[Alex Udell]

Hi…

MPE = Mercury Playback Engine (which is I assume why you want to add the graphics hardware in the first place).

VRAM = Video RAM, the memory on board the NVIDIA (or any) gfx card. In order for MPE to be able to process images and streams, it needs space on board the card to hold that data while processing.

You may want to look at ATI alternatives that are compatible with your current OS. NVIDIA has developed a language technology called CUDA and ATI uses similar technology called OPEN CL. PPro’s Mercury Playback Engine supports both of these to different extents to enhance editing performance.

Also know that MPE is not required to run PPro. You can run in software mode and still reap the benefits of native format support (editing without converting first). MPE really enhances what can be done to multiple streams in real time for certain FX and can help with export in some cases.

Ppro also loves RAM. So adding that certainly can’t hurt.

I can’t answer the OS version specific concerns so I’ll leave that to others.

Good luck!

Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX

[Alex Udell]

I’m not quite sure how it is right now….but you don’t have to move stuff to another volume….

I think a parallel folder or level above is sufficient…

once PPro can’t find original media, the batch should take…

Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX

[Alex Udell]

ok….so then…. me = wrong 🙂

Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX

[Alex Udell]

I don’t think so….

and here’s why I think that may be the case…

in native editing, some formats require looking at folder structure (like MXF)…

renaming a file can create filename collision issues as well as linking problems when a “clip” as you see it is actually built from a number of sub components located in a folder set…..that’s my best guess anyway…

sorry…

Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX

[Alex Udell]

Well… if you are doing a long and CU in your multi cam…

I probably set up a sequence for the Long and it’s bg. (keyed)
and a separate for the CU, an it’s background. (keyed)

Both of them keyed and basically framed to your liking.

Then those sequences become the source sequences of your multi cam setup.

So essentially, double nesting.

But that should do it.

Since it’s a music vid…you can just put your final audio in the top level multicam destination edit.

HTH,

Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX

[Alex Udell]

Multi-cam in PPro really just looks at the layered sequence as the source of the multi cam.

So whatever is on the corresponding source track at any given time is what the multicam viewer will see…

Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX

[Alex Udell]

I agree with Jon….BUT

want to break the ice in moving ppl to the pipeline….

so easing them in based on what they are used to may make for a more willing migration…

Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX

[Alex Udell]

Looking at the Sony website, it does this:

Support for Apple Final Cut Pro** (Mac only)
Import clips to FCP-X and FCP-7 with file conversion to QuickTime
Export editied sequence to MXF / MP4 files from FCP-7

How are they using it?

knowing that will help me help you. 🙂

Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX

[Alex Udell]

You don’t need to to add adjustment layers.

You can add the corrections directly to the camera clips in the source multicam sequence.

Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX

[Alex Udell]

I went thru this a lot in my mind. Why would Apple do the things that they do?

My guess is that there is some philosophy behind the design that may be way ahead of the curve in terms of being based on working on devices that aren’t desktops. The interaction assumptions may be based on the idea that you may be working with touch based interaction as opposed to mouse and keyboard.

Why would they jettison all the hardware and infrastructure? They may be thinking that a lot more processing will happen in the cloud or at least WAN.

All these things they won’t ever divulge on a road map because their corporate culture doesn’t allow it.

And in the short term the pro video market was a tiny niche for profit with a high cost for support.

Basically they have along term view that says it will be cheaper to recover customers in the long term rather than migrate and support them over the transition….

What we know as Pro video today is already changing blindly fast and won’t look remotely the same in 10 years.

That’s my best speculation any way (with no inside knowledge).

Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX