Brand New Mac, why does Premiere Pro run so choppy?

[K1ngOfRats]

Bought nearly the most expensive MacBook Pro you can buy with 32gb ram. Premiere starts outs nice but as soon as I start editing or adding captions to a video thru titles, its starts getting choppy, all the meters are lagging and the whole thing is a stutter mess. It’s hard to get precise with it when you hit the space bar to pause and it keeps running for a full second. Anyone else having issues with this pile of trash application? Photoshop has similar issues. I've run all the updates.

[Warren Heaton]

What format are you editing and what are the Sequence settings?  If it's not already all Apple ProRes422, I'd consider trying that.

Also, what storage media are you working from?  If working from your internal drive, how mush free space is left?  On the off chance you've filled the drive, that could bring things to a halt even though the Flash storage in the current MacBook Pros is lightening fast.

You could always trade yours in of the slightly more expensive 2.4GHz i9 8-Core.  (Just kidding.)

[jasontcox]

Yup, Warren is asking the right questions. Yes, you have a decently powerful Mac but that means nothing without knowing your media and storage. There are about a bajillion other variables besides your processor that determine if you're going to have a good time in a professional video editing program lol.

[megacinn]

it is a shame !

If one has the nearly most powerfull new (mobile) machine (workstation) on the market and is not able simply work and playback standard codecs.

And it is embarrasing as well to see always these excuses .

NO..these are not the right questions !

NO.. it is not a matter of a simple everyday / every standard camera codec on the market vs ProRes / Cineform.

NO.. it is not a matter of the spacelevel of the internal storage...even the weakest usb-drive from a supermarket can easyly handle all the coedcs with around 100Mbit/s (those drives normaly are around 40-50MByte/s = 320-400 Mbit/s ... way higher then needed /even USB2 is around 300Mbit/s)

Wake up...stop that.... has adobe become and degraded to a poor lowlevel offline-editingsoftware like the ancient avid mediacomposer !?

If so, why changing to that lame poor software for a multiple of the costs (in the meantime it is the most expensive software on the market with the least performance and the most problems .... costs average 2-7 times a much over a decade of 3 years).

If offline edititng , or the so called proxy-workflow, is the future, all our editors will have the biggest party ever, because they do not have to change their beloved /adored mediacomposer.

Honestly, answer the question why then, is avery other software like resolve and even amateur-style 100bucks apps like pinacle studio, and even the apps on mobiles and tablets like lumafusion and adobe's own rush, able to handle these codecs.....

It is a clear NO ... the questions have to find a solution inside the totaly broken versions since 12.1 ... and nearly everone knows that.

@ KingOfRats      I'm really wondering why this macbook is not able, because I /we have a bunch of the same type and are able to work with :

PremierePro 13.0.1 (we did not upgrade yet (we test it next week)

OSX 10.13.6 (that my be the culprit....I've seen many complaints about macproblems and all of them had mojave installed ... i'm not sure , but maybe a hint (try downgrade to 10.13.6 if you are able and if you have the offline installer stored anywhere).

The only codec I know for sure, which is to hard to handle for premiere, is AVC-Intra .... that one, we testet it, even requires hardwareacceleration be some dedcated i/o devices with codec-chips onboard.

Another hint.  I've noticed even on dedicated versions of other software that the cache-behaviour can become a performacebrake. Maybe some interference betweeen the software and the os. My assumption is that the audiocachefiles/ waveforms , craeted during the confirmingprocess can have a big influence .... switch of audio (for testingpurpose only) and playback was smooth.... but here as well, I'm not sure in this case as well .

The only thing I'm 100% sure is : working with another software since a year now was the best decision ever.

@Warren

if your advice is changing the cpu from currently a 2.6 GHZ to a 2.4 GHz (even if it is a I9 vs I7 ) it seems that you are not aware of the adobe own recommendation .....that is clearly  CPU-speed much over Corecount !!!!

The best you can do is the highest cpu-frequency ..... everything above 8 cores is not helpfull. ... that I9 would be a downgrade..

[Warren Heaton]

On my Macbook Pro (Early 2013), I get solid performance with 1920x1080 Apple ProRes422 (HQ) p23.976 and i29.97.  For 4K, I use the proxy workflow and usually finish on my Mac Pro. 

My 2015 11-inch MacBook Air does surprisingly well, too.

The Mac Pro, of course, handles 3840x2160 Apple ProRes422 (HQ) much better, it’s just not portable like the laptops.

Is your footage 5K or 8K?

Is Metal enabled?

Are you matching the Sequence settings to the Clip settings?

