What are good specs for the computer to run this program?

I thought my Win7 64bit running on i7-2700 3.50GHz quadcore might be good, but with a bit of particles the whole thing grinds to a halt... or are there tricks to get it to go more smoothly?

We provide recommended specs in the requirements page: http://hitfilm.com/u...te/requirements

I noticed you do't even mention perhaps the single most significant bit of hardware in your system, for HitFilm, the GPU. The processor you mention is nice and snappy, but since HitFilm relies on the GPU for much, if not most, of its processing, a fast processor alone won't translate to great performance.

Yeah, I saw the requirements page, but in my experience such pages are rarely useful.

The graphics card is Radeon HD7970 (3GB)

Strange, I'm only running a dual core 3.2ghz with a Radeon HD 6670 1gig and HitFilm runs well on it. Particles don't really slow me down unless I have a lot of other 3d fx going on as well.

Yeah, that GPU should be really powerful and work smoothly with HitFilm... Did you make sure your drivers are up to date? Maybe that's the problem.

Yes, the latest ones.

Strange, I'm only running a dual core 3.2ghz with a Radeon HD 6670 1gig and HitFilm runs well on it. Particles don't really slow me down unless I have a lot of other 3d fx going on as well.

How many harddrives do you have in your system?

Right now I'm only using my internal c:/ drive which is sata. I've noticed that keeping my clip sizes smaller seems to help with speed. If I import a 5 or ten minute clip, the software will run a bit slower than if I import just the specific shot ,which may only be 30 seconds to 1 minute long. I also disable layers that I'm not using while I'm working on certain effects. The fact that my computer runs HitFilm well probably has a lot do do with those things since my computer is only just powerful enough to run the software.

Can you upload a project file in which things grind to a halt? That will enable us to test it on our machines here.

The reason I'd like to check this is that performance will vary depending on what you're doing. If there are thousands of particles flying around with motion blur and depth of field turned on, things are going to slow down regardless of your machine.

Also, by 'grind to a halt', do you mean the software actually freezes? Takes 30 seconds to show a single frame? Take 5 seconds to show a single frame? The more info you can provide the better understanding we'll have of what you're experiencing.

Can you upload a project file in which things grind to a halt? That will enable us to test it on our machines here.

Hey Simon, we can use your own Nebula tutorial (good narration btw) nebula.zip

The reason I'd like to check this is that performance will vary depending on what you're doing. If there are thousands of particles flying around with motion blur and depth of field turned on, things are going to slow down regardless of your machine.

Also, by 'grind to a halt', do you mean the software actually freezes? Takes 30 seconds to show a single frame? Take 5 seconds to show a single frame? The more info you can provide the better understanding we'll have of what you're experiencing.

So, assume I unzip the nebula.zip file in a folder and open it. (btw, Hitfilm tells me it can't find the "circle-blur.png" file and could I locate it - this is not a problem since its right there in the zip file, however it is also at "C:\ProgramData\FXhome\HitFilm Ultimate\Textures\circle_blur_64x64.png" perhaps that should be changed? Unless the graphic is a recent addition)

First let me say that the program hasn't crashed, and seems stable. Nor is it 30 seconds, more 5, or perhaps 2-3 - however when those freezes appear most of the time it becomes a chore to do certain things.

So, I've opened the Nebula.hfp file - I take the "Nebula Final" composite shot and drag it on to the editor sequence. I adjust the timeline scale a bit so the clip takes up more of the timeline.

The playhead is at 00:00:00:00.

I grab the playhead and drag it right - it moves in one jump to a location like 08:20 and then the program freezes. the playhead doesn't move at all - whilst the cursor can move around, it is "stuck" with the "<->" graphic, and nothing else in the interface can be clicked on. The program is frozen for 2-3 seconds, and then comes alive again, the mouse pointer reverts to being a pointer, and the playhead jumps to a new location, say 24:20 (depending on how fast i moved the mouse)

Or another example, lets say I select "New Project" (not just another composite shot, but a New Project)
and I then follow your Nebula tutorial from about starting from about 5:50 - where you describe how to add the "space dust".

I get to the point where you say to go to General, and adjust "Time Shift" to -1.

