Andy Patterson
Forum Replies Created
-
[Todd Perchert] “[andy patterson] “You could get a mediocre GTX 1060 or GTX 1050 and watch 4K at 1/2 and 1/4 resolution.”
Guess that all depends on the flavor of 4k and data rate. Don’t know what sort of storage it’s coming off of… I didn’t see that posted.
TC”Striping 5 or 6 hard drives together would be wise if he is editing Pro Res or R3D files. If it is 4K of h.264 at 120-200 mbps he should be OK with one drive although 2 striped together wouldn’t hurt.
-
[Susan Fielding] “Thank you for the suggestions!! I’m not in a position to upgrade my machine, but your input on the GPU is very helpful!”
You could get a mediocre GTX 1060 or GTX 1050 and watch 4K at 1/2 and 1/4 resolution. I use a GTX 1060 and an old Haswell CPU. Your CPU probably will not decode 4K at full resolution anyhow. If you upgrade the CPU to a 6 core and bought a GTX 1080 Ti you could watch 4K at full resolution. If you don’t have a 4K monitor 1/4 resolution will work just fine. Editing 4K at 1/4 resolution is not hard. Editing 4K at full resolution is. Can your system as of now even playback one layer of 4K at 1/4 resolution?
-
I think your Xeon CPU only has 4 cores with hyper threading. Your best bet would an i7 Coffee Lake CPU and a GTX 1080 Ti. If you want to upgrade the CPU to at least a 6 cores (8 would be better) and then get a GTX 1080 Ti you should have a decent system. I think your NVIDIA Quadro K2000 only has 384 CUDA cores. That is indeed a big problem. Upgrading the GPU would help more than anything but the CPU is not really up to the task of 4K at full resolution either. Spending $1,000.00 on a a new GPU and using a mediocre CPU is not wise. Premiere Pro needs a good CPU and GPU both. The CPU plays back the video codecs and the GPU handles the effects. I hope this helps.
-
Interesting. I have not downloaded the latest FCPX update yet.
-
[John Rofrano] ” [andy patterson] “My system never fails to shut down because of updates. Did you disable the updates as shown in the video below? I am thinking you did not. ”
Yes, I did and I can make a video of the problem if you don’t believe me because I use virtual machines every day in my testing and I don’t want any of them updating without me doing it and I disable update right after the OS is installed and shut down the machine and it’s fine. Then I turn the machine on again and check and update is still disabled. When I shut it down the second time, it tells me it has to apply updates. When I turn it back on, Windows Update is still showing as Disabled but the service is RUNNING!”
Is the Windows system updating or did the virtual machines update? My Windows 10 system does not update when shutting down ever. When I first build a new system I let it update for a couple of days and then disable the updates. As I stated my editing system is rarely connected to internet. When I had Windows 10 on my laptop it never failed to shut down because of updates. Are you using a genuine MS OEM version?
[John Rofrano] “It shocked everyone who updated their Windows XP machines to Vista and the desktop was gone and their PC looked like a Windows Phone with this big “Hello Kitty” boxes interface. The Start menu was also missing. Several vendors made money selling plug-ins that would add the start menu back again. The desktop could be enabled but then you would start a program that tried to open a link in a browser and instead of opening the desktop browser, it would switch back to the Metro interface with a full screen browser and you had to figure out how to get back to your desktop. It was horrible! Customers complained and eventually Microsoft made the desktop the default in Windows 7 and brought the start menu back. When a company like Microsoft has to admit they were wrong and change the interface back to how XP looked… I call that a debacle! Nobody wanted their PC to look like a Windows Phone.”
The start Menu was not missing with XP to Vista Upgrade. You a bit confused. I think you are thinking of Windows 8. Windows 8 had a start screen that worked just as well as the start menu. While even XP had touch screen support and there were touch screen XP tablets Windows 8’s Metro GUI was design to work with smaller touch screens. Windows 7 didn’t bring back the start menu. You are very confused about Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8. Windows XP, Vista and 7 all used the Windows 95 paradigm. Windows 8 received the Metro GUI and was also the first OS by MS to go beyond the Windows 95 paradigm. You will have to trust me on that.
[John Rofrano] “I’ve personally owned a PC XT, PC AT, PS2 Mod-30, & PS2 Mod-80 (yes, microchannel!) before buying clones and building my own. So yea… now that I think about it… my experience is probably not the norm because I’ve seen everyone else problems including mine. lol ;-)”
Can you install Windows 95? Would you consider Windows 95 hard to install?
-
[John Rofrano] “Because I have used a Windows PC for over 33 years and I own and have used Adobe Creative Suite CS2, CS4, CS5, & CS6 (I refused to pay ransomeware for CC)”
Just for clarification I have used Apple computers for about 30 years but writing my term paper on a Mac is not the same thing as editing video is it? Could you do a short video of yourself using Premiere Pro CS2 and CS 6 on a PC? I am wondering if you used CS 6 on an old 64 bit Pentium 4 system and switched to FCPX using an i7 Mac. Could you do a video of your FCPX system editing as many layers of the Red R3D files as possible? There is a video of FCPX dropping frames when using an iMac while editing 4.5K R3D files at full resolution yet there are $1,400.00 PCs using Premiere Pro than can edit the 4K R3D files at full resolution. Do you understand why I don’t buy into the claim that FCPX and the Apple hardware combination is the greatest thing since slice bread? Do you at least see my point? On computers with low system specs FCPX does have an advantage but that advantage diminishes quickly as the system spec increase and at some point Premiere Pro might out shine FCPX. That is not to say they both don’t work well. I think they do work well but I am not going to over hype the performance of FCPX on an iMac when compared to Premiere Pro on a $1,400.00 PC. Why would anybody do so?