I’ve had issues with AVCHD conversion to ProRes, so I switch to Final Cut Pro X just for the transcode to ProRes and then go back to Premiere Pro.

Some of my freelance work calls for DNxHD, but Premiere handles that just as well (of course, I switch to the entire workflow over to DNxHD).

For what it’s worth, those attempting to help in this thread are asking questions because there is far too little information about your workflow and your complete setup.  It seems you’re offended by being asked anything.  Good luck.

[Warren Heaton]

It's probably worth noting that the format that your camera shoots is not necessarily good for editing.  Fortunately, the CODECs that are good for editing (referred to as "mezzanine" CODECs professionally) are a very short list.  These CODECs also use Smart Rendering in Premiere Pro (Smart rendering in Premiere Pro ).

One thing that makes Avid Media Composer stable is that anything ingested is transcoded to one of the Avid CODECs.

One can leverage the same thing in Premiere Pro by manually transcoding prior to ingest or setting the Ingest Settings to transcode.  For Mac or Windows, I can't recommend Apple ProRes highly enough.  Use LT for social media and HQ for broadcast/cable/feature.

[Jeff Bugbee]

megacinn  wrote

even the weakest usb-drive from a supermarket can easyly handle all the coedcs with around 100Mbit/s

You're talking about theoretical maximums here. Also, editing applications are not simply requesting a constant stream, when a user scrubs their timeline, suddenly bandwidth (and CPU) usage jumps through the roof due to various reasons, codec/decompression/etc.

Where your media is stored matters. If you added water instead of gasoline to your car, are you going to complain to the car manufacturer when it doesn't work?

[megacinn]

water , what water ? 🙂

if proxies are the solution then they are the best proof of my complaint.

Transcoding from H264 to any proxy, multiplies the size and therefor the required bandwidth.

So if it would really be the bottleneck, having a weak storage , then the x-times bigger files wouldn't even playable like a slideshow.

Common knowledge with adobe is, that the playback and therefor the decoding, is exclusively done by the mercuryplayback.

In the worst situation by softwareonly (CPU), or if the main benefit of premierepro would work as in the old days, then the gpu comes in.

The cpu pushes the material frame-by-frame into the gpu-memory . That is the reason for the requirement of at least 4GB VRAM.

Then it will be decoded, processed in the hundredth or more minicores of the graphics adaptor.

If prores works smooth and the original not, then it is without any question, a problem of the malfunctioning metal / openCl / open GL decoder .

And in fact , that is the part adobe has totally changed starting with v12.1 . And since then all the trouble started .

So I'm putting 92 octane gasoline in the tank since around 30 years now.

Now i need a much faster and more powerfull machine .

I compared a lot and saw a car wich is much faster and much more expensive but less energyconsuming.

I nearly baught it, but during the tests I found out that it can only carry 2 persons and i was told that theses days only retro is pro.

I have to add a few real horses in front of my coach...

that's a fair comparison , and that is why I have complaint in the past.

So, there are only 2 rules in every business worldwide..... either you are better , or you are cheaper! Neither of both is given here.

Can anyone give me real good arguments why changing from avid to adobe if both require the same ingesttranscoding , and the first one works smoothly (but slowly) since 30 years now ?

[Jeff Bugbee]

megacinn  wrote

Transcoding from H264 to any proxy, multiplies the size and therefor the required bandwidth.

The whole point of making proxies is to make them smaller than your originals. If you are increasing the size/bitrate, you are not making proxies.

megacinn  wrote

If prores works smooth and the original not, then it is without any question, a problem of the malfunctioning metal / openCl / open GL decoder .

No. If your original is a variable frame rate, GOP codec (such as H264), Prores is going to be smoother and it has nothing do with "malfunctioning" decoders. That's simply the nature of intra-frame codecs. Inter-frame codecs (like H.264) require more calculations and therefore are more likely to not be smooth on lesser hardware.

megacinn  wrote

Can anyone give me real good arguments why changing from avid to adobe if both require the same ingesttranscoding , and the first one works smoothly (but slowly) since 30 years now ?

I don't think anyone here is trying to convince anyone to switch from Avid to Adobe. We are Adobe users attempting to assist other Adobe users. If you want to use Avid, great! You are welcome to post on their discussion boards.

[R Neil Haugen]

Your comment that by common knowledge playback in Premiere is mainly Mercury, therefore GPU, is completely in error.

Playback is heavily decoding by nature, which in Pr is a CPU centric operation. Unless there are GPU Accelerated effects involved for most playback the GPU is just idling.

Which gas very often been a subject of complaints "around here".

