New video card speeds Magic Bullet renders

mark-woollard wrote on 3/17/2006, 2:26 PM
Thought I'd share some test results for Vegas renders of HDV (1440x1080 Cineform Intermediate) and DV (720x480) clips using a Magic Bullet White Diffusion 5 filter. I love this filter but don't use it very much because of horrendous render times.

I upgraded to MB Editors 2 which uses the GPU and upgraded my video card from an nVidia Geforce FX 5700 (128MB) to a 6800 GS/256MB (if interested, see my system specs below).

Here are the comparative renders times in mm:ss for a 10 second clip (talking head, not much motion). I rendered the DV clips to mpg2 using a custom DVD Architect "best" setting. This was to emulate my usual workflow. I rendered the HDV clips to wmv9 1440x1080 default template.

Video Card................................5700.............6800........Difference
DV no filter.................................00:13...........00:13.............none
DV with MB filter........................04:10...........00:32......7.81 times faster
HDV no filter..............................03:21...........03:18.......1.02 times faster
HDV with MB filter.....................19:17...........03:50.......5.03 times faster

I didn't expect the faster video card to have any effect on Vegas rendering without a MB filter. And this is essentially what happened.

I did expect much faster renders with the MB filter. And that's what happened.

The MB website reports comparative playback framerates for NTSC DV clips using MB version 2.0 with three different video cards. For the nVidia 6800 Ultra, they report 14-21 fps using various MB filters. My 6800 GS is close to the Ultra. I got 15.6 fps DV playback with the White Diffusion 5 filter. Using the 5700 card, I got 1.5 fps playback. The 6800 was 10.6 times faster.

HDV framerate was 4.2 fps with the 5700 and 22 fps with the 6800, 5. 2 times faster.

The great thing for me is I can now use the MB WD5 filter on HDV clips with a modest render time penalty of only 16% (i.e. 1.16 times longer). It used to be a penalty of 475% (i.e. 5.75 times longer).

With DV, the penalty is still significant--146% (i.e. 2.46 times longer). But this is way better than the old penaly of 1823% (i.e. 19.23 times longer).

A 7800 card would of course improve things even more. And there is now an AGP version of the 7800 out there. The Magic Bullet website suggests it would give real time playback of DV.

GPU processing is indeed a magic bullet for using Magic Bullet v2 filters in Vegas. I hope GPU processing becomes a similar magic bullet for accelerating the next version of Vegas.

System Spec: Supermicro dual Xeon (2x2.8 Ghz) mobo with an AGP (no PCI Express); 2 Gigs of RAM, SATA Raid 0.

Comments

murk wrote on 3/17/2006, 3:03 PM
I can only hope that numbers like these give the Madison crew a kick to head as to the importance of GPU acceleration in general.
Coursedesign wrote on 3/17/2006, 3:46 PM
More and more media software uses GPU acceleration now, even audio software.

Premiere Pro's GPU acceleration works great, Final Cut's GPU acceleration will work great when released soon, and there are many many more.

There was just a price drop on 7800 cards, as the 7900 series was introduced.

There is also a new 7600 series.
Xander wrote on 3/17/2006, 4:43 PM
Cool. Unfortunately I have an ATI card - X850T. ATI released 6.3 drivers which use the GPU for hardware transcoding / coding of video. Unfortunately, it only woks on the X19... series. MB2 only uses the X850 if you have a mac and not a PC. Bascially I am fu%k!d with my current video card. Don't see why I should buy a new video card just because people can't write decent software even though it could help. I personally would buy a new video card if everybody supported it, but guess it is nVidia vs ATI so exclusives rule. Guess it shows why having untimate CPU power from AMD of Intel is no longer necessary if you can offload it to the graphics card - then again, a new graphics card costs as much as a new CPU - go figure.
arcorob wrote on 8/24/2006, 10:54 AM
I stumbled on this looking for video card info and also interested in faster render times. Can ANYONE explain to me how a video card will enhance render times in any way ?

