Bret Williams
Forum Replies Created
-
Exactly. I get that too. Seems like if it were just having the plugs installed then it would be sluggish right away I’d think.i wish we had a RAM purge like AE. I use that a lot.
-
I have a ton, and I often have many large libraries open. In my experience nothing slows down until you start caching stuff into RAM. IOW actually twirling open a library with waveforms on. Or scrubbing through multiple mObject templates. I don’t think having multiple libraries open or multitudes of templates/plugins installed does much until they’re actually loaded up or used. But other than watching RAM decrease and the sluggishness increase when it drops extremely low I don’t have any scientific evidence.
-
Yeah, but no it’s a show about a girl who fixes her stuffed animals and toys that come to life when only she is around.
-
Apparently you don’t have a 5 year old girl or you’d know its “Doc” McStuffins. 🙂
-
But the GPU? That’s a big one. But I’m betting with more RAM he could at least work in Proxy and Better Performance mode pretty handily.
-
Unfortunately it doesn’t retain any other settings you may have adjusted. This is my biggest pet peeve about X and Motion’s relationship. It’s a beautiful one way street. I don’t necessarily need “send to motion” as I create most stuff from scratch in motion. But I need to be able to open a motion project ( that has already been placed in the timeline) in motion. Just like we open them from the browser. We also need to be able to place motion projects in the timeline from anywhere. Not just our user folder.
And of course once that’s been accomplished, Send to Motion should be easy to do.
-
I would highly suggest 32gigs or RAM. AT least 16. But I’m not sure you can even open that machine up for RAM. FCP X is a RAM hog. If you were only running FCP X and not doing heavy graphics which X caches up into RAM (especially motion fx and templates) then maybe 8 is doable.
An i7 processor would have helped, but too late for that. There’s some tech in the i7 that FCP X can utilize.
FCP X also utilizes the GPU heavily. I’m not familiar with iris graphics but I assume it’s not a dedicated graphics card, but motherboard graphics. It’s only 1 gig as well. A dedicated 2 or better 4 gig GPU, an i7, and 32gigs of RAM is what I would call the standard setup for graphics and heavy editing. If you’re going to jump to 4k and 3D you’d be better off with a MacPro tube.
I have the late 2012 3.4 i7 with 2gig GPU and 32gigs of RAM and I could use more power. FCP X still gets bogged down on that machine at times.
-
I don’t think latitude increases with pixel density. Certainly it is different with different emulsions, but if it were based in density then super8 would have less latitude than 35mm because of it’s size. Grain might effect range.
film used to have much more latitude than video. IOW you could shoot a scene with bright sun, and dark shadows and both the sky and shadows would retain their detail without being blown out or clipped. Exposing video for the same scene would result in the sky being blown out well beyond 100ire and just clipped with no detail to be salvaged. The shadows would have the same effect. Beyond a certain darkness there simply wasn’t any more detail. Which is why video requires more lighting. We have to light the subject to better match the sky if we want to retain sky detail, but that increases the contrast between the subject and shadows. So we need to throw more light in the shadows. Basically, everything needs to be within a certain number of stops. Let’s say video can get 2 stops above and below the exposure before something is clipped to white or black. It’s been my understanding that film would be able to capture more like 3 or 4 stops above and below. (Just example numbers here, I don’t have details)
But it’s my understanding that when shooting log and raw you are now getting the latitude that was previously reserved for film. We used to shoot film and we had to then map that greater range to 0-100 ire for video. That’s essentially what we’re doing when shooting c-log and applying a lut.
As for resolution, I’m pretty sure digital has met or exceeded 35mm film. But if the film is going to be scanned and processed as 4k or 2k anyway, then it doesn’t matter much. Unless you wanted to blow something up in the transfer process. Kinda like shooting 4k to edit in 1080.
I think film is just a choice of a look. Just like 24p. I was surprised the Walking dead shoots film. They tested all the digital cameras and decided zombies look best shot super16. 35mm was their second choice if they needed higher resolution for digital cgi. If super16 is just enough to hold up to the 1080p digital pipeline then 35mm seems it would be like 4k.
-
And since Spielberg isn’t editing film on a flatbed, but instead scanning it into a computer, what Rez is it being scanned in to?
I always thought the true benefit of film was its latitude. Not necessarily its resolution.
Doesn’t 4k have 9million pixels? Or are you talking about 1 scan line having thousands?
-
I hear Resolve has some decent color correction tools. For an NLE at least.