Rendering Video

[JacksonS]

I have decided to start up a youtube channel for tech, and I created a 7 minute video, (tutorial) and edited it in After Effects CS6. It took 2 hours to render using Adobe Media Encoder. Should I upgraded my GPU to make rendering faster? I currently have a Zotac GTX 750TI (2gb ddr5). Would upgrading to like a GTX 1060 or RX480 improve rendering times and performance?

[ALwin]

Try rendering the video again, this time monitoring whether the CPU or the GPU is being used more.

 

With Adobe, video rendering is a combination of both CPU and GPU.  Depending on the types of effects you applied to your video, either only the CPU will be highly utilized or the GPU will come into play.

[another random person]

This website will explain a few things.

https://helpx.adobe.com/after-effects/using/rendering-opengl.html

[JacksonS]

Just now, ALwin said:

Try rendering the video again, this time monitoring whether the CPU or the GPU is being used more.

 

With Adobe, video rendering is a combination of both CPU and GPU.  Depending on the types of effects you applied to your video, either only the CPU will be highly utilized or the GPU will come into play.

Im currently rendering it still when I posted this, my CPU usage (i5-4590 3.3gz) is a 86-91% use. How do I check my GPU exactly?

[ALwin]

I use Afterburner to check.

[FPS-Russia]

2 hours is what a Pentium 4 could do. What resolution and bit rate?

[JacksonS]

2 minutes ago, ALwin said:

I use Afterburner to check.

It says my 750ti is at 3% usage, while my i5-4590 is at 88%, so for editing would I want to upgrade my CPU?

[JacksonS]

Just now, FPS-Russia said:

2 hours is what a Pentium 4 could do. What resolution and bit rate?

I'm rendering in 1080p and the bitrate is 8 MBPS

[FPS-Russia]

Just now, JacksonS said:

I'm rendering in 1080p and the bitrate is 8 MBPS

That is low bit rate for 1080p.

I will do VBR 25000 and takes about 20 minute on old i7 970 but i not done any work on my new pc yet so i am sure it will be faster now.

[ALwin]

8 minutes ago, JacksonS said:

It says my 750ti is at 3% usage, while my i5-4590 is at 88%, so for editing would I want to upgrade my CPU?

Do you have any SSD drives in your computer?

 

Here is my minimum recommendation for a video editing rig, generally speaking of course:

1. CPU should be quad core (with hyperthreading would be better), with a minimum speed of 3GHz
2. 8GB of RAM, 16 would be better
3. A GPU with at least 4GB of VRAM, if you get a nVidia card, try to have one with at least 1000-1500 CUDA cores
4. 2 SSD drives, a small one like a 250GB SSD for the OS and applications, and 500GB SSD for the project files.

If you want to improve your editing and rendering performance, you can't just upgrade one area and expect a big improvement.  Another thing you can do is (for example in After Effects) render out to a less compressed codec and then use another dedicated "video converter program" to render into the final more compressed codec version you want.

5 minutes ago, FPS-Russia said:

That is low bit rate for 1080p.

I will do VBR 25000 and takes about 20 minute on old i7 970 but i not done any work on my new pc yet so i am sure it will be faster now.

8mbps might be from the preset for 1080p YouTube.  It's quite enough for simple stuff.

[JacksonS]

1 minute ago, ALwin said:

Do you have any SSD drives in your computer?

 

Here is my minimum recommendation for a video editing rig, generally speaking of course:

1. CPU should be quad core (with hyperthreading would be better), with a minimum speed of 3GHz
2. 8GB of RAM, 16 would be better
3. A GPU with at least 4GB of VRAM, if you get a nVidia card, try to have one with at least 1000-1500 CUDA cores
4. 2 SSD drives, a small one like a 250GB SSD for the OS, and 500GB SSD for the project files.

If you want to improve your editing and rendering performance, you can't just upgrade one area and expect a big improvement.  Another thing you can do is (for example in After Effects) render out to a less compressed codec and then use another "video converter program" to render into the final more compressed codec version you want.

8mbps might be from the preset for 1080p YouTube.  It's quite enough for simple stuff.

In my custom build PC, (im going down the list of like what you had)

 

1. CPU is an i5-4590, which is quad core with hyper threading and has 3.3gz

2. I have 12 gbs of corsair vengance ram

3. I have a sad 750ti that has 2gb of vram and 640 cuda cores

4. I only have a 1TB WD Blue, but have my eye on a PNY 240gb ssd

 

If i render straight from after effects, the file is about 10 gigabytes, but when rendering with media encoder, its about 1/15 of that. What else could I use for rendering, and what part would be the best to upgrade?

