Technology Sneek Peek: Adobe® Mercury Playback Engine

Report · Nov 25, 2009

Hi guys,

Been working on this blog post for what seems like forever. I hope you enjoy it. Please be sure to post comments there and not here...or at least if appropriate post in both places. 😉

http://blogs.adobe.com/genesisproject/2009/11/technology_sneek_peek_adobe_me.html#more

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Dennis

Report · Dec 01, 2009

even Jim might be willing to change from ATI to nVidia eventually.

I won't be happy about it, but I'd definitely make the switch.

Report · Dec 01, 2009

JSS1138 wrote:
even Jim might be willing to change from ATI to nVidia eventually.
I won't be happy about it, but I'd definitely make the switch.

How can you not be happy with something like this? Even if you have to get a new card...

Report · Dec 01, 2009

Because ATI cards typically cost less for the same performance. (Or you get better performance for the same price.)

On another note, I think Dave's demo should have been done in a more common environment - using just one CPU, only 6GB of RAM and a $100 nVidia card. It's more difficult to judge the difference Mercury will make when I know that even without GPU assist, his machine is soooooo much better than average.

Having said that, in addition to the direct Export button, I also see a Metadata button. I wonder if we'll finally be able to export just our chapter markers in a way that will work in Encore with an .m2v asset created by ANY software encoder.

Report · Dec 01, 2009

On another note, I think Dave's demo should have been done in a more common environment - using just one CPU, only 6GB of RAM and a $100 nVidia card. It's more difficult to judge the difference Mercury will make when I know that even without GPU assist, his machine is soooooo much better than average.

Its probably aimed at a professional environment instead of a common environment.

I believe Adobe already have taken the "high road" over competitors and this technology may just be the clincher to get the WIDER acceptance they need with professional editors / compositers etc.

Report · Dec 01, 2009

Its probably aimed at a professional environment instead of a common environment.

My point was that the super-computer underneath the Mercury engine muddies the apparent benefits. It makes it difficult for us to relate to just how much better the Mercury engine is if he's testing in an environment that most users don't have.

The demo should show how much things improve with an average system. THAT would be more real to the average buyer.

For example, the CPU usage seemed to average about 35% or so at one point. Well, 35% of a dual-quad i7 is still quite a bit of muscle. Would the average Premiere user still be able to run 9 layers of AVCHD on a single i7 with an 8800? THAT's a demo people can relate to.

It's like showing off a new type of fuel using a Ferrari. Well, most people have no experience with the kind of horsepower a Ferrari has, so the demo won't be real. But if you show how much more pep a Ford has with the new fuel, that people will understand.

Report · Dec 01, 2009

Probably the biggest request for PPRo is to make it more professional, more stable, better performance. Since that is the request, I think it is all well and good that they demo high end gear. I am happy to see adobe finally targeting the upper end rather than the avg consumer. Be careful what you wish for. What you call a souped up rig is standard HW for a professional editor editing today's media requirements..

Report · Dec 01, 2009

But here's the thing. Superior performance on an an average system will only translate to even better performance on a kick-ass system. You cover both bases with my suggestion.

And I don't see any problem with adding a couple of demos into the mix using a high end system. But I think the bulk of the demo needs to be on a real system that Premiere users will have. Otherwise Adobe runs the risk of creating a false impression. Someone with an average system will buy the new software and a new GPU, then complain they can't edit 9 layers of AVCHD, but only three.

Report · Dec 01, 2009

JSS1138 wrote:
But here's the thing. Superior performance on an an average system will only translate to even better performance on a kick-*** system. You cover both bases with my suggestion.
And I don't see any problem with adding a couple of demos into the mix using a high end system. But I think the bulk of the demo needs to be on a real system that Premiere users will have. Otherwise Adobe runs the risk of creating a false impression. Someone with an average system will buy the new software and a new GPU, then complain they can't edit 9 layers of AVCHD, but only three.

I understand what you are saying. But who is going to put a $1500 video card in an avg PC?

Report · Dec 01, 2009

who is going to put a $1500 video card in an avg PC?

Precisely my point. What can Mercury do with a $100 card and a single i7? Just how much better is the $500 card, or the $1500 card.

THAT is what we need to see in a demo.

Report · Dec 01, 2009

From my understanding; what they are calling "Mercury" is the ability to offload processing to gpu in a compatible cuda card. All these cuda cards are expensive ergo not likely to be in an avg consumer pc. So i dont see how its possible to compare.

What is exciting is that a pro editor with good hw (including one of these supported cards) according to this demo will see significant leap frog like performance improvements. And to get it you are not blowing money on a one trick pony like a matrox rtx card that has a life expectancy of one release (or less)

Report · Dec 01, 2009

who is going to put a $1500 video card in an avg PC?

