Slow Render Times

[inyour4head]

I have been looking all over for information on how to increase my CPU usage in order to decrease render time to no avail. It literally takes SEVERAL HOURS to render a 10-15 minute MPEG4 clip.

According to task manager my CPU bounces around usually staying below 20% most of the time which is completely unreasonable. Furthermore, Corel doesn't utilize my GPU at all for some strange reason even though the hardware acceleration boxes are checked and VS is supposed to support CUDA. I'm about to leave this software behind once and for all as I've had nothing but problems with X8.5 since I purchased it- not to mention all of the other ongoing problems I've faced since X5. I've been a Corel customer for a few years now and I've always had slow render times but I have stuck around because I like the user friendly interface VS offers. I recently spent $1300 on a new laptop (same time I upgraded to X8.5) to improve my experience with the software but it appears that the problem has always been the software itself, and not my hardware. I do not wish to list all of the reasons why I'm not completely satisfied with Corel because right now my goal right is to figure out how decrease render times so that hopefully I can continue using the software- as opposed to having to start all over with new editing software. So any help on how to accomplish that would be much appreciated. At this point I believe I have set all preferences as they should be and I render "same as project" to ensure the quickest render times.

[aljimenez]

Sorry to read about your frustrations with VS; I have certainly have had my share of them over the years, but thankfully I am a pretty happy user now. If your pc that shows on the right side is correct, your performance should be close to mine, so the problem may be solvable.

To help you, you need to state the details of your video, how many filters and transitions it has, how long, what format, the camera source for the file, etc. The more info the more experienced users in this forum can provide help.

[inyour4head]

Thanks for the quick reply...

My projects consist mostly of jpeg images, wav audio files, and mov/mp4 video clips. Nearly all jpeg images have the pan/zoom and touch up fx. And I almost always use the crossfade transition between the clips as well. Standard titles are utilized in some areas and the projects are usually anywhere from 10-20 minutes long. I don't have time right now but I'll try to post the properties of the assets used. Most of the jpeg images, mov files, and wav files are downloaded directly from digital juice. I also have a blue yeti microphone that I use and the files are saved in wav format. Nearly all of my mp4 clips are downloaded from youtube.

**EDIT** Yes, the specs next to my user profile are correct...

[aljimenez]

I consider the project pretty complex, and I expect it will take a sizable amount of time to render. What format are you rendering to and what are the formats of the source video clips in the project? If they don't match, that will add substantial rendering time.

[Ken Berry]

I suspect in this case the major culprit will be the filters you apply, particularly if they are in the main the NewBlue filters which come with the Ultimate package. They are not only complicated to use, but complicated in the way they react with the video, and some of them can add -- as you and others (myself included) have found -- literally hours to a render. My own editing computer is not wildly different from yours though has far less RAM, and I am afraid I have just become used to the delays when using these filters. Luckily I am retired so time is not of the essence, and I can just go away and do something else while the render takes place. But the long and the short of it is that VS X8/X8.5, and indeed previous versions, will normally render quite quickly on a computer like ours; but once those filters are applied, rendering becomes molasses!

As for your question about CUDA and hardware acceleration, I don't have any real answer. I'd be surprised if anyone does, I'm afraid. This question has been asked over and over again for many versions now, and nothing positive has ever emerged and Corel have never explained what is going on here. Some versions ago, it emerged that VS was set to use earlier versions of CUDA, but it appears likely that that has never been updated to more recent CUDA versions. As I say, I simply don't know, but if it is indeed the case, then those hardware acceleration buttons -- which I and just about anyone else always clicks on -- may also be little more than window dressing...

[asik1]

The culprit is the Touch up filter.
Just make a test by removing it and time how long the render will be.

[RobertOZ]

It's difficult to sometimes explain all the reasons for slow render times, however I have just completed a project with a duration of 23min 37sec
the project contained main timeline, 4 overlay tracks titles and music, 1280x720 h.264 mp4 video and images, fx filters were used but no NB filters were used
Rendered to the following
MPEG-4
H.264 Baseline Profile video 12146 Kbps 16:6
1280x720 59.94 fps
frame based
4800 Hz 16 bit stereo

Total render time 59 mins.
CPU usage, never dropped below 50%, average 85% or more
Ram usage, average 4.6 GB
All 8 cores used during render process

It could be that I am using an AMD Radeon HD graphics card, which makes the difference in render times and CPU usage, as far as Cuda is concerned, many NLEs cannot utilize it fully, because Cuda has changed and the software providers have not kept pace with current developments

[inyour4head]

Thank you for all the comments thus far...

My current 10min 32sec project has a main timeline, five overlay tracks, titles, music, and voice-overs. I've been playing around and currently have the project properties set at:

MPEG-4 Files
24 bits, 720 x 480, 29.97 fps
Frame-based
H.264 High Profile Video: 2500 Kbps, 16:9
48000 Hz, 16 Bit, Stereo
MPEG AAC Audio: 256 Kbps

Rendering "same as project" results in a 27min render time for this project, which is completely acceptable. The first 10-15 seconds of rendering spikes near 100% CPU usage but then it drops down to 20% or less (averages 16-18%) for the remainder. Memory stays around 500mb-600mb consistently throughout the process as well. Just think how much faster this would be if the CPU was at a much higher percentage, or more memory was used, or the GPU was utilized.

However, when I change the project properties to a HD format such as:

MPEG-4 Files
24 bits, 1280 x 720, 29.97 fps
Frame-based
H.264 Main Profile Video: 2500 Kbps, 16:9
48000 Hz, 16 Bit, Stereo
MPEG AAC Audio: 256 Kbps

Rendering "same as project" results in a much longer render time. It's been running for 2hr 26min and its at 38% so far, which at this rate will take at least three or more hours to complete. CPU usage and memory are the same as listed above. Changing the project properties to a higher quality would take considerably longer. In fact, I've tried rendering similar projects in MPEG-4 1920x1080 format and it has literally taken all day (starting at 4am) and most of the evening to complete. But I cant help but think that if the CPU was running at a higher percentage those times would be greatly reduced. Surely there has to be a way to force VS to utilize the CPU at greater percentages.

Here are properties of the various assets that I'm using: (my project is still rendering so I won't be able to list the properties until it completes)

JPEG IMAGES:

WAV AUDIO VOICE-OVER:

WAV AUDIO MUSIC TRACKS:

MOV ANIMATED BACKGROUND VIDEO:

MP4 VIDEO TRACKS:

As far as I know the pan/zoom and touch up fx aren't NB assets, and I haven't had time to remove the touch up filter from the project so I cannot confirm this is the problem. It seems that the real problem here is rendering SD into HD, and trying to understand why the CPU and memory aren't rendering at higher percentages.