Christian Schumacher
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “4k ProRes 4444 is 250MB/sec. 1GB/sec is plenty of overhead. it all depends on what you need to do. Thunderbolt is plenty for “bigger than HD” in most cases.”
OK, but if anybody needs something like more than 6 streams and…But, wait! Who in hell does that, huh? Shoot a few hours of footage? None that I know of. Apply effects? That’s only in Hollywood, sure! /end sarcasm/
[Jeremy Garchow] ” why would you need port-multiplication?”
When the new workstation from Apple arrives, Thunderbolt is going to be the only way in MacOS to connect all of your computer monitors, video/audio gear and storage… And I don’t think there’s plenty of overhead there. That’s why you’re going to have a dual firepro. And that’s also why Apple will step up their game in the software side.
[Jeremy Garchow] ”
The barefeats article mentions the top speed of 1,350MB/sec. I don’t know anyone, personally, who would shy away from that and call it not good enough.”I think that is when using two devices on two TB ports, which is out of the same TB controller, you can get to that but is shared with each device (meaning 675 for each of them) If you want a storage device in maximum speed over TB, is going to be clipped at less than 1000MB/s. That’s why using an 8-bay enclosure filled with SSDs won’t benefit TB users. On the other hand, 4-year technology from Apple can handle that, it is called a PCIe Mac Pro, and that was surely good enough to keep Apple at the spotlight in content creation. But it remains to be seen if the same will be applied to the new paradigm, software wise and hardware wise.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “For some, it’s not a waste of money when you start looking at leveraging and scaling storage for more than one machine.”
J, I was referencing the use of 8 SSDs in a RAID inclosure over TB. It IS a waste of money. This is the second enclosure I believe they tested and had the same conclusions. Is it some extreme corner case? An 8-bay RAID?
-
Yes, in the context of using 1080 video on a pair of SSDs, Thunderbolt is definitely a good choice then. But I was originally referring to Rick’s comments on “future” handling bigger than HD video and the use of RAIDs and SSDs over thunderbolt. Then I presented a recent test of a 8-bay RAID inclosure that shows Thunderbolt clipping at 1000MB/s. That should be relevant when discussing “bigger than HD”, no? Fact is there’s a lot of confusion regarding 4K and the new Mac Pro. It will support 4K panels for computer monitoring and UHD over TB as well, but I’m not sure if the new workstation will be the best choice for all purposes when handling 4K, as one will have to cope with its constrains, due to the lack of standard PCIe slots, which can reach much higher speeds on its turn. And the thing is, Thunderbolt 2 isn’t capable of port multiplying either. So, I think Apple will have to prop up their software technologies in order to stay relevant in the content creation arena. Apparently that’s what they’re doing with Open CL and hopefully Macintoshes will stay around for a while. That was the part Rick has mentioned and I agree with. Gotta wait for new OS, new MP, and also, new Pro Apps.
-
[Howie Young] ” Would you advise against getting the SSD as the system drive in an iMac and opt for a fusion drive?”
No, I would use the SSD as a boot, where you’d load the OS, apps and plugins and the HDD for Projects, Events and general media. I haven’t done this, but I know it is possible to detach the fusion drive so they’ll work as independent drives. Additionally, you have to have a RAID of some sort to house your video files (Thunderbolt being your best choice) and at least another big cheap USB one for Time Machine back ups. But if you can manage to fit the entirety of your video files into the HDD project drive, it’s OK as long as you decouple the Fusion Drive as previously recommended. Remember that HDDs perform noticeably bad when they are more than 80% full.
-
[Erik Lindahl] “HDD vs SSD depends on what you’re doing also. Random r/w will be vastly supperior on SSD”
Sure, but in that testing when using 8 bays over Thunderbolt SSDs don’t have any advantages over HDDs, did you see it? It’s a waste of money.
-
[Rick Lang] “SSDs with conventional SATA 6G mounted externally as in a RAID connected to the host via Thunderbolt are going to become commonplace if and when prices fall and most people are working in greater than HD video.”
Thunderbolt is currently capped at 1000MB/s, so even if you pony up and go for the SSDs you’re loosing money there as HDDs perform the same on TB RAIDs. Bad news is that apparently TB2 won’t be much better than that.
https://www.barefeats.com/hard167.html
“Like all Thunderbolt devices, the transfer speed of 10 gigabit per second translates to something less than 1000MB/s — even if you load it up with eight 6Gbps SSDs capable of a combined speed of 4000MB/s. And, as you can see, even with eight 6Gbps HDDs capable of a combined speed exceeding 1200MB/s, they don’t come close.”
(…)
“SSDs generally handle small random transactions much faster than HDDs. However, in the case of the ARC-8050, the aggregate random transfers per second is so close, one questions the need for solid state drives.” -
[Gary Huff] “I’m sure you can significantly close any gap between the two, performance-wise.”
Today the current Mac Pro can be loaded with two (supported) nVidias Quadro K5000 (without any additional power) and that will add 8GB of VRAM. Let alone 96 GB of RAM (and more on next OS) So, I don’t think it is a simple coincidence that both nVIdia and AMD are releasing video cards engineered for this “old” machine as of lately. There are tens of thousands of Mac Pro machines that will keep on running and steaming a lot more time they initially would. And who knows what else one could cram in a today’s Mac Pro in the near future, considering one could choose from multiple different PC GPUS as well. Here’s an interesting link about this topic that I caught: https://www.marco.org/2013/06/20/new-mac-pro-geekbench
-
[Paul Campbell] “This seems to be a Quicktime thing ….”
I have installed AE CC on a Mountain Lion rig with FCPX installed.
No other Adobe software installed besides Flash Player.
And Pro Res is working fine, to read and to write.Then there’s the Adobe’s requirements for mac.
They say you need to install QT software 7.6.6 – which is for Snow Leopard (?)
Well, I went ahead and installed AE CC without installing QT and it’s working.
I wonder if this requirement for QT is a legacy of some sort? Is it for older codecs only?Or maybe this is related to the problem you’re having? Maybe you need to install QT7?
I haven’t had this need perhaps due to the FCPX installation – which adds pro codecs.
IDK, I thought Pro Res should be available on any ML install, or even Lion, no? On QTX? -
I just created an account to try the new AE CC. Downloaded fine and installed fine
This is a Mountain Lion rig with FCPX installed.Now, forgive me but I don’t quite perform AE installs at all.
What I found strange is the Adobe’s requirements for Mac OS.
They say you need to install QT software 7.6.6 – which is for Snow Leopard (?)
Well, I went ahead and installed AE CC without installing QT and it’s working.
I wonder if this requirement for QT is a legacy of some sort? Is it for older codecs?Anyway, I kicked the tires and I liked it, was curious how was C4D integration.
All seems perfectly fine, but what I found missing is the ability to get a hint of the C4D object in AE.
I mean, when you’re positioning the camera, keyframing and watching it on other camera views.
It would be nice to get a placeholder there, but nothing that hitting ESC repeatedly won’t solve really. -
On the Mac side, I read one has to have “Quicktime 7.6.6 software required for QuickTime features”
From the Apple site I downloaded both QuickTimePlayer7.6.6_SnowLeopard and QuickTime770_Leopard (???)
If I want to run/install AE 12 (CC) on Mountain Lion (and there’s FCPX installed) Should I install this 7.6.6?
Or do I even need to install QT since FCPX already is on it? Appreciate anybody’s input on this. Cheers.