Nicholas Kleczewski
Forum Replies Created
-
My guess is the world of FCPX playing back any kind of media in as real time as possible makes it difficult to implement a simple trimming media management tool. Things long long Gop, I frames B frames and P frames across different codecs make it not the easiest thing to just chop files. My 2nd guess is Apple just thinks a world of clips with handles isn’t necessary any more given the cheapness of storage space.
Having said that, neither of which are great excuses. The option should def be there.
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
MPt with 280X, MacBook pro retina, 8 core nMP D700. All the same. It’s a UI issue. FCPX is trying to do too much all the time. I’ve suggested to them they create some sort of performance slider. How much caching of thumbnails, waveforms etc, vs instant UI response. There’s times when either are valuable. It got a lot better since 10.1 for sure, I like to think I had some small part in that, Them asking to be involved on a massive 4TB documentary I was editing and getting beach balls of death across the board. But it’s still a thing in genetically UI, that barely perceptible delay in actions.
I have found working off a raid getting at least 600 MBs does help significantly. My guess is it’s that Quick small file access exchange happening with FCPXs database on every move. But it’s still there over time even on an internal nMP project pulling 900+ MBs
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
Anyone still debating the validity of FCPX needs to do us all a favor and go crawl back under the rock they came from and get on with their miserable sad existence. The rest of us can bask in the glory of evolution and the excitement of progress. That’s actually me keeping it positive on the matter!
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
Performance, performance, performance!! I think I could honestly live without a single feature upgrade if I could be promised a world in which every time I clicked a clip in the browser, highlighted a clip in the timeline, did anything there was the .5 second delay (or longer as the memory leaks wear on in a day). It’s crazy going back to an old fcp7 or avid project and having the interface mostly always instantly respond. Sounds whiney, but it adds up on the sanity depleter!
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
Well let’s just agree to, agree then shall we! 🙂
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
Sure render times are one aspect. One could make an argument in today’s speedy world of processing that render time differentials don’t have the importance they once did. If that were true a 2010 Mac Pro properly outfitted would beat them all. I’d be more interested in input lag time and real-time performance. Both of which I was not impressed with on the base model granted the 295 should be a fair amount better.
Also I/O… I’m a full time editor and Resolve colorist, it’d be pretty difficult for me to run a full pro set up on just 2 thunderbolt ports. Many would want at least one more screen, then video IO then storage and unfortunately daisychaining with thunderbolt doesn’t work so well at least in my experience.
Although with that new LG ultra widescreen Ive got coming my way maybe dual monitors can finally take a hike! 🙂Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
Thats precisely what scares me in people buying iMacs. you slipped and said “compare equal systems”
There is nothing remotely equal about a 4-core iMac and a 4-core Mac Pro except the words “4-core” and “Mac” Mac Pro’s are not i7’s, they are Xeon, completely different chip. Dual even 300’s will be more powerful than the M295X even if it wasn’t driving a 5k display. which it is, so you have to account for it basically driving more than 4 1080p video screens before its even started.Then future proof and expandability have value. iMac, nothing. Mac Pro, so far everything but the GPU’s are upgradeable. But who knows, the design allows for at least the idea of buying new GPU boards from apple in the future, however unlikely.
Get the iMac if you love the admittedly beautiful screen. There is no other reason that makes the investment comparable.
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
One thing I really like doing, is taking advantage of X’s scrubbing power over clicking from clip to clip. So Ill put an entire scene, day, or whatever makes sense into a big multicam clip, then drop a few markers as quick jump to’s. This also kinda helps in X as the sync’ing can’t be done in the background. So you can set up something big and step away for a few (many) minutes, depending on how much you have to sync.
Unlike Plural Eyes, Ive found you get quicker results if you line up your video and audio to at least be somewhat “in the zone” It seems like FCP has an unseen window of heads and tails it tries to look for quickly to sync a clip, if its there, then great it syncs extremely quick. If its far away it seems to resort to some kind of mode where it then analyzes the entire track, or at least something is going on that can make it take way longer.
In general I like sticking with multicam clips to sync with, even if its not multicam. Theres some nice compound clip like advantages to be had if your ever working on a really complicated job and say, want color correction to instantly ripple to the 30 different projects the shot lies. Just add the effect once to the clip inside the multicam and viola, its rippled everywhere.
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
Just wanted to say thanks for this post. It motivated me to go from not knowing about them to buying one in the span of 2 days. Can’t wait, timeline real estate always drives me nuts and this looks like it could completely solve that!
I went the flat model, not just because its cheaper, but its VESA capable out of box and I worry the curved screen could preceptively distort what I think I’m looking on critical work. Someone had a great post about how that was happening to them with the curved monitors in Lightroom…
Thanks again!
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
I have to agree with Oliver. I just returned from an Apple store and while the screen is beautiful, i was not impressed with the UI performance of the iMac 5k at all. Completely granted, it was an i5 base model. But there was minute lag on the stock 1080p projects and very very bad lag on the 4k footage. To the point where id say it’d be very difficult to do real precision editing with, without pulling out your hair in the process.
They obviously didn’t have the 4k project loaded on the base model Mac Pro, but even the identical 1080p projects that are loaded on both ran noticeably better than the iMac. Basically nothing shocking to report given what they are intended for, I just worry people will buy the iMacs with false sense what they can accomplish.
In my experience, an older Mac Pro is rejuvenated since 10.1’s GPU enhancements. Just need the right video card. Throw a 280X or 680 or above and I feel like it screams right along side a new Mac Pro. Of course FCPX just has the memory leak issues that make you have to restart that no computer fixes.
I’m in the process of purchasing a 2010 12-core MacPro for $1600 off eBay. Putting in at least one 6GB 280X (comparable in theory to a single D700) card for about $350 with external power for $100. Putting in the Apricorn dual SSD card which gives 800 MB’s, with 2 Crucial 960GB SSD’s, total cost for everything $900 (could have done 2 500’s for under $600). Cheap USB 3 card so at least i have some decent I/O ability. So Ill be in for about $3k with this little experiment. Ill have the opportunity to run this set up along side a 8 core D700 nMP and report any positive findings there. It is by no means an Apples to Apples comparison, but a upgraded new 12 core with similar specs plus the 2nd D700 runs $8199.
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com