for future DVD burning and it is taking quite a while for my 11 minute film to go through this process. (it's been over 30 minutes so far, and as you can see from the screen shot below, I've got a ways to go!!)
I've noticed that the "transcoding" seems to be going lot slower than the "writing", per the screen shot below.
Is this typical?
Thanks! Matt

Thanks Stan, pretty nice mac pro transcoding from h.264... it looks like i did not have all my little ducks in a perfect row in my original source file.... testing that hypothesis now, it think that is the likely culprit.
thanks for helping!
Matt

I have been a user of Firefox for a long time but it seems to have gotten really slow. IE will open web sites much faster than firefox on all 3 of my computers. Is there something wrong, boged down or do I need to reinstall it?

It seems that it is taking twice as long for firefox to open the same websites as ie. I run updates but seems to just be taking a long time for it to open sites and I can open with IE in much less time?
== URL of affected sites ==
http://

These issues are usually a result of many extensions. Try [[Troubleshooting extensions and themes]]

Premiere Pro CS6 still much faster than Premiere Pro CC

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for