Precisely my point. What can Mercury do with a $100 card and a single i7? Just how much better is the $500 card, or the $1500 card.

THAT is what we need to see in a demo.

I dont want to see that in a demo.

I want to see the full potential of the technology and then I will lay out the $$$ to meet the demands of my clients (who are very famliar with high end imaging technology via my competitors). The cost difference is pocket money so if that what it takes..I am in.

Great thing about this advance notice of upcoming development is I can plan my 2010 Hardware purchases around it.

Well done Adobe. (Impressive shift in the previous Adobe paradigm.)

Report · Dec 01, 2009

shooternz wrote:
Well done Adobe. (Impressive shift in the previous Adobe paradigm.)

Exactly my point.

Great minds think alike!

Report · Dec 02, 2009

JSS1138 wrote:
who is going to put a $1500 video card in an avg PC?
Precisely my point. What can Mercury do with a $100 card and a single i7? Just how much better is the $500 card, or the $1500 card.
THAT is what we need to see in a demo.

As of today - there is no $100 graphics card that is compatible. The GeForce 285GTX is the lowest end card that will be supported. This list will obviously grow and change over time to the point where a $100 graphics card will be there...Not today though and probably not for a while. Also, there will definitely be a difference between the GeForce and Quadro lines.

As for single i7 - as long as it's got 64bit OS and lots of memory, we'll do all we can with it!

Dennis

Report · Dec 02, 2009

Perhaps a March release of CS5? Just an educated guess. By then Intel should have the new i9 processor out. This is a 32nm processor that should provide a substantial performance leap forward. So in other words, today's high-end system will most likely be a midrange system 6-8 months down the road.

Report · Dec 01, 2009

I am happy to see adobe finally targeting the upper end rather than the avg consumer.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the average consumer. I'm talking about the average professional, who probably uses a system more like mine than Harm's. (And even less like that in the demo.)

Report · Dec 02, 2009

Premiere Pro has always been professional, it's just suffered from a perception problem. However, I think that is changing now. As for stability, the fact that we're 64-bit only has thus far proven to give us a huge boost in overall stability. As for targeting the high-end user, I think we're always going to be focused on making the very best product for the largest number of people. We all benefit when that is our goal. 😉

Dennis

Report · Dec 02, 2009

dradeke wrote:
Premiere Pro has always been professional, it's just suffered from a perception problem. However, I think that is changing now. As for stability, the fact that we're 64-bit only has thus far proven to give us a huge boost in overall stability. As for targeting the high-end user, I think we're always going to be focused on making the very best product for the largest number of people. We all benefit when that is our goal. 😉
Dennis

As much as I am an Adobe fan boy; I cant go along with that. The list of feature films produced on PPRO is about 3 long vs hundreds for FCP and of course thousands for Avid. PPRO to date has had significant stability problems. It can not handle long form projects, it has always teetered on the fulcrum of consumer vs pro decisions with consumer typically winning. Yes; there is a perception problem with PPRO, but the bad rep is based on bad performance. I am thrilled to see the future leaning towards pro features. It is about time.

Report · Dec 02, 2009

dradeke wrote:
Premiere Pro has always been professional, it's just suffered from a perception problem.
Curt Wrigley wrote:

As much as I am an Adobe fan boy; I cant go along with that. The list of feature films produced on PPRO is about 3 long vs hundreds for FCP and of course thousands for Avid.

I don't know if it's fair to say that because it hasn't been used as the primary NLE on many feature films, it's not truly professional. It has been used as a supporting tool on features, and while I think the list of features is actually longer then 3, I will agree that it's not a long list. But many people work outside Hollywood and use Premiere Pro in their business - they cut everything from weddings to corporate work to commercials.They as just as professional, and so is their work.

You'll get no arguement from me about Premiere Pro's perception problem - that is something Adobe has too overcome (and I think they are), and Curt, you're right...long form programs have not been Premiere Pro's strong suit - more like its weakest. I think Adobe is now heading in the right direction with Premiere Pro, and I am really excited about where it's going.

Without a doubt, this past decade saw the rise of FCP...who's to say the next decade won't see the rise of Premiere Pro? I've found that most non-Adobe editors love what they cut with, and don't really feel like switching. They know their tools, and have developed a comfort level with them. Many also look down on Premiere Pro for it's faults of the past and present. It will take some compelling feature, something really big and industry changing to make FCP and Avid users say, "I want that". Time will tell if this new Mercury Playback Engine proves to be just that thing. I, personally, think that it will.

