Serato Video General Discussion
Do the amount of screens you output to affect frame rate?
Talk about Serato Video and Video-SL.
Do the amount of screens you output to affect frame rate?
lofty
6:52 PM - 9 March, 2012
Itch with video has been running great at my mobile gigs
but......
I did a bar gig on the weekend and the frame rate was low and I was getting maxed out on CPU throughout the evening.
At the bar I plug into a VGA that goes to a computer video matrix - on average to 10-15 tv's
could this type of output affect my frame rate and CPU load?
Also - I also didn't check ...... but on mobile I run 800x600 to the projector
----- if the bar was 1024x768 would that cause slowdowns?
but......
I did a bar gig on the weekend and the frame rate was low and I was getting maxed out on CPU throughout the evening.
At the bar I plug into a VGA that goes to a computer video matrix - on average to 10-15 tv's
could this type of output affect my frame rate and CPU load?
Also - I also didn't check ...... but on mobile I run 800x600 to the projector
----- if the bar was 1024x768 would that cause slowdowns?
DJ DisGrace
7:42 PM - 9 March, 2012
That's most likely the problem. Adjust your secondary screen output to 800x600. Could also be heat related, as most clubs get kinda hot n sticky after 4 hrs. Try a cooling fan.
Quote:
if the bar was 1024x768 would that cause slowdowns?That's most likely the problem. Adjust your secondary screen output to 800x600. Could also be heat related, as most clubs get kinda hot n sticky after 4 hrs. Try a cooling fan.
Dj Nyce
2:32 AM - 11 March, 2012
but......
I did a bar gig on the weekend and the frame rate was low and I was getting maxed out on CPU throughout the evening.
At the bar I plug into a VGA that goes to a computer video matrix - on average to 10-15 tv's
could this type of output affect my frame rate and CPU load?
Also - I also didn't check ...... but on mobile I run 800x600 to the projector
----- if the bar was 1024x768 would that cause slowdowns?
# of connected tvs at the matrix will not affect your frame rates. the matrix does all the work. frame rate is subject to your laptop's resources.
also make sure your refresh rate is set to an ntsc (i.e. 60) rate and make sure that you 2nd monitor output isn't set to something bigger than your videos. It should be 640x480 (or 800x600)
install smc fan control and run it a max when you're playing vids, close any unnecessary apps, disable bluetooth and wifi. if you have mac that has discrete and shared video, make sure you switch to the discrete when playing vids.
Quote:
Itch with video has been running great at my mobile gigsbut......
I did a bar gig on the weekend and the frame rate was low and I was getting maxed out on CPU throughout the evening.
At the bar I plug into a VGA that goes to a computer video matrix - on average to 10-15 tv's
could this type of output affect my frame rate and CPU load?
Also - I also didn't check ...... but on mobile I run 800x600 to the projector
----- if the bar was 1024x768 would that cause slowdowns?
# of connected tvs at the matrix will not affect your frame rates. the matrix does all the work. frame rate is subject to your laptop's resources.
also make sure your refresh rate is set to an ntsc (i.e. 60) rate and make sure that you 2nd monitor output isn't set to something bigger than your videos. It should be 640x480 (or 800x600)
install smc fan control and run it a max when you're playing vids, close any unnecessary apps, disable bluetooth and wifi. if you have mac that has discrete and shared video, make sure you switch to the discrete when playing vids.
lofty
3:05 PM - 11 March, 2012
it's just weird as I was there a few weeks before with SL 1.9.2 and all was good and when I switched to itch beta my mobile gigs were the same on itch 2.2 as SL 1.9.2 (frame are temp, and stuff) just the bar gig things got sketchy - It ran OK - just my Mac seemed to be struggling..
next time I'm there I'll double check the secondary output - I know my projector is set to 800x600 @ 60htz - I might even drop it to 640x480 -
I do have SMC when running video fan is 6200 and temp hovers around 80-83ÂșC (same as VSL )
I know my lappy is old (2007) but its still running strong - just waiting for the NEW macbook pros to upgrade.......
