[Cin] Rendering tests

Phyllis Smith phylsmith2017 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 2 20:31:22 CEST 2023

Glad you ran the tests with interesting results.  Just guessing, but
probably the most likely cause of the difference is in "seeking".  There
are patches to solve some seeking problems that occurred in specific user
files early on (for example patch3).  Also, additional pixel formats were
added (patchZ1) and a fix to add YUV420P as valid for one of the graphics
hardware acceleration option (I think it was a gopro video but do not
really remember).

On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 10:51 AM Andrea paz via Cin <
cin at lists.cinelerra-gg.org> wrote:

> Taking advantage of the fact that I compiled a version that uses
> system (external) ffmpeg, I did some comparative testing with CinGG
> appimage which uses an internal ffmpeg instead.
> I report the results:
> Source: blender movie "Tears of steel" 1080p, webm
> (Used an interval of the first 1440 frames via In/Out Points)
> mp4; preset h264.mp4
> ffmpeg internal --> render at 117.4 fps (25.4MB)
> ffmpeg external --> render at 175.3 fps (22.8MB)
> mxf; preset DNxHR 444
> ffmpeg internal --> render at 92.9 fps (1.8GB)
> ffmpeg external --> render at 120.5 fps (1.8GB)
> I had already noticed that ffmpeg from the command line (external) was
> faster than ffmpeg inside CinGG; but now we see that even external
> ffmpeg called up inside CinGG is still faster than internal ffmpeg.
> What could be the cause of this difference?
> --
> Cin mailing list
> Cin at lists.cinelerra-gg.org
> https://lists.cinelerra-gg.org/mailman/listinfo/cin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cinelerra-gg.org/pipermail/cin/attachments/20230602/887015b4/attachment.htm>

More information about the Cin mailing list