The moment I click with the mouse on the "Time Shift" input field (Currently at default 0.0) the program freezes for a second or two - then the input box lights up in blue, indicating its ready to accept my input.
I currently have "Controls" selected as a panel, and then click on "Media" again there is a second or two of freeze before the program switches to the media panel. If I now click on "Controls" again the program switched back to the Controls panel at once.

Following this tutorial would be close to impossible if it wasn't for the ability to enter the values by typing the numbers in - dragging is difficult when you get those pauses.

I would just like to compliment you, Biq, on the excellent description you just gave. Thank you. That is exactly the sort of clear, detailed description that we wish users would provide when they have a problem, but which frequently isn't provided. Reading through that description makes it very clear what is going on, and what sort of performance you are experiencing, and thus enables us to specifically address the issue. We will look into it in greater detail and get back to you soon.

If it really is 2-3 seconds that does seem to be a bit longer than I'd expect. I can scrub around in the nebula final comp without any problems, it takes perhaps a quarter of a second to jump to a frame. That's on an NVIDIA GTX 470.

It's worth noting that if you go to a previous frame it'll sometimes take longer, because of the way the particle simulation is run. Moving forwards tends to be faster than jumping back.

The performance you're getting is possibly due to differences in how the GPUs/drivers work, although the 7970 should perform very well. We are of course always looking into optimisation as well. I'll ask our tech guys to take a look at your post in case they have any extra insight.

I thought my Win7 64bit running on i7-2700 3.50GHz quadcore might be good, but with a bit of particles the whole thing grinds to a halt... or are there tricks to get it to go more smoothly?

Hi,

Thank you for the detailed report on the problems you've been experiencing. Could you please raise a Support Ticket here so that I can gather some information on your machine set-up on a one to one basis.

Thanks
Ady

I've usually gone with NVIDIA, but chose the radon because i thought its 3GB memory would be useful for graphics - hope that doesn't turn out to be a big mistake

I've usually gone with NVIDIA, but chose the radon because i thought its 3GB memory would be come in useful for graphics - hope that doesn't turn out to be a big mistake

I must admit, I always choose Nvidia, but in truth their cards don't really operate any differently, the drivers on the other hand, that's a whole different story.

I have never heard of more memory being a problem, especially on a graphics card. If you raise a support ticket now I'll take a look at things for you right away.

Thanks
Ady

I must admit, I always choose Nvidia, but in truth their cards don't really operate any differently, the drivers on the other hand, that's a whole different story.

I just communicated with a tech guy at Radeon who said there are no official drivers for it yet! Apparently its too new?

I have never heard of more memory being a problem, especially on a graphics card. If you raise a support ticket now I'll take a look at things for you right away.

Thanks
Ady

Yes, I'll fill it out shortly - that's Technical Support?

Oh well, I assume you've gone home for the day Ady, so it'll be ready for you in the morning

I was under the impression that more ram about a gig is unnecessary unless your using a screen above 24" inches or more then 2 screens. I have a 1 gig Geforce 560 Ti and I am considering making the investment in a 580 or 590.


I am bringing my system to its peak slowly but surely. I have an older Dell XPS 410 that has a Intel Q6600 2.44 in it, 8 gigs of ram running windows 7 64bit. Thats a far cry from the days when it was a e6300(i think) 1.83 dual core, 2 gigs of ram, geeforce 8900 gts on windows vista 32bit. The QX6800 i am going to sink in will take it to a 2.93 quad core. My system gets almost all 7's and windows experience score, just the harddrive is 5.5. I added a 3.0 usb port to the computer and added a portable harddrive connected 3.0 and thats where i store and edit my video.

I'm experiencing the same problems as Biq. My rig is Q6600, 9800GT 1GB, 4GB DDR2, WD 500GB. It's a bit old but I don't have similar problems in AfterFX (CS5), but I know that you use totally different method of handling the calculations. :]

I'm experiencing the same problems as Biq. My rig is Q6600, 9800GT 1GB, 4GB DDR2, WD 500GB. It's a bit old but I don't have similar problems in AfterFX (CS5), but I know that you use totally different method of handling the calculations. :]

Hi,

We have a very similar spec machine to the one you are using here in the Office. Have you tried updating your graphics drivers here.

(I have guessed you are using Windows 7 or Vista 64bit, if you are not you will need to change this before downloading the driver)

Thanks
Ady