Thank you, Phyllis for you yours good replies/questions. All yours
questions are good.
The tests were done using
"CinGG-20241231-alternative_shortcuts.AppImage" versus a very old
"cinelerra-5.1-ub16.04-20201031.x86_64-static.txz" (no Appimage).
I tested the new Appimage first and then the old release.
Yesterday I did other tests: always the same project, the same selection
in the Timeline, the same Render setup (vp9_1280x270_24or24or50fps.webm).
I did the same render four times (no other programs run by me), first
the old version (A) and then the new Appimage (B).
A. - Started using "cinelerra-5.1-ub16.04-20201031.x86_64-static.txz"
(no Appimage)
A1. Info by terminal says: 300 frames 86.179 secs 3.481 fps
A2. Info by terminal says: 300 frames 85.862 secs 3.494 fps
A3. Info by terminal says: 300 frames 89.611 secs 3.348 fps
A4. Info by terminal says: 300 frames 82.930 secs 3.618 fps
Media: 86.1455 secs
B. - Then using "CinGG-20241231-alternative_shortcuts.AppImage"
B1. Info by terminal says: 300 frames 92.788 secs 3.233 fps
B2. Info by terminal says: 300 frames 88.714 secs 3.382 fps
B3. Info by terminal says: 300 frames 90.842 secs 3.302 fps
B4. Info by terminal says: 300 frames 90.586 secs 3.312 fps
Media: 90.7325 secs
Every time the result is different, I think it is normal,... and all the
things Phyllis wrote are valid.
Thanks!
IgorBeg
Il 06/01/2025 16:12, Phyllis Smith ha scritto:
IgorB,
Thank you for testing and documenting your results. Did you test the
new AppImage first and then the old Appimage? The faster time on the
old AppImage may have been due to some of the video file/rendering
still being in memory. Were both cases tested with AppImages? Do you
get the same results if you test the old AppImage first and then the
new? Or the results could be because of the increased size of the new
AppImage versus the old; the upgraded library packages; or something else!
I did some rendering test on an old project of mine using
"CinGG-20241231-alternative_shortcuts.AppImage"; only 10 secs by
selection (highlight) in Timeline.
Render setup: vp9_1280x270_24or24or50fps.webm
- Info by terminal says: 300 frames 94.918 secs 3.161 fps; File
Size
1.6MB
An old Cin version, same setup,...
- Info by terminal says: 300 frames 83.582 secs 3.589 fps; File
Size
1.5MB
I think, it is strange that rendering of an old version of CinGG is
slightly faster than a new one. Is it, probably, due to the old
Laptop
and old Operating System that adapts better?
IgorBeg
--
Cin mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cinelerra-gg.org/mailman/listinfo/cin
