-
still driving me nuts
-
[Mike Warmels] “Well, I am using the fastest drives I have…hehehe…
“Yes but what speed are you getting from them?
-
[Mike Warmels] “On the G-RAID: 120 Mbs.
“Read or write?
-
Both the same.
-
Until you run the test and give us the actual read/write speeds on your computer you’re getting nothing but guesses. His do we know that your USB 3 bus is working properly???
For the record, all drives and raids have theoretical performance characteristics, but their actual performance can be completely different than you might expect, for a whole host of reasons.
So, rather than simply continuing to assume your USB 3 drive is performing the way you think it once did, please just run the test and give us the results. It only takes a minute or two…
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss ProductionsDavid is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.
-
[Mike Warmels] “Both the same.
“That’s not particularly fast, I wouldn’t expect to have smooth playback whilst editing in “better quality” mode with a USB3 drive. I do think that FCPX needs faster drives, but I’ve also found exactly the same thing with Premiere Pro CC, so it’s possibly not just an Apple plot. I don’t know how Avid handles playback so I can’t explain why it seems to perform better.
I understand your frustration, especially since you have a new Mac Pro, but to be honest I wouldn’t even consider doing day to day editing on USB3 drives, the bare minimum I use is single drive Thunderbolt.
-
I just did: it’s around 120 Mbs read and write. It varies a tad each time it runs it through, sometimes 118, sometimes 122… So around 120Mbs.
-
As I said: I tried both ways, and on both settings FCPX slows down.
And BTW, it’s not just me. I work on three different sets and they all had FCPX 10.1.4 slowing down. It’s pretty smooth in the beginning, and after 1,5 hours it begins to slow down. After about two hours it gets to be annoying, so I close down and start up again. I’m not the only one doing that.
-
[Steve Connor] “That’s not particularly fast, I wouldn’t expect to have smooth playback whilst editing in “better quality” mode with a USB3 drive.”
Steve is correct, 120 MB/sec is NOT a lot of throughput for a media drive.
FYI, two new 6G SATA drives striped together at RAID 0 inside the drive bays of a 2008 Mac Pro, deliver nearly 385 Write/340 Read.
Mike, you’re operating from the perspective of “minimum requirements necessary,” not on the computer itself, but on your media drive, and you’re clearly underestimating the importance of throughput with additional overhead. Hard drives are very inexpensive now, don’t hold yourself back looking to Apple as the issue here, you simply don’t have enough drive horsepower.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss ProductionsDavid is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.
-
[Mike Warmels] “And BTW, it’s not just me. I work on three different sets and they all had FCPX 10.1.4 slowing down. It’s pretty smooth in the beginning, and after 1,5 hours it begins to slow down. After about two hours it gets to be annoying, so I close down and start up again. I’m not the only one doing that.”
You’re right, lot’s of people reported this, I was getting it quite a lot as well. For me it doesn’t happen in 10.2
-
You are not dragging a clip into a window. You are dragging it to a target in the timeline within the window. E appends the timeline not the window it’s in. I was thinking though that a timeline could be an empty timeline as a fixed container that is filled with a project (a particular sequence). However FC does not by default have an empty timeline open. It’s only when you create a project that the empty timeline appears. The whole idea of creating a project makes no sense. It’s as if preproduction does not exist. Truth is the project exists with or without FC.
The one way that a “project” is different than a timeline is that the project file is a small file that holds the edits and references to the media. But that’s a “project file” and not just the project. It’s already unergonomic to rename something for which there is already an industry standard term, It’s incredibly unergonomic to give it a name that is already used for a different aspect of the work. If we call the timeline a timeline no one has a problem with it in FCP X and every other NLE. So far so good. The problem arises when we refer to our “project.” Do you mean timeline or the overall job, assignment, film, etc. If using FC you need to then clarify – which is an on-going annoyance and lacks a certain professionalism. Pros may dummy things down for non-pros but feel no need to do so when communicating with another pro. Pros like the comradery of talking industry speak. Now this can evolve with time and new technology. But IMO FCP X is not really that different than other NLE in terms of the function of the different parts of the program. It has more in common with other NLE than it has differences.
But in version 1, it did use the library as a master folder that contained all your “projects” And that is where the terminology began. It was mistake for technical reasons. Apple corrected it. The “project” was put in an event because otherwise it would not be organized as part of a single “project”. But now that many people use a library for each project (film) they are working on, it does not make sense to store the project (timeline) in a single event.It’s kind of like the his and her of grammatical correctness. Someone come up with a gender neutral term for his and her. I don’t think anyone would have a problem with “project file” being what it is. But calling the timeline or even the space where the timeline resides a project is a poor naming convention.
Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up