After Effects CC 2017; Multiprocessing?

[johnt53984649]

I haven't updated to CC 2017 yet, but it sounds as if they've made significant performance improvements to the render engine since CC 2015.  Considering this, has anybody tried it yet?  Is it still less efficient than CC 2014's "Render Multiple Frame Simultaneously" option?  In terms of rendering muli-layer compositions with many different transformation and distortion effects, is it wiser to stay on CC 2014 where I still have access to multiprocessing or should I invest the time to try out CC 2017?  Let me know how it works for you.

[oz3d]

I want to stress, multiprocessing should be the AE's team absolute #1 priority, everything else is secondary. I understand the reasons it was removed from 2015, but regardless it was still inexcusable to do so in a production level software and until it's re-instituted, AE 2015 & now 2017 remain for the most part useless.

The single most important time intensive task in compositing & motion graphics is the preview processing & playback of an animation. The fact I can hit insert on my keyboard in AE 2014 to preview multiple frames simultaneously leveraging all cores and see a half second (on a seven year old 12 core system) or full second (newer 24 core system) of processed footage almost instantly is vital.

It's nice that AE's core can now leverage multi-threading and the GPU, but as compositing software there would seem to be inherent limitations to fully utilizing the ever increasing core counts of modern systems unless multiple frames can be processed simultaneously. Even if say AE 2017 can process a frame 4 times faster than AE 2014 on the same system, previewing the animation would remains 3 times slower on that 7 year old workstation for example and that's just not acceptable.

[johnt53984649]

I wholeheartedly agree.

[watkino1]

Am I missing something? You guys know you can export a comp to Adobe Encoder, right? There you get excellent multi-threading (depending on the codec). Granted, if you have an alpha channel, you're screwed - but most of my comps don't. Seldom is a video file with alpha the final destination anyway. For example, if you are using the file in Premiere, then simply import the comp directly from AE. I think using the [File]->[Export]->[Add to Adobe Media Encoder Render Queue] is now Adobe's recommended best practice for encoding AE comps, so I wouldn't expect them to return to the old workflow and add multi-threading back to the AE Render Queue.

[Szalam]

The encoding itself may be multithreaded, but the rendering of effects, etc. in AE is not. So, if you have a really heavy Particular scene (or something), that won't be multithreaded.

That is to say, making rendered frames into the final file is fairly speedy, but rendering the effects themselves are still slow.

[cocoua]

Hi, I'm having exactly same results with AME 2017 than with AE 2017, same project to ProRes444 takes 11 minutes and exactly same size in both programs.... AME doesn't seem to use multiple CPU as the CPU meter says they use around 60%

All test I did they uses the same CPU load, only advantage is you can work on AE while rendering, (but I dont know how it would afftect the new changes you make in AE while exporting in ME)

[Aldy Waani]

Man, i'm rendering 600 frames 4K Film resolution project with 30 layers, 5000+ particles and Element 3D objects, DOF, AO, etc etc and my 24-cores dual Xeon only 4% used. They got to be kidding!

But my Quadro 6000 GPU Utilization says 1% and up to 50%-90% when finished per frame (10-15sec/frame).

So, I use Ray Traced on my Final Comp. Does this means the Final Render Export uses GPU instead?

I enabled the Graphics & Compute Workstation Options on NV CP.

Should we tried to turn off CUDA option and use CPU instead for Final Render? or use Classic Renderer?

Can anyone confirm?

Cheers!

[Szalam]

If you're not creating geometry with the ray-traced renderer, it's much better to set your composition to use the classic renderer.

If I were in your position and using CC 2017, I would consider saving it back a version and try rendering in CC 2014 with multiprocessing to see if it makes a difference.

[Aldy Waani]

Szalam  wrote

If you're not creating geometry with the ray-traced renderer, it's much better to set your composition to use the classic renderer.

If I were in your position and using CC 2017, I would consider saving it back a version and try rendering in CC 2014 with multiprocessing to see if it makes a difference.

Hi thanks for replying

All complex geometries were created inside Element 3D plugin, along with it's AO, DOF, Glows settings, etc etc.

So in my comp just quite number of lights with cast shadows, reflections. And with Trapcode plugins.

i need Ray Traced Environment layer. but I'll try to re-render with Classic Renderer and see.

yes i'm on CC 2017. will i loose any 2017 built in effect features in 2014? and might need to re-install all the 3rd party plugins

[Szalam]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Aldy+Waani  wrote

All complex geometries were created inside Element 3D plugin, along with it's AO, DOF, Glows settings, etc etc.a

Than the ray-traced renderer is only going to slow things down. You should use classic.

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Aldy+Waani  wrote

i need Ray Traced Environment layer. but I'll try to re-render with Classic Renderer and see.

If all of your geometry is being created in Element, why do you need a ray-traced environment layer?

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Aldy+Waani  wrote

will i loose any 2017 built in effect features in 2014? and might need to re-install all the 3rd party plugins

If you are using effects that are new to CC 2017, yes, you will lose them in CC 2014. And, yes, you will need to reinstall third-party plugins. It's possible that multiprocessing won't work for you anyway. Just try going with the classic renderer and see if things are better first. THEN worry about trying the old version of AE.

