Inspiring

Question

Why does Pr get slower and slower, this is getting ridiculous?

Forum|Forum|3 years ago
September 11, 2022
2 replies
1609 views

Any moderate to large scale project is painful to work with ... even with proxies, which one CAN NOT do when color grading, performance is horrible regardless of how much hardware I toss at Pr? I'm working with a simple conversion of 5030 .jpg images (one per frame) into a video and I can't even edit the sequence nor change the duration. Heck sometimes it will not even show me a program image from the timeline.

To put this into perspective, I can use "HitFilm" express (which is free) and load my 5030 .jpg files and generate a video sequence without any issues.

I'm a software engineer and I'm aware of performance pitfalls, but I hate to say this, but your development team need to revisit the basics.

Come on Adobe, what the heck is going on with the your development team? I've thousands of $$$ with subscriptions to Adobe and I'm simply NOT getting my moneys worth ... it's shameful. The number of threads I've seen in regards to performance problems is staggering, as an engineer I would be embarassed to be associated with Adobe's software development efforts ... certainly wouldn't add Adobe to my resume.

I wish I didn't have to be this harsh, but I've just had enough of subpar performance from Pr and Ps and Ae. This really is not good enough, not even close.

Rob

This topic has been closed for replies.

R Neil Haugen

Legend

You're essentially running a 5,300 pixel width ... about a 5k ... DPX sequence there. Right?

I can run 4k BRAW, RED, Arri, and even H.264 on my 24 core Ryzen without troubles. Both Premiere and Resolve.

But if I was trying to run a 5k DPX in Resolve, I know good & well it would hammer my machine. I know & work with a lot of colorists, and they typically proxy or t-code large DXP sequences to do color. And that's on hardware A LOT beefier than mine.

I don't know why you couldn't do playback with proxies while doing color work.

But we all do have our preferences.

Neil

Everyone's mileage always varies ...

Rob AinscoughAuthor

Inspiring

Again, I'll disagree. I've got legacy Pr 2017 version running and these image files (5030 image file count not pixels, jpg at resolution 4000 x 3000 at 2382KB per file) ... in fact, that's what I do, load Pr 2017 if there is nothing in Pr 2022 I need for the project. Pr 2017 has no performance issues with processing these files.

If Adobe continue with their performance problems and/or just ignore users, I don't see much of a future here? I know I'm not alone based in the feedback I've received from many many users.

One major software engineering "best practices" is to provide a user with long running process feedback ... what I mean by that, is if a process is going to take more than 2-8 secs it needs to have a "progress" UI indicator ... no such indicator exists in Pr when working a sequence. Pr leaves the user guessing on what's going on, this is NOT GOOD and every software engineer I've worked with over the past 35 years knows that's a bad interface.

Here is an old article going back to 1990's discussing UI response time, it's actually gone down to 2-8 seconds max before a progress feedback is required.

If Adobe can't figure out their performance problems, then they should at a bare minimum provide UI feedback.

Warren Heaton

Community Expert

In the 1990s we used high-end digital disc recorders to lay 900 frame 720-by-468 Targa image sequences to tape (D1, DigiBera, or Beta) in real-time at post production facilities at a heafty hourly rate.

Longer animations could be laid off to tape very,very slowly one frame at a time with a dedicated system (I forget the name of the hardware that we used at CalArts for tape layout from an SGI workstation, but it took forever).

If you're able to get real-time image sequence playback without any rendering from Premiere Pro 2017, don't change anything about that system.

Warren Heaton

Community Expert

Hi Rob:

Sorry to hear you're experiencing poor performance.

I've found Premiere Pro to be running extremely well with ProRes under macOS and Windows.

To convert a JPEG image sequence to video, I'd use After Effects instead of Premiere Pro.

-Warren

Rob AinscoughAuthor

Inspiring

Every performance solution for Adobe seems to be "convert to ProRes" which I already know about ... the issue there is time and space ... time to convert and the increase (considerable) in storage space used. Other editing platforms don't seem to have any such requirement and work extremely well all native formats/codecs ... no one at Adobe seems competent enough to explain why they can't?

Warren Heaton

Community Expert

@Rob Ainscough

Hi Rob:

Other editing platforms do have such a requirement. In Avid Media Composer, the default editng CODEC is DNx; however, via Avid Media Access (AMA) ProRes can be used instead. In Final Cut Pro, the only Proxy CODEC and Optimized CODEC is ProRes. In Blackmagic Davinci Resolve, Optmized Media and Render Cache project settings allow the user to choose betweeen ProRes and DNx for Proxy media format and Optmized media format.

In Premiere Pro, users can choose from any of the Smart Rendering CODECs.

-Warren

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded