WEBVTT

00:00:00.320 --> 00:00:02.460
8k red code raw footage

00:00:02.760 --> 00:00:10.560
How do you work with files that are multiple hundreds of megabytes per second of recording with a complex and

00:00:11.120 --> 00:00:14.460
Proprietary compression algorithm that allows them to retain effectively

00:00:15.000 --> 00:00:20.340
Nearly the full raw quality of the footage while taking up a fraction of the space

00:00:21.130 --> 00:00:22.550
well

00:00:22.550 --> 00:00:29.910
LG's monitor team seems to have an interest in this and the many technological challenges faced by creative professionals because they sponsor

00:00:30.030 --> 00:00:34.110
This video featuring their 49 WL 95 C

00:00:34.630 --> 00:00:38.850
Ultra wide monitor where I'll be figuring out just that

00:00:39.550 --> 00:00:47.310
So in the old days when anywhere from 4k to 6k was cutting-edge the solution was this

00:00:49.310 --> 00:00:51.750
$7,000 red rocket X card

00:00:52.030 --> 00:00:59.370
But in spite of it using either a custom ASIC or an FPGA so both highly specialized hardware

00:00:59.710 --> 00:01:00.010
even

00:01:00.010 --> 00:01:07.410
These puppies were easily overwhelmed by the epic W and the red weapon featuring reds 8k

00:01:07.810 --> 00:01:10.230
Helium sensor. So now this is

00:01:11.050 --> 00:01:13.050
basically an expensive paperweight

00:01:13.770 --> 00:01:14.890
ha

00:01:14.890 --> 00:01:16.270
That's it

00:01:16.430 --> 00:01:18.670
That's the joys of cutting-edge technology, right?

00:01:19.670 --> 00:01:27.010
Fortunately NVIDIA has been running around doing demos with their RTX series graphics cards showing GPU

00:01:27.390 --> 00:01:29.970
accelerated real-time full quality

00:01:29.970 --> 00:01:34.910
8k playback so then is this the new way now

00:01:35.730 --> 00:01:39.950
$1,300 is still a lot of money, but it's a lot less than

00:01:41.210 --> 00:01:44.030
$7,000 could this be progress?

00:01:44.790 --> 00:01:46.790
It's only one way to find out

00:01:47.130 --> 00:02:02.080
So my first encounter with this monster was back at CES and while 49 inch ultra wides like this one

00:02:02.180 --> 00:02:06.840
So 32 by 9 aspect ratio look at this thing have existed before

00:02:07.820 --> 00:02:11.160
What makes this one special is that the pixel density

00:02:11.800 --> 00:02:13.800
Since it's effectively

00:02:14.080 --> 00:02:21.860
5k by 1440 is much higher than the ones that have existed before making it actually suitable for creative work

00:02:22.400 --> 00:02:27.500
So it has become apparent that I'm going to need to clear some space

00:02:28.240 --> 00:02:33.760
So it has become apparent that I'm going to need to clear even more space

00:02:34.560 --> 00:02:37.240
Wow, that's a lot of timeline even with

00:02:37.240 --> 00:02:39.980
with my task manager open here.

00:02:39.980 --> 00:02:41.980
Okay, so first order of business

00:02:41.980 --> 00:02:44.480
is to fire up a plausible project.

00:02:44.480 --> 00:02:47.260
So this is an episode of Fast as Possible

00:02:47.260 --> 00:02:50.740
and use the normal workstations that we have downstairs.

00:02:50.740 --> 00:02:51.900
So my CPU is a little better.

00:02:51.900 --> 00:02:55.280
This is a 7980XE 18 core processor,

00:02:55.280 --> 00:02:58.460
and this is a GTX Titan X Pascal.

00:02:58.460 --> 00:03:00.100
So first things first,

00:03:00.100 --> 00:03:02.280
we've got ourselves at one quarter resolution.

00:03:02.280 --> 00:03:04.740
You can see scrubbing around in the timeline,

00:03:04.740 --> 00:03:06.480
nice and responsive.

00:03:06.480 --> 00:03:09.950
Playback, basically instantaneous,

00:03:09.950 --> 00:03:12.890
but whenever I'm not paused,

00:03:12.890 --> 00:03:14.430
you can see it's quite fuzzy,

00:03:14.430 --> 00:03:17.310
not representative of the finished product.

00:03:17.310 --> 00:03:19.410
So let's crank it up to full.

00:03:19.410 --> 00:03:25.960
So this is 8K and this is working just fine.

00:03:25.960 --> 00:03:27.220
No problem whatsoever.

00:03:27.220 --> 00:03:29.940
And in fact, while I'm playing it back,

00:03:29.940 --> 00:03:34.940
we're sitting at a mere 10 to about 30% CPU usage

00:03:35.040 --> 00:03:38.920
and our GPU is sitting tight at 25 to 30%.

