Hi,

You are missing a couple of the answers that John asked for.  The first and probably most important is how much RAM do you have on your system and the second is does this only happen during playback or does it happen after you export the file and or burn it to DVD or BlueRay disc?  If it only in the time line, you can render that segment, then reduce the playback quality of the monitor in Video Pro X (not your system monitor) and it should play fine.

If it happens after you burn or export, that is a different matter.  Is there some particular reason you want or need to use the .MOV container format?  I personally don't like or use .MOV because it generates huge file sizes, taxes RAM and CPU and I get almost the same quality with MPEG-4.

George

Hi,

Ok so 32 GB of Ram is more than enough (althought you can never have enough ram)  a small joke on my part .  The .MOV file container format does not give you virtually anything in the way of quality.  What it does give you are huge files that require a lot of CPU to render and will provide the lags and "jerkiness" that you are seeing.  I edit and produce video for a living, and to be completely honest with you, I never use .MOV files.  Even if they are the sorce file, I always convert them to MPEG-4, and never have a problem with quality, playback, or burning.  Here is a thread on a Mac forum that talks a little about this.  http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=440910

I know many Mac users are purists and say to stay with the original format, but why?  If you don't loose anything, and editing and burning work out better, why stick with a format that just bogs down your system and the software that you are using?

I am not trying to tell you what to do, just telling you what I do.  Food for thought.

George

Hi

. . . . in the manual I haven't found how to change the playback settings for this format . . . .

You don't change these for the video format - the playback settings referred to are these (1)  in the programs settings:

Also do you have the GPU option (2) set - if not try with this checked.

If you still have problems even after pre-rendering - some jerkiness will still be evident unless you pre-render, especially with colour correction and crossfades or more complex transitions  -  then, as the spec of your PC is very good, I have a suspicion that the problem may be related to the GTX-640Ti.

From experience changing from an ATI Radeon to a GT-630 2GB on my old computer and testing with the GT-630 in my new computer where I found performance of rendering reduced -  I have dumped the GT-630 in favour of the integrated Intel HD4600 in the i5 procesor - the performance difference on my system is noticeable.

If you wish to try,  improvement in results is not guaranteed, and at your own risk, - pull the GTX-640Ti from the system and try the using the Intel HD4000 integrated graphics/onboard graphics combination to see if pplayback is better.

HTH

John

Just a small point guys - Windows 64 bit Home can not utilize more than 16GB of RAM - should be plenty though.

I agree with George - HD Mov's really cripple MEP.

What you may be seeing on the DVD render may be (inevitable) artifacts caused by the down conversion from HD to SD and from progressive (24p) to interlaced, which can look like jittering on DVD playback. Are you sure your DVD export settings are 24p and 23.97fps also? Do you see jerking if you export to an HD file with the exact same settings as your original footage, and playback in VLC media player (not Quicktime player)? 

The 6 series Nvidia cards are not entirely ideal for MEP/VPX but should provide some degree of acceleration of the timeline preview and effects rendering. Cuda rendering does not work though, due to an incompatibility with the Main Concept encoder Magix utilizes. I am intending to build a new machine and have been thinking along John's lines of just starting with the on board graphics in the new Haswell i7's.

Peter

Hi

@ Peter

. . . . Cuda rendering does not work though, due to an incompatibility . . . .

I am puzzled - it worked on my old machine rendering mp4's using the CUDA on the the GT-630 card.  Did not give an increase in render speed as I had a bottleneck downstream of the processing.

There is/was a problem with mp4's and CUDA if you had Calculate video effects on the GPU turned on in the Export dialog and Hardware acceleration for mp4/AVCHD export turned on in the program settings.

John

Hi John

I guess by "working" you mean Cuda is selectable....... but it may be ineffective.... as your result perhaps would have showed without the bottleneck. I have a 4 series card which has a different architecture chip, so can not confirm this, but there is plenty of evidence from German posts, one of which has a statement from Support that Cuda rendering and 6XX series cards are not compatible.

There should be a significant increase in speed of rendering AVCHD using CUDA. On my setup it is nearly twice as fast as Software although ticking "Calculate video effects on the GPU" reduces the speed gain with CUDA by nearly 50%.

I am also aware of the conflict between the export and program settings you mentioned.

I only use CUDA to render a "quick and dirty" roughcut for review because I do not like the reduction in quality it introduces.

Peter

Hi Peter

. . . . I guess by "working" you mean Cuda is selectable . . . . but it may be ineffective....

Yes and No - yes it is selectable and no it actually did work with CUDA - this was shown at the bottom left of the screen by the progress dialog also monitoring of the graphics card GPU showed it was being used.

The bottleneck was the HDD write speed of the SATA interface - made no difference if this was to standard HDD or SSD drive.

The 6XX series of cards had two different generations of GPU -  the older GPU did not support CUDA properly - mine had the new GPU which supported CUDA . 

So yes the German post is correct as far as it goes, however I think it needs qualifying which GPU is being used.

My new computer with i5 4670K with HD4600 GPU with a Gigabyte GA-Z87-D3HP motherboard is an absolute flyer.

John

Hi John

Yes and No - yes it is selectable and no it actually did work with CUDA - this was shown at the bottom left of the screen by the progress dialog also monitoring of the graphics card GPU showed it was being used.

But how much? My Cuda renders show up to 70% GPU load.

The bottleneck was the HDD write speed of the SATA interface - made no difference if this was to standard HDD or SSD drive.

Wow! was that just the difference between SATA 3Gbps and SATA 6Gbps?

The 6XX series of cards had two different generations of GPU -  the older GPU did not support CUDA properly - mine had the new GPU which supported CUDA .

Yes, some of the earlier 6xx series cards had the GFxxx (Fermi) chips and later ones had GKxxx (Kepler) chips. However it is the Fermi which my card has which works and you sound like you have the Kepler, whick is not supposed to be working, so I can not figure that out?? GPU-Z should show you what chip is in yours on the first tab near the top.

Good to hear your new rig is doing the business. Did you go with an SSD and did you put the swap file on it?

Peter