Hi, I am really excited about the 4K camcorders to say the least. My concern is about workflow in VegasI I normally burn to DVD, but I haven't seen anyone's workflow and/or results with burning to DVD using the 4K XAVC S format. I would like to know what workflow is being used to achieve great results with these camcorders. In addition, what is needed for editing XAVC S in terms of a workstation? I'd like to add that I'm currently using Vegas Pro 9.0, I do realize that I would need to step up to Vegas 13 for starters. Thanks in advance for all your help. Ray
My computers specs;
Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
Motherboard: Intel DX48BT2
CPU: Intel Core 2 Extreme processor QX9650 3GHz 1333MHz 12MB
Hard Drive 1: (C Drive) 1TB Samsung HD103UJ SATA2 7200rpm 32MB
Hard Drive 2: (2x750GB Raid 0) Samsung HD753LJ 750GB SATA2 7200rpm 32MB
Hard Drive 3: (2x750GB Raid 0) Samsung HD753LJ 750GB SATA2 7200rpm 32MB
Graphics Card: PNY Quadro FX3700 512MB GDDR3 Workstation PCI Express 2.0x16, SLI Ready, (Dual Link) Dual DVI, Stereo, Dual VGA Support
If I were building a new workstation that would be used for 4K editing, I wouldn't put anything less than Intel Xeon (Ivy Bridge) processors in it, plus a socket LGA 2011 motherboard that has PLENTY of SATA III controllers on it, like this Asus mobo:
You have the RAID 0 already, and hopefully the drives are SATA III and not SATA II, although SATA II is probably good enough for XAVC-S.
Thanks for the great info...... My drives are SATA ll unfortunately. In your opinion, what would it take to upgrade my workstation using some of the components I already have or are they simply not that great for editing with 4K? Any workstation suggestions that won't rob the bank? Thanks again, Ray
At the bare minimum i'd install an Intel i7 IvyBridge CPU (and Z79 chipset motherboard) and 32gb RAM. You should still be able to use your SATA II drives, and you already have a fine video card. This will at least save you at least $650 over a Xeon/new mobo combination.
Hi, Just came across this awesome article to share with all;
This really explains a lot in regards to workflow with 4K. Now, is my computer able to handle it? I really like the fact that Vegas Pro 12 has a new proxy feature as explained in the article, so hopefully my current workstation can handle everything. Now the big question "if possible" is how to get close to 4K clarity to DVD? Please chime in your thoughts and suggestions. Thanks, Ray
You need to get the fastest cpu you can afford. If not the Xeon-I would recommend an i7. (but you can also use the highest end multicore AMDs.) Your current setup may not be fast enough for 4K work, and you need Vegas 12-13 to handle some of the newer camera codecs. I have edited some 4K in Vegas 12 on a first generation i7 and it really taxes the whole system.
Colin Mendez Morris
Wow..... That's not the news I was hoping for. Although, I did figure that it would take quite a workstation to perform the task. I may have to hold off for the 4K revolution. Thanks for your input, Ray
Hi Dave, Thanks for the great info..... Surely something to think about. Thanks again, Ray
I noticed that I didn't list my 8gb RAM in my specs. This by the way is maxed out on my mother board. Ray
[Ray Sherman] "I noticed that I didn't list my 8gb RAM in my specs. This by the way is maxed out on my mother board. Ray"I don't think you realize what you are getting yourself into. You might want to start with the specs on Sony's web site. They specifically state:
You are also going to need a fairly powerful GPU. You’re probably looking at $3,000 – $4,000 to build yourself a 8-core workstation and $4,000 – $5,000 to build yourself a 12-core workstation for 4K. A workstation for 4K will not be cheap even if you build it yourself.
Don't forget, with 4K you are talking about processing 4 times the resolution of HD. If your computer is barely processing the 2,073,600 pixels of 1920x1080, think of how it will struggle with the 8,847,360 pixels of 4096 × 2160!
