CPU Usage...

[blueridgebruce]

I have thoroughly enjoyed putting the most current demo through its paces (.32). One thing I've noticed is that when I'm running the home layout, I rarely have CPU issues but when running in the Pro mode, it will often run between 85 and 95%. Where this can create a problem is in the lack of a smooth playback of a video clip. I usually am running only two camera, using one for my LifeCam and the other for capture.

My PC is a Dell Latitude laptop with Intel Core 2 Duo processor, and 2 GB of ram. Anybody else having issues with CPU usage?

Also... on an different note, when playing back an audio only clip, why does this "Audio Only" graphic come up in the playback window? I'd prefer that the audio clip play over either my current camera view or a static picture, i.e. perhaps some album art or something else.

Thanks Mike for a great program that continues to improve with age... like a fine wine. ;>)

Bruce

[Mike]

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for making this a public debate, I want to hear what you and others say of this.

The CPU usage depends on many things, and a big increase can be caused by something as simple as a camera's driver: one can be a lot more efficient than the other. Obviously with some experimenting this can be easily figured out. However there are more CPU 'eaters', and even when all are small the sun of them can add up. This is why I recommend a Core 2 Duo and good graphics card (this allows me to do 4 cameras). I am a little surprised you run into problems with only 2 cameras, but again that could be something simple like a poor camera driver. But that's not the discussion I like to have here...

As said the CPU usage is (also) caused by VidBlaster itself, it processes every frame from various sources. That is a lot of work. After hearing you complain about CPU usage on your machine (I think you were trying to run some other programs as well) I suddenly realized there might be a very simple solution to bring down CPU usage: lower the frame rate. In fact by default, Ustream uses only 11 fps. VidBlaster uses (a whopping) 25 fps. There's no penalty in bringing down VidBlaster's frame rate to 11 fps too in this case, unless you have Ustream set to 25 fps, or even 30. If you are only recording, or streaming and recording, the penalty for bringing down the frame rate may be too high if you want the recording to have the best possible frame rate.

So what I'd like to hear is everyone's thoughts on this. Especially of course from those who have CPU usage problems for whatever reason. Would you mind a lower frame rate as a (possible) easy fix? What frame rate do you use for streaming? What if you only record, would you be interested in this feature too?

If there's enough interest, we'll do an experiment to see how much can be gained with this feature.

Thanks,

Mike

[FogTom]

Mike,

Changing the frame rate sounds fine to me if it allows lower CPU usage as long as I have control over the rate. Can you add an option to set the rate instead of forcing it to a lower number (like 11 fps)? I think the Pro version should allow the user to set the rate based on configuration and the conditions.

You mention setting the fps in Ustream to 25 or 30 but the maximum I can set on my Ustream client is 23 fps. Is the Ustream value based the system configuration? What happens if the Ustream fps setting doesn't match VB fps (25 fps?)?

I also find that the CPU usage goes way up when I enable screen capture (esp. full screen) and that could bring down a system that is under powered to begin with. Sounds like this would be a good subject for a technical note. :)

Tom

[blueridgebruce]

Great suggestions all around. I run Ustream at 11 fps and will lower the frame rate in Vidblaster to coincide. Make great sense to me. Thanks to all. I love this kind of collaboration. ;>)

[Mike]

Tom, feel free to start making those technical notes :) Yes, full screen capture is CPU intensive.

FME supports all frame rates, indeed the standard Ustream client not (although I think the newer does).

The frame rate would be a setting of course.

Let's see if we can get some more feedback from others.

[MarcusCarey]

As Mike knows, I've raised this issue of CPU usage myself many times. Here is what I have done to bring it down to an acceptable level.

First and foremost, I am now using my USB camera instead of my Canon GL2 via firewire. The processor dropped from 76% to under 40% with this change.

I am no longer running Webcammax along with VidBlaster. Mike has made so many improvements in his program and taken so many of the to be expected bugs out of his first version that now I can do almost anything I want with VidBlaster without the extra program running.

Today I experimented with a live stream. For one thing, I turned off the local monitor on Ustream. I don't need it and it took 10% off of the CPU usage meter.

I also changed my display settings to eliminate icons, lowered my screen power and brightness and other minor fixes. This took about 15% off of my CPU usage.

