[Paul Golden]

“Plus you’re never going to convert 4:2:2 to 4:4:4 anyway?”

The whole point of the AJA converter is that it can, as a default, convert a YUV signal to progressive scan RBG, which is what the Dreamcolor demands. I was able to pick up a AJA HDP2 for $400 on Ebay, which is cheaper than a new Decklink. The HDP2 converts SDI to Deepcolor DVI, which through the use of a DVI to HDMI cable will feed the Dreamcolor a 10bit RBG signal. (The less expensive AJA Hi5 gives you only an 8bit signal)

I demo’ed the HDLink DisplayPort model in the hopes that it would convert the YUV signal out of the DeckLink and was never able to get it work properly. Furthermore, a Black Magic tech support person told me that unless you feed the HDLink an RGB signal (ie out the DeckLink HD Extreme), you won’t get an RGB output. (This may or may not be true, depending on whom you ask). The good thing about the AJA converter is that requires really no software intervention and just works. (There is a software pref panel, but you don’t need it for functionality) It’s pretty small and easy to tuck away, too.

Good luck….

[Paul Golden]

Instead of the HD Link, you can use the AJA Hi5 3G or the AJA H2dp to convert the signal to 444 from a less expensive DeckLink like the Studio or SDI.

[Paul Golden]

I’ve reverted to 8.2 and I can now import FCPX XML 1.1 files. There’s something amiss with the 8.2.1b.

System:
MacPro 2,1 (yes, I know…)
RAM: 24gb
Graphics: GT120 & GTX285
OS: 10.7.4
RAID: CalDigit Raid Card with Element HD 6TB
FCPX: 10.0.4
Video: BM StudioLink SDI
Monitors: 30″ Cinema, HP DreamColor via AJA HDP2 RBG converter

[Paul Golden]

I’m having the exact same problem with beta 8.2.1b3. Very simple XML file from FCPX 10.0.4. I’m going to try and revert to 8.2 and see if that fixes it….

[Paul Golden]

In my attempt to build a system that can run DaVinci Resolve and FCPX, I just tried a change that led to mixed results. (I know that the 2,1 is not a “supported” machine due to its PCI 1.0 setup and 32bit EFI)

Machine: MacPro 2,1
RAM: 24gb
Storage: 6tb CalDigit Raid 0 (Slot 4 8X) (350-400mb playback)
Graphics: Nvidia GT120 for GUI (Slot 2 1X)
Graphics 2: GTX285 for GPU (Slot 1 16X)
Video: Black Magic StudioLink SDI (Slot 3 1X)

Before the DaVinci experiment, I had a Radeon 4870 as my only graphics card. FCP X played flawlessly at speed. So did FCP 7 and Premiere

After swapping out the 4870 for the 2 Nvidia cards, here’s what happened:

1) FCPX is really choppy and now playing back at about 8 – 10 FPS on both my main screen and my external AV monitor. (This performance is a deal-breaker for the the 120)

2) FCP7 plays fine on the main screen and through the AV Monitor

3) Premiere plays choppy on the main screen but fine through the AV Monitor.

4) Resolve plays choppy on both the GUI screen and AV Monitor (which might be OK compared to working in an NLE)

So here’s what I want to know: Is the unacceptable FCP X performance from the GT120 related to:

1) being a crappy, low-spec card?,
2) being in a 1X slot (it’s hard to put it in a faster slot because of the CalDigit card)?
3) being in a 2,1 MacPro?
4) all of the above?

Has anyone had acceptable FCPX performance from a GT120 on any MacPro (of the same or higher spec)?

Is there another setup that lets me use a Radeon Card for the GUI, an NVIDIA card for GPU and doesn’t use more than 2 power slots AND will work in my 2,1 beater?

Any thoughts?

[Paul Golden]

The Proxy/Online workflow is something that Apple had working well in FCP 7 with Log and Transfer, so its not as though this is a novel problem or approach. They had a very good workflow for re-digitising select material after Proxy material had been selected (including handles). This workflow dates back to offline/online practices in videotape (remember that?) where editors did not have D1 machines at their disposal for a rough cut.

The Log and Transfer Proxy/HiRes workflow treated each Media Card cloned as a .dmg file as a separate “reel” (virtual hard drive) which could be recalled for the purpose of digitizing just the media required for the finished cut. This is an efficient use of disk space and system overhead. Why bother bringing tons of high res garbage into your system when low res garbage will do?

Apple has (seemingly) taken the position that disk space is infinite and there’s no problem creating reams of high resolution media and populating your endless drivespace when you first ingest the project.

As we all know, Apple will allow you to cut with H264 media, even though its a less than satisfactory experience. You could choose not to create either HiRes or Proxy media and cut this way, but I don’t recommend that.

[Paul Golden]

I haven’t tried the reference movie idea from QT 7, but I’m kind of loathe to do that because it opens up another “linked” file possibility for media getting lost or broken. You should be able to reference the media directly within FCP X in order to be considered a robust solution.

Images sequences are the bread and butter of visual effects workflows. Considering that QT7 is on its way out (does anyone know if you can get QT7 from Apple anymore?), Apple should come up with an in-app way of dealing with image sequences instead of having to go to a work-around to bring material straight into the system.

One advantage of image sequences is that you’re able to just replace the “bad” frames from renders without have to re-import whole sequences or movies and replace. I don’t normally get on the hater “FCPX isn’t a pro-app” bandwagon, but the fact that FCP 7 didn’t do image sequences either speaks more to cluelessness on Apple’s part rather than a concious design choice. Considering that you can output image sequences from FCP X, it seems entirely logical that you should be able to import them. I guess this goes on a long list of 10.1 tweaks I can hope for….

[Paul Golden]

What I find really interesting, is that Final Cut knows all about image sequences because it’s listed as its own prominent option when it comes to output under the Sharing menu, where you export such esoterica as DPX and Open EXR sequences. Why they would not have a way to import, manage and edit image sequences in a more elegant way (especially in the world of keywords and metadata) baffles me. I’ll send in a feature request (;-))

[Paul Golden]

Sounds like the way to go, although it seems like it would be a really straightforward workflow to have FCP know what an image sequence is.

Especially if you’re dealing with conforming DPX files or other frame based media. I have to say that After Effects makes it a pleasure, but it’s not my edit tool of choice (for obvious reasons)

[Paul Golden]

I’m not sure I get that. It’s certainly not intuitive. When you select it and drop it in the timeline, it’s 10 seconds. I’m not sure how you change that other than manually changing the duration once its in the timeline. The whole thing about assigning a nominal “length” to a still frame in the Event browser is weird anyway, but they should at least change that value so that you work with it more fluidly.