Hi John, Thanks as always for the great info...... I pretty much figured that a new system was in order if I went in the 4K direction. I certainly wouldn't want to go with the bare minimum for a workstation. My current workstation struggles enough with 1080p. As you suggested, a 12-core with at least 24GB memory would be the ticket, but at a price. I would definitely go with Blu-ray for the better quality. Thanks for the giving me the insight in what to expect for a build. I sincerely appreciate it, Ray
You're welcome Ray.
I was one of the early adopters of HD with the Sony Z1U when everyone else was shooting DV and I have no plans of ever going through the pain of letting my camera technology get ahead of my computer technology again. I wouldn't even consider a 4K camera until I can afford new Mac Pro. ;-)
Makes sense to me as well. For know, I believe I'll stick with what I have which is a Canon EOS 7D. This camera is a handful in itself between use and workflow. Thanks again for all your input. Ray
Well it's been 9 months since I posted this thread.... I just purchased the 4K ready Sony PXW-X70 which currently shoots XAVC L (long)and AVCHD. I still need to either build a new workstation or have one made to replace my current one. I'm open to either a PC or Mac that will give me great 4K video real tiime editing/rendering without struggling. I definately agree with John that 12 physical cores and 24GB of memory would be something I would need. I'm using this mainly for personal use, but I have been known to do a job every now and then. I'd like to add that I only need it for "offline editing." Also, I believe it's smart to have a three hard drives. One for software/hardware C/drive, with the other two configured RAID 0 for editing, final rendering output. My final output will be DVD and Blu-ray. With that being said, If anyone has anything they would like to suggest/comment on, please do so? As always, your help is sincerely appreciated. Ray
[Ray Sherman] "I'm open to either a PC or Mac that will give me great 4K video real tiime editing/rendering without struggling. ...If anyone has anything they would like to suggest/comment on, please do so?"I just bought a 2010 Mac Pro 2.93Ghz 12-Core, 24 GB Memory, AMD Radeon HD 5870, 1TB Boot drive, Apple RAID Card w/ 6TB RAID 5 (3x 2TB WD Black), on eBay for $2275 USD.
I swapped out the 1TB boot drive for a 2TB drive and created an 8TB RAID 5 with 4 drives. Then I added a 480 GB PCI Express SSD OWC Mercury Accelsior_E2 as the boot drive and Pioneer Blu-ray BD-RW BDR-2209 burner. I added a Windows 7 Pro Bootcamp partition for running Vegas Pro natively. I also use Final Cut Pro X on OS X.
I assume this would be adequate for 4K but I don't have a 4K camera to test it. The idea is that 12-Core 2010 Mac Pro's can be had for $2200 - $2400 on eBay so it might make more sense to buy an old Mac Pro rather than a new one (unless you have $6000 burning a hole in your pocket) Of course you could also buy a PC but then you're stuck with only using Windows tools.
Thanks for the reply John..... Sounds like your workstation will do the job. That's great alternatives in which I will definately search out. When comparing Mac's with PC's there's always a price to pay, but I feel the way you do when it comes down to either one. As always, your thoughts and help is very much appreciated. Thanks, Ray
[Ray Sherman] "When comparing Mac's with PC's there's always a price to pay, but I feel the way you do when it comes down to either one."What price is that?
The high end Mac's are cheaper than high-end PC's. In this Extreme Tech article you can read about how the new Mac Pro is $2000 cheaper than a comparable PC.
Apple’s new ‘overpriced’ $10,000 Mac Pro is $2,000 cheaper than the e...
Don't forget the new Mac Pro comes with dual workstation class GPU's which are extremely expensive if you were to buy the equivalent card for your PC.
If you look at the new iMac Retina 5K the entire computer cost about the same as you would pay for a 4K monitor alone without a PC. Mac's are extremely competitively priced these days. I had the opportunity to play with the new 5K iMac at the local Apple Store and the display is incredible. They had 4K video on an Final Cut Pro X timeline and I was skimming it smooth as butter. Very impressive and beautiful. If I were working in 4K I would buy the iMac Retina 5K in a heartbeat. No doubt about it.