When doing screen capture, I sized my program to fit within the area I set as my capture area in VidBlaster and am running an inexpensive extra monitor where all my programs, except the screen capture area, are opened. The only programs I had open on the control monitor were: VidBlaster, PodProducer and Ustream (with local monitor off). The main monitor on my laptop had the open program (which by the way was the CPU intensive Adobe Premiere Pro CS3). At the peak my CPU usage hit about 76%, but only for a moment or two as I manipulated some video on the Premiere timeline. Then it dropped below 60% for the rest of the stream.

Oh, and I was also recording in the VidBlaster module. Once I recorded in .wmv, the other time in uncompressed .avi. Neither caused my CPU to even breath hard.

[Mike]

Thanks for the feedback Marcus, a lot will learn from this as it shows everything you run costs CPU power and things can add up quickly.

[abouvette]

I'd like to know if anyone has been able to stream/record without the CPU meter going in the red. Here is my hardware:

-Dell XPS 630 Core2Quad 8200
-ATI 4750 512MB
- 4GB RAM
- XPSP3
- Osprey-450e
- USB Mixer (MobilePre USB)
-VidBlaster Pro 1.00

Connecting a single camcorder to my Osprey card and setting VidBlaster as follows:
- FrameRate: 30fps
- Resolution 640x480
- Stream Resolution 320x240

If I have my camera up in the Program window and audio on, and the streamer going, my CPU is around 15-20%. That's fine by me.
As soon as I hit the Record button, it averages around 60% and eventually will go in the red (in the 80-90% range). The video output is great so long as the CPU stays out of the red. If it does, it seems as though the video gets choppy and suffers from motion blur.

My goal is to stream @ 320x240 but I also need a good quality copy of the broadcast for the media. My intent was to save a local file using VidBlaster but its obviously too much for my PC to handle. I will eventually be connecting 4 cameras to my card and can't afford to have choppy video in the end.

I tried dropping the framerate to 25fps and there was little difference in CPU usage. The resulting video file wasn't as good quality. I dropped the framerate to 15fps which did drop my CPU quite a bit (to 40% or so) but the video quality was too jerky and likely wouldn't be acceptable for television broadcast.

I will have to use the Output to second monitor option to send the signal to an external Sony DVD/HDD Recorder. Hopefully this won't cost me any additional CPU usage.

Has anyone been able to stay out of the red zone with a similar PC (or one that's technically less powerful)?
I know that I could try to weed out more services or programs that may be running on my pc but its obvious that using the Recorder to save a file is the biggest draw on the CPU.

[Mike]

Record UNcompressed, this hardly puts any load on the CPU. Make sure though the hard drive is fast and big enough.

[abouvette]

Record UNcompressed, this hardly puts any load on the CPU. Make sure though the hard drive is fast and big enough.


Hmmm.. I can try this but I doubt it will suit my needs.

I currently have a 640GB 7200RPM drive.
My last stream, I saved a 640x480 30fps WMV (10mbps) file and it was almost 1.8GB for 39 minutes. I can't imagine how big the uncompressed version would be. Plus it takes quite a bit of time to save the file to an acceptable size; especially if I wanted to burn a copy to cd or dvd to give to the television media.

The last time I actually did try an uncompressed option, I had synch issues between the video and audio:
http://vidblaster.com/forum/index.php?topic=247.msg1321#msg1321

I will have more data for you soon. I plan on connecting at least 3 cameras (hopefully 4) to my osprey card and stream. I will then check the CPU levels before and after I turn on the Recorder.

(By the way, the recorder looks like its displaying the total time it has been running since the beginning. Is there a way to clear this for each new VidBlaster session?)

[abouvette]

Quick update:
Using the same settings in my previous post:
3 camcorders into the Osprey 450e and an old logitech quickcam express usb (since it was lying around) and my CPU was between 50-60%. It hits 80-90% as soon as I turn on the Recorder. It eventually drops back down to 50-60% when I stop the recording.

[Mike]

Sounds normal to me, that's the compression you're seeing.

[abouvette]

Sounds normal to me, that's the compression you're seeing.


That's good to know. I'm not complaining just a bit disappointed since I don't know the ins-outs of video recording/streaming until something unexpected happens.

Since purchasing the software at the beginning of the year, we've increased our needs dramatically. Before, we simply needed a multi-cam software switcher for streaming @320x240. At most, two cameras were used. We've upgraded our hardware recently (new PC, osprey card) and now have to meet the news media's request for a broadcast-quality (or near) recording in addition to the live-stream. We also have to connect 3-4 cameras and a dvd player on occasion. Its not a cheap setup but we couldn't go overboard with our budget either.

