It looks as if Pinnacle's claims of faster FX render times are well founded. I've done a few tests that show a marked improvement for the more complex effects. I could see no improvement with simple stuff on my machine, but then it is only two cores and doesn't have a DX10 GPU card (or Vista)

Interesting is the fact that CPU usage between the two cores looks far more balanced, which probably holds up a lot of promise for the quad-core owners.

Using a 1 minute long, PAL, Standard Definition DV-AVI, here as some figures from a Athlon XP4600+x2 with 1GB of RAM

• AVI to DVD quality MPEG2 with Top right corner PIP applied
• no difference at 56secs
  
• 1 min AVI to MPEG2 with Old Film advanced, and Pan & Zoom, pan across preset applied -
• Studio 11, 2mins 55 secs, CPU usage around 60% on one core, 80% on the other.
• Studio 12, 1min 36 secs, CPU usage around 90% on both cores.

I have done other test, but the pattern persists - simple renders little or no improvement (bottle neck - my system?) - the more complex the FX, the greater the time saving.

 

Jeff,

Thanks for sharing the benchmarks.  That's very impressive.

Is Pinnacle building some credibility here?  Even if we don't yet have everything we want (extra video track...)

• It looks like they've fixed some functionality issues
  Volume handles
  Ability to edit menus without breaking existing links
• Possibly improved some stability/reliability
  Too soon to say for sure, but at least one good report so far where a project that failed in S11 rendered fine in S12
• New features as promised
  New plug-ins (for Ultimate)
  Master volume control
  Etc.
• Installs OK and plays nicer with older versions
  You can uninstall them without harming the new version (but I don't know if that's been confirmed in the field yet)
• Major rendering performance improvements
  Let's be honest, anythnig over a 10-15% improvement qualifies as a major improvement.
• And no disasters reported yet.

Gosh darn it... we just might have to say, "Well done, Pinnacle."  

Dennis

I'm just about to embark on a new project, something a bit different for me. Before I start, I'll delete V11 and see what happens!

You can't load S12 projects into S11, so I might as well burn my boats!

Good luck, and keep us posted.

Did you run the "wizard"?

Which Wizard? The content transfer one? If so, yes, but all I've got are some unlocked HFX transitions.

If not, is there one for deleting earlier versions? I was just going to do it in Windoze.

Jeff, Curious to see if rendering times improve with a 1440x1080 editing timeline to SD DVD output. Right now i'm about 1 Hour movie to 3 Hour render. Any help there will be a plus. 90% for dual cores sounds promising.

Jerome

Is that AVCHD? I don't have any HD sources other than starting a HD project and putting stills on the timeline. Would that do the trick?

188 Views in 14 hours. Pinning this up.

Its shaping up to be more like a popular TV series. Thanks for all your hard work and testing Jeff.

As far as I am concerned the key issue will be whether AVCHD footage, with trimming but no effects, will smart render. That will make a colossal difference, and will enable me to do everything in Studio 12 rather than having to resort to program X to have to get the job done simply but quickly. What worries me is that so far the Pinnacle people - who presumably know the answer - haven't commented on that question. (Though I realise they're not obliged to! - though in the next few days we're going to find out anyway when the first AVCHD-using purchasers who post here will reveal all).

Agreed OzP, that's a big one. AVCHD is going to be the main game.

Ah AVCHD....

Well I did just run as best a test as I could, not having a AVCHD camera, and not really having enough RAM to run AVCHD editing, and came to the conclusion that there is no smart render in S12.

This is what I did - please correct me if I've got something wrong and I'll try again.

In S12, I made some AVCHD footage by creating a 1440*1080i 25fps project, putting 1 minute of DV-AVI footage on the timeline and then Make Movie/Make Diisc/AVCHD Create disc but don't burn.

After 11 minutes (both cores pinned at 100%) I had a disc image that contained a 0000.m2ts file 120MB in size. I assume this is the same as you would get from a AVCHD camera?

So....

Start a new project (using the Set from first clip), put the m2ts file on the timeline. Try to play it. (Very Funny Joke Sony. It's worse than trying to edit SD material on a 200MhxMMX 128mb computer.)

Delete the aux files. Trim a frame off the end. Go through the same Make process again. Another 11 minutes.

