Andy Patterson
Forum Replies Created
-
[Andrew Kimery] “[andy patterson] “Adobe could just say to the Apple users the PC works just fine and we will no longer support Apple.”
Adobe tried that with PPro and came back to the Mac because a huge part of the editing community is on the Mac. Avid merely hinted that they might try that and there was a near riot from their Mac user base.”
Premiere Pro was only brought back to the Mac because Apple opted for Intel CPUs. If Apple opted for Motorola next week Adobe would have to decide if it is worth it or not. Adobe already has to worry about Open CL and CUDA both. I think they should stick to one or the other. I would hate to have them write for the instruction set of a non X86 CPU on top of that.
[Andrew Kimery] “I’ve thought about switching a lot in the past couple of years, but as a freelancer in LA I move around a lot and it’s just easier to have a Mac because almost everyone else has a Mac. Switching would be more of a headache than it’s worth to me. If anything I’ll do a Hack before I go Windows. Again, not because I have anything against Windows, but just because I work in a Mac-centric part of the industry in a Mac-centric city.”
Switching would be super easy if you use Premiere Pro because every Adobe user would be forced to do it. You also would not have the option to go Hackintosh if they quit support for OS X. I highly doubt Adobe would do it but it would make things easier for them.
[Andrew Kimery] “[andy patterson] “Adobe should go PC only and let the performance get even better.”
It doesn’t work like that. Apple can wring out a performance boost because they control both the hardware and the software.”
Apple uses 3rd party hardware from Intel, AMD and Nvidia the same as my DIY PC. Some of the transitions and filters have been taken out of Premiere Pro on the PC side because they could not implement them on the Mac OS. As seen from the benchmark Adobe prefers PCs not Macs. Apple obviously cannot wring out a performance boost. I am willing to bet my DIY Windows system could slightly outperform an iMac with similar specs. What if Premiere Pro gets a boost in performance from the new AMD CPUs?
[Andrew Kimery] “Adobe can’t wring out a performance boost by going PC-only because they still have to support millions of possible PC configurations.”
Actually if it was not for Apple Adobe could have kept supporting CUDA only. All PC vendors offer Nvidia but Apple does not offer Nvidia in the Mac Pro.
[Andrew Kimery] ” Now if Adobe went Mac-only then they might be able to better optimize their software for Mac hardware because Macs have very few variables compared to PCs.”
It is the CPU and GPU that the programmers must worry about. Not hard drives and RAM.
[Andrew Kimery] “Or Adobe could build their own Adobe-brand PCs and optimize their software for their machines, but I don’t see that happening either. ;)”
They would still be writing for Windows, Intel and Nvidia so it would work on any PC with those components or are you suggesting Adobe actually be like SGI and make their own CPU, GPU and OS? I could see Adobe writing their own OS and forcing everyone to their new OS platform called Adobe Alpha. Maybe they should have their own OS. I think Adobe is big enough to do it but I doubt they would.
-
[Oliver Peters] “[andy patterson] “Adobe should go PC only and let the performance get even better.”
They’ve been there before and it was not a winning strategy.”
Actually it was at the time. When Apple opted to start using Intel CPUs Adobe decided to give it another go with Premiere Pro on the Mac. Sales were higher than expected so they have kept supporting both Mac and PC. If Apple opted for Motorola CPUs next week I am sure Adobe we have do decided if it is worth it or not.
-
[Shawn Miller] “I don’t know if I would take that bet. ☺ I could possibly see the base for dedicated Photoshop and Illustrator users (designers and photographers) skewing a bit more towards OSX, but I would be surprised if motion designers, compositors, 3D/VFX artists, video editors, etc., were as Mac centric as their print/design/photography counterparts. I don’t have any numbers to back this up, but I feel like there’s been a steady stream of 3D, VFX and mograph artists switching to Windows PCs as they continue to offer more and better performance per dollar than any offerings from Apple. I could be completely wrong, but I would be really curious to know what the actual numbers are.”
Adobe products seem to favor the PC according to the benchmarks. Adobe could just say to the Apple users the PC works just fine and we will no longer support Apple. Having said that I could use the CC on a Mac easy enough but as I have stated Adobe seems to work better on the PC. Adobe should go PC only and let the performance get even better.
-
[Bill Davis] “For some reason, no positive X post will EVER go unchallenged here.”
We are not challenging you or at least I am not. I am giving you actual information on why FCPX is faster when using an Intel CPU with Quick Sync. H.264 will render faster on a $2800.00 iMac than on an $8,000.00 Mac Pro. So much for FCPX making use of all the hardware on the Mac Pro. Do you see my point Bill? You could say “thanks for the info” rather than assuming we all hate FCPX. Most of us here say FCPX is a good program. When was the last time you said Premiere Pro was a good program?
-
[Bill Davis] “Famously: When the tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.