I'm sure there's a workaround. Like I mentioned, I may be able to send the 640x480 signal to an external dvd/hard drive recorder. I can do this with s-video but will try another cable to get better quality. The output from my video card is dvi. I have a dvi-to-hdmi adapter. The dvd recorder has an hdmi input. More hardware to carry but I'm hoping this will work.

[Mike]

Yeah, I know you would not expect this, but keep in mind there's a lot of compression going on, and that is a huge amount of work. Windows does that btw, so it may change with new Windows versions. Hardware requirements should not come as a surprise if you looked at my suggestions in the help. For SD I recommend a Quad, but you can figure out yourself that if you hookup several cameras and want to record, you need to go one step up: the i7. And if you want smooth video with perfect frame rate stability, take the 965 or the new 975 with an SSD. Costs you a couple grand extra, but you would not have to carry a separate recorder. Of course, the nice thing with Windows machines is that each week you wait you save 100 bucks :)

[abouvette]

Disregarding the sit-and-wait approach to getting cheaper hardware ;) if I can get 4 cameras hooked up and can send the 640x480 signal (or higher if my setup can support it) to an external recorder, I'll be content.
Thanks Mike.

[davidtrue]

I have a dual core Pentium D
4 Gigs or Ram 2.8 gightz
Have a Tascam Audio extrernal sound card so my mic and the audio
from the computer run through. ( is there a better way to sync all the sound?)
As I turn on the Vidblaster it hovers in the 25%
Add a cam goes to 40% Add another cam goes to 50%
Start streaming hits 60% on Livestream
Then I do a screen capture of 240x180 and it hits 85-90 and can't seem to back it off.
I'm running a 320x 240 resolutions streaming and 15 fps.

Any suggestions?

[Sinc747]

David True,

I generally experience the same with my Core 2 Duo. Screen capture uses a lot of CPU for sure. Best suggestion I have is to upgrade to a quad or i7. Encoding takes a lot of muscle!

Tom

[Mike]

A Pentium D is below spec (see Help), as it is slower than a Core 2 Duo. Also note that if screen capture of a small area (not the entire desktop!) causes a considerable jump in CPU usage then it is highly likely your video card is either not working properly or is just slow. A faster video card should help. Then upgrade the CPU, for these settings a Core 2 Quad should be more than enough.

[Tony]

another thing i learned is the pentium D is the first dual core but it gets so hot and did not yield optimal performance hence came the core 2 duo. i am glad they have the i7 but its a bit $$ and if you wait it comes down and then when you can afford it they come out with something else. hehehe


A Pentium D is below spec (see Help), as it is slower than a Core 2 Duo. Also note that if screen capture of a small area (not the entire desktop!) causes a considerable jump in CPU usage then it is highly likely your video card is either not working properly or is just slow. A faster video card should help. Then upgrade the CPU, for these settings a Core 2 Quad should be more than enough.

[abouvette]

I'm curious....
I've been running version 1.09 since it became available. The other day, I briefly installed 1.10 to see if the CPU usage dropped enough so that I could set my overall resolution from 320x240 to 640x480 @30fps with the same equipment (same PC, cameras, modules, etc.).
Well, instead of 4 cameras, I only had 3 so I couldn't recognize the fact that the CPU usage may have drastically decreased in the new version.
What I did notice (and its not specific to any VB version), is that once my CPU usage goes above the 50%-60% range, the video in the Program module is slow. It looks as though the framerate has gone down considerably and any motion suffers from 'trailing' effects. This is without streaming or recording anything although the resulting stream/recording suffers from the same thing.

I have a couple of questions:
1) I regularly see posts from users stating that they're streaming (and/or perhaps recording) when their CPU is in the 80% or higher range for hours on end and there not reporting any issues with the video. Where is the bottleneck on a system like mine (I know its not the greatest) if my CPU meter is not in the extreme ranges but my video isn't smooth?
2) More and more VB users are reporting extremely low CPU usage with the new i7 processors and with the new 1.10 version. Have any of these users noticed any video issues if they get their CPU into the 60% range and above?

I am looking to reduce CPU usage but I'm more curious as to why I get great results so long as my CPU meter is roughly 40% or below; regardless of resolution or framerate I've set, and not usable when its higher.

Anyone have any ideas rather than buying a new system?
Thanks,
Alain