-
MacBook Pros “underpowered?” Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “I think we’ve gotten into the weeds a bit and are talking past each other. Long story short, I just disagree with your statement that if Adobe dropped Mac support and went PC-only that somehow performance would increase remarkably.”
I am glad you disagree because I never made that statement. I stated it would be easier for Adobe (the programmers) to only support one OS and one GPU platform. CS 5.5 was bug free for the most part. I never said anything about performance increasing remarkably. Not even once. You wrote the following below about performance in which I disagreed.
[Andrew Kimery] “If Adobe picked one build of Windows, one Intel CPU, one Nvidia GPU and one Mobo and wrote a custom version of PPro (or whatever app) exclusively for those components they could get a sizable performance boost compared to running the ‘works everywhere’ version of PPro on the same hardware.”
As I stated you don’t write software exclusively for an i7 VS an i3 CPU.
[Andrew Kimery] “I think the hurdles created by so many hardware and software variables on the PC side dwarf the hurdles created by maintaining MacOS compatibility.”
They all do add up. Sony Vegas only has to worry about Windows. FCPX only has to worry about Apple computers.
[Andrew Kimery] “I’m aware that AMD and Intel both produce x86 CPUs, I’m also aware of how differences in things like chipsets, drivers, and firmware in various PC components can have ripple effects that cause performances issues/bugs in Configuration A but not in Configuration B even though both meet the recommended system requirements.”
The chipsets, RAM and Hard drives don’t require Adobe (the programmers) to write exclusive for Western Digital Hard Drives or Crucial RAM. A bad mother board is a bad mother board. No argument there.
[Andrew Kimery] “Adobe could ‘go narrow’ and severely limit the range of hardware and software it supports in an attempt to get meaningful performance boosts at the cost of broad compatibility, but I think that would be a penny wise/pound foolish tactic.”
As I sated you are implying Adobe would get a performance boost by excursively using only a Sky Lake Quad Core i7 , Zotac GTX 1070, Corsair Power Supply and Crucial RAM. I am saying that would not be the case. Some one would pop in an 8 Core AMD and blow it out of the water. I want options as far as hardware goes. What I am saying is opt for Windows and CUDA only. All I can say is that prior to supporting Open CL everything worked great. The introduction of Open CL created bugs. I have several videos of bugs that are there now but did not in exist in CS 5.5. I will admit if Adobe opted for Windows and Open CL exclusively the bugs issue might get corrected. My point is stick with one or the other.
[Andrew Kimery] “IMO a large part of Adobe’s general appeal is that the software is incredibly accessible from a device standpoint. Mac or PC, laptop or desk, Android or iOS… Adobe’s solutions are there regardless of your choice of mainstream computing platform.”
No Argument.
[Andrew Kimery] “When you can optimize the software to the hardware then you can get better performance than using unoptimized software on the same hardware. Video games are just an easy example to illustrate this point.”
No argument but as I stated you don’t write code for Crucial RAM VS PNY RAM or an i5 VS an I7. Having said that I do think supporting only CUDA or only supporting open CL would make things much easier for Adobe and result in less bugs. Supporting only Mac or PC would make things easier as well. On the other hand only supporting Intel or AMD would not make much sense. I think we may agree on somethings and disagree on others. None the less this thread has been interesting.
-
[Bill Davis] “I can easily point to the other companies ADOPTING efficiency concepts X has been using for 6 years like the proxy workflow and skimming and folding those into their own software as their hardware has developed to accommodated them. Are their not equivalent concepts that those other programs pioneered that X has incorporated. Perhapst I’m just woefully ignorant of them. So, help me out. What are the most recent and most effective ones? How has AVID or Premiere Pro singularly evolved to move the industry forward?”
Really Bill?
Fast introduced back ground rendering ten years prior to the release of FCPX with the Fast Red, Silver and Purple systems. Fast was sold to Pinnacle and Pinnacle combined CPU acceleration with GPU acceleration back in 2003.
Premiere had 64 bit and GPU acceleration prior to FCPX. Adobe also had the concept of Keyword and Keyword Collections in Adobe’s Bridge 5 years Prior to the Release of FCPX.
There were software programs that used Intel’s Quick Sync prior to FCPX.
It is great that you find FCPX much better than FCP 7 but you know what Bill? Premiere Pro CS 5.0 was much better than FCP 7 as well. Having said that you were not going to try anything other than FCP.
You said it yourself Bill you are woefully ignorant consider I already posted about Fast and Pinnacle in another thread you participated in. It might be wise to start reading my posts don’t ya think?
