greetings
I would make the observation that encoding seems to be very slow compared to other programs. It looks like it will take 1hr+ to do an 11min video. Same comp, same video same effects in a different program less than 30mins.
regards
Ak
I do not find this to be the case at all. In fact many times SC is faster.
Please describe your settings, your source file and the edits (filters etc)
Settings?.. Win7 4gRam dual core
NVidia GeForce GTX960
source file iph .mov
although I use the other program (Ulead MedStudPro from 2004?) in XP, so that’s prob why.
No. That computer specs.
Your export settings in Shotcut and your source file type (size, bitrate, codec used in the container etc).
And which filters have you used?
mp4 selected
H264 @ variable 4000bitrate
aac 48hz, 220kb
contrast, colour correction, fade in/out
Do you have Shotcut’s GPU processing enabled? If so, it might work better turned off.
I can render a 17 minute video full of transitions, cuts, fades, 2 audio tracks, in about 8 minutes.
1920x1080
60FPS
3000 VBR (original file)
I record to a dedicated SSD, but actually edit/render from a dedicated 4TB internal HDD.
I’ve got the hardware that can handle it, and I have GPU processing turned off with Shotcut.
Computer Specifications:
i7-7700K Kaby Lake Quad Core 4.2 GHz
ASUS ROG GeForce GTX 1070 08G STRIX
ASUS ROG Maximus IX Hero Z270
G.Skill Ripjaws V 32GB
Deepcool Gamer Storm Captain 240EX CPU Liquid Cooler AIO
EVGA SuperNOVA 750W Platinum
Windows 10 Home
H264 wasn’t finalized till late 2003 and Ulead was discontinued in 2006 I highly doubt it’s doing the same things shotcut is.
That being said I know an intel core 2 duo at 3Ghz(T9900) with an ssd will spit out a 4k video in 1400 seconds(tested using the fire escape benchmark provided by @nwgat ) I have to imagine something else is going on here