Supermeatball:

What I don't understand is what would be the purpose of releasing a new version? You would do that if the old version became obsolete. I use 6.1 and I can edit in SD, HD, 16.9 4.3. I can import wav, Mp3, Wma, and some I don't even know. I can put in text, flip my image upside down, slow mo, speed up or put hundreds of transitions in or make my own. And more I can't even list. All this talk about something new. WHY? Can adobe or Fc do all that liquid could do at the same cost? Just to get Final Cut to burn a DVD it's another $399.99. I am new to video and editing so maybe theres some stuff I don't know but I know I could do more than most people could with a single piece of software. I know some people will say "got to stay ahead of the curve". What's the curve going to be like in 2009? What will we need then? I bet in 2009 this thread will be saying how advanced liquid is for waiting to see what is next.

 

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays

Mike

 

That's all well and said, but it's a bit more complicated than simply having a program that does what you need as of today. The program in question has to stay current with the constantly changing and evolving computer and hardware industry. For example, although you can get liquid to perform somewhat on Vista, it wasn't built for it and as a result is not certified or supported with it. Sooner or later, vista will become the standard. Nor does it fully work with quad processors (which are on the way to becoming a standard).  So it's not just the changing video industry that these programs need to stay up to par with. And video cards, well, you already have to be careful and selective with them.

At some point you will be forced to drop Liquid, or run an antique system in order to keep Liquid going. And running an antique system is not as easy as it sounds. I did it for a while to try to avoid unloading another program that I did not want to. I hit a point where I had no choice but to admit to myself that other programs on newer machines was doing the job at much faster rates, and in this business there is always someone waiting in the wings to steal your clients out from under you with faster services and less wait times.

 

As long as I can afford it, I will buy a new car, every 4 years.

That does not mean that my old car is once of a sudden no longer useful.

I can live with that car for many years after, if I don't sell it.

For me that is quite the same with Liquid. For making movies or video, the computer and Liquid as it is, will do their jobs for many years. As long as the product to make, is usuable for its purpose. Consumer, prosumer or professional. No difference, as I see it.

I can afford it and bought the Canon HV20 as you know. Did I really needed it? No! My Sony TRV310E is still OK and makes perfect DV movies. The only weak point is me. I have to "invent" the script, the story, the pictures, etc.

We are making ourselves hard times by buing new camera's, TV-sets etc. That gives us a sort of wealthy feeling. Millions of people in the world can't afford it and are in their way, happy. I hope.

OK, if you can afford it: buy the new stuff. That makes the old stuff not without value.

I can wait for the NextGen. Whenever it comes. In the meantime, I can shoot, edit, burn movies and have fun with my hobby (and my Toyota RAV4...).

 

BTW 6.1 was for a long time the most rock solid version. And it worked on a less powerful system than 7.2 is now.

 

BobSanders:

Nor does it fully work with quad processors (which are on the way to becoming a standard).  So it's not just the changing video industry that these programs need to stay up to par with. And video cards, well, you already have to be careful and selective with them.

 

Just wanted to show a screenshot, rendering Hd media in Vista 64.

mjolnarn:

Just wanted to show a screenshot, rendering Hd media in Vista 64.

Yes, I know. I can do that too (I run Vista ultimate 64). But there are problems and the biggest one being that it is not officially supported in Vista. The problems will only get bigger as Liquid stays the same and the hardware advances. Nothing you can do about it. 

BobSanders:

mjolnarn:

Just wanted to show a screenshot, rendering Hd media in Vista 64.

Yes, I know. I can do that too (I run Vista ultimate 64). But there are problems and the biggest one being that it is not officially supported in Vista. The problems will only get bigger as Liquid stays the same and the hardware advances. Nothing you can do about it. 

I don´t want to "do" anything about it, I just want to get one thing clear, now that you are starting to talk about "not officially supported" and changing subject from the four cores.

