Here's a little experiment to figure out the speed of various storage options for video editing.
The tests were done on a Win7 rig, running After Effects (AFX). The virtual RAM drive was set up with ImDisk (free).
Storage options: 1. HDD (regular storage) | 2. SSD (Force GT) | 3. RAM (virtual drive)
The 1st test: loading a 50 sec. preview into RAM - 1920x1080 sequential JPG files
Loading sequential JPGs did not make much difference.
For the 2nd test, the sequential JPGs were exported from AFX into an uncompressed AVI (7GB/minute, 1080p)
Loading a preview of the AVI definitely made a difference! Also, previewing the footage real-time (w/space bar) was noticeably smoother from RAM. So if you have a few GBs of RAM to spare, you could speed up your workflow considerably with a virtual HD. But if you're editing on a budget (w/HDD), converting large video files to sequential JPGs might be something worth considering.
Happy editing!
The tests were done on a Win7 rig, running After Effects (AFX). The virtual RAM drive was set up with ImDisk (free).
Storage options: 1. HDD (regular storage) | 2. SSD (Force GT) | 3. RAM (virtual drive)
The 1st test: loading a 50 sec. preview into RAM - 1920x1080 sequential JPG files
- HDD - 28 sec.
- SSD - 27 sec.
- RAM - 27 sec.
Loading sequential JPGs did not make much difference.
For the 2nd test, the sequential JPGs were exported from AFX into an uncompressed AVI (7GB/minute, 1080p)
- HDD - 66 sec.
- SSD - 31 sec.
- RAM - 10 sec.
Loading a preview of the AVI definitely made a difference! Also, previewing the footage real-time (w/space bar) was noticeably smoother from RAM. So if you have a few GBs of RAM to spare, you could speed up your workflow considerably with a virtual HD. But if you're editing on a budget (w/HDD), converting large video files to sequential JPGs might be something worth considering.
Happy editing!
Last edited: