quik question about Warp Stabilizer

Forum|Forum|1 year ago
September 7, 2024
3 replies
1100 views

without Warp Stabilizer :

1) project saves fast

2) Adobe premiere project opens fast , in 2 sec project is open for edit

with Warp Stabilizer added to all my clips :

1) Project saving takes very long !

2) opening my project takes very long over 2 a 3 min.

is this normal ?

specs:

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core Processor

RAM: 128 GB

ASUS ROG Strix GeForce RTX 4090 BTF OC Edition

Samsung 990 PRO NVMe M.2

This topic has been closed for replies.

jamieclarke

Community Manager

Hi @Mark_Holland - We are able to repro the issue that you are experiencing. We are sorry for the frustration it has caused. We will update you when we have more information. Thank you for your report and patience.

Mark_HollandAuthor

Known Participant

thank you ! that will speed up my work

jamieclarke

Community Manager

HI @Mark_Holland - Would you be able to send me one of your projects, you can send to email jamiec@adobe.com ? I'm looking to see how big your sequences and clips are. I don't need any media. Thank You for your help.

R Neil Haugen

Legend

Peru Bob is correct, Warp is the most resource-demanding and heaviest effect in the entire program. It takes even more to run than Neat Video noise remover! And the reason the project files get huge and unworkable is the incredible amount of detailed data that is required for Warp to run.

And of course, that, like all other things like sequences and effects used ... is simply project metadata. Hence ... the project gets huge fast.

I'm practical. I never apply Warp and leave the clip with Warp applied, ever.

I apply Warp, when I've got an acceptable result, I immediately do a full render & replace operation of that clip on that sequence, typically to ProRes422 for my needs. Then I continue working with that full replacement clip in place.

With render & replace, you can always "restore original" if you need to rework something. BUT ... that load onto the system is gone. The project file is smaller, runs better, and playback is no longer a problem even when adding Lumetri or other 'heavy' effects.

Everyone's mileage always varies ...

Mark_HollandAuthor

Known Participant

thank you Neil ! i edit in H.265

R Neil Haugen

Legend

Oh ... sorry to hear that! H.265 is a long-GOP format. That means that there's an actually complete frame of video (but highly compressed) every 15-100 "frames" of clip. Called these are called an "iframe".

In-between are only data sets of:

the pixels that have changed since the previous iframe;
the pixels that will change before the next iframe;
or, even worse, both involved in one 'frame'.

So to playback the next frame, the computer must do all that computation of maybe 100 or more other frames, on either side of the currently displayed frame, and store those calculated images to RAM or cache.

For playing back an intraframe codec, it just needs to decode the next frame by itself. Nothing else computed and stored to RAM/cache.

So your H.265 is putting a load on the system for basic playback far above what the same framesize/rate of an equivalent intraframe codec would need. Which is why the vast majority of the pro colorists that I work for/with/teach simply transcode all H.264/5 media to intraframe prior to loading into their system for grading.

And that's on "heavy iron" computers, rigs that are massively capable. And expensive.

Just for information ...

Everyone's mileage always varies ...