IgorB,
Your tests prove that the new version is always slower, with only the 1 exception of 89.611 secs (old) versus 88.714 secs (new). Unfortunately that is not what we want as many of the libraries continuously attempt to improve speeds with CinGG only having minor changes to it.  Thanks again.   

On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 2:08 AM Igor BEGHETTO via Cin <cin@lists.cinelerra-gg.org> wrote:
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
Cin@lists.cinelerra-gg.org
https://lists.cinelerra-gg.org/mailman/listinfo/cin