You told the other users that Liquid wasn´t able to use all four cores although you knew all the time that it wasn´t the truth and if I hadn´t corrected you, those users had still believed you.

So, you agree with me that liquid is able to use all four cores, that was what I wanted to hear.

merry christmas

mjolnarn:

BobSanders:

mjolnarn:

Just wanted to show a screenshot, rendering Hd media in Vista 64.

Yes, I know. I can do that too (I run Vista ultimate 64). But there are problems and the biggest one being that it is not officially supported in Vista. The problems will only get bigger as Liquid stays the same and the hardware advances. Nothing you can do about it. 

I don´t want to "do" anything about it, I just want to get one thing clear, now that you are starting to talk about "not officially supported" and changing subject from the four cores.

You told the other users that Liquid wasn´t able to use all four cores although you knew all the time that it wasn´t the truth and if I hadn´t corrected you, those users had still believed you.

So, you agree with me that liquid is able to use all four cores, that was what I wanted to hear.

merry christmas

 

It DOESN'T use all 4 cores. Vista is splitting up the work across the 4 cores. It has little to do with Liquid. Vista will do this with any non multi core application, including studio. In other words all 4 cores are not being used independently and at the same time. Instead 2 cores are being used ALTERNATIVELY. The switching back and forth however takes place  much faster than task manager can pick up on it.
 

You can't split a single thread of execution between cores so in order for all 4 cores to be active, there must be at least 4 threads of execution active. A single process has at least one thread. You could have four single-threaded processes running at 100% each and Vista could distribute them across all four cores. You could also have a single process running with 4 threads of execution and provided the threads are'nt blocking on each other, I suppose they could each be running on one of the four cores.

Liquid is actually a multi-threaded application running across more than one process so the way the OS distributes these threads has more to do with 'who's waiting for who' in the kernel's execution scheduler. We've been told that Liquid does not make optimal use of more than two cores, but that doesn't mean that it can't run across all four (or more), it just means that the way different parts of Liquid wait for each other is not optimized for more than two cores and hence, there is more waiting for things like disk I/O than there could be (with further optimization).

Time to get back to editing...

Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year

Just made a test in AE CS3, exported hd media to a wmv hd file, the cpu usage was about the same, the time for creating the file was about the same, it is one pass encoding in AE CS3 as in liquid and the readymade files look about the same, real nice both of them, can´t tell the difference between them.

So the old horse still does a very nice work compared to the new one.

 

salexander:

You can't split a single thread of execution between cores so in order for all 4 cores to be active, there must be at least 4 threads of execution active.

 

 

Threads don't get split and you DON'T need 4 threads to make all 4 cores APPEAR to be working as one (I say "appears" because that'e the way task manager presents it only because it's too slow to adjust to the switching speed of the cores). The thread ALTERNATES between cores. One set of cores is on while the other is off, then it alternates. The changes occurs many times per second. This is why a non multi core app will never work at 100% workload on a 4 core processor. This is true for all non multi core apps. Even a single core app will LOOK like it's being used by all 4 cores...it is not. In fact a single core app will never reach more than about 30% workload (25% plus a little for switching and such). Each core is being used for 1/4 of the time and is switching from core to core many times per second.

 

On a true multi core app like Vegas you will reach 100% load in the work that you do because all 4 cores are on and being used at the same time. The work will be completed in almost exactly 1/2 the time as with a dual core. With a non multi core app, an app for dual cores for example, will accomplish the work in roughly the same time with a 4 core, as on a dual core.

 

I am sorry to disappoint, but Liquid is not a true multi core (4 core) app and does not render with all 4 cores, in the sense that you are thinking anyway. 

mjolnarn:

Just wanted to show a screenshot, rendering Hd media in Vista 64.

Something seriously wrong here. You are one that swore up and down that you should NEVER do HD on Vista 64. It won't work you have said over and over again telling people I was wrong. You have now contradicted yourself totally.