Excuse my ignorance but I thought the purpose of faster video cards was to
1) Enhance the quality and look of video displayed by allowing more pipelines, shades, etec etc and taking the strain off the CPU
2) Allow featues to be used as it in fact acts as another CPU but again, driving better video display

Video rendering is strictly a matter of read - process - write , meaning it is exclusively the territory of the I/O speed and CPU speed. How is any of this "offloaded" to a video card ? If it is due to the display factor in the preview window, then wouldnt turning off preview have the same result ? Is video preview the cause of slowdowns ?

Help me get my brain around this please !!! Thanks
GlennChan wrote on 8/24/2006, 5:52 PM
Video cards were originally designed to process graphics, and they are very good at that. At the heart of it, the video card is esentially a very specialised computer that is good at processing graphics. Because of its specialization, it isn't as flexible as a CPU (it can't do everything a CPU can) and it's much faster than a CPU at processing graphics.

However, you don't necessarily need the input to be graphics. And nowadays, the video card vendors are offering a higher level of programmability to their cards, so you can write programs to run on the card. So you can get the card to process any data you want like audio, database sorting, optical flow analysis, etc. but you have to stay within the limitations of the video card. For example, they can't do conditional statements... so they are bad for things like compiling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit some more info from wikipedia

2- A program can pass data onto the video card through the AGP or pciE buses. AGP has a bandwidth bottleneck, which pciE solves.

3- A CPU can be programmed to do everything a GPU can, although it can be much much slower than a GPU (i.e. 20X slower). A GPU delivers better quality since you can use algorithms you otherwise wouldn't have enough processing power for.

4- IMO, future versions of Vegas should definitely implement some GPU acceleration. Especially for the most-used effects, pan/crop in particular (with good antialiasing/filtering in rescaling). A hybrid approach of GPU + CPU would deliver the most performance.

Many of the high-end systems out there (Discreet, Jaleo/Mistika, and many others) make heavy use of GPU acceleration, albiet of the openGL type (which means you may need the more expensive workstation cards) and they run on Linux.
jwcarney wrote on 8/24/2006, 6:03 PM
Magic Bullet only uses 8bit per channel color when using the Nvidia GPU. If someone wants to use it's deep color features, it's all software. I believe they are using the OpenGL drivers. Magic Bullet still does not support ATI/OpenGL on Windows. Wish they did.
GlennChan wrote on 8/24/2006, 6:26 PM
Nvidia GPUs can do calculations at 32-bit float... ATI does 24-bit float (they are being cheap).

In Vegas, you sort of lose the point of doing 32-bit float calculations since the filter isn't designed to work in studioRGB color space (and you get rounding error when you convert).

2- I'm not sure if MBE does 32-bit/24-bit float internally when rendering on the GPU, but it would make sense for it to do it (easy to program, very little performance hit).
arcorob wrote on 8/25/2006, 10:19 AM
So then I guess to the point of what I am after

Would a faster video card speed my renders or only if I use MB filters ? Are you saying its possible BUT Vegas does not take advantage of it unless you use MB ?

I mean if I go from a Radeon 9600 to a XT850 or some such ( I believe ATI only has 1 higher end AGP card left) , will I see a difference with nornal video rendering ?

Sorry to be a bug, I just want to do anything that is an interim to builing a new system. I have half the parts for the newer , faster dual core system (processor, cooler , case, etc) but I may wait if I can.

Thanks again...
mark-woollard wrote on 8/25/2006, 3:29 PM
Based on my limited experience, the faster video card only speeds up the preview and rendering of Vegas events with MB filters active.

Not sure if there are any other 3rd party filters that make use of the GPU.

I was hoping Vegas 7 would add GPU support to its native filters but have not seen any reference to that in the advance info so far.

Mark

TheHappyFriar wrote on 8/25/2006, 4:30 PM
strange. they support mostly ATI cards on mac & only nvidia on windows. :?

TheHappyFriar wrote on 8/28/2006, 6:40 PM
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/mb4editorscrossb.html

us vegas 6 owners got an upgrade for $200. Not bad. The bad part is that there's no planned ATI support for PC's in this version.