Loading times 2.41 versus 3.04 and cache file contents

[Nationalsolo]

Hi

I have just been doing some tests comparing each of the versions and for this I simply created a short slide show with just images. (As I thought it might run/load faster.) For the tests I created a test project which consisted as follows.....

 

88 jpg images loaded to the media list of which 19 were added to the sequence line.

Each of these 19 images displayed for 5 seconds with a total film length of 1min 26 seconds

There were 18 transitions

 

I then created a .vpj file which I tested in the following manner.

The .vpj file was loaded to VP first with an empty cache folder and the loading time found along with the number of cache files generated and the size of the cache folder

 

With the cachefolder now filled, VP was shut down, restarted and the .vpj file then reloaded.

The cache file in each case consequently only contained data from the project in question.

 

Result for Version 2.41

Film length on sequence line............................................................1 min 26 seconds

Time to load project (.vpj file) from scratch (empty cache) .............27 seconds

Time to load project (.vpj file) with a filled cache..... ........................2 seconds

Number of cache files generated......................................................177

Cache volume................................................................................... 88 Megs

Note these last two values remained constant after repeated loadings of the project to VP

 

 

Result for Version 3.04

Film length on sequence line............................................................1min 26 seconds

Time to load project (.vpj file) from scratch (empty cache) .............1 min 50 seconds

Time to load project (.vpj file) with a filled cache..... ........................3 seconds

Number of cache files generated......................................................313

Cache volume...................................................................................177 Megs

 

These last two values increased every time the .vpj file was loaded.

The first loading resulted in 313 files

The second loading resulted in 419 files

The third loading resulted in 549 files

The fourth loading resulted in 605 files (400+ megabytes!)

 

Conclusion

VP 3.04 is decidedly slower to load if the cache has to be filled first and in this instance took about as long as the actual film.

With a previously filled cache both versions seemed to take about the same time but this may not be representative of a longer project than the one tested here.

The other main differences was the size of the cache file generated. It was smaller in version 2.41 but even after multiple loadings of the same .vpj file to VP the cache size and content didn't alter.

 

In version 3.04 the cache file was much larger (probably since different thumbnails had to be generated e.g in the media list window) however it continued to grow, doubling every time the project was reloaded.

 

i.e, every time the .vpj file (the same project file) was loaded ALL the files were regenerated in the cache for some reason which therefore doubled in size each time .

 

WHY????

 

Why did VP need to recreate the cache each time..There had been no changes to the project and the data presumably remained the same.

It means that if you work on a project for some time, reloading the vpj file each time to continue working on it, the cache will become enormous!

 

Nat

[ConnorBrendish]

Hihi,

 

The cache directory growing problem sounds like a bug to me. I'll look into it today or tomorrow, thanks.

 

The reason that each video cache file is larger in v3.00+ is because we started caching the alpha channel of the images as well, so that accounts for at least 33% of the size increase per file.

 

I'm currently working on the time taken to generate cache files and it should become significantly faster in the future.

 

Connor

[Dougie]

Conner said: "I'm currently working on the time taken to generate cache files and it should become significantly faster in the future."

 

I think we are all glad to hear this! while you're at it you might want to take a look at the frame freeze problem in fade/dissolve transitions. If these two problems were fixed, Videopad would be worth it's weight in gold!

[ConnorBrendish]

I've also made some improvements to the caching algorithm when caching images, blank and text clips.

I did a little test: 19 image clips (1024x768) on the sequence, each 5 seconds long. 18 transitions between the clips, each random.

 

Before:

Time to load project from scratch....... 37 seconds

Total cache file size............................ 71.2MB

 

After:

Time to load project from scratch....... 8 seconds

 

Total cache file size............................ 21MB

 

 

Also, I've fixed the problem with cache files being regenerated when they don't need to be.

 

These improvements will be included in the next release.

 

Thanks for the feedback!

[borate]

I've also made some improvements to the caching algorithm when caching images, blank and text clips.

Also, I've fixed the problem with cache files being regenerated when they don't need to be.

 

These improvements will be included in the next release.

 

Splendid! Please don't forget to visit the DVD production failures.. Either errors (though the task is completed) or total failure have been reported by several users.

[Dougie]

Outstanding! Any idea when that next release might come?