And Bob is totally right, the quad core usage you are seeing is as a result of thread swapping at the processor level  not multithreading which is much more efficient. It might be using a lot of cpu on each core but a great deal of the time is spent in context switching on the processor core which is inefficent use of clock cycles as any good developer knows. Vista will do it's best to make use of the available resources but an app with true syncronized multithreading capability across the 4 cores (and soon to be commonly 8) will outperform every time.

LewS:

These discussions serve no purpose.

I disagree. It is important that the user base feels like the company has a plan for the product they use. While some may be happy using old technology; many of us are not. The current version of Liquid does NOT meet all of my needs (and or desires). Yes, I can make videos with it but I can't do the type of things I would like to do as efficiently as I would like. It's also important that the user base believes that their needs are being considered. Based on the lack of a plan from Pinnacle, and the fact that we've been down this road before, it's hard to have any faith that they will do the right thing. I don't think anyone is looking for specifics but a general plan would be greatly welcomed.

LewS:

If you want some idea of what the future will be, look again at Jan Piros opening remarks at Liquid Immersion. That is Liquid's future.

Not very comforting if you ask me.

Standard answer: Lets wait and see...
Standard result: Users motivated to look elsewhere for answers...

bigrock:

Something seriously wrong here. You are one that swore up and down that you should NEVER do HD on Vista 64. It won't work you have said over and over again telling people I was wrong. You have now contradicted yourself totally.

You are most welcome to open up a thread at the editing subforum about editing hd with Vista 64 and liquid, that is, if you are editing and not just only building machines.

I have been waiting for you for the last 3 months ....

video777:

I disagree. It is important that the user base feels like the company has a plan for the product they use. While some may be happy using old technology; many of us are not. The current version of Liquid does NOT meet all of my needs (and or desires). Yes, I can make videos with it but I can't do the type of things I would like to do as efficiently as I would like. It's also important that the user base believes that their needs are being considered. Based on the lack of a plan from Pinnacle, and the fact that we've been down this road before, it's hard to have any faith that they will do the right thing. I don't think anyone is looking for specifics but a general plan would be greatly welcomed.

LewS:

If you want some idea of what the future will be, look again at Jan Piros opening remarks at Liquid Immersion. That is Liquid's future.

Not very comforting if you ask me.

Allen... you want a plan... Piros gave you a plan... you just don't like it.  He spells out a new vision for the next generation of Liquid.  If that plan doesn't meet your needs then find another product!  Then you tan take all those efficiencies you get with the new NLE and flush them right down the toilet because you are going to be spending even more time learning how to use your new super tool!  That's just my opinion of course.

BobSanders:

salexander:

You can't split a single thread of execution between cores so in order for all 4 cores to be active, there must be at least 4 threads of execution active.

 

 

Threads don't get split and you DON'T need 4 threads to make all 4 cores APPEAR to be working as one (I say "appears" because that'e the way task manager presents it only because it's too slow to adjust to the switching speed of the cores). The thread ALTERNATES between cores. One set of cores is on while the other is off, then it alternates. The changes occurs many times per second. This is why a non multi core app will never work at 100% workload on a 4 core processor. This is true for all non multi core apps. Even a single core app will LOOK like it's being used by all 4 cores...it is not. In fact a single core app will never reach more than about 30% workload (25% plus a little for switching and such). Each core is being used for 1/4 of the time and is switching from core to core many times per second.

 

On a true multi core app like Vegas you will reach 100% load in the work that you do because all 4 cores are on and being used at the same time. The work will be completed in almost exactly 1/2 the time as with a dual core. With a non multi core app, an app for dual cores for example, will accomplish the work in roughly the same time with a 4 core, as on a dual core.

 

I am sorry to disappoint, but Liquid is not a true multi core (4 core) app and does not render with all 4 cores, in the sense that you are thinking anyway. 

