Jason Bernagozzi
Forum Replies Created
-
The fusion drive is an unnecessary cost for such a small improvement. You get get an extremely fast SSD from OWC installed that would blow the fusion drive out of the water: https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/OWC/Mercury_6G/
I got the 6G extreme for my 2011 imac setup and I am amazed with the performance.
-
Thank you Rick for your reply. I think that you are right, but in the end I think i’ll wait it out and test it with someone else’s computer just to be safe. I appreciate the time and thought!
-
Well, don’t spend money just yet. The Macbook Pro Retina laptops have a 3-4 week wait on them now. Supposedly after the report that iMacs and Mac Pros will get a refresh in 2013, supposedly the apple press relations staff corrected that it would be the mac pro in 2013, leading to speculation that the iMac will refresh when Mountain Lion ships in about 4 weeks
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/13/imac-update-might-be-coming-sooner-rather-than-later/
-
Rick,
Thanks for the helpful reply. That is what I was hoping for, but AnandTech stated that there technically is no way for the user to turn off the scaling. In other words, the best “virtual” size you can get is 1920×1200 via their display settings. So, if this is the case, and I get a screen record that fills most of the screen space @ 1920×1200 (1080 window grab), will the recorded image on an output source be “off” due to the scaling?reference: https://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-scaling
-
Not crazy about the interface. It has some major issues ingesting 1080p60 AVCHD footage on my older Macbook Pro (intel core duo 2, 8 gigs ram, Nvidia 9400M), but that’s not surprising. I have to play with it more to be able to judge it better, but first impressions are “meh”.
-
It would be nice if the thread could not get derailed by an arbitrary debate about how one chooses to use the term “Pro”.
If someone has an idea about the aforementioned issue, I would appreciate it greatly! Thanks!
-
[Douglas K. Dempsey] “Are you doing a good output to broadcast monitor to make sure your video and glitch effects are perfect — e.g. so the Retina will be the only kink in your workflow?”
My current setup has worked pretty well so far, but I was having some issues keeping my fps up to 30 when I switched over to the 1080p glitching. I knew that if I was going to record the 1920×1080 window, I would make sure my resolution on my monitor was 1920×1200. Everything looks good in the monitor and it matches the output.
Where I get nervous is the issue of not actually setting your choice of pixel dimensions in the display settings, rather it is a sliding scale with the new retina display of “performance” or “readability”. not very helpful for a “pro” machine. Essentially, will it give me the pixels I need or is the software scaling for my eyes but not for the actual pixels being recorded?
If I knew what the actual pixels were going to be, I could bank on the new retina since I need the speed boost and I really don’t want to pay for old machines at this point. I was holding out for an iMac or a Mac Pro…but we all know how that went.
-
David,
Thanks for the reply, I figured out my problem, I was sending progressive footage out into the analog system through an old hardware colorizer, not remembering that the footage would be converted to an interlaced format, so what I was viewing on the deck was interlaced, which looks different when viewed 100% on a progressive display. Same thing was happening with my flicker footage *flickering between odd and even fields*, the progressive display was making it turn to mush.Silly mistake on my part, thanks anyways!