-
FCP 7 and 12 core kit or FCPX and Trashcan – will it really be that much faster?
I just asked this question on FCP forum then realised that maybe it should be here so sorry about cross posting.
This is a simple question – will a new trashcan 12 core be better than an old 2012 12 core in the following use:
So I shot 40 one minute iphone movies and created an edit with 40 tracks with the images on different parts of the screen (I know – crazy already). by the time I have 20 or so images on screen it takes the old 12 core kit using final cut 7 (studio) 1 – 2 minutes to draw the composite image. (I have 16 gig of ram and older graphics cards in the mac with 6 terrabytes of secondary drive to edit onto). Necessarily I photgraph the screen and work with wireframe only because it takes too long with images. Then when I’ve finished and try output the 1 minute of video it then takes about two days to output. I understand I’m already asking the kit to do more than it was designed for (I come from camera so my knowledge gets hazy at the back end). So my question is twofold – will final cut X on this old system do this a lot faster if I shove in about 32 gig of ram and or will a new Trashcan be the answer – is there anything else I should do to make this work better???
A long term DP – likes 35mm and HD equally – changing with digital media – Began as a commercials editor !
-
4 Replies
-
X and the trash can will be better because what you are doing is GPU intensive, which favors the newer configuration. If you are using these files in their native H.264 format, that also slows things down. Convert to ProRes for better results. FCP X can do this internally by creating optimized (ProRes) media.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Thanks Oliver. This is the sort of thing you know deep down but sometimes needs others to prompt that knowledge to come into focus – thanks a lot.
A long term DP – likes 35mm and HD equally – changing with digital media – Began as a commercials editor !
-
[Terry Flaxton] “So my question is twofold – will final cut X on this old system do this a lot faster if I shove in about 32 gig of ram and or will a new Trashcan be the answer – is there anything else I should do to make this work better???”
If money is no object, go with Oliver’s solution. That’s the best.
But if you don’t have money to buy a 12-core trash can, that 2012 Mac Pro still has plenty of good life left in it. You just need to optimize your workflow for it:
(1) Convert h.264 footage to ProRes (this is a must if using FCP 7, or something FCP X can do for you – either way working with h.264 is a pain)
(2) A 2012 Mac Pro will run FCP X just fine, just purchase the application and run it on your existing hardware
(3) Upgrade your video card to benefit from X’s intensified use of GPU
(4) Add more RAM to your machineRyan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost -
Thanks Ryan – I think the key tip is the conversion from h264 to pro res. I output a animation codec with alpha channels but of course FCPx turns it into pro res which kills the transparency (I think). Also the quality is not good for some reason. The best I’ve had so far is H264 into a pro-res timeline on FCP7 then render out into pro res.
If I understand you correctly I should transcode all the original footage into pro res then upload it into fcp7 (in that configuration) having upgraded the video card and added more ram.
Also I’ve considered putting all of this on a 4k timeline (I know that FCP7 has an architecture that limits it to 2k) – but given that my last project took 14 days to render for 5 minutes that makes me wonder even if fcpx can dent that much (if not have a quadrupled or tripled timing). The latest project has 70 video images running concurrently.
This is an art project by the way – think David Hockney’s polaroids with video
A long term DP – likes 35mm and HD equally – changing with digital media – Began as a commercials editor !
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up