 

I do have to agree here.  I wrote an encoding program that is only single threaded.  For a test at work we were encoding on a 4 core xeon system with one instance and it took X amount of time to render our clips.  Then we opened 4 copies of the encoding tool and ran all four at the same time and it still took X amount of time.  No faster or slower with the exception of a little overhead due to the fact that I couldn't click start on all four at the same time.  In the case of just running one copy of the program there was no extra speed gain which means it was only running as fast as what one core would do.

With that said however there is still an advantage to having 4 cores.

1.  Your cores do not peak out as much.  While 4 cores running at a reduced speed may not be faster it gives a lot more overhead for working in more then one program at a time.  TDKPro and HFX are both external programs not to mention any other tools you may use for encoding or graphic design.  With 4 cores you could run Photoshop or Gimp while running Liquid and you shouldn't notice too much of a slow down.

2.  Graphic design.  If you do a lot of graphics design or animation for your projects then chances are those programs will use the 4 cores.

3.  3rd party video encoders.  As much as I love Liquid it tends to be a little weak when it comes to encoding video.  There are encoders out there that are not only higher quality but faster as well.  Most of these special encoders will use the 4 cores.  In the world of video it is mostly rendering and encoding that need the horse power and not so much the actual editing.

4.  Other then rendering and encoding how is 4 cores going to really make a huge editing difference in Liquid?  A NLE is supposed to edit video.  All the other fancy stuff is gravy.  Liquid already has the meat it needs for editing functions.  Sure it would be nice to render FX faster but it isn't the end of the world either.  The way I look at it Liquid will never get any slower then it is right now.  If it is fun and smooth to edit with right now why does that have to change?

I did a bit of research on this one. It's true that a single thread can move between cores, but this is simply due to the scheduler and load-balancing algorithms. I think we all agree that a single thread can only run on one core at any one time. So, the most a single threaded application could use on a quad-core setup is 25% CPU (plus some overhead).

Could an application written to use 2 threads utilize approximately 50% of the CPU? Presumably. We start to get into thread priorities and I/O bottlenecks, etc. There's no doubt when I look at CPU loading by Liquid that it is underutilizing the CPUs. This was true on my 3.2 GHz HT machine, my 2.4GHz Core2Duo and now on my Core2Quad. It's as if Liquid throttles itself (intentionally limiting its use of the CPU).

I agree with Tom's assessment that the 3rd party encoders and renderers are where you really want the 4 cores in use (TmpGEnc does this for MPEG-2 encoding as do most of the 3D modeling applications these days). I also enjoy being able to run multiple applications along side Liquid. This is where the Quad-core really comes in handy.

And for the record, Bob, you didn't disappoint me regarding Liquid's inability to utilize the full potential of a Quad-core system, so no need to be sorry

We did some experimenting with this a while ago. It appears (and I want to stress the word "appears") that Liquid will start up one thread per CPU (or core) when rendering the Classic filters and transitions, and some (if not all) of the CPU based effects. This was evaluated looking solely at CPU performance while monitoring the render progress bars in Liquid (so no, I did not take the time to get out the thread monitoring tools and see what's really happening under the covers). What we did note is that if you turn off rendering, add a number of Classic effects, and then turn rendering back on, that multiple effects render simultaneously, and that the number of renders bars that progress at full speed is the same as the number of CPUs or cores - 1 (so on a dual-core or dual-processor, 2 effects render simultaneously, but only 1 renders at full speed; on a quad processor 3 render at full speed and 1 renders slowly). The reason for one render running slowly is that the user interface requires processing in order to display the progress meters, and it appears that this shares the CPU with one of the renders. Nothing else in Liquid appears to be multi-threaded.

If you've got a quad processor, you can try and replicate the test as follows:

1. Add a clip to the timeline and split it into 8 parts (or add 8 separate clips). You want the clips to be long enough to be able to watch the progress meters (so perhaps 30 seconds - 1 minute per clip max.)
2. Turn off background rendering.
3. Add a Classic clip effect to each clip. I tested by changing the size of each clip using the classic 2D editor.
4. Turn background rendering back on. 
   

