Andy Patterson
Forum Replies Created
-
[Steve Connor] “The video only covers rendering out timelines? Hardly call that definitive proof of productivity improvements, rendering out versions is such a tiny part of the whole edit process.”
I agree. There is much more to editing than rendering. FCPX can render faster with a laptop than with a Mac Pro to h.264 because FCPX uses Intel’s Quick Sync. The Xeons CPUs do not have Quick Sync.
[Steve Connor] “Would love to see someone do a video covering the whole edit process on both systems. I know from my experience that FCPX is certainly quicker on my 2013 MBP than PPro is but I don’t edit on PC laptops”
I don’t use a laptop either. When using a Mac Pro Premiere can render faster than FCPX on some tests.
-
[Brian Seegmiller] “How do you implement those smart collections into Premiere Pro CC?”
Premiere uses metadata fields but bridge used keywords and keyword collections prior to the launch of FCPX. Having said that Adobe is no stranger to metadata and all the Adobe programs will get better just like FCPX.
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “PPro doesn’t even do half the metadata that Final Cut Pro X does (in the sense of actually putting it to any helpful use) and uses it in completely different ways. Lumberjack caters specifically to FCP’s metadata capabilities. The mere fact that PPro is stuck in a near 20 year old time-loop with its use of an age old version of XML excludes it from even being able to access everything of functional use and value that LJ spits out.”
Keep in mind Premiere can accept metadata form Adobe Story, Bridge, AE, Audition etc. Premiere Pro is also cross platform. Premiere Pro does not have a timeline index but we can find content in the timeline. Premiere Pro does not have keywords but it does have metadata fields. Both FCPX and Premiere Pro (Adobe in general) offer more metadata than most users will actually use. Having said that I always find it fascinating when FCPX user hail Apple as the pioneers of metadata and keywords but then again there are some FCPX user who think Apple invented background rendering and GPU acceleration. FCPX has good metadata capabilities but then again so does Premiere Pro. FCPX will get better but then again so will Premiere Pro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTYDiKTLlyk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6dLFBm7kJQ
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.
-
[Scott Thomas] “I have a 4 port hub on my desk. Doesn’t look too bad. It comes with a cable, but I got a longer one to get it where I needed it.
https://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-Premium-Aluminum-MacBook-HB-MAC3/dp/B00N38TQ...”
I think it is good to have PCIE slot but expansion bays cannot be over looked either. They do have four port USB 3.0 internal hubs. Not saying you would want the internal version but it is good to have options.
-
Some interesting upgrade configurations.
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “PPro doesn’t even do half the metadata that Final Cut Pro X does (in the sense of actually putting it to any helpful use) and uses it in completely different ways. Lumberjack caters specifically to FCP’s metadata capabilities. The mere fact that PPro is stuck in a near 20 year old time-loop with its use of an age old version of XML excludes it from even being able to access everything of functional use and value that LJ spits out.”
Keep in mind Premiere can accept metadata form Adobe Story, Bridge, AE, Audition etc. Premiere Pro is also cross platform. Premiere Pro does not have a timeline index but we can find content in the timeline. Premiere Pro does not have keywords but it does have metadata fields. Both FCPX and Premiere Pro (Adobe in general) offer more metadata than most users will actually use. Having said that I always find it fascinating when FCPX user hail Apple as the pioneers of metadata and keywords but then again there are some FCPX user who think Apple invented background rendering and GPU acceleration. FCPX has good metadata capabilities but then again so does Premiere Pro. FCPX will get better but then again so will Premiere Pro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTYDiKTLlyk
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.
-
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/93553
The link above might help. A GTX 780 to GTX 980 should help a little but a 1080 would be better. Having said that a new PC might be your best option. Think video below might be worth watching.
-
Transcoding will not help if it was captured like that. If the video tape is OK then the Blackmagic Design Intensity Shuttle or even a Canopus ADVC 110 can capture the video just fine. If the tape is worn out then a time base corrector is needed. They may not have had things set up 100% correct at capture but I cannot say for sure.
As Dave LaRonde said if you edit old analogue tapes investing in a SD monitor and video capture card from AJA, Blackmagic Design or Matrox is money well spent. It sucks to edit old SD video on a computer monitor. It may seem to look OK on your computer monitor until you see it on broadcast equipment. It will look 200% better on broadcast equipment. The video below explains why.
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.
-
[Herb Sevush] “In general they feel about the same to operate on Premiere – when working multicam 5 cameras, as I often do, the 2010 is a little smoother. Exports from the 2013 seem a little faster, but I haven’t done any serious testing.”
Interesting that one is better than the other for certain tasks. Thanks for the info.
-
[Oliver Peters] “At home I run a late 2009 8-core Mac Pro (shows as 2010) with SSDs, plenty of RAM and a Sapphire 7950 (I think that’s the last “official” Mac card you can get). Premiere runs better than FCPX on it. Generally up to HD they are both OK. Higher than HD and this machine becomes painful to work with. A 2013 Mac Pro, new iMac or newish MBP is a better performer, especially with FCPX. 4K is relatively easy on these systems. And there, FCPX will tend to run better than Premiere.”
Thanks for the info. I think Premiere might work better with more CPU power and FCPX might work better with more GPU power although both are needed. I think that is why people on these forums have such different results.