I must say, after reading some about the following iMac, it is impressive. Hands down when comparing to a PC. My biggest concern would be the 4 core processor. If it's not a concern, please explain? The only other hardware that I would need is a couple blu-Ray read/write burners. Any thoughts?
Configuration (includes everything below): $5,566.99
iMac with Retina 5K display
4.0GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4.4GHz
32GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x8GB
1TB Fusion Drive
AMD Radeon R9 M295X 4GB GDDR5
Apple Magic Mouse
Apple Wireless Keyboard (English) & User's Guide
PROMISE Pegasus2 R4 8TB (4 by 2TB) Thunderbolt 2 RAID System
Final Cut Pro X
Pages, Numbers, Keynote
iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand
[Ray Sherman] "I must say, after reading some about the following iMac, it is impressive."You have no idea until you see it. If you have an Apple Store nearby, you should go in and actually work with it. But leave your credit card home because you're going to want to buy it on the spot. lol
[Ray Sherman] "My biggest concern would be the 4 core processor. If it's not a concern, please explain?"What you want for editing is fast cores. What you want for render is lots of cores. So this Mac will give you a better editing experience than one with more cores that are not as fast. For example, this 4-Core is 4.0Ghz while the Mac Pro 8-Core is 3.0 Ghz. So you are optimizing your editing experience at the cost of rendering. I think this is what most people would prefer. I spent some time with it at the Apple Store with 4K video and the editing experience was very smooth and the display was unbelievable. The preview window wasn't a preview at all... it was full 4K preview with enough pixels left over for the FCP X interface to still be very usable. The 5K monitor is just unbelievable.
[Ray Sherman] "The only other hardware that I would need is a couple blu-Ray read/write burners."Those are easy to find because the Mac Pro has all of it's peripherals external as well so lots of manufacturers and making these.
[Ray Sherman] "Software: Final Cut Pro X"I would also get Apple Motion 5 ($49) and Apple Compressor 4 ($49). FCP X has tight integration with Motion. You can actually make your own FX, generated media, titles, etc. in Motion and save them as templates that you can use in FCP X. Motion is like After Effects so imagine getting AE for $49! Compressor allows you to create new render templates for FCP X and also performs batch rendering.
If you want to see how FCP X and Motion work together, watch my Boris TV Episode 229: Custom Presets in FCP X Using Motion 5
I've had people tell me that BCC has too many parameters and they get lost; using the approach Apple does with Motion and FCP X allows you to limit the interface to just the parameters that you need for a particular effect.
Thanks John...... Great video! Motion 5 surely looks like a great tool for effects. Coming from a PC using Vegas Pro, Apple would definitely be somewhat of a learning curve. With that being said, this is part of what I enjoy about video editing. Please correct me if I'm wrong; In regards to the configured iMac, you feel that actual 4K real time editing with effects, transitions, titles and music would run smoothly on the timeline without pre-rendering? At times, I'll make events/movies anywhere from 20 to 55 minutes long. In Vegas, I have to loop/render out small parts of an event (build dynamic RAM preview) in order to see less than a minute of my edited event. On top of that, the preview isn't that great. Actual rendering time for output to DVD is not a concern for me, I could actually render overnight. I just want to be able to do all my editing and previewing on the timeline without any lagging and/or hiccups. This is more than half of my battle....... A smooth editing workflow would be like a breath of fresh air and then some. I've listed a few things below that may be some concerns of the iMac for 4K editing. Other than that, this workstation seems to be awesome!! Thanks again for your help! I can't tell you enough how much I appreciate it. As for my credit card..... My wife is hiding it now :) Ray
1) Cooling - Due to 4K editing for several hours at a time. Several reviews are stating 100 to 105 degree gpu readings.
2) All-in-One - Not sure of the life expectancy of the components. For example; Wouldn't want a great running workstation with a dead monitor.