You should see 4 clips rendering simultaneously, one slower than the others. As each clip finishes, a new clip starts rendering. All 4 cores should be running as well. For performance checks, repeat the experiment with rendering only a single clip at a time. If the first clip rendered in 10 seconds the first time, it should still take 10 seconds if rendered by itself. When you get to the clips that rendered slowly when done simultaneously, you should now see them rendering at full speed (it doesn't have to share a processor with the UI).

Give it a try, and post your results. I'm interested in seeing if this is a repeatable experiment.
 

There is an awful lot of experience and knowledge contributing to this thread and at the risk of incurring the wrath of Andy Browne (for hi-jacking a thread - "Get your own thread, buddy!"), it would help me considerably if all this knowledge could be channelled to help my own quandary.

1. Seems to me there is little point in me speculating about what may be available in the future re editing software (eg NextGen) because I may go under a bus tomorrow whence I won't need it and I have not enough foresight to specify what should be available in the future - Liquid does not bring me income and it is for those who rely on it for a living, to plot the way forward. So I say to Allen Pilgrim (Video777), if Liquid does not meet your needs, you would be wise to buy something that does. For myself, if NextGen does what I want when it is available and it is at a price that I can afford, I'll buy it. As for specifying the product, you have the knowledge.

2. I have been greatly impressed with the quality of the HV20 HD clips shown by Sef and Timay and I would like one of those (boys toys, probably!). Having done a search, there seems to be little (or no) advice about the necessary hardware to edit HD footage - yes, it says in the specs for Studio and Liquid that hyperthreading is a requirement, but can I hyperthread the hardware that I have - and how do I do it? The knowledgebase does not tell me! Do I need to change my PC? Should it be dual-core or quad-core?

3. Mistakenly, I believed that with HD would become a world-standard where we would all be 'singing from the same hymn sheet' (this is a British expression that has nothing to do with religion) but it appears that there are still variations in HD - why? and why does everyone, well many, insist on 24p? Wikipedia does not tell me these things!

It seems to me that when I ask something in an e-mail, people only answer the bits that they wish to answer, or have the knowledge to answer, or don't answer because they think that I am a total numpty for asking such facile questions, or just, that they think that I am a total numpty full-stop!

But how do you learn if you don't know?

 

Personally speaking I think all the talk of Liquid's future and a NextGen actually even occurring is all rather horse before the cart. Until the new CEO says there will be a NextGen, there won't be. It's not a good sign that most of what J.Piros discussed in his speech has not come to pass. I haven't seen anything official on a Media Composer offer (has anyone), these focus groups are nowhere to be seen. It's been what 3 months since that speech, and I think the only promise delivered on was the free Studio 11 for attendees. Now I assume that the intent that was expressed there was honest and upfront but I would also have to guess that all new product plans inside the company are subject to change and approval of the new CEO. I firmly believe we will see a patch for the new card issues but beyond that I think it is much more prudent to take a wait and see approach, little if anything has any firmness to it at this point. Nextgen may or may not happen. If your business plan can't deal with this uncertainty and unknown time plan then you know what you need to do.

Alan,

since you mentioned my name, I will comment:

questions that arise are often answered in the documentation. But where to look for it?

And if you read in the manual, it does not mirror the expectations and you skip the answer.

If you would act like me, then you come to this marvelous Webboard and your questions, your concerns.

There are no stupid questions. Only answers can be stupid.

And what the HV20 concerns: go for it. If you have a system that meets the specs in the manual, it will work.

Oh boy: I forget the problems with certain kind of graphics cards and Vista, not supported yet.

So ask here, give us info, very experienced users will answer and you will see: it will work.

NextGen is like the car that you will buy in maybe 2012. You wat to know what it will look like and know the specs? I don't know them.

alan wells:

There is an awful lot of experience and knowledge contributing to this thread and at the risk of incurring the wrath of Andy Browne (for hi-jacking a thread - "Get your own thread, buddy!"), it would help me considerably if all this knowledge could be channelled to help my own quandary.