Close 12, open 11, load the m2ts file into a new project, repeat the make as above. About 10 minutes, I think. Lost the will to live and forgot to stop the stopwatch.

Note I only have a 2-core (2.4MHz) 1GB ram (not the 1.5 specified) and a 7600 (512MB).

I may not have met the conditions to smart render and will try any other suggestions you guys might have, but that sounds like a conclusive no to smart render to me.

Sorry 

I'll try your test now StrawberryBob (if the wife doesn't drag me away)

 

Bob -

I saw no difference in rendering AVCHD to standard def DVD between 11 and 12, but my CPU was a 97% in both cases, so a quad core might be a different issue.

1 minute of AVCHD took just over 3 mins in both cases.

ADDED - tried a 1080i mpeg 2 file as well. 2 min 30secs for each...

jjn:

Is that AVCHD? I don't have any HD sources other than starting a HD project and putting stills on the timeline. Would that do the trick?

Jeff, That was HDV editing from HD tape. I use about 100 10Megpxl stills at the end of a 1 hour video with HFX Trans. and Pan & Zoom. The stills take the longest. I delete my render folder for a clean start. I do not re-encode entire movie. It writes frames at 12 per sec. I'm only getting 60 to 70% performance from my 3.0Ghz dual core.

I'm waiting for 12 to compare.

Hmmm, thanks for testing the AVCHD rendering times - I'll suspend judgment till it's totally clear from a test using camera-generated AVCHD (cores shouldn't matter - the other program does high speed renders of AVCHD on a 1.66gHz core 2 duo laptop - as no processing is happening it's essentially a copy operation).  However, I hope after touting 'native' high def processing they're not still rendering unchanged high def frames - that would either mean that in fact the data is being changed, which alarms me, or that their rendering code is highly inefficient and behind the competition.

If you have the webspace or a service that could host a file, how about uploading 30secs of AVCHD footage (I'm guessing that would be about 60Mb?) and I'll download and test it for you (Mark - how about you?)

(added - please don't try to email it to me as I use webmail)

Regarding smartrender, the resultant file would not only be generated at less than real time, like a mpeg2 smart render, but if no trimming had taken place, be exactly same size as the original? In all cases I've tried so far, they come out smaller, (or in one case larger)

My S12 is apparently at the airport at this end, so hopefully it will make it across town in the next 48 hours - then I can provide a full answer to all my own questions!  I think an upload will take forever, but thanks for the offer.

Bad news for AVCHD users - I've now installed S12 and render times of unchanged AVCHD footage, either to AVCHD DVD or standard def DVD, are unchanged.

Admittedly after only 20 minutes usage, some of which was spent fixing the problem that occurs when you have more than one soundcard, I get the impression that there is nothing in this release specifically for AVCHD users, and if you want fast rendering, you'll have to continue using a program that provides that feature.  The comparison with product X is that it takes 20 seconds to render 2 minutes of AVCHD, compared with Studio 12's 8'23".

 

I would also question whether the AVCHD renders are creating footage that is identical to the original, given the amount of processing that is going on in order to create what should simply be a copy.

 

If anyone at Pinnacle can point to a setting that I've got wrong, or any other user has a different experience, I'd be glad to hear it, but I find this very disappointing. Unless AVCHD smart render is going to be a point release down the track, we've a long wait to see this basic feature in Studio 13 - hopefully.

 

Render times with a Q9300 system under XP with 2GB of memory and a video card based on Nvidia GeFroce 8600GT - with either Studio 11 or Studio 12 -

AVCHD to AVCHD - about 6 frames per second

AVCHD to normal DVD - about 16 frames per second

AVCHD footage comes from a Panasonic SD5 camcorder.

Looks about twice as long as HDV render.

Any difference in render time between AVCHD in 1920x1080 at =>13 mbps versus a 1440x1080 at =< that bitrate?  How much does the AVCHD render or burn time of "Brand X" (named after an ancient pyromaniac) slow down if the project has added sound, music, transitions, and so forth?  If any such common enhancements narrow the render times dramatically, perhaps there is less reason to sigh.

A basic question I have is whether Studio 12 can burn HD discs whose menus and playback is successful and loss-less on a BD, PC, or MAC machine other than the user's.  I have a half dozen or so Studio 11 projects sourced in AVCHD files and set up for SD burn with menus.  Test #1 would be to see if the upgrade lets me burn in HD to a conventional DVD or a BD with the existing menus.  Test #2 would be to learn whether a Studio project, once burned to a 4.7 gb disc size or medium, cannot be instructed to burn to a larger one (a DVD-DL or a BD) without triggering a "disc full" message that blocks the burn (see the May-08 posting by Voxmagna).  This is a raw nuisance to anyone who burns first SD, then HD.

I marvel that some Aussies and Brits got Studio 12 before some US folks who ordered the upgrade disc the first day Studio 12 was announced.  Meanwhile, there is no other way to know how it works, except by the experiences they share.  So thanks.

I marvel that some Aussies and Brits got Studio 12 before some US folks who ordered the upgrade disc the first day Studio 12 was announced.

We downloaded it. If you want to download it, you can too - and could have done so before it was available in Europe. The UK people who ordered the upgrade disc are still waiting.

I don't see any option to download the upgrade, but I'm not really in any hurry ... except I do want to play with the Montage feature.

It will be interesting to see if it makes better use of my quad-core, and faster rendering would be nice, but mine is pretty good already.

AVCHD still doesn't interest me. It seems that using HDV instead of AVCHD is almost all "upside" ... as good or better quality, easier editing, etc. File size is a bit larger, but as cheap as storage is, I don't really care.

The only time I might use AVCHD is for a final output, when I get around to buying a BluRay player.

B

 

bhurst:

HDV instead of AVCHD is almost all "upside"

100% true if you work with a slower PC without a dedicated graphics card. 

90% true, provided there is no loss of quality if one squeezes HDV to AVCHD to fit 45 minutes of HD video onto an ultra-cheap DVD-SL.

80% true, if in addition one is content with 1440x1080i, since I read that there is no 1920x1080i HDV.

70% true, if furthermore there is no interest in 5 channel sound.

60% true if the videocam uses tape or has a big hard drive, in other words a bigger, heavier rig.

50% true if you don't care about non-linear or random access to your clips for in-camera preview, selectio, or deletion.

40% true if on-line sharing of medium-def videos continues to shift towards an h.264 / avchd format.

30% true if Studio 12.1 or Studio 13 Studio 14  Studio 15 incorporates "smart rendering."

 

bhurst:

I don't see any option to download the upgrade, but I'm not really in any hurry ... except I do want to play with the Montage feature.

See here

JKoch:

bhurst:

HDV instead of AVCHD is almost all "upside"

100% true if you work with a slower PC without a dedicated graphics card. 

• I have quad core processor and a graphics card with 768MB memory, and AVCHD is still a pain to edit.
  

90% true, provided there is no loss of quality if one squeezes HDV to AVCHD to fit 45 minutes of HD video onto an ultra-cheap DVD-SL.

• Most of my videos are short, so I always render and burn at max quality. But the HDV video is better quality to begin with than today's AVCHD quality. Maybe that will change in the future, who knows. 

80% true, if in addition one is content with 1440x1080i, since I read that there is no 1920x1080i HDV.

• I guess when the majority of people have HD TVs that will make a different, but my experience has been that 1440x1080i at 25Mbps looks better than 1920x1080i at 9-13 Mbps, and most PCs can't play the latter, much less edit it.
  

70% true, if furthermore there is no interest in 5 channel sound.

•  There is nothing prevent me from using 5-channel sound ?????
  

60% true if the videocam uses tape or has a big hard drive, in other words a bigger, heavier rig.

• My camera is larger than most. I don't care. I am interested in quality and flexibility. That's why God made tripods 

50% true if you don't care about non-linear or random access to your clips for in-camera preview, selectio, or deletion.

• When I'm shooting, I shooting. I occasionally preview something, but I have no need for random access or in-camera editing features. 

40% true if on-line sharing of medium-def videos continues to shift towards an h.264 / avchd format.

•   People don't share raw video, for the most part, so when you edit you can render to any format you want.
  

30% true if Studio 12.1 or Studio 13 Studio 14  Studio 15 incorporates "smart rendering."

• All we can do is deal with today. Who knows what tomorrow will bring. (Is that a line from Cast Away?   )
  

Thanks!

I've already done the "pre-order" thing, so I guess I'll just wait. It will get here soon, and I don't have time to "play" right now anyway.

B