How do export/render times do compare FCP X vs CS6
I still read through the Cow Forums how slow Premiere Pro 6 is on export/render times.
True times can be slower or faster depending on Hardware Specs on Mac’s or PC’s
At Work we still use FCP 7,at home I use CS6 I have done my own comparison tests and they match the results from Richard Harrington’s article.
The 45 minutes of footage that was going to take FCP/Compressor two hours to render was only going to need 30 minute to compress on the same Mac using Adobe Media Encoder. I clicked "Go," and walked down the hall.
Out of curiosity, I opened the same FCP project in Premiere Pro on the PC tower. Our network drives can be seen by Mac or PC, so the footage was already in place. With Apple QuickTime and the ProRes decoder on Windows loaded, the project opened in a snap.
For giggles I chose to export the project again, to compare it to the similarly-configured Mac --17 minutes on the PC, and it was done.
From two hours on Mac, down to 30 minutes on the same Mac, to 17 minutes on a PC.
I was hooked.
Can anyone please do a test HD video to compare FCP X vs CS6
Depends what you mean by export. Export to ProRes422, or 4:4:4 or h.264? In the same size in a different size?
In FcPX export to ProRes422 is using mostly the GPU and when you stay in the same resolution/size it basically takes as long as it takes to copy the renderfiles together. So harddrivespeed is important too.
Hi alban lets stick to the three codec types you suggested,export Sony XDCAM and another popular Editing format,To ProRes422, and 4:4:4 and h.264 using the same footage on both FCP X vs CS6 on the same MAC workstation.
The length doesn't have to be long say five minutes to log the correct times.
I can do it for FCPX on a Macbook 2011 and a Mac Pro with 4870 card. Since a MacPro is involved external FW 800 is best to keep results even.
I understand you are doing a comparison on FCP vs Premiere which both are great programs and i use them both based on my mood and I totally agree that a windows workstation comes cheaper and renders faster than a Mac Pro and some times can be a life saver for someone who time is an issue. But i also wish to stress something important that you people should take in account and warn some of you before running out there getting your selves some PC workstations and i am wishing to share my experience with you about this subject. I personally prefer the Mac OSX due to the their operating system which is a fact is a much more stable platform and speed to me comes in second destiny than reliability. Of course i should mention that i do freelance so i am not very pushed by time. Though meaning that if a video will take 30 min or 17 to me it doesn't make much difference. But to loose all of my work because my windows decided to crash that bothers me. I had windows PC's before. Many many of them. Every year i use to spend all of my savings on new mother board models, multi core processors, graphic cards etc. My last PC flew out of the window from the second floor straight down in the street. And truth be told that is how much i hate un-reliability with my equipment. So yes i am from those who like to pay more but have something more reliable. Once, the guy who use to build my PC towers for me told me that every year i build the fastest PC's he has ever build, seen and probably the first in my country. But you know what? If i sum the money i have spent for workstations, all the bells and whistles i could bought 10 Mac Pro towers. So before you go for the speed consider RELIABILITY. Thank you for your time.
Here's my take.
I've both Shared and Exported quite a few projects out of X. And what I've learned is that like most of the way X works - output is extremely contextural.
Which is to say I've watched one of my SHARE exports smoke through 50% of a project - only to slow to a crawl at a particular section - then speed back up later in the same render.
Looking back at the timeline, I could see that I'd done something complex like a stacked title or graphic there.
So I've had to ask myself "WHY the slowdown?" Is it that X is simply less capable at calculations? That seems suspect. Apple has all the coding talent it needs to write math algorithms that are clean.
So what's happening?
I've come to suspect (as a layman and NOT as a programmer) that when Apple tore down Legacy to build X, they made the conscious choice to structure the software to do the absolute best it could do to create clean, accurate output of whatever the user set up in the program. And sometimes we might think we're doing something sensible, but in truth we've made choices that really screw up the programs ability to render stuff.
This was driven home to me when I had a five layer stacked title some months ago. The export functions in X would take more than a half hour to render that simple stack!
When I noticed this, I realized that I could just compound the stack, and rather than trying to calculate each layer against every other one to "perfect" the export - it cranked through the compound in a couple of seconds without visibly degrading the result. It made me wonder if someone was trying to composite something like a heavily composited movie frame where the spaceships had to react to the star field precisely the "take your time and do this RIGHT" approach is appropriate - and if you're just doing the title for a corporate video a "just get the job done" process would be a lot better.
I'm NOT saying that long renders are always exclusively a users fault.
I AM saying I've learned that what I do as an editor can have a HUGE impact on render times - and a that the more I know about efficient X timeline practices, the faster and more efficient my renders have become.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
[Thomas Alexander] "But i also wish to stress something important that you people should take in account and warn some of you before running out there getting your selves some PC workstations and i am wishing to share my experience with you about this subject. I personally prefer the Mac OSX due to the their operating system which is a fact is a much more stable platform and speed to me comes in second destiny than reliability."
I've found Windows 7 to be extremely stable and reliable. As a long-time Mac guy with bad Windows XP memories, I've been really surprised at how well Win7 runs.
[Thomas Alexander] "And truth be told that is how much i hate un-reliability with my equipment. So yes i am from those who like to pay more but have something more reliable. Once, the guy who use to build my PC towers for me told me that every year i build the fastest PC's he has ever build, seen and probably the first in my country. But you know what? If i sum the money i have spent for workstations, all the bells and whistles i could bought 10 Mac Pro towers. So before you go for the speed consider RELIABILITY."
Makes sense... but you can buy reliable PC workstations, too. If you are building your own from scratch, and you are building the fastest PCs in your country, is it possible that you're overclocking too much or not cooling enough?
Here's where buying from a VAR who specializes in this sort of thing can help.
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
Yes, probably the best way is to build it on your own based on research. And first i would like to thank you for your solution regarding this subject but i am mostly against windows at the present and less against the actual hardware it self to be honest. Intel does some great processors, even for Mac. But i also would like to mention that when i was into PC workstations i never overclocked my PC workstations because i didn't won't to risk my equipment for faster speed. And this is what i mentioned also on my previous post. Back than when i was using PC's i was always using original softwares so cracked softwares are not the reason my PC's crashed numerous times. Though i must admit and say that technology has advanced since than and also has effected positively PC's due to the quality standards that they use made by the ISO organization for their manufacturing process but i don't wanna get into this right now. But the coding language of windows based PC's hasn't changed. The problem is into the codes that are not efficient as apple codes, which are clean and simple so they are more reliable. THAT is what really i am against. It is a personal battle and experience so if you work on a windows based softwares by buying a Mac and installing windows operating system it won't simply "fix" the problem. The actual problem is the code so my recommendation still is Mac, Mac, Mac... (Ex - Windows user)
Thomas Alexander | Independent Cinematographer
Soulman Films | Nicosia Cyprus | +357-97697640
Hi Thomas thank you for your input
True I agree with you that Mac’s are more stable and more responsive than Windows OS.
I’m Baffled since Apple has been using Intel chipset CPU and other hardware also used on PC’s, why aren’t Pro Macs as fast as PC’s were has Apple gone wrong.
I have a HP Elite HPE-190a three years old only had 8GB ram GTX – 260 Graphics, I upgraded to 16GB with view for 32GB and GTX-580 and has come up to speed.
I also have to agree with Walter that Windows 7 is stable provided the correct Hardware is used and NOT loaded with unnecessary untested Software that can make Win unstable.
I7 - 860 @ 2.80GHZ
16 GB DDR3
WIN-7 Ultimate 64-bit