1. Seems to me there is little point in me speculating about what may be available in the future re editing software (eg NextGen) because I may go under a bus tomorrow whence I won't need it and I have not enough foresight to specify what should be available in the future - Liquid does not bring me income and it is for those who rely on it for a living, to plot the way forward.

Speculating about what may be available in the future is rather pointless. The point of which has been made before (and probably will be again). However, specifying what you'd like to see in a future product is useful, and there's even a thread for it here.

The choice is simple, and it's not changed since the first time it was put forth: if you have to have something that Liquid doesn't have, and you can find it in something else, then it's time for you to move on to something else. Ranting about the fact the Liquid doesn't have whatever you need isn't particularly useful, either for those complaining or those who are reading about it. Whether or not that thing may be in a future product is also less than useful, as any new product is a considerable time frame away, and your priorities may change by then.

2. I have been greatly impressed with the quality of the HV20 HD clips shown by Sef and Timay and I would like one of those (boys toys, probably!). Having done a search, there seems to be little (or no) advice about the necessary hardware to edit HD footage - yes, it says in the specs for Studio and Liquid that hyperthreading is a requirement, but can I hyperthread the hardware that I have - and how do I do it? The knowledgebase does not tell me! Do I need to change my PC? Should it be dual-core or quad-core?

Unless you're buying a turnkey system (where the hardware and software is specifically tested for working together), then it's expected that you have some knowledge about your system. There is a minimum requirements list for Liquid and HD, and that's a dual-core or dual-processor system with P4-3.2Ghz (or equivalent) processors, PCI-Express DX9 compliant video card with 256Mb video memory, and 2Gb of system memory. SATA or SCSI drives are highly recommended (and for HD, really are a requirement, along with RAID). If you're unsure of what this all means, then you need to talk with a consultant (and if you want to PM me with details, I'd be happy to go over the nitty gritty about your system; let's just take it offline from the forums).

3. Mistakenly, I believed that with HD would become a world-standard where we would all be 'singing from the same hymn sheet' (this is a British expression that has nothing to do with religion) but it appears that there are still variations in HD - why? and why does everyone, well many, insist on 24p? Wikipedia does not tell me these things!

Why are there more than 1 HD formats? Because the hardware vendors want to control their markets, and each one will tell you that their's are superior. As 24p, because this is a 1-to-1 compatible format for transfer to and from film, and taping in 24p imparts a somewhat film-like ambiance on the work. Personally, I think nothing looks like film except film, but that's me.

It seems to me that when I ask something in an e-mail, people only answer the bits that they wish to answer, or have the knowledge to answer, or don't answer because they think that I am a total numpty for asking such facile questions, or just, that they think that I am a total numpty full-stop!

People tend to answer the parts that they are comfortable answering, and tend to ignore things they don't know or are not in their current point of interest. This is human nature (or something like that).

But how do you learn if you don't know?

You just did it.

Agreeing with Andy Browne, Alan, and others we did make that move a few weeks back and confirmed over these last few days that the "next gen" is a thing of the distant future which is beyond our resolve schedule.  We have many 1080i 4:2:2 projects coming down the pike and with our experience with these last version updates after Liquid 6x which gave us a tumbled run for the money, we have decided to try out some things that are more HD and advanced "easy crunching" native editing applications.

The one application we tried is equally complicated like the Liquid application but with the ability to run any video format in multi-cam which is a feature set we have been searching for and thus when it was clear that Liquid wasn't going to handle our HD 4:2:2 this multi-format multi-cam was a bonus let alone the way the color corrector will allow spot and/or area correction which we often find to be an issue.