Otherwise for the mobile Im sticking with itch - at the bar - who knows - but it is a good beta test -
next time I'm there I'll double check the secondary output - I know my projector is set to 800x600 @ 60htz - I might even drop it to 640x480 -
I do have SMC when running video fan is 6200 and temp hovers around 80-83ÂșC (same as VSL )
I know my lappy is old (2007) but its still running strong - just waiting for the NEW macbook pros to upgrade.......
Otherwise for the mobile Im sticking with itch - at the bar - who knows - but it is a good beta test -
Rebelguy
4:07 PM - 11 March, 2012
I know my lappy is old (2007) but its still running strong - just waiting for the NEW macbook pros to upgrade.......
If they go the design direction of the Macbook Airs that is rumored then this might not be the best solution for video.
Quote:
I know my lappy is old (2007) but its still running strong - just waiting for the NEW macbook pros to upgrade.......
If they go the design direction of the Macbook Airs that is rumored then this might not be the best solution for video.
popnwave
6:35 PM - 11 March, 2012
The only rumor is that they will be thinner. I doubt they will get rid of discrete video cards in the new ones in the pro line. The Airs are now at the price point the regular MacBooks were and are more about portability than doing things like video editing, etc.
DJMark
8:55 PM - 11 March, 2012
lofty... have you ever cleaned out the fans and heatsinks?
I'm guessing there's a strong chance that the 2012 MacBook Pros will be losing the internal optical drive, and therefore the option to install a second hard drive in its place. Also quite possible we'll be losing some ports. Also a "thinner" form factor may bring some new thermal issues (as was the case with the early MacBook Airs).
Thunderbolt looks to be getting a considerable speed boost though.
I'm guessing there's a strong chance that the 2012 MacBook Pros will be losing the internal optical drive, and therefore the option to install a second hard drive in its place. Also quite possible we'll be losing some ports. Also a "thinner" form factor may bring some new thermal issues (as was the case with the early MacBook Airs).
Thunderbolt looks to be getting a considerable speed boost though.
lofty
11:04 PM - 11 March, 2012
I'm guessing there's a strong chance that the 2012 MacBook Pros will be losing the internal optical drive, and therefore the option to install a second hard drive in its place. Also quite possible we'll be losing some ports. Also a "thinner" form factor may bring some new thermal issues (as was the case with the early MacBook Airs).
Thunderbolt looks to be getting a considerable speed boost though.
probably due for another cleaning
as for new mac-pros - once the announcement is dropped I can choose wether to greg the current pro or get the new one, I only use the optical drive 1-2 times a year and figure I'd be fine without it(or just have a USB drive in the gear bag.
Quote:
lofty... have you ever cleaned out the fans and heatsinks?I'm guessing there's a strong chance that the 2012 MacBook Pros will be losing the internal optical drive, and therefore the option to install a second hard drive in its place. Also quite possible we'll be losing some ports. Also a "thinner" form factor may bring some new thermal issues (as was the case with the early MacBook Airs).
Thunderbolt looks to be getting a considerable speed boost though.
probably due for another cleaning
as for new mac-pros - once the announcement is dropped I can choose wether to greg the current pro or get the new one, I only use the optical drive 1-2 times a year and figure I'd be fine without it(or just have a USB drive in the gear bag.
DjChino3
2:35 PM - 12 March, 2012
to those with macbook pros, I would suggest investing money in upgrading your hdd to an SSD and also upgrading your RAM to either 8GB for older macs and 16GB for the newer mbp's that can support it. Also, if you do go with an SSD, the newer mac's have a 6GB p/s throughput through the Sata ports. If anyone wants more info on this, feel free to hit me up.
DJMark
6:00 PM - 12 March, 2012
For running other apps maybe...certainly not needed for Scratch Live with or without video.