00:03:38.920 --> 00:03:39.760
So at first,

00:03:39.760 --> 00:03:41.640
I was kind of confused by all of this.

00:03:41.640 --> 00:03:45.080
It's been a while since I've looked into 8K performance

00:03:45.080 --> 00:03:46.460
on the timeline.

00:03:46.460 --> 00:03:48.080
And I was thinking, well, hold on a second.

00:03:48.080 --> 00:03:51.200
Is there nothing special about these RTX cards

00:03:51.200 --> 00:03:53.140
that makes them suitable for this?

00:03:53.140 --> 00:03:56.220
Why does NVIDIA keep talking about this?

00:03:56.220 --> 00:04:03.620
And then I remembered something.

00:04:03.620 --> 00:04:06.240
We shoot most of our projects

00:04:06.240 --> 00:04:09.200
at a much higher compression ratio

00:04:09.200 --> 00:04:11.280
than what they would use while shooting

00:04:11.280 --> 00:04:13.500
a VFX heavy Hollywood production,

00:04:13.500 --> 00:04:14.980
for example.

00:04:14.980 --> 00:04:19.400
So our data rates are much lower.

00:04:19.400 --> 00:04:23.620
So let's go get some seven to one footage.

00:04:23.620 --> 00:04:25.840
So let's start with a sample from RED here.

00:04:25.840 --> 00:04:28.440
This is a seven to one compression ratio,

00:04:28.440 --> 00:04:33.440
8K clip that was recorded at 24 frames per second.

00:04:33.780 --> 00:04:37.460
So let's go ahead and fire this bad boy up,

00:04:37.460 --> 00:04:42.370
hit that playback button and ouch.

00:04:42.370 --> 00:04:44.770
We are looking at spikes of up to 90.

00:04:44.770 --> 00:04:49.770
95% on our GPU and CPU usage that is pinned at 100%

00:04:52.950 --> 00:04:55.530
while trying to play back that clip.

00:04:55.530 --> 00:04:58.870
That is a stark contrast to the,

00:04:58.870 --> 00:05:00.810
I think we used 20 to one, is that right, David?

00:05:00.810 --> 00:05:03.970
To the 20 to one footage that we capture.

00:05:03.970 --> 00:05:05.570
And that's not even the worst of it.

00:05:05.570 --> 00:05:07.870
Here's some 8K seven to one footage

00:05:07.870 --> 00:05:11.250
at 30 FPS that we captured.

00:05:11.250 --> 00:05:16.070
Let's go ahead and drag that onto the timeline.

00:05:16.070 --> 00:05:16.850
Yeah, woof.

00:05:16.850 --> 00:05:22.300
Not quite.

00:05:22.300 --> 00:05:23.700
Yeah, he moves like that.

00:05:23.700 --> 00:05:24.700
Sure, why not?

00:05:24.700 --> 00:05:25.720
So what's weird though,

00:05:25.720 --> 00:05:27.580
is that even with the heaviest footage

00:05:27.580 --> 00:05:29.400
that we could throw at our workstation,

00:05:29.400 --> 00:05:33.220
our GPU is actually neither sitting idle

00:05:33.220 --> 00:05:35.340
nor completely maxed out.

00:05:35.340 --> 00:05:38.340
So it's being used to handle the debayering process,

00:05:38.340 --> 00:05:41.640
which reconstructs the full color image that we see here

00:05:41.640 --> 00:05:44.140
from the samples that are collected by the image sensor.

00:05:44.140 --> 00:05:47.020
But our CPU is still in charge of the,

00:05:47.020 --> 00:05:49.020
entropy decoding,

00:05:49.020 --> 00:05:52.520
which is a process that allows the most common input signals

00:05:52.520 --> 00:05:54.980
to be substituted for much shorter ones,

00:05:54.980 --> 00:05:57.580
saving space and wavelet decoding,

00:05:57.580 --> 00:06:00.080
which frankly, I'm not familiar enough with

00:06:00.080 --> 00:06:02.000
to offer even a basic explanation

00:06:02.000 --> 00:06:04.780
and the Wikipedia article wasn't much help.

00:06:04.780 --> 00:06:07.980
Anyway though, so maybe our problem here

00:06:07.980 --> 00:06:13.140
is we just need more CPU horsepower to keep our GPU fed.

00:06:13.440 --> 00:06:15.880
AMD to the rescue then?

00:06:15.880 --> 00:06:16.880
Why don't we try going, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.

00:06:16.880 --> 00:06:21.880
Why don't we try going from 18 to 32 processor cores?

00:06:22.280 --> 00:06:31.040
Building in progress.

