FORUMS: list search recent posts

Newer is better, right?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Erik Lindahl
Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 1:14:30 pm

Just reinstalled / upgraded our trusty MacPro 2008 8-core machine and found something odd with the "new" editors around. Imported 217 clips (1 hour 42 mins) of ProRes 4444 media shot with an Alexa. All clips where on a FW800 drive, all apps have their media / cache folders on either a 300 MB/s + eSATA RAID or the internal SSD-drive (Samsung 830 / 512GB).

- Final Cut Pro 7 required less than 1 second to import all clips
- Final Cut Pro X required about 60 seconds to import all clips (!?)
- Premier Pro CS 6 required about 10 seconds to import all clips.

For reference I've disabled most of if not all the various apps analyzing abilities as these are quite useless for the given test. I truly do wonder what the hell FCPX is up to. FCP7 does a rather quick and dirty import where I beilive Premier Pro CS 6 does some media-scanning during import which takes a little time (I guess a side-effect of the all-native vs FCP7's QuickTime native way).

But again, what the hell is FCPX up to? Newer is better, right?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 1:49:10 pm

Remember that when FCP X imports QT files - even when no copies, proxies are created or analysis is done - there's still more happening than in FCP6/7. Specifically an event folder is written to the hard drive and each clip gets a corresponding alias file with metadata about the original. It takes a bit of time for X to read and write that info.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 1:53:05 pm

This would explain a bit, but creating aliases of the files in the finder take 1-2 seconds, not 60. I just can't se what FCPX is up to. It's also extremely sluggish to scroll through the file list when it's finally imported the clips.

I'm just doing linked imports, not copying or excessively analyzing the media.


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 1:51:36 pm

Are you aliasing the media or actually importing it (file copy) in to the Event?

Fcpx also generates peak files (thumbnails, waveforms, etc).

If copying the media, of course it going to take longer.

While the process might take a longer time, you can start working on the files right away and the process continues in the background.

You will also find there's no reel numbers. To me, that's the biggest bummer of the whole situation.


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 1:54:41 pm

The sad thing is it takes FCPX 60 seconds (give or take) before I have ANY control (the app is locked with a pop-up window). In 60 seconds I could have started to get working in FCP7 or with-in 60s I'll have fully generated thumbs in PrPro CS6. Seems odd.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 1:58:05 pm

What is the pop up window, the import dialog?


Return to posts index


Erik Lindahl
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 2:03:23 pm

"Processing files for import" pops up. Now, the second time I imported the files, it went much faster however. Maybe it's cached some info about the files somewhere?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 2:22:52 pm

[Erik Lindahl] ""Processing files for import" pops up. Now, the second time I imported the files, it went much faster however. Maybe it's cached some info about the files somewhere?
"


Sure.

In the event folder there's thumbnail and "peaks data".

I am wondering of it had to do with your fw drive having been "spun down" that first time?

While I agree that there's some slowness in the fcpx UI sometimes, importing isn't one of the areas where I feel things slow down all that much. It's not as fast as 7, though, but its doing more than 7 when importing.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 2:07:44 pm

I've generally found X to be slower in almost every interface function it does automatically, when you make a direct comparison to FCP 7, Media Composer or Premiere Pro. On the plus side, there are many things you can do as combined steps in a single function. For example, applying multiple keywords to a group of clips, is a lot faster than similar subclipping in 7. Or highlight five dissolves on a timeline and change the duration for all in one step. So you have to take the good with the bad.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Erik Lindahl
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 2:10:04 pm

Could be true. The general UI responsiveness is quite poor I'd say. This is quite an important part of a "pleasant user environment" so to speak. I was surprised to see how slow a seemingly simple operator was though.

How well, more tests to come. We'll have to move forward sooner or later.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 2:21:43 pm

I've frequently found that you have to wait a bit after a large import for the app to "settle down". That's even though the gauge sits at 100%, which would indicate no background activity. It could be a RAM flush problem. Sometimes, the app reposnds better once you close and relaunch.

In general, there are a lot of UI animations that by definition take time to execute. I personally think it sucks for the user experience, but it seems something that's targeted at people who don't edit for a living.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 24, 2012 at 1:41:47 am

[Erik Lindahl] "The sad thing is it takes FCPX 60 seconds (give or take) before I have ANY control (the app is locked with a pop-up window). In 60 seconds I could have started to get working in FCP7 or with-in 60s I'll have fully generated thumbs in PrPro CS6. Seems odd."

I'd be curious if you find today's update to FCPX any faster.


Return to posts index


Erik Lindahl
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 24, 2012 at 5:54:49 am

I will test it for sure!


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 24, 2012 at 7:47:50 am

It's just as slow as in 10.0.5. The new import-box has a few oddities:

1. I can't seem to search like I could in the old standard OSX open dialog-box (i.e. filter out to just show video-files).

2. The whole animation bull-s… is just fuggly, especially when using two screens. Stop it Apple.


Return to posts index

John Moffat
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 2:21:38 pm

Software getting slower apparently called "Wirth's Law"...

http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/10-laws-of-tech-the-rules-that-...


