Andy Patterson
Forum Replies Created
-
[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?
-
[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.
-
[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.
-
[Adam Read] “For some bizarre reason, my Intensity Shuttle is not outputting 1920 x 1080p (25fps) to the external monitor when using ANY of the Adobe sequence presets.
It is only outputting if I select 1080i 25fps (which to my knowledge means interlaced, which the file/sequence is not.
Can anyone shed any light on this?
I contacted Blackmagic and they said contact Adobe. I contacted Adobe, and guess what? – they said contact Blackmagic!”
The intensity Shuttle will only output Broadcast compliant aspect ratios, resolutions and frame rates. 25P should work. Have you tried downloading a different driver?
-
[Andrew Kimery] “That’s my point about more variables in PC hardware vs Mac hardware. Even if Adobe picked Nvidia GPUs and Intel CPUs to focus on (leaving out Intel GPUs, AMD CPUs and AMD GPUs) which CPUs and GPUs are they going to pick?”
There is no point in leaving out AMD CPUs since they support the x86 architecture. It is not like AMD has a Sun Micro Systems Spark II CPU. At this point you can do more with CUDA but I think it would be wise to drop them both in another 4 years and go all software only.
[Andrew Kimery] ” What if computer makes like Dell and HP focus on a different roadmaps?”
Why would you think either one is going to start using Motorola, Spark II or a DEC Alpha chip?
[Andrew Kimery] “What if AMD CPUs and/or GPUs are a better value? Don’t you think customers will be mad that Adobe only supports a tiny handful of PC parts?”
That has been my point in almost every thread. AMD does have an 8 Core CPUs for under $500.00. That is why I said Adobe may want to stop support for CUDA and Open CL in 2021. You may be able to get a 16 core CPU for $399.9 by then. I don’t think you understand that Intel and AMD manufacture x86 (IBM) compatible CPUs.
[Andrew Kimery] “It’s in Adobe’s best interests to support as much hardware as is feasible so they aren’t alienating good sized chunks of their user base (and potential user base)”
Not really. If in the year 2022 all Intel CPUs and AMD CPUs can play 10 layers of 8K video with multiple effects the dedicated GPU may become a thing of the past. I don’t doubt it will eventually happen.
[Andrew Kimery] ” I think a good example of this is that Adobe’s Mercury engine used to be CUDA only on select Nvidia GPUs.”
There was always support for any CUDA card with at least 1 GB of RAM and 100 CUDA cores. You had to manually add your card to the list but it would work. In fact there were less bugs back then. Keep in mind the bugs affect all the Nvidia cards when they happen. Things got worse once Open CL was added.
[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.”
That would be like saying Adobe must write for the AMD Ryzen CPU the i3 and the i5 CPU separately and only support the Zotac GTX 1080 and not the GTX 1060. It doesn’t work that way. Granted trying to make the CC work with Windows 95 and an Intel Pentium 4 CPU would be a challenge.
[Andrew Kimery] “It’s like console gaming vs PC gaming. An Xbox One is basically a low spec PC running Windows but the games on it can look and perform better than PC games on a similarly spec’d PC because the devs can focus on getting the most of a specific set of components.”
Actually there are PC gamers playing XBOX games at 4K instead of 1080 and they can also get more FPS than an XBOX. That is not to say the XBOX does not work good.
[Andrew Kimery] “And the longer into the console’s lifecycle you get the better the games look because the devs have had that much more time to how to optimize their games for the hardware. Contrast that to PC gaming where the older your computer gets the more it struggles to play newer games (forcing you to turn the quality sliders down).”
You are saying an XBOX 360 from 5 years ago can play the newest games as good as a brand new XBOX ONE? If not then consoles become obsolete as well.
-
[Joe Marler] “I have used Premiere since CS4 and have obviously tested this many times on a PC. There is no question that a top-spec iMac can export H264 a lot faster than Premiere on either the same Mac hardware or a comparable PC — and maybe any PC. In theory Premiere on a multi-socket PC with enough cores might eventually beat FCPX on a 4Ghz iMac at exporting to H264, but it would take a lot of cores. If Adobe ever truly supports Quick Sync or the other hardware-accelerated transcoding methods like NVENC or VCE, that would make a difference.”
I am not talking about export. I am talking about playback. Once again FCPX uses Quick Sync on export Premiere Pro does not.
