[Patrick Sheppard]

This may help:

https://forums.creativecow.net/docs/forums/post.php?forumid=3&postid=835624&univpostid=835624&pview=t

[Patrick Sheppard]

Rich,

I was just reading this article on barefeats.com:

https://barefeats.com/16-inch-macbook-pro-5600M-versus-desktop-macs.html

Note the summary at the bottom which says:

“The 16-inch MacBook Pro with new Radeon Pro 5600M GPU came in first when running our Motion, Lightroom, and Photoshop tests. It came in second place running Final Cut Pro X and Premiere Pro.

The 2017 iMac Pro came in first running Final Cut Pro X, Compressor, and Premiere Pro tests.”

[Patrick Sheppard]

Hi Rich,

It looks like Adobe’s system requirements for Premiere Pro do not list the 5500M or the 5600M as “recommended” graphics cards. However, those are Metal GPUs so I assume they will work, since Metal-compatible GPUs have the most current support for Mercury Playback Engine acceleration in Premiere Pro. I assume the same is true for AE.

By contrast, OpenCL support is deprecated in PP, which means it’s on the way out as a supported method of GPU acceleration.

The MacBook Pro has the advantage of portability, but in my opinion the iMac would be better for heat dissipation. Neither option is ideal in this respect because they both have tight interior spaces (and therefore the internal components can be more susceptible to possible heat-related damage over time). However the iMac at least has more interior space to allow for better heat dissipation. And really, if you spend an extra few bucks on fan control software and use it to increase your Mac’s default fan speeds, then heat can be dissipated much more effectively. TG Pro by Tunabelly Software is a good one to use, and it only costs $10 on sale or $20 regular price (a very small price to pay for the huge benefit of mitigating the effects of heat).

Another option may be the newest 27″ iMac, just released last week. It has significant performance gains over the previous model year, and it can be upgraded to a 10-core i9 and a Radeon Pro 5700 XT with 16GB GDDR6. It also has the advantage of user-upgradable RAM, which is a real money saver if you purchase your RAM from someone other than Apple (such as OWC). With the MacBook Pro you would have to get the RAM upgrade from Apple at the time of purchase. With the iMac Pro a RAM upgrade after time of purchase would mean paying Apple or OWC to do it for you. And, since the new iMac has just been released, you’ll enjoy more years of macOS support over and above the iMac Pro, which is already 3 years old. Also if the reports are correct, the new 27” iMac will likely be the last release of that specific model to use an Intel chip.

[Patrick Sheppard]

Disk images can be updated.

I don’t currently know the answer to the other question.

Further info: https://bombich.com/kb/ccc5

[Patrick Sheppard]

Because what I say below may be wrong, I’ll preface this response by recommending that you check with each of the stock websites to see what is or isn’t allowed.

That said:

To the best of my knowledge, license rights to stock media cannot be shared in the sense of two parties using a single stock license in a separate and independent manner.

So if that’s what you mean by “sharing”, then since you purchased the stock, unless you were able to specify otherwise at time of purchase, you are the sole license holder. Neither the owners/copyright holders of the stock nor the stock websites are likely to give legal authority to a license holder to grant license holding rights to another party.

To my knowledge, if both of you want to “share” the purchased stock media in a way that’s completely separate and independent of each other, then it would be necessary to make a second purchase of all stock to be “shared”. The license holder for the second purchase would be whoever isn’t already the license holder from the first purchase.

If you mean “share” in the sense of you being able to use the stock for your client’s benefit (that is, only for this one client’s projects), then the solution could be to contact the various websites and ask them to change the license holder to be your client instead of you.

But again, I would double-check with the stock websites to see what is and isn’t allowed concerning this matter.

[Patrick Sheppard]

Disk image backups are generally complete whether you backup the entire volume or a specific folder (unless you tell the software to do differently). So backing up an entire boot volume to a disk image and then restoring that disk image to a volume will result in that volume becoming a bootable clone of the volume that was backed up to the disk image.

Yes the main difference is speed and convenience between those two options. So if you don’t mind taking the time, back up to a disk image instead.

I was using the phrase “backup your boot drive” as a synonym for cloning the boot drive.

For more specific answers, I suggest consulting CCC’s online documentation, which is thorough.

[Patrick Sheppard]

Is there a reason you’re applying the Crop effect to an adjustment layer rather than to the clip itself? Just asking because it seems the simplest way to fix this would be to apply the Crop effect to the clip, set the crop the way you want it, and then scale up the clip as desired.

[Patrick Sheppard]

According to this article, OTG functionality seems to be governed by the devices, not the cable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_On-The-Go

Other than that, my guess is that a standard Micro USB cable will probably work… unless Tilta is using some proprietary form of it (if there even is such a thing)?

Here’s an article on USB, beginning from the section on Micro connectors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_hardware#Micro_connectors

If the connectors on the stock cable look like Micro-A, Micro-B, or Micro-B SuperSpeed pictured in the link above, then a longer cable with the same connectors should work.

As far as balancing on the gimbal, would it automatically adjust to the different weight of the longer cable?

[Patrick Sheppard]

APFS is worth it for bootable clones because Apple’s requirement to use it for boot drives makes it worth it, by necessity.

Yes you can dedicate a portion of an external drive to a bootable clone. In fact you can have HFS+ and APFS volumes on one drive. I currently have that setup on one of my drives at home.

If you’re not convinced to do bootable clones then that’s fine. You have to make your own decision there. It is a good idea though to at least backup your boot drive, whether you use CCC, BackBlaze, Time Machine, or some other program.

A disk image is a file. A bootable clone is a fully functional volume. In order to benefit from the disk image, you have to restore it to a volume.

So think of it this way:

Bootable clone
Volume –> Volume

Disk image (cloning)
Volume –> File –> Volume

Disk image (backup)
Volume –> File

Note that ” –> ” represents the cloning action, using software like CCC or similar.

So a disk image is the contents of the volume saved inside of a single file, which can then be kept as a backup of the volume and/or used to clone to a volume.

Makes sense?

[Patrick Sheppard]

Todd,

Apologies, I should have clarified: CCC does create bootable backups for both HFS+ and APFS volumes. However, for all macOS versions from Mojave and upward (which of course includes Catalina), a bootable backup of an APFS volume would have to be done to another APFS volume since Apple requires APFS for booting in these versions of macOS. So you and CCC support staff are correct about that.

However, you can clone data files from one volume type to another. So if you wanted to clone a file storage drive to another file storage drive, and one is APFS and the other is HFS+ (or vice versa), then this can be easily handled by CCC.

Bootable clones aren’t necessary. I like to use them for two reasons: 1) They’re convenient for having an alternate boot drive if I want to do maintenance to my primary drive that requires being booted from a secondary drive. 2) I believe having them is just prudent and a good practice to safeguard against issues.

In order to avoid larger than necessary clones of the boot drive, you might look into creating separate volumes on your internal drive, keeping one relatively small volume for the boot volume and then another volume for file storage. Definitely research the best way to go about this if you decide to pursue it, so that your computer doesn’t lose data from adding or resizing volumes. Another solution may be to get a dedicated drive just for the bootable clone, as you suggested.

A disk image is basically a backup of your volume (or data files) that is saved to one large container file, that can then be used to restore the backed up data to a volume. So if a volume had 100,000 files on it and you back up that entire volume to a disk image, then all 100,000 of those files would be cloned to a new location inside of a single container file that is an “image” of the disk. In other words, a disk image backs up files from a volume to a single file rather than from one volume to another volume.

I believe you’re right about virtualization software and not needing partitions for different file systems used by different OSes, but of course it’s a good idea to research that to be sure.