Return to posts index


Andreas Kiel
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 2:58:16 pm

It's actually not really true that FCPX does more during import than FCP in many cases it's just the opposite.
Most people just import Alexa right away into any of both apps. With FCP you were able to use the Alexa XML, which slowed down the process by maybe 1 or 2 seconds but you got quite a lot of metadata ready to use.
FCP used to write the metadata into the QT file structure during import. That's one the reason you see a new modification date on imported files even though you haven't touched them.
An example: We used to sync Alexa and other files externally with BWAV files. Using XML it "forced" FCP to make the file match the given metadata. This for example allowed just to open a QT file in any project with SCENE/TAKE/NOTE automatically seen.

Working with TC is kind of nightmare as well with FCPX.It can't handle multiple TC tracks and doesn't allow to use "virtual" TC tracks. With FCP that saved/saves us hours compared to FCPX.

In the beginning we did some XML import tests for subtitles average time with FCPX from import start to ready to work had been 6 Minutes (different machines same file) with FCP it had been around 10 seconds. Final rendering for this kind of job is still a kind of disaster. FCPX is about 150 times slower than FCP

Spherico
http://www.spherico.com/filmtools


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 3:08:09 pm

[Andreas Kiel] "It's actually not really true that FCPX does more during import than FCP in many cases it's just the opposite."

It is true, "more" is relative.

XML is certainly slower and less capable at the moment in FCPX.

What I meant by "more" is that with FCP7, when you import, there's no "Copy" of the file being made, FCP7 just reads the QT files in place.

In X, you can choose to copy it in to the Event, or make an alias to it in the Event. Both of these processes are verified (or so it seems) and it seem to take longer. Making an alias is obviously faster, but it still seems to take time to make that connection and verify it.

In FCP7, waveforms are only created when you add the clip to the timeline and the waveforms are on, or if you load the audio in to the viewer.

X does this almost automatically right from the start.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 3:18:03 pm

"It's actually not really true that FCPX does more during import than FCP in many cases it's just the opposite.
Most people just import Alexa right away into any of both apps. With FCP you were able to use the Alexa XML, which slowed down the process by maybe 1 or 2 seconds but you got quite a lot of metadata ready to use."


Yes, but if you simply drag the Alexa files into the FCP 7 browser, bypassing the XML import, none of this data is written into the media files. Thus a faster process in 7. Correct?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:05:17 am

[John Moffat] "Software getting slower apparently called "Wirth's Law"..."

Thanks for this.


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 2:30:30 pm

I've noticed the same thing: Importing for instance 100 XDCAM clips into FCP 7 just goes IMMEDIATELY. If you blink your eye, the importing dialogue box is gone.
In FCP X, it takes its time.

But as others said, it's doing a bit more then FCP 7 too, and I still am in love how in the audiowaveforms of FCP X you can immediately see where audio peaks. Still.

I hope, next to (hopefully) many requested new features in 10.0.6 (leaked in a Red Giant Movie tutorial video today), that there is still some optimizing of the software being done.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 3:04:07 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "(leaked in a Red Giant Movie tutorial video today)"

?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Newer is better, right?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 3:13:27 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Mathieu Ghekiere] "(leaked in a Red Giant Movie tutorial video today)"

?

"


Of the two new videos on their site, one doesn't appear to work, could that be it?

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Newer FCPX that is?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 3:15:37 pm

I saw the leak as well, at least the 2nd incarnation.

They did a tutorial for a new plugin and the splash screen was 0.6 and there are a few new buttons in the interface (audio mixing icon was one). Then it was changed and the splash screen had some odd number like 10.0.1.56 and then the video went private (was on Vimeo). The tutorial went up yesterday. I'd imagine if 0.6 isn't out today it would be next week (I'd hope).

BTW I can't help there's going to be some noteworthy change about the plugin architecture since BorisFX had a "Pre" webinar showing CC running in FCPX that is now months back. I'd imagine the release delay is that there's something in 0.6 they liked or needed.

A big day is coming soon. Probably should start another thread if we're going to spin off into rumors though.



Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Newer FCPX that is?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 3:22:52 pm

I don't think what you saw there was a mixer icon, Craig, but a new button for the info pane. It was highlighted the same way as the "i" used to be when the pane is slid out. Also, mixer sliders would be up and down, not left/right.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Newer FCPX that is?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 3:49:06 pm

[Marcus Moore] "I don't think what you saw there was a mixer icon, Craig, but a new button for the info pane. It was highlighted the same way as the "i" used to be when the pane is slid out. Also, mixer sliders would be up and down, not left/right."

You mean like the HUD button in Motion?



hud.png


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Newer FCPX that is?
on Oct 23, 2012 at 4:11:34 pm

So that's what that might be.

But FCPX creates new conventions so I'm not sure what the buttons really are. I think there were three new ones.

Interesting that people are posting screenshots.



Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]