Andy Patterson
Forum Replies Created
-
It should help if you can afford it. I notice a huge performance boost going from a GT 240 to a GTX 650 Ti. I then went from a the GTX 650 Ti to a GTX 1060 and noticed a nice performance boost. I wish had the money to get the GTX 1070 or GTX 1080 but the GTX 1060 was worth the money. The graphics card upgrades help for renders with effects and real-time playback. I hope this helps.
-
It should not be that hard to correct. It may be a bug. Are you on Mac or PC?
-
Go to the menu bar. Select edit and scroll down to preference. Then select playback. You should see your second computer monitor and any third party hardware devices.
-
What happens if you render using the CPU instead of the GPU?
-
[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.
-
[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.
-
The CPU plays back the video files. The GPU handles the special effects (most of them). Having said that the Cineform codec should work OK.
-
[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?
-
[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.
-
[Oliver Peters] “You are correct. The “scale down” in the set-up menu fixes that. Thanks.”
Thanks for letting me know it worked.