Ryan Holmes
3
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeffrey Leiser] “By the way, after converting to ProRes, it added an extra “MOV” to my file name (not the extension). I easily fixed this with a free program called NameChanger. “
Just a FWIW – Automator (built into Mac) can do this as well. You can create a file rename script to run for batch processing. Simply, fast, and built into every Mac! 🙂
Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost -
[Jonnie Peace] “Here is a link to the Canon Cinema style i purchased”
Not sure why you paid for this, when there are plenty of free options. Technicolor developed a cinestyle look for Canon cameras back in 2010 and has offered it for free from Day 1. You may check that out instead:
https://www.technicolor.com/en/solutions-services/cinestyleAs for the product you purchased, you should contact the site you bought it from to get support for their product.
Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost -
What is your source footage?
What are format are you encoded to?
Where does your source footage reside (local drive, SAN, RAID, etc.)?
Where are you writing the output file to?
What type of effects do you have on your footage? After Effects dynamic link compositions? Color correction?
Is OpenCL rendering turned on in AME?As an aside, the computer you list is not particularly strong for this type of work. Buying a budget laptop works fine for editing footage, but typically you feel the pain at this stage – transcoding. On many consumer laptops when you run parallel processes like exporting (CPU and GPU at the same time) the system will drop the clock speed of either the CPU or GPU (or both) in order to save power and not overheat. So where you save money on the purchase, you’ll lose time in the long run because it’s not as fast as a higher end laptop/workstation.
Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost -
[Noah Kadner] “For my $.02 simply dropping the ‘or not’ would be reasonable enough. It’s redundant and adds a negative slant to what is generally a healthy debate about the future of post tools and the human beings using them.”
[Shane Ross] “Are we still debating? The last few threads had nothing to do with FCS or how useful it is. And even the Adobe debate forum is dead. I mean…dead. They don’t even bring up other topics. Here, there are other topics. But not all FCX related. I’d make this a general NLE debate.”
[Scott Witthaus] “In my mind, as I have stated, the debate about FCPX is over, if there was ever was one. You either use it or not….If we need a debate it should be agnostic”
[John Rofrano] “there is no longer a need for a forum to debate the merits of FCP X any more then you should start one to debate the merits of Premiere Pro, Avid, Sony Vegas, etc. Maybe it’s time to archive it and move on?”
[Jeremy Garchow] “I think Andrew Kimery nailed it.”
It seems a theme is developing here, and one which I agree with. I’m an Adobe/Autodesk/Resolve user for most of my workflow, but I come here for the general discussion on the state of the NLE industry, not to discuss whether or not FCPX can edit footage. The debate is over (same with the “Creative Cloud” debate forum). It’s a tool…either use it or don’t.
[Tim Wilson] “I’ve also been thinking a lot about this. Here’s where I’m at right now.”
And I’d be remised if I didn’t give a tip of the hat to Tim’s initial write up. Well stated with some good points to think about, especially the “Apple doesn’t care about Pros” section.
Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost -
[Cody Waite] “because it is optimized for youtube.”
You may have too of expectations in regards to “optimized for youtube”! 🙂 Those are really just presets for YouTube to help people out who don’t understand compression. The file it’s creating is just a regular mp4 wrapper with the h.264 codec. There’s nothing unique that it’s doing to the file. As you know, processing for YouTube is YouTube taking your file and re-transcoding it to work throughout their system. That process can depend on (1) your account standing, (2) the amount, number, and length of videos in front of you in the queue, and (3) the overall length and size of the videos you upload.
Also keep in mind that YouTube is “processing” 100 hours of video every minute of every day. That’s a lot of data to transcode! Your submissions are falling into that queue. Again, CC has no impact on those aspects. The file that it creates is a standard h.264 mp4 that is used on Vimeo, Facebook, YouTube, etc. I would assume that your lag times are related to the overall sheer size and volume of data that YouTube is trying to process.
Just my $.02
Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost -
I’m unclear – are your exports taking longer? Or are your uploads to YouTube taking longer?
If your exports are taking longer that’s a CC issue. You can double check to make sure you’re using GPU accelerated encoding – CUDA = Nvidia GPU, OpenCL = AMD GPU.
