Running ExtendScript on multiple projects at once - questions. (Multiple Active Sequences?) - Perfs?

[Bed30321077z973]

Hello,

I just tried opening multiple projects, and I noticed that the sequence of the new project would show up next to the sequences of the previous project:

Since clicking on the previous sequences, show up the previous project name, I assume that the previous is NOT closed after opening a new one.

I usually take the project inside a variable and then take the "active sequence". Would it be possible to obtain the "previous project" inside a varuable, while we are on the new project?

var proj = app.project;

=====> How do we ensure getting all open projects inside different variables? I think I have seen somewhere in the code something about projects, once, but I am not sure.

2) an "Active sequence" can that be "true" to previousely opened projects (not closed yet) even though the user is on sequence of the new project? In other words, can it be possible to have multiple active sequences at once (if each one is from different project open)?

3) If 1 and 2 are possible, then is it possible to run the extend script on multiple projects at once?

Or even run multiple extendscript scripts at once? (In visual I would need to be able to click the "run-> debug->ppro" multiple times for each script.)

4) PERFORMANCES:

Don't know if anyone in the world have tried it, maybe only the conceptor of PPRO can answer this, in the case multiple projects are "working" (compiling video, or in this instance receiving commands from extendscript), would PPRO DIVIDE its "ressources" to handle multiple projects at once ? (Like running one command inone project, then running one command on another project, and so on, until everything has run)

Or will PPRO use MORE ressources from the computer to be able to HANDLE every project EQUALLY, resulting in using more GPU, cpu, ram etc?

(As you might expect I want it to be the second answer, otherwise I am not interested in running multiple projects at once)

Thanks.

[Bruce Bullis · Accepted solution]

'app.projects' is an array of all open projects; 'app.project' is the current active project.

2. Across all open projects, there is only ever one active sequence.

3. Yes, the API can operate on any/all open projects.

4. PPro does not divide its resources across projects. 

[Bed30321077z973]

Thanks for the answers!

I just tried it, and it .. slightly improved the time. Let me explain:

One single project, one EMPTY timeline, 600 items = 60~ seconds, as stated before. 0.103 sec/iter

Filling 2 empty timelines from 2 projects at once, 600 times in paralel (x2) => 115secs~, so that's better than 60x2=120, we only gained 5--7 seconds. In other words running project 1 then 2 would have 60 sec~ + 60 sec~long, so that's 120 sec (plus time to click and run), but running 2 at the same time was 115 seconds (a slight improvement).

All this with one single script though (it fills both timelines at once while running= items are filled in the timelines at the same time, its not one timeline finished then the other is dealt with, no, It's both).

So It does not seem PPRO asked more from my gpu (and cpu/ram) to handle the second timeline the same way it would have handled one single timeline (the consumption of gpu/ram etc did NOT DOUBLE),  instead .. Premiere got slowed. (right?)

The question is: do you think that running ANOTHER extendscript in paralell (which mean I would need to dwell into panels again to see how to activate 2 scripts at once instead of one, don't know how straightforward is that), so a script that would entirely focus on the other timeline (sequence) aka the other project, while letting the main script deal with the first project (2 scripts running at the same time then),  would make PPRO spend more gpu to deal with both timelines/sequences with the same "speed" as it would IF there was only one single sequence? (Aka both projects being filled within 60'sh seconds like It did when I was running it with one single project).

[Bruce Bullis]

>So It does not seem PPRO asked more from my gpu...instead .. Premiere got slowed. (right?)

No, PPro continued processing exactly as it normally would. Performing the same action on two different sequences still requires the time necessary to perform that action, on each sequence. 

Simultaneous execution of multiple scripts is impossible, within one instance of PPro. Even with multiple instances on the same system, the laws of physics still apply. 

[Bed30321077z973]

>No, PPro continued processing exactly as it normally would. Performing the same action on two different sequences still requires the time necessary to perform that action, on each sequence..

Understandable,

My desire is to make PPRO spend the same time, but ask from ME (my machine) more GPU, the more sequences I add. Like some bar MIN[----------|----MAX], that you can move, MAX means you dont care about your pc ressources or PPRO "stability", ppro would use every bit of GPU it needs to perform as many actions as you tell it, so if inserting in one sequence requires 6GB GPU, 6G RAM and X CPU, then filling 2 sequences would require 12GB, 12G RAM, 2X RAM, it will perform the same action with the same speed but in 2 sequences.

Now thinking about it, what I am asking for is parallelization, which is probably VERY HARD to achieve and only work with machiens that have multiple and NUMEROUS cores cpu I suppose? Maybe 8 cores for one "instance of PPRO" and 8 other for the other instance.

>Simultaneous execution of multiple scripts is impossible, within one instance of PPro. Even with multiple instances on the same system, the laws of physics still apply. 

So the secret is to have "another system", I can only run Photoshop on 2 machines at once I believe, I don't have the ressources to pay for another licnence to make it work on 2 other machines (provided I got 4 machines) to make it run 4 times as fast unfortunately. Unless I missed something. Or maybe PRO (entreprise level) subscriptions? But For the meantime I don't have the ressources to afford such a thing, if it ever exists?

Thanks for all the answer, btw, I wrote a lot here Iol, we are very  lucky to have an interactive forum.

[Bruce Bullis]

> So the secret is to have "another system"

I wouldn't call distributed rendering a secret, but yes, moving renders to other machines can be effective.