[Aldy Waani]

Szalam  wrote

Than the ray-traced renderer is only going to slow things down. You should use classic.

Now i didn't find any performance differences between Classic and ray traced in my comp during interactions (not render export)

Szalam  wrote

If all of your geometry is being created in Element, why do you need a ray-traced environment layer?

I do not need environment map to be enabled inside E3D and reflected on its objects. Only needed on other 3D enabled layers in the comp. and i simply thought ray traced will make interaction faster with CUDA enabled for Fast Preview

I just did a quick test.. on AE, and ME.

If we enabled GPU on AE or use CUDA on PPro and ME, all Render Export wiill be done on GPU. (GPU 50-90%, CPU 5%)

If we set to use CPU on AE or Software Only on PPro and ME then it will use CPU.

The differences are significant:

600 frames 4K Film, 16bit Color, 32bit Targa Sequence with Alpha

AE:

CUDA/GPU Enabled & Ray-Traced comp:

1hr 53m (avg utilization on task manager & NV cp: CPU 5%, GPU 98%)

CPU & Classic Renderer comp:

47minutes! (avg utilization on task manager & NV cp: CPU 13%, GPU idle - 2%)

Media Encoder (and PPro):

600 frames 4K Film, 16bit Color, 32bit Targa Sequence with Alpha

2 Outputs (simultaneously export both):

CUDA:

1. 4K Film Uncompressed QT: avg 4 minutes
2. 1080p H264 Mp4: avg 4 minutes

Software Only (CPU):

1. 4K Film Uncompressed QT: avg 1hr 38m
2. 1080p H264 Mp4: avg 20 minutes

CPU & GPU utilizations quite similar when rendering in AE  All CPU cores are used but not much

I have screenshots. but it wont't allowed me to upload

Tested on HP Z800 Dual Xeon 3.33GHz, 12GB ECC RAM, Nvidia Quadro 6000 6GB GDDR5, Win 7 Pro, All CC 2017, Rendered to standard SATA internal drive

[vyibov]

When I use the ae2017 render 4K

CPU takes up 30%or10%, I do not know why 100%

Tested on 2cpu e5 2667v3 2.9G 16core 32threads  96G RAM  win7

[P.M.B]

You know, anytime someone revives this thread complaining about the speed and performance they get a slew of answer explaining how technically, earlier versions were a hack & "not real multi-threading" etc... Which may all be true.  But I think the point is that those old "hacked, half baked" versions of After Effects were faster & more stable than the current.   There are exceptions but it seems the odds have reversed.  While before most people had a generally good opinion & experience & few had issues, now most people have issues with stability and speed (compared to version before 2015) while there are a few who feel it's an improvement.

When push comes to shove there are very few people who give a rats eye how After Effects does what it does, as long as it does it.

I mean the reason given for the rewrite was that AE was essentially a bunch fixes written on top of sloppy code, right?

Well then has anything really changed?  Isn't writing fixes on top of sloppy code exactly what they're doing now?

Adobe is using it's leverage in the industry at the expense of the consumer.  Maybe they need to be broken up into smaller, individual companies.  It's been done before when companies that provide service vital to the economy become this way. 

Maybe Adobe needs to be slapped on the wrist by Uncle Sam and sent to separate rooms.

[Szalam]

Gutter-Fish  wrote

You know, anytime someone revives this thread complaining about the speed and performance they get a slew of answer explaining how technically, earlier versions were a hack & "not real multi-threading" etc... Which may all be true.  But I think the point is that those old "hacked, half baked" versions of After Effects were faster & more stable than the current.  

I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I share stuff like that about how AE is technically doing things is to try to give context for why AE changed. Yes, in many ways, for some workflows, it's worse now. But, for me, knowing the context is helpful, so I assume the same may be true for others. I would be really frustrated with AE if I didn't understand the reason why some of the stuff is being done. (Same thing for Cinema 4D and their new open beta for an update to BodyPaint. If I hadn't been told about their longer-term goals and the reason for this, less-than-stunning "update", I would have been rather upset.)

Gutter-Fish  wrote

Isn't writing fixes on top of sloppy code exactly what they're doing now?

Ostensibly, no. They have been describing it as creating a new architecture. So now, it's not patches and workarounds on top of old code, it is clearing bugs out of new code. So instead of putting patches on the roof of an old building, they are solidifying the foundation for a new one. At least, that's how I understand it.

Again, it's not all that helpful to us users NOW, but for me it's nice to know the plans for the future are good.

Also, the latest couple of versions of AE have been working really well for me and I haven't opened CC 2014 in my freelance studio in months.

[jaminw526403]

So we can look forward to a "AE 2" lol That would be nice.

[datamammal]

Because, multiprocessing:
I did a brief test with CC 2017, versus what I'm (still) using, CC 2012. A very common scenario for me: One OpenEXR file sequence, some minimal color correction, a couple text layers. This was a comp of about 1300 frames. I did a "purge all" in both versions for fairness. Times are MM:SS.

