-
FCP-X plus new MacPro = 16 track Multicam of 4k footage? Really??.
-
What’s to say other software besides fcpx won’t be able to achieve similiar results on the tube once optimized?
Neil Goodman: Editor, The Esquire Network – NBC/Uni
-
I’m behind on the rumor mill so my apologies if this is old news, but does the following info answer any questions?
From the footnotes of Apple’s Mac Pro page:
“Streaming tests conducted using a 10-minute project with 16 unique 3840x2160p23.98 ProRes 422 clips. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of Mac Pro.”
(the purists will point out that is Ultra HD, not digital cinema 4K)
Under the “editing” section the page also says this:
“Work pixel-for-pixel in 4K without slowing down, thanks to dual AMD FirePro workstation-class GPUs and the latest Xeon E5 processors in Mac Pro — a merger that delivers the breathtaking capability to run three streams of 4K video at once (or many more streams of HD video).”
What am I missing? Why does the bullet point say 3 streams of 4K while a footnote says 16 streams?
-
Neil,
The support for that idea comes from the WWDC when Phil Schiller said that X was being “optimized” to take advantage of the new MacPro hardware. I suspect that perhaps having Grand Central Dispatch might boost X ‘s efficiency in taking full advantage of the twin GPUs? After all, everyone trumpeted how Premier benefited from the Mercury Engine – something not accessible by FCP. So isn’t it reasonable to suppose that Apple would want to preserve a similar competitive advantage with their new flagship editing system?
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis] ” So isn’t it reasonable to suppose that Apple would want to preserve a similar competitive advantage with their new flagship editing system?”
[Bill Davis] ” So isn’t it reasonable to suppose that Apple would want to preserve a similar competitive advantage with their new flagship editing system?”
Apple is in the hardware business though, so it wouldn’t seem to be in their best interest for them to put up artificial barriers limiting how well non-Apple software can perform on Apple hardware. Whether or not other companies can/will code their software to take advantage of it is another question.
Adobe didn’t block FCP from accessing NVIDIA’s CUDA technology, it was just that Apple didn’t write FCP in order to take advantage of it (which obviously would’ve entangled Apple with another 3rd party hardware maker and I’m sure they wanted to avoid that).
-
[Andrew Kimery] “”Streaming tests conducted using a 10-minute project with 16 unique 3840x2160p23.98 ProRes 422 clips. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of Mac Pro.””
Without knowing the methodology of the tests, it’s really hard to discuss.
I will mention that 4K UHDTV (quad-HD) ProRes 422 at 23.976 fps runs 471 Mb/s. 16 streams of that is roughly 1 GB/s — right near the saturation point for the PCIe flash storage.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Andy Branner] “It’s actually 1.1GB/s, yes. But who’s to say that they weren’t in fact using e.g. a Promise2 RAID, which would have plenty headroom?”
Apple says so. Read the footnote.
“Testing conducted by Apple in October 2013 using preproduction Mac Pro 12-core 2.7GHz units with 1TB flash storage and AMD FirePro D700 graphics, and shipping Mac Pro 12-core 3.06GHz units with 512GB SSD and ATI Radeon HD 5870 graphics.”
[Andy Branner] “And in the end I’d say “who cares?!”, since it’s clearly a extreme scenario to show maximum performance for the sake of making the point of the new Mac Pros overall potential power. I hardly think it could be qualified or is intended as some sort of real-world “This is something thousands need working on a daily basis!!” example by any stretch of the imagination. It’s just a simple, example driven BENCHMARK in the end. THAT it can do it, not HOW.”
FCPX’s seamless and transparent handling of originals, optimized, and proxy media is on my top 10 list of best things since sliced bread. It’s a great workflow.
But I don’t think anyone has stood up in here and said, “This is great, because I need a 16-way 4K multicam right now!” and this isn’t a conversation about workflow for everyone here.
People are just trying to understand what the real performance benefit of the new Mac Pro will be. To the extent that this is also a conversation about technology, not just workflow, the how is just as important to understanding it all as the what.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Andy Branner] “Oh really. So then why exactly is everyone (including yourself) so hung up on what codec was used so as to (I can only assume) discredit the demo as potentially UN-amazing? Because it is, no matter which way you slice it (or which codec you use). Unless of course you can show me someone doing the same in any way shape or form otherwise?”
Really, Andy? How about putting down your dukes for a second and engaging in a conversation instead of an argument?
To answer your question, knowing what codec was used tells us more about what the system is actually doing and helps us understand exactly how it’s performing. Data rate and decode complexity are both important here.
Apple skipped an entire generation of CPUs. Mac users have been waiting for an updated workstation for years. Dual (or quad!) GPUs and flash storage like we see on the new Mac Pro have doable on PCs for years. There is finally a new performance Mac on the horizon, and people want to know more about it.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Andy Branner] “I don’t actually understand or perceive the whole thing to be some sort of overall system benchmark, just an extreme “real-world” example to give an impression.”
But… without knowing what we’re seeing, we don’t know what impression to get.
For example, FCPX quarters resolution on proxies (half in each dimension). 16 streams of quarter-res 4K UHDTV @ 23.976 (that is, 1920×1080@23.976 ProRes Proxy) is only 36 Mb/s per stream, or 72 MB/s of total disk throughout, and has very low decode complexity.
[Andy Branner] “How is that relevant? I’m quite aware that there are much more performant PC systems on a spec by spec basis, yes. Always have been, always will be. Or is that to suggest that PCs have been doing exactly what the demo shows for years, therefore, again, it’s somehow not impressive? I doubt it, but I’m open for examples.”
I only bring this up to try to convey the importance of the release of this Mac Pro. Mac users have been languishing without a performance computer, and as you say, there are more powerful PC options — so how powerful new Mac Pro will be is important to some people here.
I don’t do multicam, so I’m not sure what Premiere could handle here, but I certainly wouldn’t dismiss it without trying it first.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Andy Branner] “[Herb Sevush] “Running 16 angles of 4K – even Apple isn’t claiming they can do that.”
Oh? And why not?”
The discussion got confused when some of us thought Bill was claiming 16 angles of 4k as opposed to 16 angles of proxy 4k, which is still fairly impressive by itself. You are correct in that operationally there is no difference, as a statement as to how fast the Mac Tube is in comparison to other PC options, there would be a difference.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Andy Branner] “No idea where you’re getting your numbers from, but 1080, 23,98 ProRes Proxy is in fact 45Mbits and would therefore run you 91MB/s (just for the sake of nitpicking)”
Apple says 45 Mb/s for 60i/30p.
https://images.apple.com/ca/finalcutpro/docs/Apple_ProRes_White_Paper_October_2012.pdf
[Andy Branner] “there is something I believe called “pixel frequency” which is up to the GPU to handle.”
Pixel frequency is the number of pixels a GPU/monitor can paint per second. Not sure how it’s relevant here.
[Andy Branner] ” I just wrote that I have tried EXACTLY THAT on the fastest available machines and don’t even get CLOSE to smooth performance (after around the 10th angle).”
That’s cool! 9 streams to 16 is a big improvement. Thanks for the context.
What are your system specs? What kind of storage? If you run Activity Monitor, where are you bottlenecking?
[Andy Branner] “How ’bout we simply agree that the new Mac Pro is going to (oddly enough) kick the pants off of everything else that Apple (and probably many others) currently has to offer, either way? Which is kind the whole point of its release, no? ;)”
We can agree that the new Mac Pro (in its higher-spec configurations) is going to kick the pants off everything else that Apple currently has to offer.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up