In short as some have suggested it is important to keep looking when things start to "not work" or "not fit" all ones needs and in doing so sometimes things look brighter than expected although as with most all of us, we don't like change.  However, in the defense of progress, sometimes change is good, especially when the market is rapidly changing and expanding into newer, more advanced, protocol and technologies.  After all, we're in a technology business and there is NO QUESTION that being there means one will HAVE TO CHANGE or be replaced.  My oldest son stated it so amply, "if it's technology, then next year it will have to be different or it will be an archive."  Look at cameras: BetaCAM, Sony was sure that the format would not be replaced by DV and thus wasn't interested in defining the specs until they realized that maybe they ought to take a look at it seriously by then Panasonic was busy marketing the product and captured the market . . OR . . unlike some believe, like P2, nearly every television station within a 100 miles of our studio (which encompasses about 8 million viewers) has either an HVX200 or HPX500 while most of the ground solid engineers said it wouldn't happen.

With technology one has to feed the product (with advancements, updates, and fixes) rapidly and efficiently or it dies . . plain and simple!  Technology products are hungry animals and not fed quickly become extinct.  They are big and cumbersome like dinosaurs but conversely are rising stars but seldom milk cows and in fact when they become milk cows, not fed produce a sour taste in the pallette of the user the latter of which results in loss of consumer/client goodwill.

It's evident that a "next gen" Liquid or "other" isn't in the forseeable near future, so the smartest thing for Avid/Pinnacle to do, is nurture the products client base carefully so that they will still be around for the "next gen" when it finally arrives.  However, for some the wait will be too long and accordinly can't wait.

Having been a responsible director for building three $60+ million business for the companies that employed me for market development, I was the first in our area to buy a cassette recorder while ALL my counterparts bought 8 tracks and the second to buy an audio editing computer with a CD burner (my son beat me to the punch) while all my competition was getting the latest and best cassette editors recorders.  Success isn't found it's made.  Success is developed not discovered.  One has to PUSH technology to make it happen, not follow it around becasue the one leading gets the BIG money while the followers make a living.  It's all about developement, marketing, and competitive service and spirit, not facts!  Facts are what Sony had with BetaMAX, but the inferior VHS won from marketing strategy and service.  They were everywhere and at the right price.  Microsoft is will to suffer financial gain per unit on Zune's and XBox360's in exchange for market postion and volume.  People used to laugh when our account would say in our board meeting, "when we calculate the cost of this new product that Dr D came up with, we're loosing $0.01 (a penny) a pound," but I used to say, "Oh yeah, but we're making it up on volume," which always brought down the house BUT the truth was we were.  On the cost factor alone calculated we lost but the fact that the process could pump out more with the same equipment and people, we ended up making $0.33 (33 pennies) a pound in profit when at 80% capacity (more profit at 100% . . ON . . 6.5 million pounds a month.  In the best of the hay days we made $22,000 for every $51,000 truckload which wasn't bad for a penny a pound calculated loss and eventually we owned 87% of the market which was again against everything that all the SMART techy's could calculate.

It's about service, service in the sale, service in the use, and service to assist the client to get a solution when the product doesn't work for the client.  The best solution is the one that not only makes a profit but more important has a satisifed client even in lost business because they will continue to look at our new product/service.

M$ has made a fortune on FREE updates by satisfying clients that the thing works and will for eons to come.

DStone:

We did some experimenting with this a while ago. It appears (and I want to stress the word "appears") that Liquid will start up one thread per CPU (or core) when rendering the Classic filters and transitions, and some (if not all) of the CPU based effects. This was evaluated looking solely at CPU performance while monitoring the render progress bars in Liquid (so no, I did not take the time to get out the thread monitoring tools and see what's really happening under the covers). What we did note is that if you turn off rendering, add a number of Classic effects, and then turn rendering back on, that multiple effects render simultaneously, and that the number of renders bars that progress at full speed is the same as the number of CPUs or cores - 1 (so on a dual-core or dual-processor, 2 effects render simultaneously, but only 1 renders at full speed; on a quad processor 3 render at full speed and 1 renders slowly). The reason for one render running slowly is that the user interface requires processing in order to display the progress meters, and it appears that this shares the CPU with one of the renders. Nothing else in Liquid appears to be multi-threaded.

