-
FCPX performance – codecs and external IO hardware
-
[Erik Lindahl] “I can confirm the issue of FCPX performance when using AV-output via a video interface (BMD / AJA). No machine, no software or OS-version makes any difference for me. It’s the number one issue I’ve had with the app since day 1.
I talked to one of the guys behind “that shared storeage” for FCPX at IBC last year and he confirmed my issue also. Even one of the presenters there editing a feature in FCPX noted “outstanding performance” (as long as AV-output was turned off).
It’s really crap and defiantly is a deal breaker for me. It astounds me they haven’t fixed it by now as the FCPX engine aside from this massive omission is an amazing piece of technology.”
I think the reason might be that FCXP was originally never intended to be used with broadcast equipment. Perhaps there is nothing that can be done other than a total rewrite of the program. Does FCPX take a performance hit if you use a second computer monitor using HDMI out for client previews? Just curious.
-
[andy patterson] “Does FCPX take a performance hit if you use a second computer monitor using HDMI out for client previews? Just curious”
No. In fact I can run 2 displays via Thunderbolt/MiniDisplayPort and still run a 3rd display as HDMI via a Thunderbolt dock. No performance hit that I can tell.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “No. In fact I can run 2 displays via Thunderbolt/MiniDisplayPort and still run a 3rd display as HDMI via a Thunderbolt dock. No performance hit that I can tell.”
Thanks for the info. I don’t doubt you can run three monitors with FCPX but is one of the monitors being used as a client/Preview monitor as opposed to just GUI screen real estate for FCPX?
-
Dual GPU monitors isn’t a problem with FCPX. I think others have talked about having a third monitor vi for example the MP’s HDMI-port.
I only think it’s a matter of priority and optimization. Premiere was virtually useless when we started testing it back in I think CS 5.5. Performance died when using a video interface. Now that isn’t a problem at all most of the time (I say this since I have tested 4K monitoring).
-
Looking at it from my point of view and a “top OS” point of view they should build the i/o suppport into Core Video / AV Foundation rather than just FCPX. This would potentially mean any app could have the same output features as an NLE.
In theory this should be virtual interfaces as well such as a h264 realtime encoder and having a virtual screen as your output (i.e. stream your AV Output to another device).
-
[andy patterson] “is one of the monitors being used as a client/Preview monitor as opposed to just GUI screen real estate for FCPX?”
When you are not in FCPX, all 3 monitors are the macOS GUI. When you are in FCPX, the HDMI-connected display is the video output for client/preview. It’s not simply the viewer blown up to fill the screen. No different than going through an AJA or BMD device. You can also enable the same function in Premiere.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “It’s not simply the viewer blown up to fill the screen. No different than going through an AJA or BMD device. You can also enable the same function in Premiere.”
Except you don’t get the same color spectrum (Rec709) when using the HDMI output as opposed to an AJA I/o device.
I can’t use the HDMI for critical viewing or color correction.Dajen Productions, Santa Barbara, CA
Mac Pro 3.5MHz 6-Core Late 2013
FCP X -
[Dave Jenkins] “Except you don’t get the same color spectrum (Rec709) when using the HDMI output as opposed to an AJA I/o device.
I can’t use the HDMI for critical viewing or color correction.”I’ve heard that said, and I would tend to agree. But honestly, I don’t know the correct answer as it applies to FCPX. Plus, when you see companies like Flanders offering HDMI, it tends to cloud the waters. Especially now that Rec709 is no longer a universal target.
Given that the majority of work that most of us do is for outlets other than broadcast, I have to question whether or not Rec709 accuracy is of paramount concern any longer. Especially when you are performing editing and not necessarily final color correction, for which FCPX isn’t the ideal tool anyway.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “When you are not in FCPX, all 3 monitors are the macOS GUI. When you are in FCPX, the HDMI-connected display is the video output for client/preview. It’s not simply the viewer blown up to fill the screen. No different than going through an AJA or BMD device. You can also enable the same function in Premiere.”
I know what Premiere Pro can do. I was curious if FCPX was being used in the same way without taking a performance hit. I guess FCPX only takes a hit in performance with video capture cards. I am thinking Apple did not plan for 3rd party hardware when creating FCPX. I think they tried to add 3rd party support the best that they could.
-
[Erik Lindahl] “I only think it’s a matter of priority and optimization. Premiere was virtually useless when we started testing it back in I think CS 5.5. Performance died when using a video interface. Now that isn’t a problem at all most of the time (I say this since I have tested 4K monitoring).”
I have Premiere Pro CS 5.5. Premiere Pro CS 5.5 has better real-time performance than Premiere Pro CC 2017 when using 3rd party hardware. You did have to use a 3rd party timelines from AJA, BMD or Matrox. Other than that it worked fine. Premiere Pro CS 6 implemented the Mercury Transmit feature that allowed just bout any timeline to make use of 3rd party hardware.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up