All I can say is you should stick with Apple but keep in mind many of us have had a totally different experience from yours. Why has your experience been so different from mine? As you can tell from my video I have been building custom PCs for 20 years. Do you think I would still do so if I had all the same experiences as you have? I could do a video of my Windows 10 system shutting down in less than a minute if you would like me to do so. It can be done.
-
You listed 400 GB of RAM but I think you meant 4 GB. Getting more RAM (16 GB) would help but getting a new system would be wise.
-
[Bill Davis] “Fair criticism, I suppose – but it’s based in the fact that I do have a casual acquaintance with some world class coders – who tell me that some long time software (they mentioned AE in particular) has a lot of legacy code that’s not particularly efficient doing things like still calling the CPU for tasks that would run a lot more efficiently on the GPU – one factor that makes it somewhat inefficient compared to more modern programs.”
AE is not a NLE design to be used for the editorial process nor is MS Word or DreamWeaver.
[Bill Davis] “But you’re right. I’m not a programmer and I have no real expertise in the area. .”
I would agree with that.
[Bill Davis] “It does make sense however that long running software that attempts to maintain every single feature users have become accustomed to over decades – might do that at a price regarding efficiency.
But I could be totally wrong.”
Premiere Pro (2003) was a total rewrite of the code. Premiere Pro 1.0 can take advantage of multiple cores CPUs and in fact before the implementation of the Mercury Playback Engine Premiere Pro made use of the GPU for a few transitions. Did you know that?
The 2017 iMac in the video below at 16:45 failed to play back the R3D file at full resolution yet a $1,400.00 gaming PC can. I don’t consider a $1,400.00 PC a beefy system do you? Having said that if the 2017 iMac cannot play it back I doubt your laptop can. Wouldn’t you agree. The iMac Pro did play it back at full resolution but I would consider the system specs on the iMac Pro pretty beefy. Wouldn’t you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1321&v=nLF3g2zF3qs
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Bill Davis] “If EDITORIAL is a significant part of your work – you should add a Mac and FCP X to your toolkit. Because that’s the hardware and software combo that “edits” the fastest right now.”
According to who? How exactly is FCPX faster than say Premiere Pro?
[Bill Davis] “hobbling your editorial tasks, just for access to the greater horsepower required for running less efficient non-editorial software.”
Are you saying Premiere Pro and DR 14 are less efficient than FCPX for real-time playback and rendering?
[Bill Davis] ” So you’re just picking one compromise over another. Which is fine. But for how long?”
So are FCPX users. Depending on what codec you use an iMac might be a better option than the iMac Pro.
[Bill Davis] “As we saw with FCP X – tearing down a legacy program is a big risk. But a few years down the road – when those performance gains prove to be very significant – it’s one really good way to keep the efficiency curve ascending.”
What gains are you talking about? Quick Sync gives FCPX an advantage when editing h.264/AVCHD/MPEG4 but any other codec and FCPX has no great performance gains over Premiere Pro. I doubt FCPX has a performance gain over DR 14 either. I don’t doubt you can edit h.264 4K files with your laptop but let me see you edit camera raw formats or even the Cineform Codec on your laptop at 4K. Had you bothered to read and of my comments (which would be wise). I let people know why once you get Premiere Pro on a $1,400.00 desktop you would probably see a better experience than using FCPX on an iMac depending on what is being edited. Want proof?
Watch the video below at 16:45. I am not saying a fully loaded and beeefy iMac could not do it but this iMac did not. Having said that a $1,400.00 PC could do it. So much for the beefy PC requirement myth when using Premiere Pro : )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1321&v=nLF3g2zF3qs
-
[Tom Sefton] “This isn’t an fcpx vs premiere debate. This post is a look at Apple hardware. The forum isn’t fcpx vs Adobe.”
This is the Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates forum. Anything computer related gets discussed in this forum. Having said that what kind of post would you expect in a forum call Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates? Should we post about breast feeding or how to change a spark plug? What are you expecting in a forum called Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates?
There is a person ranting about Windows in another post in this forum. Is ranting about Windows OK? Are you bothered to hear what the PC side has to offer? The fact that a $1,800.00 gaming PC running Premiere Pro can out perform FCPX using a $2,800.00 iMac is good info for anyone contemplating between FCPX, Avid or Premiere Pro? For the record that kind of information is exactly what should be posted in this forum. No one is saying FCPX has old and laggy code like they have said about Premiere Pro. The post is about the new iMac Pro but this forum is open to debate. Learn to deal with it.