As to the issue of proxies made to replace H.264 media ... yea, if your biggest bottleneck is simple thruput from disc, that could be an issue. For most situations the easing of CPU/RAM load makes a large improvement.

Even a Samsung T5 external via USB3/C will give adequate thruput.

Neil

[megacinn]

good morning..

(Your comment that by common knowledge playback in Premiere is mainly Mercury, therefore GPU, is completely in error.)...

you have the best connections to adobe yourself...so go , ask the developers of your choice.....

I / we did, not long ago , and we have a protocoll and the proven statement :

decoding = mercuryplayback (always).

.. in case of set to "software" ..you are right = cpu...in all other cases = gpu

..can / will not tell more (under nda)

if it would be only the cpu we all at the timecritical business, could save a big bunch of money and forget the expensive graphicsadaptor ...if only fast editing mainly without affects is required, an internal Intelgraphics xyz would be enough.

For example ...on my timeline there are only plain native 60Mbit/s clips from one camera (H264) ...no editing , simply dropped it on a new sequence..ne effects ...nothing.....

playback with "metal" ....depending on the movement in picture running semi-smooth with some stutters/jerks.

switching to "software-only" .... much much more stuttering!

So , if it is aways only the cpu (no effects applied) why is there a difference ... maybe you can explain it !?

(cpu-centic) : I agree ...meaning the cpu organizes and pushes/pulls the data from storage via databuses to ram / and/or registers of cpu/gpu depending on functionality.

but the cpu is not decoding the frames to baseband in cases of "metal/openCl".  ... ask the developers yourself.

(even a Samsung T5 is adeqate ) = 100% agreed and tested ... absolute right!

(No. If your original is a variable frame rate, GOP codec (such as H264), Prores is going to be smoother....)

Else then the Iphone , I have not seen any noticable camera on the market which creates VARIABLE FRAMERATES.

This is not commonly used because of H264.

nearly 99,9% of all cameras set to H264 are working in FIXED FRAMERATE ...... ONLY if set to H265 then some of them , because of the lack of processingpower can switch to "variable"... but this is not the case in here!

(The whole point of making proxies is to make them smaller than your originals...)

How can you do this ?

In case of H264 you would need a much more efficient codec to get it smaller...and that would be H265 as the only choice !?

ProRes is always much bigger (less efficient but I-Frame only) . Even LT is 102Mbit/s , and as noticed above, that is no benefit if having 100Mbit camerafootage.

You only get it smaller if you reduce the framesize (HD-SD / 4K-SD).

Changing from Interframe (GOP) to I-Frame only will always increase the bandwidht (nature of physics ...now you have to store every frame fully, instead of only describing the changes in between the frames ).

And here lies the bottleneck (as you mentioned very clearly)..it is the calculation backwards from the last/next full I-Frame , add the changes of the B or P-Frame and create the full required frame in realtime.

That is what mercuryplayback is made for, and that is what even AdobeRush/LumaFusion/FinalCut/Reolve (to name only a few)  even in H264 can recalculate in faster then realtime .

but...enough discussion.... the future will show the truth..the next IBC is around ...announcements will possibly made ... other companies will show theirs .... and reality will show each of us the best way for our way of surviving the productionmarket.

... and complaining customers will rise more and more if adobe does not change it's policy immediately

have a nice day

[Warren Heaton]

Low bandwidth footage has a shallow peak to signal noise ratio (PSNR) making it poorly suited for most, but not all, content creation.

Even if one is getting great performance from a Timeline containing low bandwidth footage with mixed GOP structures, the low bandwidth footage would still be highly prone to compression generation loss.

In a perfect world, we’d easily have uncompressed footage from source to edit to edited master to delivery.  One can leverage existing workflows and creative tools to get through production and post production or not.  Fortunately, we have a wide range options within Adobe’s creative tools.

[Christian.Z]

You only get it smaller if you reduce the framesize (HD-SD / 4K-SD).

Wrong. Changing the resolution does not change the file size. Changing the bitrate does. Going with lower bitrate eases off the pressure on every component.

[Christian.Z]

As Warren mentioned. Your issue with storage, especially if you are using the Internal drive.

At the end of the day, your system is as powerful as your weakest component. In this case, it's the storage.
I always advise that storage configuration should be as following:

1- SSD for OS and Software2- SSD for Exports ans Cache

3- Raid 0 for Media and Projects.

In you case, Start with an extra external, put your media and projects there, see if that helps.

[rodneyb56060189]

what happened to king rat ?

???

[Warren Heaton]

For what it’s worth, MP4 is not a mezzanine CODEC.  Never has been.  Never will be.

One might as well try to get a dead horse to pull a carriage.