I am editing PNG sequences, but it is stuttering like crazy.
my media files are on a 7200rpm HDD. I tested it with a speed disk test, and it can do around 130MB/s, read and write, witch should be sufficient. But when I'm editing, it is very laggy, and my windows task manager says that my HDD is at 100% utilisation even though it is caping at 50MB/s
each PNG i'm using is around 3500 ko. So according to my math, I should be able to use this HDD to eddit.
Is it normal? Is it impossible to use an HDD to eddit PNG sequences? Should I invest in an SSD?
Did you import the image as an image sequence or all separate into the project.
Image sequence is preferred and make sure the Indeterminate Media Timebase (Preferences) is set to the correct framerate.
I imported it as an image sequence, and the Indeterminate Media Timebase is set to the same framerate as my sequence. I might add that I do not experience stuttering for the first few seconds I press play. The stuttering begins after four or five seconds, every time.
What are your sequence settings and what is the height and width of the stills?
here is my sequence settings, and my stills are 1920x1080
I'm not an expert but I expect the 130MB/S transfer is for large continious files not lots of small PNG files. The HDD seek time might be more relavent for those.
I'd suggest you just transcode the png sequence to a video file like the appropriate quality of prores before you start editing.
The hard drive sounds old if the read and write is only 130 MBPS. Most the newer drives can hit 200 MBPS. How much cache do you have? If the HD is pegged at 100% the images might be taking a toll on the HD's cache. You may or may not need a SSD. A new HD with 256 MB of cache might work OK but who knows for sure?
The HD is brand new, with 256 MB of cache. I guess it's a bad one... Thank you for the reply, I'll just get an SSD.
image sequences are always going to put a strain on your system. Although a faster drive may help and is probably a worthwhile investment, there are no guarantees. Probably still a good idea to encode as prores or something similar or ask whoever's supplying the image sequence to send you a selfcontained file... The only reason I can think of why an image sequence has a serious advantage is if you're outputting a complex animation or special effect so if a few frames are wrong, you only have to re-export those frames instead of the entire clip... This had serious advantages 15 years ago when I was working with an animation studio in Wales (I'm in NY) and they would post HD animations as image sequences and I'd download them. If I found a problem in a just a short section, it not only saved them the time in just re-exporting that section, it also sometimes saved days of them uploading and me downloading. Render and internet speeds were very sluggish compared to what is possible today. Complex animations were usually sent to a third party's render farm... History lesson over. back to your regularly scheduled program
and if you need help with the workflow to encode as a single clip, post back.
I think something is wrong with your hard drive. Is it a brand name? Is it 98% full? In the video I show what a brand new Seagate Barracuda HD can do. 130 MB sounds good for 2010 not 2020. The video below might be worth watching.