My laptop aint overly sluggish but 16hrs to encode 16mins of 4k/100 in D-Log 10bit, yeah, i doubt i will be using those specs again for a while lol

How fast are yours? I take it I need a decent gaming laptop perhaps? won't be for a good while yet mind, perhaps when this jalopy dies...

FYI, laptop specs are...

• HP Envy i5 converted to i7
• 16gb
• Onboard intel GPU shared 2gb
• Nvidia Geforce 840M 2gb / 8GB shared (19gb total)
• 2x 1tb SSD
• Windows 11
• Premiere Pro 2024
  

The GPU only hit about 30-50% and the CPU 100%

----------

osmonauta Posted at 1-16 07:08
What are you encoding to, 264 or 265? Either way, it looks like the GeForce 840M does not support hardware encode/decode neither for h264 nor h265. I imagine getting dedicated hardware support would help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_NVDEC

Thanks, at that time i was doing .h265, when i switched to .h264, encoded it at 1080/60fps it was 1.5hrs
I don't think i can upgrade the dedicated GPU on this, everything else but that

----------

Can't beat a tower system for serious video editing, mine is as you suggest basically a good gaming machine - a fast video card is now very important for render stage.
Almost any video will render out at least as fast as it would play though one thing really hammers them is any form of noise reduction best done only where absolutely necessary

osmonauta Posted at 1-16 08:25
Yeah, I don't ever re-encode a 265 to 265 because I'd need another lifetime. But in 2 years time my MacBook Pro will turn 10 years and I might upgrade to a new one which I believe already has dedicated HW support for both.

Thank you, so 10bit D-Log is deffo out then or do you mean that you do use .h265 to get the 10bit but then re-encode to .h264?
I hear good things for Mac's and editing but i stay away from Apple stuff

4wd Posted at 1-16 12:47
Can't beat a tower system for serious video editing, mine is as you suggest basically a good gaming machine - a fast video card is now very important for render stage.
Almost any video will render out at least as fast as it would play though one thing really hammers them is any form of noise reduction best done only where absolutely necessary

I think I backed off sharpness by -2 and maybe noise by -1 or -2, I can't remember now (it was only 2 days ago lol), you don't mean that though, do you? Oh wait, no it cant be that as image adj was disabled in non-Pro.

I have an older AMD tower that i used to do my editing on but i stopped using it as the power consumption wasn't great, it was dated about 5 years back so i doubt it could handle .h265 or 10bit, and i know i had to use proxies for 4k so yeah, no, thats deffo out lol I would need to either start again (built myself) or find pre-built used one.

Without going stupid, what should i look for

----------

osmonauta Posted at 1-16 19:11
I shoot in 1080p which gives me 30Mbits in good lighting. Then I use HandBrake to convert it to H264 at 15Mbit. This effectively cuts the size down to half and still gives me really good quality on a retina display and saves half the storage on my external drive(s).

Thank you, much appreciated, looks like i have some experimenting to do to find the right balance re fps / quality / battery,  although, i supposed i could make sure i change the battery half way, that would eliminate 1 variable.

I had a similar problem and fixed it easily.

My PC took 80 minutes to render a 6-minute clip but it was because I was recording in HEVC. I changed it to H.264 and not only did a 6-minute clip render in 12 minutes but it looked much better, having a bitrate of 115 compared to 100 for HEVC.

I understand that H.264 also reduces the chance of overheating because it's easier on the camera. The only drawback is the files are about 3 to 5GB bigger per hour.

1stDrive Posted at 1-17 03:13
I had a similar problem and fixed it easily.

My PC took 80 minutes to render a 6-minute clip but it was because I was recording in HEVC. I changed it to H.264 and not only did a 6-minute clip render in 12 minutes but it looked much better, having a bitrate of 115 compared to 100 for HEVC.

Yah, that would make sense being bigger but im not sure why it was better quality, i thought 265 had a higher bitrate, probably wrong mind lol nope i got it wrong, it offers a lower bitrate at a higher quality.

I can recommend getting a gaming PC with a good GPU (graphic card). But then you need to buy a completly new computer and that cost easily £2000.

normally 16 minutes  should be  not that long try a different editor but I know nutting

johansenfoto Posted at 1-17 04:27
I can recommend getting a gaming PC with a good GPU (graphic card). But then you need to buy a completly new computer and that cost easily £2000.