00:06:31.040 --> 00:06:38.590
Mission failed.

00:06:38.590 --> 00:06:41.410
Okay, it worked.

00:06:41.410 --> 00:06:43.620
Didn't do anything.

00:06:43.620 --> 00:06:48.000
And interestingly, our GPU usage is higher, near 100%.

00:06:48.000 --> 00:06:50.750
So this is kind of fascinating.

00:06:50.750 --> 00:06:52.770
I've said it many times before

00:06:52.770 --> 00:06:56.690
that every system is effectively bottlenecked

00:06:56.690 --> 00:07:00.510
because there's something that is slowing down the process

00:07:00.510 --> 00:07:03.050
or else it would be infinitely fast.

00:07:03.050 --> 00:07:07.510
But this is like double bottlenecked.

00:07:07.510 --> 00:07:10.810
It's like they're perfectly matched to each other,

00:07:10.810 --> 00:07:13.350
but still not enough for the task.

00:07:13.350 --> 00:07:14.570
This is great too.

00:07:14.570 --> 00:07:17.490
Look what happens to timeline scrolling

00:07:17.490 --> 00:07:20.690
when my CPU's at 100% usage.

00:07:20.690 --> 00:07:23.030
So while I was troubleshooting to prepare for this video,

00:07:23.030 --> 00:07:26.510
I actually spent some of my time with the RTX 2080

00:07:26.510 --> 00:07:29.590
rather than the RTX 2080 Ti,

00:07:29.590 --> 00:07:30.750
because what I thought,

00:07:30.750 --> 00:07:34.750
was that this functionality had something to do

00:07:34.750 --> 00:07:37.230
with their new NVENC engine.

00:07:37.230 --> 00:07:39.070
But actually it doesn't.

00:07:39.070 --> 00:07:42.430
In fact, there's nothing about the tensor cores

00:07:42.430 --> 00:07:45.370
or the ray tracing cores or anything like that

00:07:45.370 --> 00:07:47.790
that makes the RTX card so good at this.

00:07:47.790 --> 00:07:52.510
It's just the sheer frigging processing power

00:07:52.510 --> 00:07:54.410
of all those CUDA cores.

00:07:54.410 --> 00:07:58.470
So we are gonna jump for 8K, seven to one footage,

00:07:58.470 --> 00:08:00.330
straight to the RTX 2080 Ti.

00:08:00.750 --> 00:08:03.290
And you might think to yourself,

00:08:03.290 --> 00:08:08.480
well, gee Linus, that's a 1200 to 1300 US dollar graphics card.

00:08:12.080 --> 00:08:14.000
Of course it can handle it,

00:08:14.000 --> 00:08:17.020
but that's not necessarily to be taken for granted.

00:08:17.020 --> 00:08:21.020
I mean, we installed CPUs that cost up to $2,000

00:08:22.480 --> 00:08:24.100
and they couldn't do it.

00:08:24.100 --> 00:08:27.380
It's all about having the right tool for the job.

00:08:27.380 --> 00:08:29.680
Okay, everything's working normally.

00:08:29.680 --> 00:08:30.720
Here we go.

00:08:31.100 --> 00:08:34.620
This is the moment.

00:08:39.860 --> 00:08:44.060
I mean, now that has kinda gotten its act together,

00:08:44.060 --> 00:08:45.830
that's a lot better.

00:08:47.280 --> 00:08:50.440
We are now at 100% CPU, 95% GPU,

00:08:51.960 --> 00:08:54.620
but we are still dropping frames.

00:08:57.710 --> 00:08:59.820
So that's it then.

00:08:59.820 --> 00:09:04.500
No CPU on earth can handle this 30 frames per second,

00:09:04.500 --> 00:09:06.100
8K, seven to one,

00:09:06.100 --> 00:09:13.880
Red code raw footage at least not as long as it has to handle the entropy decoding and wavelet decoding

00:09:14.980 --> 00:09:22.400
What if we could offload those to the GPU we are going to need a beta version of Red's decoder

00:09:22.680 --> 00:09:26.940
That unfortunately isn't supported by Adobe Premiere at this time

00:09:27.880 --> 00:09:35.120
Fortunately, it's built into the beta of Red Cine X Pro and we're gonna start with the 24 FPS footage now

00:09:35.120 --> 00:09:41.380
It's a little flaky right now. I'm actually not sure if this is going to work, but let's go ahead and give it a shot

00:09:41.440 --> 00:09:43.360
so we're gonna enable

00:09:43.360 --> 00:09:45.360
GPU decode and

00:09:45.960 --> 00:09:50.240
It's flaking out on me. So it's running it like eight frames per second