AE CC2012:

cache full sequence:     00:40

render full sequence:    02:30

AE CC2017:

cache full sequence:     02:30

render full sequence:    04:46

Think I'll stay with the old dog. I prefer the multiprocessing.

[machine specs: Win7pro, dual 8-coreXeon/3GHz, 128 GB RAM, interal video RAID w/ typical 400MB/sec. transfer. Yes, it's a production beast]

[INVRS3D]

This is really sad state of affairs for AE rendering. We've had a cloud membership for a year now hoping multi-thread would come back but here we are, with no resolve. And no word from Adobe on an estimated update. At this point, anything short of a miracle multi-thread renderer would be a vast disappointment. All those wasted render hours in 2017 for an incremental boost? I hope not. And soon.

[P.M.B]

Not to mention leaving everyone up in the air about CPU purchases.   Keeping their "alleged" replacement for multi threading a big secret

means people don't know which hardware to go with.   If only I were allowed to swear and insult people on this forum.....

Adobe should issue a public statement about what the future plans in terms of rendering & if they don't have one they should admit that too & apologize for leaving everyone hanging.  Hanging...there's a word that vaguely reflects my feelings when I contemplate the choices Adobe has made with regards to this.  Truth is they removed it without a solid plan of what they were going to replace it with and nearly three years later they still don't know or will not say.  EFF YOU ADOBE!!

[Szalam]

Gutter-Fish  wrote

Truth is they removed it without a solid plan of what they were going to replace it with and nearly three years later they still don't know or will not say. 

They might have a solid plan, but if there is one, we don't know it.

At my full-time job, I am shopping around for our next round of computers for our edit suites and this whole thing is still frustrating.

[P.M.B]

Yes.  If they have a plan they're not talking about it.  Which either means it's so groundbreaking & different that they're afraid of corporate espionage or...they just still don't really know.  Time to break out Occam's Razor.

[Andrew Yoole]

I'm in the same boat as Szalam.  I have 6 to 8 new machines to buy in the next few months, but really have no clear direction of whether multicore-CPU or GPU should be our focus.  Everybody I speak to in the industry is extremely frustrated by the lack of info.

I hope Adobe is listening.

[valeria laura]

For what it's worth, I've found some really good CPU / GPU comparisons for the newer non-multiprocessing versions of AE.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/recommended/Recommended-Systems-for-Adobe-After-Effects-144/Hardware-Re...

Mostly the articles on GPU and multi-core performance.

Hope it helps while we wait for adobe to speak up.

[rayek.elfin]

...in other news, Fusion 9 was just released with OpenCL GPU rendering added to most of its nodes, and the Studio version received not only camera tracking/planar tracking and VR tools, its price is reduced to a no-brainer $299. Let that sink in - with free updates. Even the free version got the new delta keyer, and other goodies.

Oh, and dare I mention the UNLIMITED render nodes for the Studio version? Render your work on as many networked machines as you need.

Blackmagic Design: Fusion

Now, where's Adobe with After Effects? The competition is fierce - while AE users are still struggling with these core issues.

[Rick Gerard]

RMFS, in my experience and with the common composites I create and the video formats most of my clients required did not work 90% of the time. Sometimes I could use it to render an image sequence and then turn that image sequence into a video and save a little time, but almost every temporal effect I used and most production codecs my clients required were and are not compatible with RMFS. Most production video formats are also not compatible with multi-machine rendering unless you are talking rendering image sequences.

Being an ACP does not predispose me to defencing Adobe. On the contrary. I am openly critical of things that just don't work, and failing to maintain a productive work environment lies squarely on the user, it's not any software companies responsibility to make sure your particular system is always working. That's your job.

[oz3d]

It works, but there is a caveat in that you need to consider your workflow.  If I'm doing a retime, the retimed footage would ultimately be reoutput to image sequences that replace the original plate. It's more efficient and avoids any potential glitches from other effects applied on a retime. Other temporal effects like motion blur, I utilize filters that don't have an issue with RMFS; from what I recall RSMB is fine for example. As mentioned, I try to avoid working with highly compressed video files as this is generally better for quality and efficiency.  RED files are output to individual frames, BMCC produces raw frames, 5D would be converted before doing any really major work, 3D renders are output to EXR, etc. Slow decompression image formats like PNG are avoided too as the decompressed frame in the buffer takes up the same amount of RAM regardless of the image file size.

Previewing (for those not familiar, RMFS preview is done with numpad 0, not space) is the most important - that's what you're doing constantly - so video output is moot there. On final export I don't recall off-hand having  RMFS issues outputting H264 mp4's, but often times once final export is needed, I'd output a HQ master - DnxHD for example or image sequences - from which other lower quality formats would be generated, often in the background. (An i7 will even compress H264's at the hardware level, though that may have an impact on RMFS; older high core xeons used to have issues here). Alot of these workarounds are also better practice in general, so more often than not, it's worthwhile and the efficiency gained from RMFS continues to demolish render times in more recent versions of AE.

[P.M.B]

Make After Effects Great Again!!