Thanks, yeah, they are not that cheap, i reckon 2nd hand will have to do but not yet, i will have to grin and bare it for now...

Fishycomics Posted at 1-17 04:36
normally 16 minutes  should be  not that long try a different editor but I know nutting

Just out of interest, how long do you think 16 minutes should be?

I think youre actually on about how long it takes to encode.

I am using Adobe Premiere Pro 2024. The 16 minutes that would take 16hrs was because it was in 4k, 100fps, 10bit, .h265, pretty much everything that will only increase the encoding time was in play because when i backed it off to 1080/60fps, .h264, the same 16 minutes dropped to about 1.5hrs.

The other bad thing is, i cannot use the LRF files as proxies, i have to encode new proxies because the LRF files are in 25fps, going to have to see if there is a way around it because its not as simple as using Shutter Encode and adjusting the FPS, all that does is speed up the sound considerably I must be missing something. Going to have to hit up reddit and see if anyone can help on there.

not sure if you are using other editors what I said to try another editor

Fishycomics Posted at 1-18 04:12
not sure if you are using other editors what I said to try another editor

I have shutter encode but IMO Adobe Premiere is a pretty decent editor, its not the editor though, its down to my machine and the quality of the video. I also use Media Encoder to do the work, that way it doesn't tie up PP.

Different editors do encoding faster/slower.
I can recommend Davinci Resolve Studio, since you pay for it once and have it forever. Also used in Hollywood along with Avid.

Hope you  find a solution to resolve  your editing

johansenfoto Posted at 1-18 07:17
Different editors do encoding faster/slower.
I can recommend Davinci Resolve Studio, since you pay for it once and have it forever. Also used in Hollywood along with Avid.

Problem there is, i have already have Adobe 2024 products (not subscription based) and it would mean learning all over again. Whilst it may vary between different editors, the difference is not going to be vast, certainly not enough to warrant forking out for another editor to probably learn its actually slower or that if it is actually faster, its not actually significant to warrant the money spent.

Can you assure me that Davinci is actually faster and if so by how much?

That said, i am downloading Davinci now and I will test the 2 later on and see

What Im seeing here is that the hardware you're using seems to not having accelerator for H265 and only H264.
from that activity of the task manager, the CPU is the culprit trying to encode it to H265 while the GPU is decoding on the fly for encode.

Seems to be both GPU and CPU does not have H265 accellerator and can only do H264, so the software needs to do it on CPU software method of encoding to H265 which your PC is currently doing. with 1080p H265 footage you got luck since your CPU can at least handle it a bit better, but 4K footage encode you're out of luck

so yeah I'm betting it's an hardware problem. too slow, buy a better PC that has H265 accelerator or beefier CPU (at least a higher end gaming CPU), GPU wont gonna change that much now a days even just a RTX 3060 is good enough for a simple vlog style 4K video editing these days.

Eikyu Posted at 1-19 03:12
What Im seeing here is that the hardware you're using seems to not having accelerator for H265 and only H264.
from that activity of the task manager, the CPU is the culprit trying to encode it to H265 while the GPU is decoding on the fly for encode.

Thank you, this is also my thougths, i don't think its the editor, its deffo my laptop, i bet my old PC tower would be better but i cant be asked to set all that up again, i will have to wait it out till i can afford another laptop.

This is the reason i asked on here how fast does it take other members and what hardware/laptop would i need

Thanks again

johansenfoto Posted at 1-18 07:17
Different editors do encoding faster/slower.
I can recommend Davinci Resolve Studio, since you pay for it once and have it forever. Also used in Hollywood along with Avid.

Here ya go, i did my testing using a nearly 6 min video, I let them run for about 5min 20s just to let it settle. The clips have not been edited, straight from SD card condition.

Davinci
Original 4k/100 h.265 encoding to YouTube 1080/100 h.264  - Estimated Time left 36.55mins



Adobe Media Encoder
Original 4k/100 h.265 encoding to YouTube 1080/100 h.264  - Estimated Time left 37.14mins



These are Estimated times but like i said, i let them run for a while so the timing could settle
Theres not a lot in it, Davinci used a little less resources but thats because with Adobe, Premiere Pro was also still running whilst ME was encoding.

It's as i suspected, there's not a lot in it at all, i suppose i could let them run and do an accurate time but i ain't sitting at the lappy watching paint dry lol

I reckon editing the files could produce different results as but i ain't gonna go through all that either, it would be a pain, plus not knowing how far to take it, do i add transitions, colour coding etc, hence leaving them original clips.

----------

osmonauta Posted at 1-19 21:31
Is this your normal workflow or is it just for the pure joy of testing? If your final output is 1080 why RU filming in 4k? I mean, if the bottleneck is your hardware, you could just shoot everything in 1080 and save yourself the headache of waiting for nearly a day to render a few minutes of footage. If, however, filming in 4k is an absolute must then forking out some cash for a better HW might worth it.

You could also go with 2.7k (the best of both worlds), better than 1080 but not as much of a resource hog as 4k.

Hi, I normally film in 1080 with my drones but that was purely so i could use zoom, i ain't no cinetogger thats for sure. Whenever i did film in 4k i would use proxies, but never has it taken 16hrs to encode the final. The much higher fps, 10bit and h.265 is just a no go for launch on this old hardware, i knew it was going to be a struggle hence using proxies from the get go but i didn't realise how much of a struggle, i mean, we are talking 1 hour to encode 1 minute, thats BAD lol.

To be honest, i wanted to see what this camera could do.

The above post was just a test using a clip from the same (16min) footage just to show the other member that changing to a different editor wouldnt make any difference.

What if i do 4k/60 D-log (not 10bit) and h.264, that minimise the encoding time a fair bit shouldn't it?, i don't mind a couple of hours or so, its the 16hrs, thats just way too much. Or should i just stick with 1080? at least if i did, i could put the fps back to 100 or more, slo-mo is needed for kayaking, certainly for me when i c0ck up lol

Bashy Posted at 1-19 19:17
Here ya go, i did my testing using a nearly 6 min video, I let them run for about 5min 20s just to let it settle. The clips have not been edited, straight from SD card condition.

Davinci

If you use an encoder that uses GPU for export, it can easily be twice or even faster than using the CPU.
Free version or DR doesn't use GPU for export, not sure if premierer uses GPU at all.

johansenfoto Posted at 1-20 06:04
If you use an encoder that uses GPU for export, it can easily be twice or even faster than using the CPU.
Free version or DR doesn't use GPU for export, not sure if premierer uses GPU at all.

FYI, DR is the full version...
I made sure that both were using the same CPU / GPU, had one been CPU only then I wouldn't have bothered, it looks like DR encodes using both, PP on its own does not use the GPU but ME does so that was lucky in that respect.

I'm not sure if the both use the exact same settings for encoding for YT, I would like to think so, all in all, it was a good test.

Bashy Posted at 1-20 10:34
FYI, DR is the full version...
I made sure that both were using the same CPU / GPU, had one been CPU only then I wouldn't have bothered, it looks like DR encodes using both, PP on its own does not use the GPU but ME does so that was lucky in that respect.

Ah okay.
But I see your GPU is not supported by DR, but if you didn't had a laptop it would be faster as long as it have Nvidia gfx-card.

The main problem is the 840M, it’s simply no good for editing, I don’t think it’s fully supported for GPU based rendering.
An 840 indicates that the i7 will be a fair few gens old too getting to near 10 year old Hardware. For modern 4k 100mbit+ video even with 264 would be a definite long haul job, HEVC even more so.
I myself have a Ryzen 5800x and an RTX 3060ti and while its pretty good for editing I have to admit I haven’t edited a video on it for a long time, in fact I think I think it was a 2800x system last time it did any video work, with the speed that the M chip iPad Pros render at I can’t see me going back to editing on the windows machine any time soon tbh.
My recommendation would be, for an all round machine, get an i7 + RTX based gaming laptop for the all round package, if not gaming but office work and editing, get an M chip based MacBook (you’ll be able to use your adobe CC on these)
If you want to go just editing but on a lesser budget, pick up an M chip IPad Pro and one of the big 3 editing apps. (Only some adobe apps from your CC will be able to be used on this)

johansenfoto Posted at 1-21 11:38
Ah okay.
But I see your GPU is not supported by DR, but if you didn't had a laptop it would be faster as long as it have Nvidia gfx-card.

