-
FCPX performance – codecs and external IO hardware
I’ve complained a number of times about JKL play performance in FCPX. Over the past 6 years, I have run FCPX on a wide variety of Macs, including 2009/2010 cheese graters, newer MBPs and iMacs and now a new 2013 trash can Mac Pro. What I’ve generally found is that across the board, if I’m working with ProRes, performance is OK. If I work with external i/o turned off and/or not installed, performance is OK. When I work with external i/o engaged, especially with non-ProRes codecs (C300, DSLRs, XDCAM, RED, etc.) performance is awful. For example, skimming is fine, but fast reverse play causes the viewer to freeze up until I stop. The same media on the same hardware works better in Premiere.
This leads me to believe that FCPX is by and large ONLY optimized for ProRes, even though other codecs show up as “optimized”. I know many of you will dispute this and talk about wonderful performance. So for you, I would like to ask several things.
1) Are you optimizing media first in FCPX?
2) Are you generating proxies first in FCPX?
3) Are you monitoring through external i/o hardware?
4) Are you working with only ProRes files?
5) If you are running other camera formats with external I/O and you are NOT optimizing or creating proxies, what is your configurations? And do you use JKL, or just skim and play?Just curious.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
31 Replies
-
For me, no optimizing media or generating proxies.
Monitoring via HDMI on my 2013 MacBook Pro and
via my 980Ti (6GB) GPU (flashed for Mac) on my 2009
(flashed to 2010) MacPro. In both cases I go to a
42 inch Vizio screen for full screen monitoring.
And in both cases its way, way, way, WAY faster than
trying to do the same thing in Premiere Pro.
But I’m not using hugely complex video files, just AVCHD
from FS700/100, and VG20, some XAVC from mirrorless A6000 series,
some GoPro footageand so on.Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com -
[Gabe Strong] “Monitoring via HDMI on my 2013 MacBook Pro and”
So no external io hardware. Yes, I see good performance with HDMI, too. But that ONLY works well for FCPX.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “…complained a number of times about JKL play performance in FCPX…What I’ve generally found is that across the board, if I’m working with ProRes, performance is OK. If I work with external i/o turned off and/or not installed, performance is OK. When I work with external i/o engaged, especially with non-ProRes codecs (C300, DSLRs, XDCAM, RED, etc.) performance is awful….”
I’ve tested H264 4k editing using Premiere CC vs FCPX many times back-to-back on a top-spec 2015 iMac 27. I use JKL heavily. In general FCPX is much faster without proxy or optimized media — on this machine, and when not using external I/O. However it seems Premiere has gotten faster within the past year or so, but it’s still significantly less responsive, especially to JKL. Using proxy they are both very fast on H264 4k.
I rarely use external I/O, and when I do it’s only Thunderbolt to another iMac. It’s interesting your case seems mostly confined to external I/O. Are other FCPX users with your I/O hardware and device driver also reporting problems? Can you test it with different I/O hardware?
I’d be frustrated if FCPX was slow. In a sense Apple has less leeway on this than Adobe, since a core design principle of FCPX is slippery-fast speed. You are talking mostly about timeline performance but if the Event Browser got sluggish that would deactivate one of the main reasons for using FCPX.
-
[Joe Marler] “. Are other FCPX users with your I/O hardware and device driver also reporting problems? Can you test it with different I/O hardware”
My experience includes a Kona LHi, BMD Mini Monitor card and a BMD UltraStudio Express. The first two are cards and generally the Kona is best. However, there I’m mainly running Proxies from RED camera files. So, I’m typically never running RED natively, except at the last step.
The UltraStudio is the worst with X, because this is also on a MacPro via Thunderbolt. It has to live on a shared port and reacts the worst that way. If I put it on a bus by itself, it’s better but still not as good as with Premiere or Resolve. The really odd thing with X is that the Viewer in the UI is affected. Not just the video output through the device.
At home I’m running a 2009 with the Mini Monitor card. I usually don’t have a video monitor connected. I noticed that even there, when I turn off a/v output in X, the performance improves.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “The UltraStudio is the worst with X, because this is also on a MacPro via Thunderbolt. It has to live on a shared port and reacts the worst that way. If I put it on a bus by itself, it’s better but still not as good as with Premiere or Resolve. The really odd thing with X is that the Viewer in the UI is affected. Not just the video output through the device.”
I have the same problem. I dumped the BMD products because of this. AJA T-TAP is a little better but I often get freezes on my I/O monitor and the FCPx viewer keeps playing using JKL.
Dajen Productions, Santa Barbara, CA
Mac Pro 3.5MHz 6-Core Late 2013
FCP X -
[Dave Jenkins] “I have the same problem. I dumped the BMD products because of this. AJA T-TAP is a little better but I often get freezes on my I/O monitor and the FCPx viewer keeps playing using JKL.”
Yes, AJA is a bit better. Right now, the only acceptable performance that I’m seeing (unless I’m using PR Proxy) is to either turn off a/v output or use HDMI. As a quick test this morning, I connected HDMI to a large Panasonic flat panel. This is connected by way of a CalDigit dock on one of the Thunderbolt ports that I have on a 2013 MacPro. Performance is good and no hang-ups on JKL.
I could use HDMI direct from the Mac, but then I’d have to give up the second external Mac display. Using the dock, I get all three. But, by doing this, I lose the color critical monitor connected via SDI when I’m in X. Of course, if I use AJA, then I have to swap between AJA and BMD every time I need to use Resolve. Argh!
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “So no external io hardware. Yes, I see good performance with HDMI, too. But that ONLY works well for FCPX.
“Sorry, I was thinking of the external monitor as ‘external hardware’. I see what you
are saying here, a different ‘external output’.Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com -
DNxHD and ProRes are almost equal in performance. They are both heavy multithread and works very well.
ProRes is so efficient that besides DNxHD, it is almost much better to transcode rather than use native codecs throughout the editing/grade/online/mastering.
i.e. Resolve uses 5-6 times longer for grade/output of a H.264 than ProRes (I would guess DNxHD is the same as ProRes).
The point is, not all codecs support segmentation or multi-core use. And some programs utilise this very much, hence FCPX is so insane efficient with ProRes.
just my guess 🙂
Helge Tjelta
Creative apps for the FCPX ecosystem. -
I don’t doubt FCPX does handle Pro Res better than Premiere Pro. It is interesting that when using 3rd party I/O gear FCPX chokes up on your systems. My PC takes not performance hit when using the Blackmagic Design Intensity Shuttle USB 3.0 version?
-
[Dave Jenkins] “I have the same problem. I dumped the BMD products because of this. AJA T-TAP is a little better but I often get freezes on my I/O monitor and the FCPx viewer keeps playing using JKL.”
It seems like you would want to contact BMD and Apple both to correct the problem.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up