[Ray Sherman] "you feel that actual 4K real time editing with effects, transitions, titles and music would run smoothly on the timeline without pre-rendering?"Are we talking about Vegas Pro or Final Cut Pro X? This is where FCP X shines. It dynamically pre-renders in the background without you having to do anything. So you can make a transition, and with 5 seconds it will start pre rendering that in the background so that when you play it, it will be a smooth playback. Same for applying effects or compositing. You know how if you loop something in Vegas Pro it gets faster and faster because it renders to memory but then when you move out of the loop and go back it's slow again? Well, FCP X never forgets that rendered section so it never gets slow again and it always stays that fast until you change it (but then it pre-renders again after the change). It's a really smooth editing experience. It's too bad Vegas Pro doesn't do this. Their pre-rendering is manual and it breaks as soon as you move anything.
[Ray Sherman] "In Vegas, I have to loop/render out small parts of an event (build dynamic RAM preview) in order to see less than a minute of my edited event."You won't gave to do this anymore with FCP X. It will dynamically pre-render in the background. If you plan to use Vegas Pro then you will still have the same problems. Vegas Pro does not make use of lots of cores when previewing the timeline so like I said, you are better off with a 4.0Ghz 4-Core for editing than a 3.0Ghz 8-Core. The AMD Radeon R9 M295x GPU should work great with Vegas Pro as well. I'm only guessing (because I don't own one).
Note: I believe I read that running Windows on an iMac 5K via Bootcamp will only give you a 4K display! I would double check with Apple on this but I think you only get 5K on OS X and Windows is only 4K resolution.
[Ray Sherman] "1) Cooling - Due to 4K editing for several hours at a time. Several reviews are stating 100 to 105 degree gpu readings."I did a little reading since you brought this up and it looks like people are concerned about the GPU temps being high but no one is complaining of failure. Apple didn't give the iMac a 5K display on a whim. This is their entry into the 4K editing market. As long as the computer doesn't shutdown from failure I'd say it's working OK.
[Ray Sherman] "2) All-in-One - Not sure of the life expectancy of the components. For example; Wouldn't want a great running workstation with a dead monitor."It's no different than a laptop. Buy Apple Care and they will fix it for free. I had a display go bad on my MacBook Pro and it was under Apple Care so I walked into an Apple Store and they fixed it while I waited; no cost to me. (try that with a PC!) lol
If you don't like All-In-One's that's a separate matter but like I said, it's no different than a laptop. The 2010 Mac Pro's might be a better choice if you want components instead.
You're asking the right questions though. I bought a 2010 Mac Pro instead of the iMac Retina 5K because I'm not working in 4K nor do I plan to in the near future. When I finally saw and touched the iMac 5K at the Apple Store, I almost regretted my purchase because it was such a great experience. But I can't say what it would be like after hours of editing.
This is a hot topic. You'll find lots of forum posts about Mac Pro vs iMac 5K. There is a rather long one right her on the COW: FCPX on 5K iMac
Here is a comparison that was referenced in that long thread were the iMac 5K beats out the 4-Core Mac Pro bit not the 6-Core or 8-Core Mac Pro in real world tests.
But I don't think you are even entertaining a new Mac Pro. If you were, I'd say the new Mac Pro is better for 4K editing because it gas dual AMD FirePro GPU's. But if you're comparing the 2010 Mac Pro that's a different story.
Thanks for the great reply! I read through both links that you suggested...... Great information. I certainly agree that maxing out the iMac is important in regards to 4k editing.
I do realize that some type of pre-rendering would have to take place. I've only used Vegas Pro in which it ate up a lot of time trying to look at a very short edited event. As you pointed out, Vegas will loose the looped pre-render once you move out of it. As you know, this takes up time and the joy out of video editing. In your case along with other producers it's much more than that $$. This is my main reason for wanting to move to Mac. Your explanation of FCP X puts the icing on the cake.
As for cooling, you made a good point; No one is complaining of failure. Apple didn't give the iMac a 5K display on a whim. This is their entry into the 4K editing market. As long as the computer doesn't shutdown from failure I'd say it's working OK.
I totally agree, Apple Care is the way to go. I've always felt that extended warranties on workstations are important.
As for All-in-Ones, It's a mixed bag mainly due to some future component failures that can't be replaced. With that being said, it appears that Apple did their homework in this all-in-one. Another great point you stated earlier on, "If you look at the new iMac Retina 5K the entire computer cost about the same as you would pay for a 4K monitor alone without a PC."
The bottom line; Smooth editing and a great UHD monitor is what I'm after, with rendering time not being an issue. The maxed out iMac with the 27" 5k retina display, thunderbolt 2 storage and running FCP X certainly seems like it would fit my situation/use. I'm not editing raw 4K and/or using RED camera's, therefore I don't need a ton of processing power.
My current equipment is as follows;
Sony PXW-X70 using 10bit 4:2:2 with 4k upgrade on the way.
Canon 7D DSLR
I'm somewhat confused in regards to OS drives and storage drives. A lot of people throughout the forum are stating; Go for a SSD instead of the Fusion due to being faster. I imagine that the Flash drive is SSD, but not sure. I need to do a little homework on SSD's. What's your experience and/or thoughts?
Another external HD alternative at half the price of the PROMISE Pegasus2 below:
G-Technology 6TB G-RAID Studio External Storage System with Thunderbolt 2
PROMISE Pegasus2 R4 8TB (4 by 2TB) Thunderbolt 2 RAID System
I can't thank you enough for your help and expertise. I have learned so much from you and this forum through the years. It's nice to know that I can turn to people like you for solid advice and suggestions. Thanks again, Ray
P.S. I'm close to the edge, now where's that credit card? :)
[Ray Sherman] "A lot of people throughout the forum are stating; Go for a SSD instead of the Fusion due to being faster. I imagine that the Flash drive is SSD, but not sure. I need to do a little homework on SSD's. What's your experience and/or thoughts? "The Fusion drive implements a concept known as "tiered storage". It takes a SSD and a HDD and creates a Volume across both disks much like a RAID 0 does. The difference between this and RAID is that it doesn't write the same information to both disks. It writes initial information to the faster disk (SSD) and when the SSD gets filled up, it moves "less used" information to the slower disk (HDD). So files that you access often stay on the faster SSD and files that you access less often go on the slower HDD. It's an economical way to get massive storage and still have high performance for files used most often.
If you can only have drive and you need lots of storage, and you don't have lots of money, get a Fusion drive. If you can have more than one drive, then get an SSD and manually put the files that you use less often on the HDD.
[Ray Sherman] "Another external HD alternative at half the price of the PROMISE Pegasus2 below"Not in the same class but if that's al you can afford then it's a start. The G-RAID (which is an excellent manufacturer btw) 6TB only has 2 disks. This means you can use it for RAID 0 for speed or RAID 1 for redundancy. The Pegasus has 4 drives which means you can use it in a RAID 5 configuration for both speed and redundancy.
Here is an interesting article that has a great comparison chart on RAID systems:
A Comparison of 10 Thunderbolt RAID Storage Solutions
Thanks for the info. I would probably go with either the 512gb or 1TB flash (SSD) drive for OS. In Vegas, I used two internal 2TB hard drives at RAID 0. One for raw un-edited pre-rendered video, pictures and music with the other having rendered events for final output. I'm unsure of what would be the best optimal setup for the iMac using FCP X, Motion 5, etc.. To be honest, I'm not sure what other Raid configurations would be best. This is one area that's not my strong suit. It seems like two 2TB or 3TB external drives would be all I need. With that being said, I can see where four drives would help in regards to storage, especially with XAVC L and 4k video. I'll read the link you sent me for better understanding of the new Thunderbolt RAID storage. If you have a description of what each drive should be used for as well as RAID configurations "PLEASE" pass it on. With that information, I could focus on it for a better understanding.
Thanks again John, you have been a tremendous help. Ray
I'm glad I could help Ray. Good luck in your choices.
Thanks John, as always, you have been a tremendous help. It's awesome to know that I can turn to a person with your expertise in this forum. Thank you for your time. Ray :)