My laptop has an nvidia card, but i know what youre saying

Viridis Posted at 1-21 17:01
The main problem is the 840M, it’s simply no good for editing, I don’t think it’s fully supported for GPU based rendering.
An 840 indicates that the i7 will be a fair few gens old too getting to near 10 year old Hardware. For modern 4k 100mbit+ video even with 264 would be a definite long haul job, HEVC even more so.
I myself have a Ryzen 5800x and an RTX 3060ti and while its pretty good for editing I have to admit I haven’t edited a video on it for a long time, in fact I think I think it was a 2800x system last time it did any video work, with the speed that the M chip iPad Pros render at I can’t see me going back to editing on the windows machine any time soon tbh.

HI, thanks, and yeah, this is probably a 10yr old machine now, although I'm not quite sure how old the i7 chip CPU is s i upgraded it from an i5.

My Adobe apps are not CC, they are the full programs for the PC.

I have thought about an iPad but it was a very fleeting thought, considering all my software and apps are for windows or android, it would be expensive to change now, i could go down another tower route, that would bring the cost down.

So ideally i need to look for an i7 + RTX card? If so which gen i7 should i stay clear of?
I also think that I will need a tower with a motherboard that can accept 32gb ram at  the very least.

Thanks again for your advice

Bashy Posted at 1-16 07:11
Thanks, at that time i was doing .h265, when i switched to .h264, encoded it at 1080/60fps it was 1.5hrs
I don't think i can upgrade the dedicated GPU on this, everything else but that

Curious to know what was the filesize difference between h264 and h265 ?

Bashy Posted at 1-19 00:21
Problem there is, i have already have Adobe 2024 products (not subscription based) and it would mean learning all over again. Whilst it may vary between different editors, the difference is not going to be vast, certainly not enough to warrant forking out for another editor to probably learn its actually slower or that if it is actually faster, its not actually significant to warrant the money spent.

Can you assure me that Davinci is actually faster and if so by how much?

Resolve used to be faster than premiere as they were quicker to start using the modern high spec graphics cards to speed things up, they seem about equal now but if yu are buying davinci seems a better deal as it's a one of payment.
Having started with premiere about 15 years ago I struggle with Resolve but still use it for certain things notably stabilisation if needed.
Resolve is potentially betetr at professional grading but most users won't need scratch the surface of what it can do.

sebchang Posted at 1-22 06:36
Curious to know what was the filesize difference between h264 and h265 ?

Sorry i didnt do just a .h264 but i have just done a small one now and you will have to work out the % as my maths is pants lol

.h264 4k  - 100fps - D-Log/10bit size: 39.1mb
to .h265 size: 10mb

4wd Posted at 1-22 06:47
Resolve used to be faster than premiere as they were quicker to start using the modern high spec graphics cards to speed things up, they seem about equal now but if yu are buying davinci seems a better deal as it's a one of payment.
Having started with premiere about 15 years ago I struggle with Resolve but still use it for certain things notably stabilisation if needed.
Resolve is potentially betetr at professional grading but most users won't need scratch the surface of what it can do.

I will bare in mind re stabilization, thanks

16 minutes 4K60 H265? A couple of minutes at most on an Mac M2 MAX to encode/decode to Prores or other formats. These chips have multi-core hardware H265 threading, though. Incredibly quick.

Natural Sounds and Sights Posted at 1-22 23:24
16 minutes 4K60 H265? A couple of minutes at most on an Mac M2 MAX to encode/decode to Prores or other formats. These chips have multi-core hardware H265 threading, though. Incredibly quick.

Damn, thats fast lol, to be honest though, i would prefer to forfeit 4k ofr 1080 than to swap to Apple, i really dont like them :/

Viridis Posted at 1-21 17:01
The main problem is the 840M, it’s simply no good for editing, I don’t think it’s fully supported for GPU based rendering.
An 840 indicates that the i7 will be a fair few gens old too getting to near 10 year old Hardware. For modern 4k 100mbit+ video even with 264 would be a definite long haul job, HEVC even more so.
I myself have a Ryzen 5800x and an RTX 3060ti and while its pretty good for editing I have to admit I haven’t edited a video on it for a long time, in fact I think I think it was a 2800x system last time it did any video work, with the speed that the M chip iPad Pros render at I can’t see me going back to editing on the windows machine any time soon tbh.

I have found part of the issue, i was in the project settings to change the scratch disks as i want the projects stored away from C:/ and i noticed that the Mercury playback engine was set to software, now set to GPU acceleration (CUDA) and its much faster than it was, ive run the same project that was going to take about 16hrs and its now down to around 3hrs 40, now that i can live with