I think I also made you hip to Intel’s Quick Sync but what thanks do I get? You kind of accused us of attacking you.
Having said that above is the info you were looking for Bill. Start using it wisely.
-
[andy patterson] “Premiere Pro CS 5.0 was much better than FCP 7”
You seriously mean this?
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Scott Witthaus] “[andy patterson] “Premiere Pro CS 5.0 was much better than FCP 7″
You seriously mean this?”
Stretching credibility to the limits I think 🙂
-
[Steve Connor] “Stretching credibility to the limits I think :)”
Isn’t that what this forum is for?
😉
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
Sorry, Bill, I didn’t mean to sound dismissive. Of course, it’s a pain that Apple messed you up and I’m sorry to hear that your time was wasted.
I meant that big changes to the OS have costs for anyone developing for the Mac and these are largely opportunity costs – while you are accommodating the changes, you are not developing new features, improving old ones, or fixing bugs.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Scott Witthaus] “[andy patterson] “Premiere Pro CS 5.0 was much better than FCP 7″
You seriously mean this?”
I’m a serious as Chaka Chan naked : )
For the record even Premiere Pro CS 4.0 could edit AVCHD natively with a Core 2 Quad. Many FCP 7 user at the time (2009) said AVCHD is not a professional codec to edit with. Remember those days Scott? Funny how once FCPX allowed for the native editing of AVCHD FCP users changed their mind about AVCHD. Why do you think that is Scott? AVCHD/H.264 is obviously awesome to Bill Davis because Intel’s Quick Sync (h.264 encoding) is the star of this thread. If Premiere made use of Quick Sync and FCPX did not I am willing to bet FCPX user would continue to say h.246 is not a professional format. Professional or not it is a common video codec. For the record Premiere Pro CS 4 could also edit native Red One R3D files.
FCPX didn’t invent metadata, mixing video formats, Quick Sync, GPU acceleration, background rendering or 64 bit. That is why a lot of people were not all that impressed with FCPX when it launched. I had GPU acceleration and background rendering back in 2003. Not to mention almost all PC editing software could mix video formats. FCP users did not find background rendering and GPU acceleration amazing, innovative or revolutionary when Pinnacle implemented them in 2003 and I didn’t find them innovative, revolutionary or amazing when Apple introduced them in 2011. Why would I? I didn’t ever hype up Pinnacle for having those features. I am not saying FCPX is not a good program or that FCPX does not have some cool features. I am saying Apple took ideas from other software programs as much as anyone else. Bill asked a question and I simply supplied the correct answers.
[Bill Davis] “I can easily point to the other companies ADOPTING efficiency concepts X has been using for 6 years like the proxy workflow and skimming and folding those into their own software as their hardware has developed to accommodated them. Are their not equivalent concepts that those other programs pioneered that X has incorporated. Perhapst I’m just woefully ignorant of them. So, help me out. What are the most recent and most effective ones? How has AVID or Premiere Pro singularly evolved to move the industry forward?”
If you FCPX users like background rendering, mixing video formats, GPU acceleration wouldn’t Pinnacle’s Liquid Edition also have been better than FCP 7 or can only other Apple product be better than FCP 7? Pinnacles Liquid Edition could edit multiple layer of HVD back in 2005 but I cannot say if it could edit multiple layers of h.264/AVCDH. Avid Killed it prior to h.264/AVCHD becoming popular. Where would Liquid be today? Who knows?
-
[Steve Connor] “[Scott Witthaus] “[andy patterson] “Premiere Pro CS 5.0 was much better than FCP 7″
You seriously mean this?”
Stretching credibility to the limits I think :)”
You could make a snide remark or you could actually read my response and educate yourself : )
I could also mention Panasonic’s News Byte NLE but why bother? Having said that I don’t doubt there are other people here who have used some obscure NLE that may have had innovative features. I myself would love to hear about them.
Would you want to edit native ACVHD using FCP 7 while I use Premiere Pro CS 5? See my point? If according to Bill Davis encoding to h.264 will make FCPX 10 times faster than Premiere Pro wouldn’t editing native AVCHD make Premiere Pro 1000 times faster than FCP 7. I want to let you know I am being silly although there is some truth in what I said. Wouldn’t you agree?
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “[Steve Connor] “Stretching credibility to the limits I think :)”
Isn’t that what this forum is for?”
I would tend to agree but I think my responses are more than credible.
I do wonder if some of the people that claim to edit on FCPX, Premiere Pro and Avid actually do? I have my reasons for doubting such claims.
-
I enjoy reading your extremely informative posts, Andy. Please don’t be discouraged.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up