Render Faster? Can this be true?

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by James Messick, Jun 26, 2004.

  1. My theory: that rendering to a thumb drive should be faster than writing
    to a hard drive, so should decrease render time.

    I did a rather unscientific test this afternoon but the initial results
    seem rather interesting. I rendered the same project twice. The first
    time, the rendered file was created on my 64 Mb thumb drive. The second
    time, the rendered file was created on a hard drive, but not the same
    file that the source files were on. The first file rendered in
    approximately 34 minutes, while the second trial took approximately 51
    minutes. This is a huge difference, but again this was not a very
    scientific test. The results are so good as to make me feel somewhat
    skeptical. This is a pretty simple test, so I'm hoping that some other
    people will perform the test on their own systems and share the results.
    I'll include some of the information on my test below.

    James

    System: 1.5 Ghz Pentium IV, 640 Mb RAM, Windows XP Home.
    Project: 8:47 minute video rendered to WMV file at 512 kbps. Project
    contains approximately 100 clips, plus audio tracks and transitions.

    Trial #1: Rendered to 64 Mb thumb drive connected via USB 1.1 port
    Trial #2: Rendered to primary hard drive. Source files on second
    physical hard drive.
    Size of file produced. Trial #1: 30,463 kb. Trial #2: 30,469 kb.
     
    James Messick, Jun 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. A second test show no significant difference. Oops!
     
    James Messick, Jun 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements


  3. What's a thumb drive? One of those USB dongle thingies?

    What makes you think it would be faster than a hard drive? Or that
    drive access time is a limiting factor when rendering video?
     
    Laurence Payne, Jun 26, 2004
    #3
  4. James Messick

    Tony Guest

    Right now, the majority of my rendering is in real-time. You can get faster
    than that?
     
    Tony, Jun 26, 2004
    #4
  5. Sure. Why not? IF you're dealing with 25fps video, where's the law
    that says a frame can't render in LESS than 1/25 sec?

    I routinely render effects to audio files in considerably less time
    than it would take to play them through. Video takes more computer
    power, but that's an ever-increasing commodity.
     
    Laurence Payne, Jun 26, 2004
    #5
  6. James Messick

    nappy Guest


    the thumb drive will never , ever run as fast as a hard disk. it is NAND
    flash and requires more time to store and retrieve large data than a hard
    disk. I suspect some of what you were seeing was because you had limited
    your file size to 64MB.Nonetheless.. there are many other things that can
    affect the test the way you have done it..

    largely irrelevant I suppose since those devices hold so little...
     
    nappy, Jun 27, 2004
    #6
  7. Yep, I have large amounts of egg on my face for posting so quickly in my
    excitement. This real-time rendering sounds pretty exciting, is that
    done with a rendering card or something? My renders usually take 3 or 4
    times real-time, minimum.
     
    James Messick, Jun 27, 2004
    #7
  8. Real-time rendering is nice, 'cos you can watch your result in
    ....er...real time :)

    If you're rendering off-line, considerably FASTER than real-time is
    the aim. Why sit around for 90 minutes while a full-length movie
    renders? If there's enough power to do it quicker, yes please!
     
    Laurence Payne, Jun 27, 2004
    #8
  9. James Messick

    twobirds Guest

    Faster than real time is better. You just need the horsepower. I've been
    in editing rooms with extensive renderfarms, and I've run cinnerella with a
    few zippy processors behind it.

    There was a supercomputing project put on by a California college (I think
    it was in CA, anyway) a few weeks ago where they asked people to bring in
    thier computers. They ended up with about a thousand computers working on
    the same project at a few terraflops of cpu power. One of the goals of the
    software author was to enable people to do mpeg encoding on home networks.
    The more machines you own - the faster the encoding.
     
    twobirds, Jun 28, 2004
    #9
  10. James Messick

    nappy Guest

    Go figure... I sometimes wish I was in college so I could do things that
    have already been done and claim some achievement...

    S.E.T.I. already does distributed computing over thousands of desktop
    computers..

    REAT TIME MPeg rendering is a damn site cheaper than a cluster of PCs. Just
    buy a hardware card and pipe video into it..
     
    nappy, Jun 28, 2004
    #10
  11. James Messick

    twobirds Guest

    This is a little different
    SETI is actually on a few million computers. United Devices is also on
    several million (including all of mine)
    Faster than real time is still better. :) This project shows a little
    promise for enabling people to do things like renderfarming.

    Here it is. http://www.flashmobcomputing.org/ It is a bit different than
    distributed computing like SETI and United Devices
     
    twobirds, Jun 28, 2004
    #11
  12. James Messick

    nappy Guest

    Thanks for the link.. I looked at it.. it's yak yak... noise.
     
    nappy, Jun 29, 2004
    #12
  13. It would be nice if people could share other peoples computers over the
    internet for rendering, but I think the bandwidth would be a limiting
    factor right now.
     
    James Messick, Jun 29, 2004
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.