Ronny Courtens
Forum Replies Created
-
Reading the positive reactions on different specialized audio forums I would say Logic still has a fairly loyal user base. And with this new version Apple certainly seems to reconfirm its commitment to the music pros as well.
Getting Logic back to the same status of years ago will undoubtedly take time, but like we have seen with FCPX opinions can change very quickly in our business. No time for testing now but I will certainly download a copy later this week to see if this could add something to our workflow or not. If anyone starts testing how FCPX projects translate to Logic X (and vice-versa) I will be happy to read your findings.
-
Same here. Very happy to see Logic updated, but this will not have any influence on our established workflow with ProTools for audio sweetening. Logic and ProTools are very different applications. X2Pro does an excellent job getting our projects into PT and we will continue using it.
-
This issue has been mentioned before. Like Jeremy says: deleting your Project Render Files might restore everything to normal. If this does not help: what is the format of the footage you are editing?
If possible I would try to finish this edit using the current version. SO much has changed in FCPX since v. 10.0.1 that it may be risky to update mid-project.
-
No Jason, Oliver has used different GPUs that are good for CUDA as well as for OpenCL acceleration.
Your card is perfect for CUDA, not good for OpenCL. This is what makes your comparison debatable. The fact that these tests were done on an older MacPro only has an influence on the overall results, not on the comparison.
And like I said: we do work natively in certain workflows and I see no difference between exporting from a ProRes timeline or a timeline with native footage. The only difference I see is that editing in a ProRes timeline is faster in FCPX.
-
My own tests with the software have Premiere (CS5.5 and CC) handling my tasks in literally 1/2 the length of the clip. For FCPX? Twice the length of the clip. The main difference between my tests and yours: I’m not starting with, nor transcoding to/from ProRes. I’m starting with AVCHD and ending with h.264 MP4.
Nope. We have had this discussion on another forum. The most important difference is that you did your tests using an upclocked nVidia GTX570 GPU that is great for CUDA but lousy for OpenCL. So it’s quite normal that PPro performs better than FCPX on your system. As another poster pointed out you are also running FCPX on a fast but older MacPro:
“Aside the OpenCL GPU FCP X is much faster on Ivy or Sandy Bridge processors since the code makes good use of the AVX on those processors. Older Mac Pros just don’t cut it (no matter how many cores) like the new iMacs and MBPs. I’ve noticed this especially with H.264 material.”
So with all due respect you are comparing apples with lemons. Oliver has done his tests using different cards, both for CUDA and OpenCL. That’s why I think his comparison tests are reliable. As I have explained we have worked with native XDCAM HD 422 footage at the Olympics using FCPX on several new MBPs and we got faster than realtime exports. So this has little to do with ProRes or native footage.
-
Agreed.
-
Ah, I see. Well, that’s quite an undertaking (-:
If the manual reframing works for you I wouldn’t do it any other way. Tracking works best on short clips. If the cameras have been shooting many different views over one long clip the tracker would lose its tracking information too often anyway. I think your idea of just bringing the difficult parts to Motion is good. For this kind of tracking/stabilization you really don’t need anything else.
-
When you import PAL footage in FCPX and you drop it onto a PAL timeline the exported file will be PAL without any doubt.
If they don’t accept or cannot handle ProRes files you can export to .mp4 right from within FCPX. Select Share > Master File > Format: Computer, Video Codec: H.264 Better Quality and your exported file will have the .mp4 extension. The quality/bitrate relation of this export is very good for the format of your original video.
Of course if you want full control over your export settings, and you know how to tweak the settings to get optimal results, you might use Compressor instead.
-
What you want to do is reframing, not stabilizing.
Did your two cams follow the presenter (one CU, one MS) and in your final edit you want to mix both cams in your portrait frame next to the slides?
Or did you shoot one cam CU presenter and the other one wide (including the stage and the slides), and in your final edit you want to mix the CU and the slides with the wide shot from the entire stage?