Before spending money on RAM, Mac users would be smart to check Activity Monitor when running whatever apps they normally run.
With Activity Monitor open, click on "System Memory". The pie-chart gives a good visual, but if you see the "Page Outs" reading at "0 bytes", you will get absolutely no benefit from putting in more RAM than you already have.
Quote:
Why 16gb of ram?For running other apps maybe...certainly not needed for Scratch Live with or without video.
Before spending money on RAM, Mac users would be smart to check Activity Monitor when running whatever apps they normally run.
With Activity Monitor open, click on "System Memory". The pie-chart gives a good visual, but if you see the "Page Outs" reading at "0 bytes", you will get absolutely no benefit from putting in more RAM than you already have.
Dj Nyce
3:25 AM - 13 March, 2012
ssd is a horrible waste of money. dollar/gb is way too high and you will not realize any real-world performance increases using any aspect of serato.
DjChino3
3:41 AM - 13 March, 2012
That's a matter of personal opinion. I'm running an 120GB SSD that runs my OS and apps and I swapped out the cd drive for a 750GB Hdd that contains my library. My setup can run itch/serato video without a hitch.
phatbob
10:54 AM - 13 March, 2012
I've done the same thing with one of my MBPs and yes, booting and opening apps is quicker, but once I've got SL open and running there is absolutely zero performance increase.
In my latest machine I just went for a single 7200rpm 750gb drive and it works just as well for SL.
In my latest machine I just went for a single 7200rpm 750gb drive and it works just as well for SL.
Dj Nyce
2:43 PM - 13 March, 2012
yes...waste of money is an opinion.
the facts
dollar/gb is higher than HDD
performance increase will not be realized when utilizing any function in SSL
just consider these things before you spend $800 on a 480GB SSD.
the facts
dollar/gb is higher than HDD
performance increase will not be realized when utilizing any function in SSL
just consider these things before you spend $800 on a 480GB SSD.
djcrap
8:03 PM - 13 March, 2012
the facts
dollar/gb is higher than HDD
performance increase will not be realized when utilizing any function in SSL
just consider these things before you spend $800 on a 480GB SSD.
how about if you are running Reason 5 rewired into the bridge plus scratchlive and serato video.....all open and running would still having and SDD plus 16 gigs of ram be a waste of money?
Quote:
yes...waste of money is an opinion.the facts
dollar/gb is higher than HDD
performance increase will not be realized when utilizing any function in SSL
just consider these things before you spend $800 on a 480GB SSD.
how about if you are running Reason 5 rewired into the bridge plus scratchlive and serato video.....all open and running would still having and SDD plus 16 gigs of ram be a waste of money?
djcrap
8:05 PM - 13 March, 2012
the facts
dollar/gb is higher than HDD
performance increase will not be realized when utilizing any function in SSL
just consider these things before you spend $800 on a 480GB SSD.
how about if you are running Reason 5 rewired into the bridge plus scratchlive and serato video.....all open and running would still having and SDD plus 16 gigs of ram be a waste of money?
Quote:
yes...waste of money is an opinion.the facts
dollar/gb is higher than HDD
performance increase will not be realized when utilizing any function in SSL
just consider these things before you spend $800 on a 480GB SSD.
how about if you are running Reason 5 rewired into the bridge plus scratchlive and serato video.....all open and running would still having and SDD plus 16 gigs of ram be a waste of money?
Dj Nyce
1:40 AM - 14 March, 2012
ram is not a waste of money. it is dirt cheap and all apps can take advantage of it including cpu-intensive ones. 16gb is overkill, but for the price it is a good upgrade. i have 16gb in my mbp.
for that setup the 16gb ram would be a smart upgrade. the ssd would be a nice to have.
for that setup the 16gb ram would be a smart upgrade. the ssd would be a nice to have.
To participate in this forum discussion please log in to your Serato account.