[ALwin]

10 minutes ago, JacksonS said:

4. I only have a 1TB WD Blue, but have my eye on a PNY 240gb ssd

I believe this could be acting as a partial hindrance to your rendering time.

 

If you have only one single HDD in your entire system, it contains your OS, your Applications, the system Page File, the project and source files for your video project, AND it also has to act as the scratch disk for Adobe Premiere and After Effects.

 

You should either have several HDDs in your system if you want to try to squeeze the most performance:

• 1 HDD for OS and Applications
• 1 HDD for Project/Source files
• 1 HDD to act as a scratch disk

Or you set up with at least the two SSD system as I listed above.  SSD speeds are generally fast enough that they eliminate the need for a separate storage drive to act as a scratch disk or caching for Premiere and After Effects.  Of course, having a third SSD would also help squeeze out a bit more performance.

 

https://www.lynda.com/After-Effects-tutorials/Optimizing-hard-disks/123475/128358-4.html

 

Edit: https://forums.adobe.com/thread/640758

 

You can try using a software like Handbrake.  Take the 10GB output from AE and use it to encode to a more compressed version for uploading.

[PRTI]

21 minutes ago, JacksonS said:

 

1. CPU is an i5-4590, which is quad core with hyper threading and has 3.3gz

The i5 4590 does not have Hyper threading

 

28 minutes ago, ALwin said:

-snip-

my friend has a i3 4170,8gb of ram,750 Ti,2TB HDD and it renders a 10 minute video 1080p in like 40 minutes but he uses Sony Vegas Pro 12

[ALwin]

16 minutes ago, keNNySOC said:

The i5 4590 does not have Hyper threading

 

my friend has a i3 4170,8gb of ram,750 Ti,2TB HDD and it renders a 10 minute video 1080p in like 40 minutes but he uses Sony Vegas Pro 12

Sony and Adobe have different performance optimizations for their software.  And I think CS6 wasn't as optimized to take advantage of certain hardware technologies as the new CC versions are.  Sure CS6 added better support for CUDA than CS5, but still...

 

EDIT: and of course, the time it takes to render depends on the amount and types of effects applied to the video.

[JacksonS]

Just now, ALwin said:

Sony and Adobe have different performance optimizations for their software.  And I think CS6 wasn't as optimized to take advantage of certain hardware technologies as the new CC versions are.  Sure CS6 added better support for CUDA than CS5, but still...

I'm using After Effects CS6, but I downloaded premier pro cc2015. Would it be better for rendering with my hardware?

[ALwin]

1 minute ago, JacksonS said:

I'm using After Effects CS6, but I downloaded premier pro cc2015. Would it be better for rendering with my hardware?

I don't know, try it out.

[FPS-Russia]

I have 4 Crucial 960GB SSD so it might be why old i7 970 was so fast?

[OddsCrazyStuff]

1 hour ago, JacksonS said:

edited it in After Effects CS6.

After Effects is designed to add effects or make them, not edit videos.

Also, it used a different method for rendering then normal video programs, since its take its time rendering each frame, to ensure everything is correct. Meaning its scarifying speed for quality/accuracy.

Premier Pro is the Adobe program you want for video.

[JacksonS]

Just now, OddsCrazyStuff said:

After Effects is designed to add effects or make them, not edit videos.

Also, it used a different method for rendering then normal video programs, since its take its time rendering each frame, to ensure everything is correct. Meaning its scarifying speed for quality/accuracy.

Premier Pro is the Adobe program you want for video.

I only used After Effects CS6 because I also do animations, and I use after effects alot for them. I have just got so used to it, that it was just easy for me to use.

[ALwin]

1 minute ago, JacksonS said:

I only used After Effects CS6 because I also do animations, and I use after effects alot for them. I have just got so used to it, that it was just easy for me to use.

In CC you can use Dynamic Link to work with both Premiere and After Effects for a single project.  This is what I do, Premiere is the primary tool and I use Dynamic Link to add effects from AE.

[OddsCrazyStuff]

Just now, JacksonS said:

I only used After Effects CS6 because I also do animations, and I use after effects alot for them. I have just got so used to it, that it was just easy for me to use.

A simple explanation of the difference.