[Cody Waite] “I know it is not the internet connection, we are owned by a telecommunications company and have a fiber network to us. “
If your uploads are taking longer that has nothing to do with CC. Adobe doesn’t control your bandwidth, your routers, your switches, etc. Adobe just creates a file, what you do with it after that is up to you. Poor upload speeds could be a number of things from your internal network at your company, to your ISP, to the YouTube infrastructure when you upload. Even if you have fiber to your door, there are several other networks that your packets are traveling through to get to YouTube, Vimeo, Dropbox, etc.
Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost -
Given your timetable why even transcode to ProRes422? Once you dumb down the footage to move across Dropbox (I’m assuming h.264 for that) you’ll just cost yourself valuable time having to re-transcode all that footage to 422, and with little to no advantage (unless your system can’t edit h.264). Most modern NLE’s can handle h.264 directly – PPro 2014, FCPX.
Have them transcode to a “high” bit rate h.264 (20mbps? 30mbps?), upload to Dropbox, use that to edit, and output your YouTube master. If they are shooting on DSLR’s the footage is already h.264 so just have them upload that straight away (and that’s typically at ~45mbps).
The only other option is for your shooters to offload media to a drive and overnight footage to you (or send you the CF/SD card). But that may not work if you’re aiming for next day master delivery….
Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost -
[John Rofrano] “I assume the iMac 5K has a newer/better GPU and may give me a better editing experience.”
Keep in mind that the GPU on an iMac is technically a mobile graphics card. They aren’t as robust as what’s in a Mac Pro. And that 5K iMac GPU is driving a 5K display…so your performance, as others have stated, may actually be worse until Apple refines the software and drivers further for a smooth user interaction.[John Rofrano] “You can see my Mac really struggling in the last episode once I have 5 3D Objects animated across 7 connected clips with particle smoke in the background all at once. lol”
This sounds like it would be challenging for many computers! 🙂
[Jeremy Garchow] “If getting a tube, go for the dual 700s. It’s not much more money to get the faster chips. “
I agree with Jeremy here for sure. It’s only $600 more for the D700’s over the stock D500’s, so get the D700’s! That will be well worth the extra money, if you go that route.
Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost -
[John Rofrano] “Since we’re both coming from a 2008 8-Core Mac Pro, I guess what I’m asking is between a 2010 12-Core Mac Pro and the iMac 5K which would you get for FCP X work?”
John, I just added a new trash can and 5K iMac to my facility. The trash can just came in Thursday so I haven’t deployed it yet for day-to-day tasks (the iMac is still “processing” as Apple says). But the Mac Pro was purchased as a “heavy-iron” system for it’s ability to do heavy lifting and do it quickly. The 5K iMac is intended for either an audio station computer or a video editor station. We cut mostly ProRes, some RAW, and some 4K. But again for RAW or 4K the Mac Pro gets the nod. For everything else the iMac can handle it.
So it depends on what you need the computer to do. If you’re doing single threaded tasks the iMac will perform similarly to a new Mac Pro. Once you get into multi-threaded tasks (like transcoding) or heavy vfx/color grading (GPU tasks) the Mac Pro will excel. But for straight cutting the iMac is fine provided your storage medium is fast enough to feed you the video. Caveat to that though, is that you probably won’t find RAW/DNG or R3D files a smooth workflow on an iMac. But for ProRes, DNxHD it should have no problems (again provided your storage is fast enough).
Additionally, I’m not sure of where your deployment is, but in my space the Mac Pro is helpful as it has 2 NIC’s built in so one can run to our SAN while the other runs to the house network (this can be overcome on the iMac by using a Thunderbolt to Ethernet dongle). The abundance of Thunderbolt (with separate busses), USB 3, and HDMI ports are also helpful on the Mac Pro for speed and connectivity. The Mac Pro’s also feature server-class chipsets, error correcting RAM, and high end GPU’s all of which are built to stricter tolerances than the consumer components in a laptop or iMac. This becomes important if the computer is running 24/7/365 and is put under load continually.
Marco Arment has a great write up about the difference between the two computers that may be worth your time:
https://www.marco.org/2014/10/16/retina-imac-vs-mac-proRyan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost -
[Jeremy Garchow] “heyyyy-ooooo”
Thank you, I’ll be here all week. Tip your waitress! 🙂
Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost