Pro Res or Uncompressed for SD Widescreen - Master Uncompressed File

I have a client on the West Coast needing an uncompressed version of the edit in QuickTime.  I noticed with the Intermediate Codec we get into the 300 GB + range.  Would a Pro Res alternative be accepted by other software (iMovie, etc.) or are we stuck with the larger option?

I'm reminded of the scene with Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men"
Substitute "uncompressed" for "truth"
Client: Give me the uncompressed!
You: Uncompressed! Uncompressed!! You can't handle the uncompressed! You don't want the uncompressed. The uncompressed will bring your world down around your knees and show you what a fraud you ALL are.
If they are talking iMovie/iDVD, they REALLY can't handle uncompressed.  (Heck, they can't handle ProRes either - which is still far far away from uncompressed...) As you seemed to have figured out, AIC is a good option.
x

Similar Messages

  • Issue with Pro Res sources when encoding in Media Encoder.

    There seems to be a big issue with Pro Res sources in Media Encoder. I've noticed that when exporting using the 'software only' mode my graphics and titles look horrible, they are pixelated around the edges and the compression looks bad. This issue only happens when it's being made from a Pro Res source, if I make the exact same file Uncompressed this issue is resolved. If I use the 'Cuda' option (which I already know is the better option) this issue is resolved. The thing is, in a work environment not all of our systems are Cuda enabled and I would like to use Media Encoder as a exporting option overall. I love Media Encoder, it's fast and easy to use but this Pro Res issue is huge because the majority of the time we are working in Pro Res. I also did a test out of Avid Media Composer to Media Encoder, I sent a reference file referencing the Avid MXF material and the issue is gone, this seems to my knowledge to be a Pro Res only issue. The settings I am exporting to is 960 x 540 h.264 and also .mp4. This is coming from a 1080p source and yes I do have the 'maximum render quality' checked for best scaling. I understand that Software only vs Cuda and Open CL use different algorithms when scaling but this seems crazy to me that it would look  this much worse.
    Anyways if somebody can please look into this that would be great, this seems to be an issue where I can't continue at this moment to use Media Encoder. Making my source files Uncompressed every time to do an export is just not a real workflow I want to do.
    On a side note I've also recently noticed on a clip that had text over a grey background that there are lines going all down the screen evenly when exporting to even a non scaled 1080p .mp4. Once again, this issue goes away with any format but Pro Res. The weird part is this happens even with Cuda enabled. This is why I am thinking Media Encoder is having some sort of issue with the Pro Res codec.
    I am on a current new 27'' fully loaded iMac with the latest Adobe CC updates.
    Has anyone else experienced this?
    thank you

    No, it is why advance users do not use the wizard.
    Have a look at OpenOffice.org and its form creation. Once you add your fields in OpenOffice.org, just export to PDF and the form fields will be named just like you named in them in OpenOffice.org and the drop down values carry over.

  • Converting 7D camera footage to Apple Pro Res 422 HQ

    I shot footage with the Canon 7D. I brought the footage to Compressor (latest version as part of Final Cut Studio). I am transcoding the footage to Apple Pro Res 422 HQ for editing in Final Cut Pro 7.
    A few clips have been transcoded. I open up the original file and the Pro Res HQ file and compare them side by side on my Mac Book Pro. I would like to attach the screenshot but don't think I can do it that here. Anyway, the Pro Res clip is slightly smaller when opened with Quicktime 7 and 10. Also, the colors seem to be darker and the clip a lot muddier than before.
    Has anyone had any experience with this? Thanks.

    My clips do experience a slight color shift but nothing nominal. However, I have no problems converting my files using the preset and opening them up in FCP 7. When I open them in QTX they appear the same size as their original. Have you checked the inspector pane on your MBP? I have had issues where QTX will not open a video full size due to screen resolution limitations and would always downsize instead. That could be your issue since the MBP cannot display a 1080p file at full resolution.

  • Using Media Manager to convert movies to apple pro res

    Using Media Manager to convert movies to apple pro res,  How can I convert my existing media files  from quicktime movies into apple pro res 422 ?
    After they are converted will I have to re-point my fcp project to the converted files?
    Thank You for taking time to answer these
    Carl

    Sorry, I am not following.
    You said you have converted them to prores LT & are having this issue, or is it with H264 files in your edit?
    How did you convert? using media manager, or compressor?
    if you still are using the H264 media that would be the issue.
    That is not an editing codec. it is a delivery codec.
    The thing to have done would have been to convert to prores before you started editing.
    or did you do that?

  • Burning a dvd h264 versus pro res 422?

    Hi everyone, I have a "film" project I put together.  It is comprised of many mini scenes and clips.  For each clip I have exported (FCP 6.06) an H264 (720x480) version and a Pro Res 422 (HQ) version.  The Pro Res was better for editing and the H264 was better for uploading to the intrawebs.  Both versions play just fine, but now it's time to burn to DVD.
    I was not going to burn a blue ray just yet, so a SD DVD should be just fine.  I was going to use Toast/ DVD Studio Pro on my mac 10.5.8 Os to make a DVD of all the clips. Will the Pro Res footage look better than the H264, or since its compressed to SD is it better to use the H264 footage?
    Thanks in advance

    A DVD uses ALWAYS Mpeg-2. A DVD-Rom can take anything, it takes data.
    Sound on a DVD is usually AC-3. Also, you have to decide on NTSC or PAL format, in your case (480 lines) it would be NTSC.
    SD is not a compression, it just means NTSC or PAL as opposed to HD (720 or 1080 lines)

  • Pro Res LT Codec delivers APCS codec.. slow and cumbersome

    Hi All,
    I transferred the Hard Drive HD footage from my Canon camera into Final Cut using the Apple Pro Res LT codec. The codec that the file turned into is "apcs". This file is HUGE and will not play back correctly from a fast firewire 800 drive.
    Is anyone else having this problem? I want to use LT because it is supposed to be perfect for multi cam timeline, but if the resulting file is apcs, which I can not find a definition for anywhere, and it can not play back at speed what to do? How do I get to Pro Res LT after all?
    Thanks,
    Lydia

    Hi Tom,
    I am thinking I am doing something very wrong settings wise.
    In Quicktime one of the rendered and exported timelines says:
    Format: Apple ProRes 422 (LT), 1920 x 1080 (1888 x 1062), millions 1 bit Integer (Little Endian), Stereo, 48,000 kHz
    FPS: 29.97
    Data Size 18.21 GB
    When I exported the files the names did not come across correctly. The file name is truncated and an alpha numeric tag is added. For example, one name exported was Wide Bidya and McCormick ProRes Mix. What it was changed into was Wide Bidya and McCormick#12ADA2.
    In the finder the same clip under the get info window/more info.
    Dimensions: 1920x1080
    Codecs: apcs, linear PCM
    Color Profile HD (1-1-1
    Duration: 24:8
    Audio Channels: 2
    Total bit Rate: 97,936
    "STP processed audio " means the track was exported to Sound Track Pro as an audio file, saved and returned. The "Sent" version of the audio is the final audio utilized in the timeline.
    I will tag on the clip and timeline exact prefs in my next entry.
    Thanks,
    Lydia

  • PRO RES HDV

    I've just posted a topic about 1080i to 720p conversion. I have another questions. CAN SOMEONE PLS EXPLAIN PRO RES. Can I capture HDV footage from a Z1 via Firewire without capture cards/boxes and what benefits if any will this give me? Does PRO RES circumvent the MPEG issue? Can I output the final cut at a higher quality than normal HDV using PRO RES?
    Thanks for your help,
    Matt (confused?!?!)

    With the Blackmagic Intensity Pro you can use HDMI or various analog inputs, including component. The Blackmagic folks told me that component presrves HD content rather than down converting to SD.
    The Intensity products (Pro with the analog stuff, or <not>Pro with just HDMI) can convert on the fly to ProRes 422, DVCPRO HD, whatever. You do need an Intel Mac to use with the Intensity cards. Cost for the cards in the US (MSRP) is $395 and $295.
    Once you've captured to tape in HDV, you won't get any more resolution or color just because you go to another format which specifies more of either. You're editing may be fast, as will conforming (HDV has to reconstruct itself at all transitions, overlays, etc.).
    But I'm editing on a G5 Quad, and the speed was fine with two HDV video tracks cutting back and forth with opacity ramps for transistions. The last project was a two hour play and it took about two hours to conform the whole thing at the end; subsequent small edits conformed quickly. I used compressor to take the HDV reference video export directly to MPEG-2 for DVD and it handled that in about the same speed as my old project using DV standard definitions. Bypass the conversion to DV gave me better edges and far less color banding on strong contrast edges.
    If I did it again, all title overlays would be done in ProRes SD (that's my final target anyway) to give me sharper titles; but they were not horrible in HDV using the FCP title effects.
    Eddie O

  • HQ vs standard pro res 422 for capture Help!

    This is my last question (I think).
    Would standard printed out on hdsr essentially look the same in this situation that I shouldn't bother with the HQ?
    A gentleman made a comment that I don't need HQ for capture but I am reading a lot of commentary on this.
    My feature film has a lot of effects, it is prepared for conversion from a 10bit digibeta sd file that was rendered out from an sd file.
    My end delivery is going to be cable broadcast and hdsr master, (though I know just for hdcam standard would be ok).
    I read different comments on here and on the web...and some of it comments if your end goal is broadcast you should have an HQ file if it comes from a 10-bit source and as well that more compression will happen down the road and taking that into consideration, as I'll be doing another render, I'd like this verified.
    And NOWHERE does it differentiate if that source is the file it's being converted from or the original footage it came from.
    And I will be effecting this last capture pro res file before another render to a final QT.
    I just want verification that standard will be ok as the individual who commented that it is I hadn't stated for sure what my delivery and end use would be and may have assumed I'd only be concerned with hdcam.
    Thanks.

    Nobody calls me a gentleman and gets away with it!
    There are many resources to heop you decide on a ProRes codec appropriate for your task. However, youmust weigh the processing cost of inadequate hardware against the possibly indiscernible difference in the HUGE difference in file sizes and heavy lifting.
    http://16x9cinema.com/blog/2009/7/31/sorting-out-the-apple-prores-family.html
    ProRes 422 (HQ)
    Visually lossless - highest-quality professional HD video that a (single-link) HD-SDI signal can carry.
    Supports full-width, 4:2:2 video sources at 10-bit pixel depths, while retaining its visually lossless characteristic through many generations of decoding and re-encoding.
    Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) can be used both as an intermediate codec to accelerate workflows for complex, compressed video sources and as an affordable, high-performance alternative to uncompressed 4:2:2 video.
    Has some subsampling of chroma, but retains very high quality.
    Supports 4:2:2 sources like DCVPRO HD, AVC-Intra,/100, XDCAM HD422/50.
    Data rate about 220 Mbps.
    ProRes 422
    Visually lossless, full-width 10-bit, 4:2:2 at lower data rate than ProRes (HQ)
    Offers better multi-stream RT editing performance. For most video applications, 422 is "good enough."
    Data rate about 147 Mbps
    The comparison in data density between HQ and vanilla 422 is 220/147.
    If you have the chops to KNOW you need to maintain this kind of image integrity then you have the hardware to accommodate the chore. If you have the chops but not the rig, forget it, you can't afford the time. If you have the rig but not the knowledge, forget it, you can't realize the benefits. It's a pretty simple decision matrix and, while you will get some recommendations, you're the only one who can pull this trigger. It's going to cost you time or money or both.
    Types of Apple ProRes Codecs
    The Apple ProRes format comes in five versions: Apple ProRes 4444, Apple ProRes 422 (HQ), Apple ProRes 422, Apple ProRes 422 (LT), and Apple ProRes 422 (Proxy). The following list describes the features of each version. For a complete comparison of the relative data rates of the Apple ProRes codecs, see Apple ProRes Format Specifications.
    Apple ProRes 4444 
    The Apple ProRes 4444 codec offers the utmost possible quality for 4:4:4 sources and for workflows involving alpha channels. It includes the following features:
    Full-resolution, mastering-quality 4:4:4:4 RGBA color (an online-quality codec for editing and finishing 4:4:4 material, such as that originating from Sony HDCAM SR or digital cinema cameras such as RED ONE, Thomson Viper FilmStream, and Panavision Genesis cameras). The R, G, and B channels are lightly compressed, with an emphasis on being perceptually indistinguishable from the original material.
    Lossless alpha channel with real-time playback
    High-quality solution for storing and exchanging motion graphics and composites
    For 4:4:4 sources, a data rate that is roughly 50 percent higher than the data rate of Apple ProRes 422 (HQ)
    Direct encoding of, and decoding to, RGB pixel formats
    Support for any resolution, including SD, HD, 2K, 4K, and other resolutions
    A Gamma Correction setting in the codec’s advanced compression settings pane, which allows you to disable the 1.8 to 2.2 gamma adjustment that can occur if RGB material at 2.2 gamma is misinterpreted as 1.8. This setting is also available with the Apple ProRes 422 codec.
    Apple ProRes 422 (HQ)The Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) codec offers the utmost possible quality for 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 sources (without an alpha channel) and provides the following:
    Target data rate of approximately 220 Mbps (1920 x 1080 at 60i)
    Higher quality than Apple ProRes 422
    Apple ProRes 422The Apple ProRes 422 codec provides the following:
    Target data rate of approximately 145 Mbps (1920 x 1080 at 60i)
    Higher quality than Apple ProRes 422 (LT)
    Apple ProRes 422 (LT)The Apple ProRes 422 (LT) codec provides the following:
    Roughly 70 percent of the data rate of Apple ProRes 422 (thus, smaller file sizes than Apple ProRes 422)
    Higher quality than Apple ProRes 422 (Proxy)
    bogiesan

  • Duplicating a portion of Pro Res media for use in another project

    I'm working on a compilation video which is drawing from many different interviews.   I need to duplicate certain sections of 1080p 29.97 Pro Res timelines and then bring them into a new FCP 7.0.3 project. 
    The clips will be pulled from many different external drives.  And I can't connect all these drives together at the same time.
    So my question is...when I am on the FCP timeline of one of these older projects, how do I best copy a section of it while keeping it in Pro Res and hopefully not having to recompress it?   I don't want to go back to the AVCHD camera files that it was generated from.
    Would I "Send to Compressor" right off the timeline and use one of the Pro Res settings?  Same as source settings, etc.
    Or would I "Export as a Quicktime" movie off the timeline?  Settings info?
    I am trying to preserve the image quality but at the same time this will not be for broadcast.   It's for a non-profit's website. 
    Any advice on this would be very much appreciated...
    Thanks,
    John

    If you are trying to Media Manage selections from a sequence that span multiple clips, then create a new sequence and copy and paste all the selected parts into the new sequence so that it contains only the selected sections of content you want to copy and consolidate.
    Then, with that new sequence selected, open the Media Manager and make sure that Include Master Clips outside selection and Include Affiliate Clips outside selection are unchecked, and the Delete Unused Media from Duplicated Items is checked.
    Unless you are leaving room for handles in your selection process,  check Use Handles and dial in a duration, so that your clips have some padding.
    MtD

  • Sharing FCPX Pro Res 422 .mov master file with both Ps and Macs

    I'm using FCPX 10.1.4 on Mac OS 10.10.2. I want to put a FCPX Pro Res 422 master file on a data DVD so it can be read and poled on both a Mac and PC using Quick Time 7. I tried using Toast 12 to create a data DVD playable on both a PC and Mac but it would not open on the PC. Any ideas what the problem might be or an alternative way to do this?
    Thanks

    One additional possible point of confusion: I think you wrote (or meant to write)  "so it can be read and played."
    A playable DVD is a very specific standard of filenames & compression sufficient to fit a two hour movie into 4.7GB of standard def video.  Simply writing any video file onto a disc (maybe marked as "DVD-R") never creates a DVD that is playable in standard DVD players.
    Given that, you can transfer any file (up to 4.7GB) by writing it onto a data "DVD" disc.  However, as others point out, ProRes isn't windows-friendly (or good for small files) and just for seeing the video on other platforms, H.264 would be the right choice.

  • Uncompressed vs Pro Res 422 (LT) as archival codec and as editing codec

    Hi -
    I'm working on a project where we will be capturing 600 hours of footage from Hi8 tapes. The tapes are in somewhat iffy condition so we're only going to get one pass with them and that's it.
    We've agreed with the owner of the tapes to digitize all of them for archival purposes, after which we will make a backup copy for us to edit with. We want to use Pro Res 422 (LT) as our editing codec, but there's some question about what codec we should use for archival purposes -- Pro Res 422 (LT) or uncompressed 10-bit 4:2:2.
    Basically, the debate is, given that the Hi8 format retains a relatively small amount of data, is there a benefit in terms of quality if we archive the tapes in uncompressed, or will the quality be just as good if we deliver in Pro Res LT to the archive?
    Thanks!

    Because while we would prefer Pro Res as our editing codec, the people to whom we will deliver an archival set of the material may insist on uncompressed.
    Please -- no more questions about why I'm asking this question.
    What I am hoping for here is a brief, to-the-point comparison of the pros and cons in terms of video quality of the two codecs (but something a little more informative than 'filet mignon' and 'hamburger').
    I'm aware of the white papers, but I'd like to get the opinion of people with experience and knowledge who don't work for Apple who could boil it down --
    Is Pro Res a good codec for archiving material, and how much if anything would be lost if we delivered to the archival house on Pro Res rather than uncompressed?
    What argument, if any, can we make to an archival house that is leaning toward uncompressed that Pro Res will work as well for them? At the risk of answering my own question, would we be correct in saying that the image quality would be effectively as good with either codec (given that we're digitizing from Hi-8 tapes) and that delivering in Pro Res would save them a great deal of storage space?
    As a reminder, we're talking about 600 hours of Hi-8 footage here. Thanks.

  • Uncompressed QT vs Apple Pro Res

    Hi All
    We are about to venture into 16mm transfer to HD for the first time. The telecine house can give us Uncompressed QTs or Apple Pro Res on a hard drive.
    These are the pro's and con's as I far as I can tell:
    Uncompressed QT:
    - Large Files
    - Cannot be used (without conversion) on our current FCP set-up
    - Highest quality, which is great for archiving and future use of the media
    Apple Pro Res:
    - Smaller files
    - Can be used directly on our set-up, without any conversion (there are some time constraints on the project
    - Almost the same quality as Uncompressed (???)
    The workflow I am considering is to get the files back as uncompressed qt's (to make sure the Masters are the highest quality possible) then convert them to Apple Pro Res in Compressor, then edit. Does that sound right?
    Is there any point to doing a 'neg match' (editing in Apple Pro Res then upconverting to uncompressed qt's as if in an off-line/on-line environment)?
    And, lastly, what Apple Pro Res format should I ask for?
    Any other golden nuggets of information you ca add will be greatly appreciated.
    cheers
    -j-

    Hi Jokke, If it's not too late, I've just been through exactly the same decision: shot on super 16 and had to worry about what to do with it. For me the decision had a lot to do with speed of editing, size of files and the way the final thing would be presented (HD Mpeg projected in my case) For all these reasons, the Prores codec worked fine. All the film buffs will scoff at this but very often the differences are really indiscernible and you won't need a bunch of supercomputers to crunch through the uncompressed footage with filters and dissolves applied to it. If you choose to go with Prores, you should definitely take the 422 HQ variety, although I think there's a newer better Prores codec coming out. Maybe one of the more tech-savvy persons on the forum would know about that.

  • What are the ideal specs for a DigiBeta master tape when authoring a "widescreen anamorphic" 16:9 SD DVD (original aspect ratio is 14:9)?

    I just received the masters for a new SD DVD. I would like to author a "widescreen anamorphic" SD DVD horizontally squeezed widescreen image stored in a standard 4:3 aspect ratio DVD image frame. (On 4:3 displays, mattes should preserve the original aspect ratio. On 16:9 displays the image will fill the screen at the highest possible resolution.)
    Below I've listed the specs of the Digi Beta master tapes the producers have sent to me for digitizing. I'd like to know this: What are the ideal specs for a DigiBeta master tape when authoring a widescreen anamorphic SD DVD, using material with an original aspect ratio of 14:9?
    I've also listed my guesses below. Please let me know if my guesses are right. If not, please suggest alternatives (and if possible explain why.)
    TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF EXISTING MASTER:
    Tape: DigiBeta
    Original Aspect Ratio: 1.55 (14:9)
    Vid Rate: 29.97 fps
    Pixel Aspect: NTSC - CCIR 601
    Frame Size: 720 x 480
    Anamorphic: Full-Height Anamorphic (16:9 image displayed in letterboxed, non-distored 4:3)
    Display Format: 4:3 Letterbox
    MY GUESS AT IDEAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (for a DigiBeta, that is):
    Tape: DigiBeta
    Original Aspect Ratio: 1.55 (14:9)
    Vid Rate: 29.97 fps
    Pixel Aspect: Square
    Frame Size: 720 x 540
    Anamorphic: YES
    Display Format: 16:9 Anamorphic (horizontally squeezed widescreen image)
    Please feel free to ask for clarification or further information you need to answer my question.
    Thank you so much in advance for your help!
    Best, Noetical.
    BTW, I can't wait for the day when everything has gone digital and we get digital intermediates instead of tapes to digitize!

    Hi Nick...thanks for taking the time to reply to my question.
    Nick Holmes wrote:
    What you have there is a mess.
    NTSC pixels are never square.
    NTSC is 720x486, even when it is Anamorphic.
    You shouldn't be using an already letterboxed master to make an Anamorphic version. Get the master that was made before the letterboxing stage.
    When you make an Anamorphic DVD it should display as 16:9 full screen automatically on widescreen TVs.
    The same DVD will automatically letterbox on 4:3 TVs.
    Um yeah...duh. That's exactly what I was trying to explain in the preface of my question. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear...all these things you mention are the reasons I'm putting together a list of the technical specs of the DigiBeta I need so I can have them send that instead of the stupid letterboxed version. 
    Look, I'm sending this request to some intern at their offices in England, asking for a master with which I can make an Anamorphic DVD. They already sent me this master, which as you and I both agree is an idiotic asset to use for these purposes. As such, I was hoping for advice on a more precise way of requesting the master that I need than asking for "the master that was made before the letterboxing stage." Upon reflection, perhaps I'll just do that. If you or anyone else has a suggestion about something I should add to my request that would improve the odds of them sending the tape I need, please repond. Thank you!
    BTW, It's been a long time since anyone has responded to something I've written or said as though I'm an idiot. I remember now that I don't really like it. (Moving along...)

  • Quicktime PRO-RES 422 Files... What is the best format for output in Adobe Premier?

    I have recently enrolled on a university film makers course and up until this point i have been a Windows user. At the university everyone uses Final Cut Pro as this seems to be the standard software, at least at my level. My question is this; I have a bunch of Quicktime Pro-Res 422 files and i was wondering what would be the best Adobe Premier preset to export it as, In order to achieve the best quality possible?
    Jak.

    I have a bunch of Quicktime Pro-Res 422 files and i was wondering what would be the best Adobe Premier preset to export it as, In order to achieve the best quality possible?
    You're going to have to clarify this a bit more. Do you have ProRes files you want to edit with in Premiere? If so, you don't need to convert them--as long as you have QT installed, you can edit them, even on a PC.
    Or are you saying that you've already edited, and now you want to do a final export for viewing, or for editing elsewhere?

  • Pro Res for AME CC 2014

    I had issues with AME CC – the app would open but wouldn't start the encoding on my imported media. After some frustration I installed the AME CC 2014 app. Now I don't have any pro res or dnx presets.
    Where can I find these? How come AME CC 2014 didn't automatically recognize the presets previously installed?
    Thanks very much.

    I just installed Premiere Pro CC 2014 this week and had the same problem, my media encoding time tripled (3 times longer).
    The same sequence in Premiere Pro CC (Old Media Encoder ) still encoded at its normal fast speed.
    Only one of my eight cores was running during encoding in Premiere Pro CC 2014.
    After making the registry changes (below) all eight cores were running and Premiere Pro CC 2014 Encoder was back to normal speed.
    Read Below:
    I did a search and found this link below.
    Go to this link below and read.
    https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1506298
    After you have read the Adobe Forum link above, go to this link below.
    This registry change is for Windows 7, I'm not sure about Windows 8
    The registry link may be different but you can still look.
    Than call Adobe and have their tech go to this link below.
    Than have them suggest what to do.
    I did call Adobe back and told them it fixed my problem and they were appreciative and said they would pass it on to all their techs.
    http://ultimatecomputers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3644
    Just a note,
    I was in touch with Adobe earlier this week with this same problem.
    I gave them control of my computer (from India) and after an hour the tech concluded it must be my video card causing the problem.
    I am using a Nvidia GTX 560Ti, which is not a certified card. I preformed the card hack.
    After getting off the phone with them I did some additional test and found that my old AME rendered my sequences with all eight cores.
    The new AME CC 2014 was only using one core.
    This registry change above keeps all the cores running.
    After I made the change all the cores were running during encoding and the speed was back to normal.
    Hope this helps,
    The Video Guy

Maybe you are looking for