[Joe Marler] “[andy patterson] “…I don’t think Adobe supports Quick Sync. There is a plugin I believe. I think Adobe was concerned about quality over speed and they wanted the same experience for the XEON and i7 computers.”
This is a quote from Adobe’s Premiere CC 2015.3 feature list: “…initial support for Apple Metal and accelerated H.264 decode on Windows using Intel Quick Sync Video.” There was a tiny footnote somewhere (which I can’t find right now) which said “Windows only”. However if Adobe is using Quick Sync, they aren’t doing a very good job of it. https://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/features.html“
I think you are confusing decoding for encoding. Apple will use Metal, Windows will use Intel’s Quikc Sync. Below is what is on Adobe’s website. I think it is for real-time playback not rendering.
“Enhanced performance and stability
Apply more real-time effects and reduce dropped frames across your devices with initial support for Apple Metal and accelerated H.264 decode on Windows using Intel Quick Sync Video”.
[Joe Marler] “These aren’t special 4k H264 files — they are from various cameras including Panasonic AG-DVX200, Sony A7RII, GoPro Hero5, DJI Phantom 4 Pro, etc. They all behave similarly on FCPX vs Premiere. They are too big to send but you can download sample files from those cameras from Vimeo or many other places. Just create a 3-camera 4k multicam, enable multicam playback, set the monitor to 1/4 res, then use JKL to scrub back and forth on the timeline. Re playing 5 layers of Red One with multiple effects — I have no idea and have no current need to investigate that.”
What if Premiere Pro plays Red One R3D files smoother than FCPX in muliti-cam? That was kind of my point because not everyone will make use of H.264. Having said that could the JKL keys in multi-cam be a bug?
-
Your best bet would be to try the trial version of each NLE. I would try one each month if you have the time. If the iMac can get a little better performance that the MBP it might be worth getting. I would like to think the bigger screen might be useful but everyone edits different.
-
I went to the website. Are you located in Detroit?
-
Where are you located?
-
[Joe Marler] “It’s not just rendering — it is any action involving decoding (not just encoding) H264, such as playing content from the timeline or quickly going forward or reverse on the timeline using JKL commands. Testing both Premiere CC 2017 and FCPX 10.3.2 back-to-back on the same iMac shows Premiere is not only a lot slower at H264 export but it burns a lot more CPU cycles just playing content or moving around the timeline.”
Have you tried using Premiere Pro with a PC? I will put my PC against your iMac.
[Joe Marler] “I think Adobe started minimally supporting Quick Sync on Windows but not on Macs. Why Adobe has been so slow to support Quick Sync and why still no Mac support, I have no idea.”
I don’t think Adobe supports Quick Sync. There is a plugin I believe. I think Adobe was concerned about quality over speed and they wanted the same experience for the XEON and i7 computers.
[Joe Marler] “Until Adobe can figure this out, FCPX will retain a significant performance advantage over Premiere when editing, timeline rendering or exporting H264 media on a MacBook.”
Once again have you tried using Premiere Pro on a PC?
[Joe Marler] “It would be interesting to test H264 export performance and timeline CPU utilization on both Premiere and FCPX on the same Mac Pro, which uses Xeon. That would eliminate Quick Sync and would be a more pure software efficiency comparison.”
It has been done and Premiere Pro wins a few and FCPX wins a few. Having said that I will put my system against a $3,000.00 Mac Pro.
[Joe Marler] “espite the better efficiency and performance of FCPX, for some common workflows it doesn’t make a huge difference. E.g, 4k H264 is now very widespread and even FCPX isn’t fast enough (despite Quick Sync) to smoothly edit 4k H264 multicam on the fastest iMac made — you have to generate proxy files. Premiere also now has proxy support and like FCPX, once proxy files are generated, multicam 4k H264 is lightning fast. So what’s the difference from a performance standpoint if they both require proxy and they are both fast after generating those?”
Can you email me the 4K files? I am not saying I can play them with out trans coding but I would like to try it. Can your iMac play 5 layers of the native Red One R3D files with multiple effects applied? My PC can do it with ease. Some one stated their older Mac Pro did multi-cam better than the new Mac Pro when using Premiere Pro. The video below shows my PC doing multi-cam with Red One R3D 4K files. Having said that are you trying to watch 4K at full resolution?
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.