Neat Video & Neat Image community

FCPX with Neat. 35 minutes timeline. All I am doing is to Colour correct and add Neat/profile then save.
The timeline shows no rendering needed, but I assume that it is doing it all on export.
Without Neat, this export would take about an hour and a half to save.
With Neat it takes 11 hours.

Is this normal????????????
------
Timeline is 1 clip. 35 minutes long. 720 P - 50. Prores 422.
Computer is MACPro 2x3 Ghz Quade-core with 9 Gb ram. 4 hard drives. Render/Events on drive that is not carrying software
FCP X runs fine on this machine.
Graphics ATI Radeon HD 5770 1024 Mb ram
OS Lion 10.7.4

Any ideas?
wayne - NZ
FCP X version 10.0.4

Lets check the results of Neat Video's internal benchmark first. Please open Neat Video's main window (where you build a noise profile), go to menu Tools > Preferences > Performance
then run Optimize (with the current settings that are based on the current instance of Neat Video in that clip) and let me see the complete log from the Optimize window. It will help me check if the filter itself is working adequately fast on that hardware.

Thank you,
Vlad

Frame 1280x720 Progressive Radius 1 frame
running the test data set on up to 8 frames
1 core 2.02
2 core 3.88
3 core 5.32
4 core 6.9
5 core 7.63
6 core 7.87
7 core 8.13
8 core 8.55
Best combination 8 cores

Is that what you meant?

garters wrote:FCPX with Neat. 35 minutes timeline. All I am doing is to Colour correct and add Neat/profile then save.
The timeline shows no rendering needed, but I assume that it is doing it all on export.
Without Neat, this export would take about an hour and a half to save.
With Neat it takes 11 hours.

Is this normal????????????
------
Timeline is 1 clip. 35 minutes long. 720 P - 50. Prores 422.
Computer is MACPro 2x3 Ghz Quade-core with 9 Gb ram. 4 hard drives. Render/Events on drive that is not carrying software
FCP X runs fine on this machine.
Graphics ATI Radeon HD 5770 1024 Mb ram
OS Lion 10.7.4

Any ideas?
wayne - NZ
FCP X version 10.0.4

I'm having the same speed issues. I have about an hour long project that usually takes about an hour or two depending on coloring correction, audio filters, etc and it's taking nearly 15 hours to render on a Feb 2011 17" MBP i7 QuadCore, 16gb RAM, 512gb SSD & 750gb H-SSD drives, 1gb video RAM. I'm currently rendering so I can give the bench test #'s that's required to troubleshoot. I hope something can be done about this because I absolutely love this Denoiser....it just takes forever to render my projects.

It makes sense to let it complete the current render and then to run Optimize in NV Preferences to see if there is a combination of settings that offers better speed. It may however turn out that it is already as fast as it can be on that hardware.

Vlad

NVTeam wrote:It makes sense to let it complete the current render and then to run Optimize in NV Preferences to see if there is a combination of settings that offers better speed. It may however turn out that it is already as fast as it can be on that hardware.

Vlad

Thanks Vlad! Here's the #'s. I'm on a i7. There's 8 available cores but 4 is virtual. So why is 5 cores better than 8 cores?

• Frame: 1280 x720 progressive, 32 bits per channel, Radius: 1 frame
  Running the test data set on up to 8 CPU cores
  
  1 core: 2.99 frames/sec
  2 cores: 5.56 frames/sec
  3 cores: 6.94 frames/sec
  4 cores: 7.46 frames/sec
  5 cores: 7.81 frames/sec
  6 cores: 7.3 frames/sec
  7 cores: 7.46 frames/sec
  8 cores: 7.35 frames/sec
  
  Best combination: 5 cores

CinemAloha wrote:So why is 5 cores better than 8 cores?

If a road from the factory to the shop is narrow then 5 trucks doing round-trips may deliver cargo faster than 8 trucks, because 5 would hinder each other less.

Regarding the actual speed on that hardware, NV shows its own speed of 7.8 fps. The full render process in FCPX involves more than NV alone (for example, other filters, output codec, etc.), so its speed is of course lower. It quite easily can be 2-3 times lower than 7.8 fps, due to those other effects and codecs. Say, if the speed of the actual render is 2 fps then it will take about 15 hours to process an one-hour video.

Vlad

NVTeam wrote:

CinemAloha wrote:So why is 5 cores better than 8 cores?

If a road from the factory to the shop is narrow then 5 trucks doing round-trips may deliver cargo faster than 8 trucks, because 5 would hinder each other less.

Regarding the actual speed on that hardware, NV shows its own speed of 7.8 fps. The full render process in FCPX involves more than NV alone (for example, other filters, output codec, etc.), so its speed is of course lower. It quite easily can be 2-3 times lower than 7.8 fps, due to those other effects and codecs. Say, if the speed of the actual render is 2 fps then it will take about 15 hours to process an one-hour video.

Vlad

I presume the road is not narrow since the data bandwidth on 8 cores vs 5 cores would be better...I think that is terrible analogy. We're talking about data in a computer architecture not cargo on a narrow highway. More cores = more processing power, right?!?

I'll have to live with the slow speed because of the great results but I'm just curious of why 5 is better than 8 cores.

CinemAloha wrote:I presume the road is not narrow since the data bandwidth on 8 cores vs 5 cores would be better...

It is in fact narrow. The available bandwidth does not depend on the number of cores, it is determined by other components of the computer, not by cores. The required bandwidth does depend on the number of active cores. At some point, the required bandwidth may become higher than the available bandwidth and the overall performance decreases. Which is what we observe in those measurements.

CinemAloha wrote:We're talking about data in a computer architecture not cargo on a narrow highway. More cores = more processing power, right?!?

Processing power - yes, supply/delivery dataway - no. Too much processing capacity, not enough data supply.

Vlad