John-michael Seng-wheeler
Forum Replies Created
-
[tony west] “I’m glad you posted these. What’s interesting in the X ad is the choice of source material.
They could have used any car (a Chevy perhaps) but they picked a $196,000 R8
Why not kids playing soccer if that’s what it’s for?
If you look at the Imovie ads that’s exactly what they do have as source.It’s clear to me from that ad they want the pro market with this, unless they think average people are driving around an R8 “
I think you have that backwards. They chose the R8 and the racetrack setting cause it looks like a pro shoot. Just the thing to market this product to consumers: “Look! we’re editing a pro product with this, don’t you want to edit your movies with a pro product?”
The style of the FCP7 ad is much more aimed at pro’s then the FCPX ad is. As a pro, I don’t want to know how easy it is to add crazy affects to my shots, I’m much more interested in workflow and pro features, which was the focus of the FCP7 ad. I don’t give a D*&$ about 3/4 of the features in the FCPX ad.
-
Try opening the project with the NTFS drive disconnected.
It will ask you where the files are, just tell it to Ignore them all. Don’t save the project after you do this, or you’ll save all the files as unlinked and you’ll have to relink them.
Try rendering, (it will warn you that files are offline and the offline media grafic will be used.) If it works the the NTFS drive is the problem. I’m amazed that you’re actually able to edit at all with this drive, since read and write off NTFS on Mac is painfully slow.
If it still doesn’t render, then try trashing the PP preferences, (Google for how to do that, I don’t remember where the file is) and if that doesn’t work try re-installing.
-
Richard Harrington commented on this story
—–Quote—–
My comment is taken out of context.
I do not have explicit knowledge of FCP8. Wasn’t saying I did. Wasn’t implying I did.Just repeating rumors I had heard multiple times. I had been told many times that there were efforts to bring 64 bit to the type of interface used in FCP7.
I am not breaking any news here…
Comment is misunderstood and taken out of context.All I was trying to say to folks is move on from FCP 7. Apple has clearly decided to go in a new direction. People need to accept this and move on.
Don’t care which app you choose. For me it is both FCPX and Premiere Pro.
See Phillips excellent blog post on timeline of events.
This is not news, it is a misunderstood 10 second comment in a 90 minute talk.
——end quote—–
-
Yeah, I think you’re right about it being copy protection.
I have no idea how well a GPU would or would not work used this way. There’s still the problem that the GPU needs to send the video data to the Thunderbolt controller and that means going through the north Bridge. (the signal destined for the Thunderbolt controller would need to be separated from the signal going back to the processor, But that’s not unsurmountable, it would just require a North Bridge Specially designed for the process. Sending the data all the way back to the processor would be a bit silly, but without a special north bridge it wouldn’t be possible without going through the processor.)
I agree it is posible, but it still seems like a bad way to do it.
A built in GPU or a custom one seems far more likely.
-
It’s a different kind of data. CUDA is meant to be used that way. Sending the whole data stream back doesn’t work that way.
Ever taken a screen shot and found a video or something was just a black box? Current GPU cards aren’t designed to send the video stream back through the PCIe connection, they’re designed to send it out of the computer.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ”
Through the motherboard like everything else.”And there we have the problem.
No current PCIe GPU sends display signals anywhere but out the back of the computer. (The current PCIe bus doesn’t allow for it. They can send data, but not a display port signal.)
Apple will need to make a GPU that’s capable of this, however they do it. (I outlined the options as numbers 2, 3a and 3b)
-
And how do you expect it to get that information?
-
You’re right about the Displays…. I thought that they’d EOL’d the Cinema display, but obviously I was wrong.
[Jeremy Garchow] “No. (Sorry). I don’t get it. A MacPro can have a GPU with DVI/Displayport. Thunderbolt IS Displayport+PCIe. You can have a DVI/Displayport monitor and plug straight in to the GPU, or you can use a Thunderbolt monitor and plug right in to Thunderbolt, which will still get the info from the GPU, it’s just sent out of the thunderbolt port. You can have both, you don’t need custom anything (in theory) and you won’t have to buy a thunderbolt monitor with a thunderbolt MacPro.”
Think about what you just said.
“or you can use a Thunderbolt monitor and plug right in to Thunderbolt, which will still get the info from the GPU,”
You need a Custom GPU to do this. There’s no other way.
How do you expect to do this without a GPU of a type that doesn’t currently exist? -
[Jeremy Garchow] “What I don’t understand from your arguments is why all data/display has to go through the Thunderbolt port? Why can’t it do both? “
I never said it had to go through thunderbolt. (At least not intentionally. Now I understand why you couldn’t understand me.. )
I’ve been talking about what apple has to do to get Display data into the thunderbolt connection.Remember, I’m talking about the Stock computer, and Lest you’ve forgotten, Apple doesn’t make any monitor other then the Thunderbolt one, so there has to be display info in the Thunderbolt connection. I never said it couldn’t go anywhere else as well. It sure can!
Let’s put it this way. The thunderbolt connections have to offer display data or the new Thunderbolt display won’t work, and apple wont built a computer that doesn’t offer the ability to drive their one and only display.
(And before you ask, no, the thunderbolt display won’t work plugged into anything other then a Thunderbolt port)
In the custom GPU setup, you could change out the GPU and lose display data in the Thunderbolt port, but the stock computer would need a custom GPU or a built in one.
Now is this making sense?
-
You’re thinking about this the wrong way…
The monitor that you happen to be using has nothing to do with my argument.
My theory also has nothing to do with how you could configure your computer after you buy it.Here’s my thought, put as simply as I can.
Apple will not release a Thunderbolt equipped computer that doesn’t supply display data through the Thunderbolt connection in it’s stock configuration. There’s two ways they can do that, one is a Custom GPU and the other is a built in GPU. And if they have to custom build it anyway, I think they’re very likely to built it unto the computer.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Another crazy theory. What if a Thunderbolt monitor itself had an integrated GPU in it and it was used for display, leaving the dedicated GPU for computation. That might be getting too crazy!
“I wouldn’t be surprised… That would be a great way to add displays. However, I won’t be using Apple displays since they’re all over priced and underwhelming so until other display manufacturers do this I’ll stick to the GPU in my computer.