Report · Dec 02, 2009

It will take some compelling feature, something really big and industry changing to make FCP and Avid users say, "I want that". Time will tell if this new Mercury Playback Engine proves to be just that thing. I, personally, think that it will.

Very well put, Eric, I agree wholeheartedly with you.

Report · Dec 02, 2009

Without a doubt, this past decade saw the rise of FCP...who's to say the next decade won't see the rise of Premiere Pro?

Exactly. Great assessment Eric. There are two good things that are starting a snowball right now, one is the prospect of Pr CS5 having Pro performance. The other is the huge excitement stirred up by this i7 processor, because we have the POWER needed to run the software. The two go hand-in-hand.

Look, quick math equation:

MacPro ample to run FCP: $3400.
i7 rig ample to run Pr Pro: $1500 (i7, 12GB ram, Raptor OS drive, two HDs in RAID for assets and a GTX260 which is ample right NOW). Even if you have to add the $1400 4800 card you're still under the cost of a MacPro.

The i7 is a game changer, the excitement is back in the PC world again. AND, Windows 7 even adds to that now that Microsoft has gotten it RIGHT.

Adobe's on a roll here, and needs to keep it up. You also have a new customer base forming, the DSLR video market, so why not set the hook there too? Dennis, remember my long dissertation a few weeks ago? Get the DSLR newcomers to believe that Adobe is their route to take before Apple snatches them up. The one big advantage is that after spending a bazillion on the camera gear, we don't want to spend a bazillion on Apple hardware. i7 rigs are half the price! And then there's the one added benefit to going the Adobe road that is the clincher for us DSLR video dorks: you get Photoshop in the same suite! We shoot stills too, remember? So what does Apple offer that compares there? For nearly the same price I can get FCP or the Production Premium Suite that includes Photoshop. No brainer, Adobe wins. The integration in the suite is incredible. And remember that the DSLR technology is starting to toe into the film world. Let them bring with them their Premiere mindsets!

Given all that, I totally agree with Eric's quote. This is Adobe's chance to get Premiere out of the old reputation.

Report · Dec 02, 2009

Seems cool, hope it works good like the AME changes but the big question is.....what about After Effects? What about dynamic link to AE stuff?

Also is the render time impovement for all codecs or just a few? Still sequence renders are mandatory (well mostly) for features (from my experience).

Also I noticed some logos next to certain effects. I'm guessing those mean they are Cuda sped up? (I saw a 32 next them that makes me curious).

Speaking of FX I doubt we'll see many 3rd pary plug-ins that work with this anytime soon. They gotta re-program to be 64 bit native for this already. After that they would have to Cuda enable.THis concerns me because with feature film, TV and big projects you use 3rd party FX or After Effects most of the time. At least give us a good color correction GPU effect. Why is it so hard to have an-After-Effects-like Hue/sat and Levels(with histogram) and curves (with histogram and picker )

I noticed the warning when it was sent out to render; reminding people that rendering your preview files isn't the same as rendering from the start. Good I think........

Oh yeah love the checkbox's for 'render preview' and 'max bit depth'. Whoever put it in that flyout box hopely got laid off last month...well that's mean, at least it's it fixed. I hate having to check what the flyout is set to whenever I render.

Great shit though. If the made it work with After Effects and merged the two programs it would be A GAME CHANGER.

Report · Dec 01, 2009

JSS1138 wrote:
Because ATI cards typically cost less for the same performance. (Or you get better performance for the same price.)
On another note, I think Dave's demo should have been done in a more common environment - using just one CPU, only 6GB of RAM and a $100 nVidia card. It's more difficult to judge the difference Mercury will make when I know that even without GPU assist, his machine is soooooo much better than average.
Having said that, in addition to the direct Export button, I also see a Metadata button. I wonder if we'll finally be able to export just our chapter markers in a way that will work in Encore with an .m2v asset created by ANY software encoder.

Even though this was on a beefy system you can still get a feel for the power. When he switched off the Mercury engine you could see that you lost at least half the speed in his exporting test.

Report · Dec 01, 2009

When he switched off the Mercury engine you could see that you lost at least half the speed in his exporting test.

Faster exporting is nice, but I feel the real selling point of Mercury will be how it works inside Premiere. "How much smoother will my media play with the effects I use on my system?"

That's the question Adobe needs to answer for users. They can't do that on a souped up rig.

Report · Dec 02, 2009

I think the answer is clear in the video - the experience inside of Premiere Pro is significantly (some would say exponentially) greater.

Dennis

Report · Dec 01, 2009

I took a closer look at the video and noticed that "Ultra" is built into Premiere CS5. That is great news. Formerly Serious Magic's product, Ultra is simply the best keying program I have ever used.