00:09:51.040 --> 00:09:57.680
Fortunately the fix right now seems to be to just toggle between image pipelines and there it is

00:09:58.560 --> 00:10:02.740
Smooth 8k playback that hitch by the way is the clip

00:10:03.100 --> 00:10:05.040
Restarting but that's not even the most

00:10:05.120 --> 00:10:09.820
Impressive part. So our CPU is sitting at just 10%

00:10:10.980 --> 00:10:16.420
Utilization and our GPU is up at 77 80 percent utilization. So we

00:10:17.120 --> 00:10:19.600
Potentially have some headroom to spare

00:10:19.640 --> 00:10:25.900
So our overall usage for the system is way down like 10% of our 32 cores

00:10:26.360 --> 00:10:30.740
We could be doing this on a more human workstation

00:10:30.740 --> 00:10:35.060
You know one with six or eight cores by offloading this

00:10:35.120 --> 00:10:38.900
We could be doing this work to the GPU because the thing to remember as well

00:10:38.900 --> 00:10:43.720
Is that when we were pinning both our CPU and GPU at a hundred percent?

00:10:44.360 --> 00:10:49.440
That was just playback. We weren't even applying any real-time effects like

00:10:50.140 --> 00:10:56.340
Denoising the footage or or anything like that. We were at the limit now. We have headroom to play with

00:10:56.340 --> 00:10:59.920
Let's go ahead and try our 30 FPS footage though

00:11:00.120 --> 00:11:04.980
That's actually working a little bit better than I expected when I the first time around

00:11:04.980 --> 00:11:11.580
I actually had to overclock the GPU a little bit to get this quite so smooth, but you know what I'm taking it

00:11:12.070 --> 00:11:16.170
So there it is our GPU CUDA usage jumps up near

00:11:17.150 --> 00:11:18.130
90%

00:11:18.130 --> 00:11:23.630
But our CPU stays at 10% and we are smoothly playing back

00:11:24.590 --> 00:11:26.590
7 to 1

00:11:26.590 --> 00:11:32.070
8k red footage at 29.97 frames per second

00:11:33.390 --> 00:11:34.990
Can we get some applause sound effect?

00:11:35.010 --> 00:11:37.590
In the video or something? I don't know. This is crazy

00:11:37.910 --> 00:11:45.810
So all that's left now then is to thank LG for sponsoring this video featuring their 49 WL 95 CW

00:11:46.270 --> 00:11:47.770
Ultra wide monitor

00:11:47.770 --> 00:11:48.390
I mean

00:11:48.390 --> 00:11:54.990
I think it's pretty obvious why they wanted us to feature this in this video because it's designed for content creators like photographers

00:11:55.610 --> 00:12:00.810
Filmmakers music producers and more who can really benefit from this

00:12:01.130 --> 00:12:04.950
Kind of a canvas being able to work on more than one thing

00:12:05.010 --> 00:12:08.890
simultaneously or just be able to manage and see

00:12:09.670 --> 00:12:16.010
extremely long timelines without zooming out giving them a finer degree of control and it's not even just for creators

00:12:16.010 --> 00:12:19.990
But office work would also be a great option someone like a programmer

00:12:20.470 --> 00:12:26.330
Stock trader or really anyone who needs a ton of side-by-side screen real estate because it's basically

00:12:27.250 --> 00:12:29.510
Exactly the same as having two

00:12:30.610 --> 00:12:34.070
2560 by 1440 monitors side by side

00:12:34.070 --> 00:12:40.930
Except that you have no bezel in between LG's also been hard at work on software that allows you to take two inputs

00:12:40.930 --> 00:12:46.830
So like your desktop and your laptop and seamlessly share your mouse and keyboard between them just like moving between them

00:12:46.830 --> 00:12:52.890
So you can control two systems at once. It's got full support for USB type-c including power delivery

00:12:52.890 --> 00:12:56.430
So you can use it as a single cable docking solution for your laptop

00:12:56.430 --> 00:13:03.930
And it's got support for HDR 10 with two 10 watt speakers built-in. In fact, it was didn't realize they were gonna be that loud

00:13:03.930 --> 00:13:06.630
That happened that happened a couple times during the video

00:13:07.190 --> 00:13:11.130
So check it out at the link in the video description, and I guess that's pretty much it

00:13:11.130 --> 00:13:13.410
Thanks for watching you guys if you disliked this video

00:13:13.410 --> 00:13:14.610
Well, you can hit that button

00:13:14.610 --> 00:13:18.870
But if you liked it hit like get subscribed or maybe consider checking out where to buy the stuff

00:13:18.870 --> 00:13:21.450
We featured at the link below also down

00:13:21.450 --> 00:13:26.130
There's our merch store which has cool shirts like this one and our community forum, which you should totally join