Nicholas Kleczewski
Forum Replies Created
-
It’s just going to be pro res 422 not (HQ) but unless you plan on some hardcore Resolve coloring, effects, green screen etc, you’ll be totally find with that. Back up those camera masters on Bluray or tape and forget about em!
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
Hmm that’s interesting. I have 32 gigs in my nehalem my pro and still feel like it runs slower than my 16gb MBPr. But I admit I didn’t do a ton of experimenting with a big project on the Mac Pro once I realized all this. I’ll have to check it out. Thanks!
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
Ive run FCPX on just about every mac out right now sans the latest iMacs. I dont think what your running into is necessarily a machine or even FCPX limitation per se, you are attempting to do something there pretty unique. That is thousands of pictures, waveforms etc you are breezing through on any given flick. And its not the same as something like lightroom or Aperture in which the thumbnail never changes. Its a a dynamic process with every flick based on filmstrip length, whats around it, how big the window currently is, etc. So its a load on a whole other incalculable scale.
Im sure the engineers could thing of ways to improve that, but I can’t imagine it’d be any time soon. Also, solid state storage could help you in this regard. That little microsecond of delays your getting could be affected by read speeds, even if your on the fastest of fast affordable arrays, access time matters at the level your pinging large amounts of data here.
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
Yeah, I frankly don’t use that filmstrip view style ever. It does work better if you change the duration slider at the bottom to make less detailed views, but I never really found the advantage to it over seeing clip info with single film strip at top.
You could split the difference on the idea and drill down your raw footage with keywords and then when your flicking through, its a lot smaller version of the database to pull from and then you should get better performance. For instance, break up B-Roll by days or theme or location. Break out interviews, or whatever is simple. Then when you click that relevant keyword you are only pulling a narrow subset of all the events clips which should work a lot better.
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
I’d say thats not odd behavior given the amount you are flicking through. If you change the thumbnail slider to be less representations over time that helps. But getting used to working in the clip name with film strip at top mode is what I’d recommend. You can flick through that with ease. and simple meta data additions could be inserted with keywords or columns to give you the same visual que of where your flicking too that the filmstrip achieves.
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
Yeah, I was going on the assumption that ProRes was being used. But thats def a no brainer, H.264 is terrible to edit with and should be avoided at all costs. FCPX makes the transcode process so easy theres almost no reason to consider it unless you literally had a one day turnaround or something.
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
Well the first thing anyone is going to tell you is to update to 10.0.7 There have been so many fixes in the two updates since 10.0.5 its going to be hard to convince anyone not to try that first.
If your worried about upgrading, don’t. I’ve upgraded through massive projects and it works completely fine. if you want any additional insurance, make a Zip of your current event files, and the entire FCPX program, and you can roll back to it no prob if the update does anything harmful.
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
This is exactly the performance hit stuff that through some old research I found was possibly tied in some part to the AVX Intel thing I mentioned before. It does not seem to be GPU/CPU relatable in terms of clock speed or cores alone. So in fact, my MBPr works much much better in this regard than my Nehalem MacPro does. I actually don’t even use it for FCPX editing. I export XML when im done from MBPr that is docked right beside and just use the MacPro for Resolve or whatever else.
The whole AVX thing could have nothing to do with it, but there is no doubt that there is something that makes the processor generation different in performance in current MacPros over newer stuff, even a mac mini frankly, just in terms of this type of performance.
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
Hey
Ive experienced the same thing. If you notice from when you started and picked it up the next day in Activity Monitor FCPX probably went from using some average amount a RAM to using much more. When everything is “loaded” and idle in my big project FCPX is hovering around 10-12GB of RAM used.Theres still lots of smaller beach ball moments while its “thinking” its way through things. but much more manageable.
I think in a sense the FCPX engineers devised so many performance/convenience items, from waveforms, to thumbnails, to saving every move made, to massive amounts do metadata, etc, and in order for it to do that at the blistering speeds it does, it needs everything held as close as possible. Where as Avid, or to some extent FCP legacy, addressed things more linear as needed so size didn’t matter for the most part, (Avid compartmentalizes way more than Legacy did) I have no doubt that if I had every Bin open and everything going at once in Media Composer as FCPX is trying to do, it would be even worse.
I kinda wish there’d be some kinda implementation of a “performance/convenience slider” or a “longform/shortform” toggle switch, and FCPX could make intelligent decisions on processes for forgo, or not forgo in order to keep things running as equal as possible regardless of project size.
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
It seems clear that FCPX is doing some kind of dump into RAM each time a clip is accessed for the first time in an open project. Whether thats the thumbnails, waveforms, metadata or what even the guys at FCPX Feedback aren’t sure. But the good thing is, once its loaded once, you can go back to that clip and performance is lightening fast.
I’m working on a feature doc with over 10,000 clips of video, 5TB of footage just in proxy resolution. I find it best to leave FCPX open at all times as much as I can. Once things are cooked into Ram and FCPX is hitting around 10GB used, the project moves decently enough. The do-over from restart each time is a real pain and I avoid it all costs.
I notice this kind of thing actually performing much worse on a MacPro than any of the updated macs. I traced this back somewhere to some guys hypothesizing this had to do with something called AVX or something like that Intel put in post MacPro processors that goes directly to these types of quick access issues.
Another huge thing I found before 10.0.6 was using dual monitors drastically decreased general responsiveness. It seemed to get better after 10.0.6 to where I’m not sure it even happens any more. But I haven’t worked on anything small and zippy lately to really test that.
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com