Big lag using Atomic Particles on new Mac Pro

Don CortezDon Cortez Website User Posts: 2
edited September 2014 in Post-production techniques
Hello
Please help
I've just downloaded HitFilm 2 Ultimate trial, all seemed great until I decided to follow an Atomic Particles tutorial I found on Vimeo
http://vimeo.com/91597443
As soon as I started added Atomic Particles HitFilm started running very very very slow, even with no motion blur and depth of field and with the render set to Quarter, there was so much lag on everything it made HitFilm unusable and I was not able to complete the tutorial.
I am running HitFilm 2 Ultimate on a brand new Mac Pro 3.5Ghz 6 Core with 2 AMD Fire Pro Graphic cards with 3 gigs of RAM each
The strange thing is, I ran Activity monitor and it showed no overload at all.
Am I doing something wrong or does HitFilm not work very well on the new Mac Pro??
Thanks
M

Comments

  • AdyAdy Staff Administrator, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 1,453 Staff
    edited September 2014
    Hello
    Please help
    I've just downloaded HitFilm 2 Ultimate trial, all seemed great until I decided to follow an Atomic Particles tutorial I found on Vimeo
    As soon as I started added Atomic Particles HitFilm started running very very very slow, even with no motion blur and depth of field and with the render set to Quarter, there was so much lag on everything it made HitFilm unusable and I was not able to complete the tutorial.
    I am running HitFilm 2 Ultimate on a brand new Mac Pro 3.5Ghz 6 Core with 2 AMD Fire Pro Graphic cards with 3 gigs of RAM each
    The strange thing is, I ran Activity monitor and it showed no overload at all.
    Am I doing something wrong or does HitFilm not work very well on the new Mac Pro??
    Thanks
    M
    Hi,
    Sorry you're having trouble with the software.
    Can I just ask, is it only Atomic Particles that you're having trouble with?
    For instance is the Particle Simulator showing the same behaviour?
    Just like to know if you are seeing problems in other areas of the product or whether it's just related to Atomic Particles?
    Thanks,
    Ady
  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator Moderator, Website User, Ambassador, Imerge Beta Tester, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 18,307 Ambassador
    Not a developer, but noting that Atomic is one of the most resources-intensive effects in Hitfilm. Let's assume you've broken your image into a 100 x 100 matrix: this is still transforming a pixel matrix into. 10,000 particles in 3D space, then moving and animating them via fractal algorithms that are inherently recursive--in other words, the same mathematical equation/process is being run several times to generate the final data. If you're using Atomic at it's 1000 x 1000 max resolution, and you have a million particles (being processed multiple times through recursive math prior to render.) Note: increasing Z-particles, of course, generates more data. Setting all 3 axes to 1000 generates a BILLION particles (and probably crashes the system).
    I haven't watched Null's tutorial, but I know he's stated in the forums when he's building his Atomic scenes he's working with a smaller number of particles and usually working in Quarter-resolution, only turning up his particle count for render.
    Also, if I remember correctly, Hitfilm doesn't support dual-GPU's at this time, so one of your Fire Pros is idling.
  • NullUnitNullUnit Website User Posts: 791 Just Starting Out
    edited September 2014

    I haven't watched Null's tutorial, but I know he's stated in the forums when he's building his Atomic scenes he's working with a smaller number of particles and usually working in Quarter-resolution, only turning up his particle count for render.


    Actually I don't do those things. I only turned off motion blur to work in that tutorial.
    Coincidentally, I was gearing up to write a long post with video examples about why I think that Atomic Particles needs some sort of optimization (I'm not a programmer, so maybe this is the wrong term). I used a dual core 3ghz/ 4gigs of ram/ AMD radeon 6670 with 1gig vram computer for the last 4 years. I made that tutorial with that computer. After I made the tutorial I got several comments on this forum and on Vimeo from people with computers and video cards far more powerful than mine asking me how my computer was able to run AP so well, especially when I mentioned in the tutorial that I dont have a powerful computer. Flash forward to now and I have a new computer. i7 3ghz/ 12 gigs ram/  GTX 750 video card. I know that the GTX 750 is not an amazing card, but it rates better in every category than the Radeon 6670. I can play Skyrim on Ultra settings where my old computer played it on Medium settings. Yet, atomic particle can barely run on my new computer. AP plays back on my new computer at a fraction of the frame rate that it did on my old computer. 
    To me this points out some kind of optimization issue. Something about my 4 year old 6670 video card is more capable of running AP than a card that came out this year and out performs the 6670.   
    I havent had time, but I was going to make a side by side video showing my two computers running the same AP session. 
    http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-HD-6670-vs-GeForce-GTX-750
    http://www.hwcompare.com/17132/geforce-gtx-750-vs-radeon-hd-6670-oem-1gb/

  • Don CortezDon Cortez Website User Posts: 2
    Thanks for the replies
    Very interesting, the New Mac Pros are fairly fast machines even with just one GPU being used, so surely there shouldn't be that amount  lag when using Atomic Particles, Ive used AE , C4D and Motion 5 on this Machine and nothing has every gone that slow,  I agree with Null something is not right.
    The rest of the software seems OK though
    Cheers
    M
  • NullUnitNullUnit Website User Posts: 791 Just Starting Out
    Thanks for the replies
    Very interesting, the New Mac Pros are fairly fast machines even with just one GPU being used, so surely there shouldn't be that amount  lag when using Atomic Particles, Ive used AE , C4D and Motion 5 on this Machine and nothing has every gone that slow,  I agree with Null something is not right.
    The rest of the software seems OK though
    Cheers
    M


    Yeah, I want to point out that every other aspect of HitFilm's performance improved when I upgraded my computer and obviously I'm a fan of the software. Also, I'm aware that HF uses predominately the GPU and that the GTX 750 is only a bit more powerful than the Radeon 6670, but something does seem strange about the obvious performance difference with atomic articles. 

  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator Moderator, Website User, Ambassador, Imerge Beta Tester, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 18,307 Ambassador
    I stand corrected regarding Null's workflow.
    I'm interested in how different GPU's seem to be less efficient with Atomic--if you two gentlemen weren't ane Nvidia and one AMD I'd speculate it has something to do with CUDA vs Open GL, but that can't be it. I wonder, however, if with some of the more recent GPU's the engineers have pushed for improved handling of polys and lighting at the expense of particles? I dunno.
    I stand by my assertion that Atomic is one of the most resource-intensive effects in Hitfilm, however. It really is.
Sign In or Register to comment.