On all sides.”I think FCPX is a good program but I am not that impressed by FCPX making use of Intel’s Quick Sync. Keep in mind the Mac Pro has a Xeon Processors (no Quick Sync). Also when the new Mac Pro launched at $3,000.00 it could not play the native Red One Codec at full resolution using FCPX but there were PCs for $3,000 that could do it using Premiere Pro. For the record I will put my $800.00 PC with Premiere Pro against your Apple laptop using FCPX to see which one can play more layers of the native Red One R3D codec. Are you up for it Bill? You can feel free to bring a hammer, nails, screw driver and a torque wrench : )
-
[Paul Neumann] “Rendering times aren’t that important in my overall workflow. Dynamic linking Photoshop and Illustrator files, Live Text templates from After Effects and sending a timeline with however much audio I have in it directly to Audition with video and then exporting the finished product from there is where I see my real productivity boosts.”
I agree. Rendering is a very small part of video editing and the Adobe products work well together.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Do you happen to know why Adobe doesn’t support Quick Sync in the same way? I’ve tried googling it, but haven’t come up with any info (other than people asking if/when Adobe will support it). I’ve found third party encoding plugins that support it and work with Premiere Pro, but they are Windows-only.”
I think they felt as though the quality would not be as good. I think Quick Sync will only work with single pass renders. My system renders pretty fast with a mediocre GTX 1060 and a mediocre 3.4 GHZ Haswell Quad Core CPU. I imagine what a GTX 1080 and 8 Core CPU will do. AMD will be launching 8 core CPU for under $500.00 in a week or two.
[Andrew Kimery] “Adobe also has to worry about being cross platform which typically necessitates running well on everything, but being optimized for nothing.”
That does make things harder for Adobe. If I were Adobe I think I would drop support for Apple (in two years from now). PCs are not evil : )
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “It’s always so painfully easy to see who here has actually used FCP X and not just seen screenshots and read feature lists online that they felt threatened by — therefore in fact know what they’re talking about — and who is just pulling random brain-farts out of nether regions, trolling forums that are of no relevance to them otherwise. Just to justify some contrary personal choice. As if anyone cared. Amusing, too, how that threat can come from just mere software. ???????? Oh well. comes with the territory I spose! Dats da internetz fo’ yaz.”
You are the pot calling the kettle black Robin. You should have been able to accept my prior posting without issue. Why couldn’t you? For the record this is not a FCPX lovefest forum nor is it a form to simply trash Avid and Premiere. It is a forum to discuss the pros and cons of all NLE related software and hardware. If you notice I have stated many times FCPX is a good program. How many time have you stated Premiere is a good program? I have stated FCPX has good metadata. Having said that I see many FCPX users with a need to bad mouth Avid and Premiere. Why is that Robin? Where have you seen myself or anyone else talk negative about FCPX? Who has ever stated FCPX has an old outdated metadata system? Who has ever claimed Premiere Pro is moving into the future and FCPX is stuck in the past? Simply stating Adobe is no stranger to metadata should not upset you? Why did it Robin? I never stated the keyword collection of Bridge is the same as in FCPX but Apple did not invent the concept of keyword collections? I am simply pointing out the obvious. What upsets you may enlighten others.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “The export times between PPro and X have been posted a lot over the last few years so while I’m not surprised that X is faster (as it has been in all the other online videos I’ve seen) though the difference in the speed always makes me wonder if the tests were setup appropriately. Not saying that they weren’t, but with differences like that my gut reaction is always to second guess the results at first.”
I imagine the settings are about the same. FCPX is using Intel’s Quick sync for h.264 renders. There are software titles for the PC that can use Intel’s Quikc Sync.
[Andrew Kimery] “I think another interesting variable would be to throw a couple of hackintoshes into the mix. One of the counter points to complaints about the age of the Mac Pro is that components haven’t changed very much, so why not put a modern, top-end Hack against a nMP? Booting a Mac into Windows might be easier to accomplish the same type of test, but I don’t know if there are any performance penalties (ex. less optimized drivers) while running Windows on a Mac.”
There are bench marks of the iMac rendering 10X faster than the Mac Pro. As I stated it is because of Intel’s Quick Sync feature in the i7 CPUs. The Xeon CPU do not have Intel’s Quick Sync feature.
Keep in mind the Mac Pro can probably playback more layers of the Red One R3D codec in real-time than a Macbook Pro. The Mac Pro will also probably render to HDV, MJPEG and the Cineform codec faster than an iMac.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Meant to mention this in my previous post but I forgot. A few days ago Andy Mees posted a screenshot of a Timeline Index feature he built in PPro and is noodling around with.”
Interesting and thanks for posting. That kind of proves my point that Premiere has a good foundation for metadata. I guess it is hard for certain people to accept that fact. I do wish there was a small thumbnail image for the content in Premiere’s (Andy’s) timeline index. Just a thought.