If you've got a quad processor, you can try and replicate the test as follows:

1. Add a clip to the timeline and split it into 8 parts (or add 8 separate clips). You want the clips to be long enough to be able to watch the progress meters (so perhaps 30 seconds - 1 minute per clip max.)
2. Turn off background rendering.
3. Add a Classic clip effect to each clip. I tested by changing the size of each clip using the classic 2D editor.
4. Turn background rendering back on. 
   

You should see 4 clips rendering simultaneously, one slower than the others. As each clip finishes, a new clip starts rendering. All 4 cores should be running as well. For performance checks, repeat the experiment with rendering only a single clip at a time. If the first clip rendered in 10 seconds the first time, it should still take 10 seconds if rendered by itself. When you get to the clips that rendered slowly when done simultaneously, you should now see them rendering at full speed (it doesn't have to share a processor with the UI).

Give it a try, and post your results. I'm interested in seeing if this is a repeatable experiment.
 

 

This makes sense since when rendering effects it is really running the rendering as a copy of the engine for each thread.  For encoding however there is only one single task so it wouldn't make use of the 4 cores.

Liquid is kind of made up of a lot of bits and pieces and for rendering which is one of the two areas where you would really want a multicore system it seems to work pretty good.  It may not be perfect as Dave points out but it is better then nothing.

That leaves encoding as really the only weak area in Liquid in terms of multi threaded performance.  In my opinion like I said before the encoders in Liquid are pretty weak anyway so they need a lot more updates then just multi threading.  I still prefer to fuse my projects and then encode in the best encoder I can find.  This also means that even 6 years from now Liquid should work great as a NLE for me.  It will still cut video and all I need to do is update my 3rd party encoding tools.

To use an old English expression that won't get me barred from here, Blimey!

I'm finding this continual going on-and-on-and-on about the future of Liquid depressing.  Not because I'm especially bothered about the future of Liquid, but because of the regurgitation of the same stuff, which is becoming putrid.  AND forum members are even finding new STUFF to go on about in the name of "the future of Liquid".  I don't actually care how many corporations a person has built, and I care even less about how hyper-threading works in quad core systems with a non-quad core program and as for comparing Liquid to MS Windows ...... pleeeeease!

I take the view that this is a 90% jolly good product, that happens to be the one I have learned to use.  It would be wonderful if it were owned by a corporation that was really good at customer relations and communications, but its not (boy is it not).  It would be really good if the product were properly supported for emerging products, but its not.  I would love to feel confident that this is the NLE that I'll always use due to my certainty that this NLE would develop ar the right speed.  But I don't.

Liquid does a great job for me.  Having spent a lot of money on my existing cameras, I'm unlikely to change them for a few years, so Liquid will probably work for me until my customers start wanting discs in some format that Liquid won't generate. And that'll be a while away.  I can live with this.

What gets me down is all this nonsense written about "THE FUTURE OF LIQUID" and "NEXTGEN".  But hey, I feel better for just saying all this.  If only I could stop myself reading these threads and spend the time usefully on EDITING!

Happy New Year. LOL 

Well John, to continue that English style "blood good I say ole chop!"  :o)

I too am quite pleased with Liquid and continue to be on the projects that I can use it on and the reterich about the shortcomings of the product future wise is because many have said that the Avid/Pinnacle folks at the helm designing and driving the workforce "need" to hear what folks like, want, and don't care if it's not there and thus, for our group we've been totally satisfied with Liquid (except for the 7.x transitional burps) until we've begun embarking on a world that is calling us us to "do more" (hmmmm, it's that an Avid term?) and find that we sometimes can't and thus we just want to make our point clear and loud in hopes that the developer/designers are listening and recognize that the suggestions offered by this "good ole boy" is more than just an editor it is a business experience of years of business development because for one I am hopeful that Avid is here to stay in the "long term."  After all, remember anyone can be replaced . . ask IBM.