I found this on Puget systems site. Full credit to them. This explains alot of why my drone footage plays well, while my Canon R6 plays poorly.
Thanks for posting this .... very useful information.
Hi @Andy Urtu,
We have enabled Hardware Acceleration decode of HEVC/H264 4:2:2 10 bit on Mac ARM systems in the latest Premiere Pro Beta builds. We will also look into other platforms.
Please download the latest Premiere Pro Beta build from Creative Cloud --> Beta apps --> Premiere Pro (Beta)
You can have a look at the announcement here:
Please let us know how it goes for you.
Thank you the update on ARM 4:2:2 10 bit.
can you share if there are plans to add this to the PC version?
Supporting more varations of H.264/265 sounds great but I am wonder if Premiere Pro will take full advantage of the New Alder Lake CPUs and Windows 11?
Hi @Andy Urtu ,
There is a good news. We have enabled Hardware Accelerated Decode for 4:2:2 10-bit HEVC on Windows Intel machines on the latest Adobe Premiere Beta.
Here is the announcement:
Please try it once and let us know how it goes.
Thanks Mayank - it would be nice if you could also let us know when this makes it out of beta.
Nah - I don't use the betas - I have too much production work going through to risk beta builds. That's why I said it would be nice to know when it makes it into production builds... but I'll just keep an eye open the new features.
Thank you Mayank. I will get the Beta and check it out.
That chart should be handy to have. I always post that Nvenc and Quick Sync cannot play all the odd variations of H.264/265. I don't doubt in another 2-3 years they will support even more variations of H.264/265.
Go over to Puget systems and look at the codecs supported by Resolve. With Gen 11 Intel CPUs, quick sync suports ALL of the various codecs.
I sure hope Adobe gets moving on this.
A CODEC being supported does not mean that you'll get good performance with it.
There are CODECs that are good for editing and CODECs that are not.
H264/H265 fall in the not good for editing category while ProRes, DNxHD, Cineform, AVD-Intra, XDCAM fall into the good for editing category.
I think you're missing the point - if a codec is hardware accelerated you do get good performance from it. That's the whole point of hardware acceleration -it takes the load of the CPU. This has been demonstrated many times and Premiere Pro is lagging well behind Resolve and FCP in this regard. Exports take much longer, playback drops lots of frames etc. It does not do this on those other softwares. It is now possible to completely avoid intermediary codecs like those you mentioned for many acquisition codecs, speed up your workflow and get the job done quicker.
If Adobe wants PP to remain relevant they must address this, particularly on the Mac ARM version where they are competing directly with Resolve and FCP. It seems like they are. I consider this a good thing.
I am definitely not missing the point.
H264/H265 are for delivery.
I encourage you to learn about color sampling, color depth, interframe encoding, compression generation loss, and - perhaps most importantly - peak signal noise ratio.
Your response is kind of harsh and incorrect. A lot of DSLR and mirrorless cameras record to H.264/265. It is OK to edit native H.264/265 if your system can do it. Transcoding to Pro Res is not going to make H.264 better. In fact it is kind of like skipping a generation. That being said John Mondo is 100% correct. If an H.264/265 video codec has support for hardware acceleration it will playback easier than ProRes, DNxHD, Cineform, AVD-Intra, XDCAM. I have posted several videos about this so we can all be on the same page. Perhaps you should watch my videos because I have mentioned to Kevin there is way to much miss information of these forums. Instead of encourage people to learn about color sampling, color depth, interframe encoding, compression generation loss, and - perhaps most importantly - peak signal noise ratio perhaps you should learn to accept reality. Premiere Pro should take full advantage of the latest technology and also accept the fact that H.264 is more than adeqaute for social media. Pewdie Pie and other content creaters don't need to learn about the things you suggested like color sampling, color depth, interframe encoding, compression generation loss. They just want to edit video from their camera without transcoding. If Premeire Pro cannot do they will find a NLE that can. Making excuses will not make Premiere Pro better. I use Premeire Pro but I am not a cheerleader because I no Premiere Pro could be better.
Transcoding to a CODEC that supports Smart Rendering will make editing faster without upgrading the workstation.
A hobbyist might not need to give much thought to their video and audio settings, but it doesn't take a degree in video engineering to learn enough about them to make video edting smoother be it in Premiere Pro, Resolve, Final Cut Pro, Vegas, or Media Composer.
Sure, computers are getting faster which makes working direcly with H264/H265 easier, but it's also getting easier (and really, more affordable) to record directly to a CODEC that's good for editing so we can just shoot and edit.
For anyone who's wondering what PSNR is:
Warren - I didn't mean for you to take offense, but obviously you have. I do know about all those things (I've been in this game for over 40 years) but what you're saying is just no longer correct. Technology has moved on and if I can edit a program entirely in H264 or H265 10bit 422 its not going to improve anything by transcoding to ProRes or DNxHD. The only reason to use those codecs is for a better editing experience and once again that's the point of hardware encoding and decoding. So you tell me - exactly what is the point of transcoding if it doesn't make editing any smoother? There is no technical advantage - you can transcode 420 8bit to a 10bit 422 codec and it's still 8 bit 420 footage. It won't magically gain bit depth or colour precision. And if support for hardware encoding allows me to export faster that's a good thing right?
Faster transcodes from a ProRes/DNxHD edited master to H264 for delivery are always welcome.
The reasons for avoiding shooting H264/H265 are the same for avoiding editng H264/H265. That said, if I was doing quick turnaround of short format video for social media or gaming video, I'd probably leave H264/H264 source as is.
Transcoding to a Premiere Pro Smart Rendering CODEC gets you faster editing on the same hardware.
I don't think it's just for social media but I'm happy just to agree to disagree.
I'd equate 10-bit 422 H265 to Hi8 of the analog days, even the higher bitrate versions.
As such, I don't see much use for it in episodic or feature film work.
Industrial and corporate video, low budget documentary, low budget music video could make use of it, but I'd still transcode to ProRes for editing.
I'd say you're in the minority if all you do is work on feature films. Lucky you. And it still doesn't address the fact that Premiere Pro is clearly lagging behind it's direct competition. In any industry that's what we call a bad thing.
I'm not sure it's ever a bad idea to follow the standards set by broadcast, cable, streaming, and feature film; be it for smooth and fast post-production or a good paycheck.
Last I checked, Final Cut Pro only supports native H264/H265 if it's been recorded on an iPhone (which should be supporting shooting ProRes soon); otherwise, it's converted to ProRes for both Optimized and Proxy making it easy to edit on just about any Mac even with modest amounts of RAM. Avid Media Composer converts H264/H265 to DNxHD upon ingest and that very process is what's made Media Composer a very stable platform and industry standard for decades. Resolve only offers acceleration if it's the paid version. GoPro acquired Cineform to provide good editing CODEC and support ProRes.
Even the better implementations of H265 are not meant to be used from start to finish in a workflow. And most H264 is low bitrate, low color depth, long GOP, interframe, shallow PSNR... what am I missing?
There's no shortage of issues in these forums and the Resolve forums that go away with transcoding to a CODEC that's good for editing.