[Cin] Release for 12/2024 + question for Andrey

[Igor BEGHETTO]

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
>
>