Erik Lindahl
Forum Replies Created
-
The iMac should mostly beat the MacPro. Depends on what MacPro and what you do.
-
65536 / 1024 = 64.
It makes sense.
If the 8-core is as fast as the current 12-cores things are looking fairly bright.
-
Sorry for the late reply, been swamped with work. The presentation was about if FCPX is ready for prime-time as an professional editor / tool which for me tends to include editing. One could compare it to other apps or simply focus on what makes this app good or unique. Larry focused on some neat tools which is great. It’s however interesting that the whole speech was about tools outside of FCPX. The guy next to me at the show actually said what I was thinking “cool tools, but can you actually edit in FCPX?”.
I think FCPX has it’s share of brilliance but I also think it’s biggest shortcoming is traditional editing. It could be a learning / getting used to “thing” but I find every time I do an edit in the app I feel lack of control and lack of material oversight. And I tend to do short form editing. I’ve mentioned it before but things like proper time code support, sequence handling, viewer / canvas handling, HUD information, lack of of mini-timelines and GUI customization – the list goes on are things not there yet or at all.
Not ment to be a “bash the new kid in the block” comment. Just found it very amusing.
-
I talked to quite a few devs at IBC who found what Apple was doing with the MacPro interesting. Having dual GPU as baseline and for many operations the go-to route for speed could bring some great benefits along the way.
AJA seemed like they knew more than they could say about FCPX / MacPro Tube-combo, showing a sneak peak of there TB2 4K I/O. The next few months could get “very interesting”. Telestream hinted similar things, given their desktop products haven’t seen that much love lately. Sonnet was officially supporting TB2 as soon as the MacPro is release claiming it gives around 80% better performance in reality compared to TB1 (1200-1300 Mb/s storeage).
-
Larry also hinted at a large production being edited on FCPX. 100-million dollar large production.
I also found it interesting he spent an hour or so talking about FCP7 and X and very interesting tools surrounding X. These indeed where some cool tools. He however never touched FCPX’s major short-coming for many and that is actually editing in the application… 🙂
-
Yeah, could be I/O or single thread limitations.
-
Not sure if all CC apps get it but at least Premier Pro CC in OSX 10.8 or later has a proper 64-bit ProRes-engine now. No more complaining about 32-bit QuickTime being the fault of issues! 🙂
-
Regarding BIll negative take on this I don’t personally care about Adobe anywhere and the “October 2013 CC release” is amazing for a lot of high-end AE and PrPro users disregarding this feature.
– Edit > Grade > Edit round tripping as it should be (at least it sounds like it)
– Some massive improvements to AE including performance enhancement and impressive new features like mask tracking (about time!) and properties linking
– AME seems better, hope they’ve revamped how it structures settings completely.We’ll see how it turns out. I’m heading to IBC on thursday so I’ll be able to get some hands-on + questions answered on the spot hopefully.
-
Quite impressive update. Need to look into the details more before saying yi-ha, but it really seems like Adobe is pushing hard for an awesome CC-experience.
-
Finally why is the OSX version of AE so much slower than the Windows version. I’ve asked this before but i am still amazed by the following statistic:
MacPro 2x 3.3GHz , 32GB RAM, Super fast raids (>$15k) = render time of 1:15
Windows i7 960, 12GB RAM, internal 7200 drives (<$2k) = render time of 1:41—-
You’re comparing Apples to Pears. To compared AE in OSX vs Windows it has to be done on the same hardware. The i7 is MUCH faster for MHz on single-threaded operations than the MacPro or even current-gen Xeons.