-
Cupertino, we’ve got a problem!
-
[Tim Wilson] “Dude. If that’s the quote, I’m looking at the word “affordable” as referring to the IP infrastructure, and NOT as referring to this service. I can’t imagine that “affordable” is in the mix for most of us for this….but I honestly don’t know. Do any of you?”
These solutions all seem like “heavy iron” approaches. I’d be willing to bet most potential customers want a “no iron” solution. So maybe Frame’s proof-of-concept film at HPA might be closer to the mark.
https://blog.frame.io/2020/03/09/hpa-cloud-workflows/
– oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] “I have not seen your color corrector example as something that’s changed for the worse. It’s the same as it has been”
No, one used to be able to move controls during playback without it stopping. This is NOT possible anymore.
[Oliver Peters] “Your explanation doesn’t really quantify how Catalina is slower that Sierra high Sierra, or Mojave, which is what you started out saying”
You’re welcome to test yourself. I cannot “quantify” with scientific tests. Don’t have the time. Sorry.
But ask about, I am sure you’ll find a lot echoing my experience.——————————————————————————
Pro Color Monitor – Get Your Color Balance Right
Get it on the AppStore Today — Pro Color Monitor MacAppStore
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Morten Carlsen] “No, one used to be able to move controls during playback without it stopping. This is NOT possible anymore.”
OK, so yes, you are correct, that does work in Mojave. I just double-checked on my machine. However, I’m still not sure how that’s a Catalina speed issue. It’s an issue of compatibility between Premiere and Catalina.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
Sorry – I was referring to FCPx regarding the controls. Not PPRO.
Trust me, if it were possible to move those controls in real-time Apple would over-advertise it the second coming just as they normally do. It is a USP to be able to do such.
——————————————————————————
Pro Color Monitor – Get Your Color Balance Right
Get it on the AppStore Today — Pro Color Monitor MacAppStore
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Morten Carlsen] “Sorry – I was referring to FCPx regarding the controls. Not PPRO.”
OK, in that case, playback is stopped in FCPX in Mojave when you move a color wheel. I’m not sure that’s different. Maybe someone on an earlier OS can chime in and verify.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] “Your explanation doesn’t really quantify how Catalina is slower that Sierra high Sierra, or Mojave, which is what you started out saying.”
Hi Oliver,
This probably goes more on the Catalina thread, and I’ll add a longer discussion there, but there’s a LOT of talk about Catalina being slower out there. A quick Google search will turns up tons of results.
Our friend Larry Jordan did some tests with Compressor and Adobe Media Encoder in Catalina and Mojave. In this particular article, he hadn’t completed his AME tests, except to get a general result that AME is about twice as fast as Compressor overall, but his Compressor numbers show that Catalina is 8% slower for HEVC 10-bit, and 31% slower for H.264. Same computer, same files, same project settings.
Your mileage will vary depending on whether this is the kind of rendering you do and how you feel about five minutes on a 55 minute render of course, but certainly as we get up into the 30% range, I think you’ll agree that this lies outside the margin of error.
There are bunches of other articles that I’ll link to back on the “Catalina issues” thread, but I really am seeing a ton of articles talk about issues with slowness in Catalina, and not much o’ nuthin’ squawking about how much faster it is.
Needless to say, if anybody has render reports to illustrate how much faster Catalina is in specific conditions, I’d love to see those on the other thread!
-
[Oliver Peters] “These solutions all seem like “heavy iron” approaches. I’d be willing to bet most potential customers want a “no iron” solution.”
To me, that’s like saying that most people would rather plug in a USB 3 drive and edit 8K. On the one hand, of course, why not. On the other hand, nobody who’s serious about 8K….or 6K or even 2K…or who needs to work in a shared environment, or a remote one, considers a no iron experience especially desirable except in a purely theoretical sense.
There’s a reason why a company as innovative as frame.io is showing this as a proof of concept. Even after they keep hoovering up all the VC money and can iterate through a whole bunch of half-steps on the way there, no real-world production is ever going to have the human and corporate resources that the HPA was able to assemble there for that fun little experiment. Not Cameron, Spielberg, Jackson, or some combination of them. I mean it’s cool, and every innovation has to start on one side of the quantum leap before it gets to the other side, but this was anything BUT a no iron solution. On the way to a commoditized one some day perhaps, but even the “cheap IP pipeline” that they had available to them is beyond the reach of an awful lot of people.
I do think you’re right that there need to be solutions at a multiplicity of scales and price points, but even here in the COW, there are plenty of folks who need solutions that can apply to hundreds or even thousands of clients (schools, corporate, military, enterprise-scale post, etc.), and if no iron means anything resembling computers connected to the regular-old internet, we’re a couple of generations of tech away before anything like this.
My point being that I wouldn’t presuppose that “most” people expect commoditized collaboration from a distance, any more than they expect commoditized collaboration on the same SAN. Sharing is nice, but costs money.
People using handycams, pocket drives, and laptops need solutions too, for sure, but anybody who can get by with a handycam, pocket drives, and laptops can get their hands on solutions that work out of the box, certainly for Adobe andAvid, maybe for Apple and others. A no iron solution that works for them may never scale up beyond a tiny workgroup at best. That’s important, and if that’s all we ever get it’ll be great, but I still don’t think that it covers “most” of us.
-
[Tim Wilson] “This probably goes more on the Catalina thread, and I’ll add a longer discussion there, but there’s a LOT of talk about Catalina being slower out there. A quick Google search will turns up tons of results.”
Look, I personally dislike Catalina and will hold off as long as possible. Larry’s article is good, but it’s extremely narrow, because it’s based on comparison of one small overall group of codecs. It’s quite likely that Apple may be better optimized for one codec or another and that could vary as codecs change, especially in light if the complete deprecation of 32-bit libraries and apps with Catalina.
While my use of Catalina is admittedly limited, I have run it and done testing. See here:
https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2020/03/20/apple-2019-16-macbook-pro/
This is a review for the 16″ MBP, but performance tests compare an iMP with Mojave against the 16″ MBP running Catalina.
In nearly all of the “Catalina issues” we are talking about machines where the user upgraded from a previous OS or tried to migrate from a previous back-up. By default this carries all of the old accumulated crud from codecs, installers, uninstallers, apps, library components, plug-ins etc. Or the issues are things like sleep mode and so on.
I’m not disregarding that there aren’t really issues. It’s just that “evidence” presented always seems tainted in some manner. It could well be that the OS is perfectly fine, but not fully optimized for their own gear. Or maybe how you’ve got your security settings set.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] “I’m not disregarding that there aren’t really issues. It’s just that “evidence” presented always seems tainted in some manner. It could well be that the OS is perfectly fine, but not fully optimized for their own gear. Or maybe how you’ve got your security settings set.”
My assumption is the same as yours. Any test run on a machine that can support both an old OS and a new one is going to favor the old OS, because the older machine was tuned to the older OS. That means that new OSes will almost always be slower on old machines.
At the same time, the only test that CAN be run is the only that needs running. LOL If the question is, “Should I install Catalina on my old machine?” the answer is almost certainly no, for the same reason that you shouldn’t try to shoehorn Mojave onto a new machine, where it will surely gum up the works.
At the same time as THAT, “maybe how you’ve got your security settings set” sounds an awful lot like “you’re holding it wrong.” LOL “You’re holding it wrong” turned out to be a bald-faced lie, of course. Apple knew that the antenna was busted, and papered over it with free bumpers and hype. Do you think that they don’t know that the reports are at best mixed? The conclusion you reached in your article, “Mac owners who bought a recent 15″ MacBook Pro will see a definite boost, but probably not enough to refresh their systems yet” is hardly a ringing endorsement. 🙂
And yes, I’m teasing you a little by focusing on just one sentence, and I understand that you were talking about the laptop rather than Catalina. Some very compelling stuff in there, especially when comparing to desktop performance. My larger point is echoing the question you previously raised, filling in the answer as shaded a bit toward “not so much” than “hooray.”
We’re not talking about a brand new OS. That other thread you started was specifically to evaluate where we are at THIS point in Catalina’s development. And we’re still not at the point where very many people are universally recommending it. That wasn’t the case with Mojave, or really any recent release I can recall. Some OS updates are better than others, and as you observed earlier, this isn’t an issue unique to Macs. But when Apple releases a dud, it’s not unreasonable to ask them to do better.
Bringing this back on topic to THIS thread rather than THAT thread, I’d like to ask the class, what would you like to see Apple do to better enable remote workflows? Does it begin and end with creating robust servers again? Does it include virtualization? What else?
-
[Tim Wilson] “And we’re still not at the point where very many people are universally recommending it. That wasn’t the case with Mojave, or really any recent release I can recall.”
I completely agree there. My only quibble was with an OS’s speed, independent of how one app interacts better or worse with it. I’m just not sure how one defines that.
[Tim Wilson] “I’d like to ask the class, what would you like to see Apple do to better enable remote workflows?”
Right now, the simplest answer is multi-editor/multi-seat collaboration within FCPX. Even Pages has a silly little “Collaborate” tab at the top. ☺ But not via iCloud for goodness sake!
However, in the context of this specific conversation, the current need, and the comparison to HP… It would be great if within the OS – without any special app – I could directly operate a remote Mac as if I would running a machine right next to me. And with little or no latency. In an ideal world, I *should* be able to run a full-blown Mac Pro across the country, simply by using an iPad Pro.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up