![]() Of the time.Īfter 95 minutes of waiting while AME finishes its conversion task, guess what I got in result?Ī 24 BYTES mp4 file and this record in the log file: "in other words", I can encode 3 (three) same files with ffmpeg one-after-another without multi-tasking while AME encodes just one and save 10 times of space. ![]() it took just 1/3 of the time the AME or Adobe Media Encoder did for the same job That basically means I have to spend 1 (one) and a half hours more and use 1488% more space (253/17*100) with the same Adobe suite to complete the same task due to the "upgrade", which you have no choice to avoid and/or revert.įfmpeg is 10 times more efficient and 33/95100=34.73% faster or AME is 95/33100=287% or almost three times slower than ffmpeg Mind you, some simple fact based math for a 0:48:14:09 movie :Īdobe MOV: 253.3 GB - amount/quality of RAM / CPU / GPU makes no difference for the output speed of the Adobe products, field tested Īdobe MP4: 17GB estimated (50.00 Mbps target/max H.264 conversion with AME) įfmpeg MP4: 1.7GB (automated mov -> mp4 conversion at original quality / kb/s:4665.00 without any manual clicks whatsoever - just sh ffmpeg -i input.mov -qscale 0 output.mp4 with a simple event listener for *.mov files) "encoding", you have meant, while "Ae" does the "rendering", correct? "AME does rendering the best way possible" ![]() AME does rendering the best way possible so what is the point of using AE for rendering when you can send render to AME and work on next animation in AE. In other words AE is best in motion graphics animation and compositing - and it should do that the best wa possible.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |