FORUMS: list search recent posts

MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 21, 2017 at 4:45:16 pm

If you live in the Premiere Pro world, it's starting to make sense that you might not feel the new Mac Laptops are a very big deal.

If you've transitioned into the FCP X world, the evidence is mounting that they are a VERY big deal.

In Premiere, top mobile PC hardware appears to get you a very decent speed boost.

But running X on a modern Mac Laptop - and the productivity boost appears to be as much as 10X!







There appears to have been a solid factual basis for what many of us have been posting about regarding the viability of laptop based primary editing for the past few years.

We've said we feel our laptop systems feel as fluid as our prior desktop based systems. These tests may show why.

FWIW.

FWIW.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 21, 2017 at 5:30:05 pm

Please define "productivity boost" in real terms please, if you can. And, what is the source of the 10X number you mention, and how precisely is that calculation quantified?

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los Angeles


David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 21, 2017 at 8:21:46 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Feb 21, 2017 at 8:42:09 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Please define "productivity boost" in real terms please, if you can. And, what is the source of the 10X number you mention, and how precisely is that calculation quantified?"

Not sure how anyone could could argue that an export that takes a 1/10th of the time as another piece of software doing the same task on the same machine would be anything other than a "productivity boost", David.

The source is this "real world" comparison that the OP did with FCP X compared to his initial results where Premiere Pro handily out-performed FCP X running on the EXACT same machines.

When you've elected to run Premiere Pro - PC hardware is clearly superior by a decent margin.
When you are running FCP X on a MAC, however - it blows away Premiere Pro by a significantly larger factor in this test.

I don't suppose you have a similar problem with his saying that the PC he was using had superior performance in exporting on the PC rather than the newMacBook Pros, and he QUANTIFIED that with test results right? So if THAT improvement is legit. In what universe is the other comparison not equally legit?

I'm not a math wiz, but it appears that his results graph:


(Screen Cap from the Linked Video in my post above.)

Indicates exactly what I said.

A 10 fold productivity boosts in getting 4k renders done with FCP X running on a MacBook Pro verses the same software running on PC hardware.

That's relevant hard statistical information given the purpose of this group.

If you have stats showing Premiere Pro (or any other software) having better performance than what was shown for the Mac/X software combo - no matter the hardware configuration - please feel free to post the links here.

It's an open discussion.

(BY the way, if you're coming to JUST this graph - please watch the original referenced video for the entire test sequence - taken ALONE, this one image does not tell the whole story. It merely supports my specific point about a 10X improvement.)


Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 21, 2017 at 8:42:18 pm

[Bill Davis] "A 10 fold productivity boosts in getting 4k renders done with FCP X running on a MacBook Pro verses the same software running on PC hardware. "

I think if you'd have said this instead of

"But running X on a modern Mac Laptop - and the productivity boost appears to be as much as 10X!"

Then David wouldn't have chimed in. Final output renders are just a small part of the Productivity measure of an NLE


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 21, 2017 at 8:48:54 pm

[Steve Connor] " think if you'd have said this instead of

"But running X on a modern Mac Laptop - and the productivity boost appears to be as much as 10X!"

Then David wouldn't have chimed in. Final output renders are just a small part of the Productivity measure of an NLE"


Fair critique.

I must admit I do get a bit tired of ALWAYS having to "condition" every single thing I say positively about X in this forum. It's not enough that it's correct in sum - it must be correct in EVERY SINGLE interpretation and aspect or I'll get called on it.

I've come to accept it, here.

For some reason, no positive X post will EVER go unchallenged here.
😊

Wouldn't it just be AWFUL for the editing industry if it ever turned out to be half as good as some of us *think* it is!

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 21, 2017 at 8:50:22 pm

[Bill Davis] "For some reason, no positive X post will EVER go unchallenged here. "

As will no negative post either :)


Return to posts index


andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 6:26:16 pm

[Bill Davis] "For some reason, no positive X post will EVER go unchallenged here."

We are not challenging you or at least I am not. I am giving you actual information on why FCPX is faster when using an Intel CPU with Quick Sync. H.264 will render faster on a $2800.00 iMac than on an $8,000.00 Mac Pro. So much for FCPX making use of all the hardware on the Mac Pro. Do you see my point Bill? You could say "thanks for the info" rather than assuming we all hate FCPX. Most of us here say FCPX is a good program. When was the last time you said Premiere Pro was a good program?


Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 7:56:25 pm

[andy patterson] " I am giving you actual information on why FCPX is faster when using an Intel CPU with Quick Sync. H.264 will render faster on a $2800.00 iMac than on an $8,000.00 Mac Pro. "

It's not just rendering -- it is any action involving decoding (not just encoding) H264, such as playing content from the timeline or quickly going forward or reverse on the timeline using JKL commands. Testing both Premiere CC 2017 and FCPX 10.3.2 back-to-back on the same iMac shows Premiere is not only a lot slower at H264 export but it burns a lot more CPU cycles just playing content or moving around the timeline.

Unfortunately H264 encode/decode cannot be meaningfully accelerated using GPU methods, but Quick Sync (essentially an on-chip ASIC transcoder) does make a big difference. I think Adobe started minimally supporting Quick Sync on Windows but not on Macs. Why Adobe has been so slow to support Quick Sync and why still no Mac support, I have no idea. Until Adobe can figure this out, FCPX will retain a significant performance advantage over Premiere when editing, timeline rendering or exporting H264 media on a MacBook.

It would be interesting to test H264 export performance and timeline CPU utilization on both Premiere and FCPX on the same Mac Pro, which uses Xeon. That would eliminate Quick Sync and would be a more pure software efficiency comparison.

Despite the better efficiency and performance of FCPX, for some common workflows it doesn't make a huge difference. E.g, 4k H264 is now very widespread and even FCPX isn't fast enough (despite Quick Sync) to smoothly edit 4k H264 multicam on the fastest iMac made -- you have to generate proxy files. Premiere also now has proxy support and like FCPX, once proxy files are generated, multicam 4k H264 is lightning fast. So what's the difference from a performance standpoint if they both require proxy and they are both fast after generating those? FCPX will still be faster at H264 export (at least on a CPU with Quick Sync) but that is only one element of workflow.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 9:40:04 pm

[Joe Marler] "It's not just rendering -- it is any action involving decoding (not just encoding) H264, such as playing content from the timeline or quickly going forward or reverse on the timeline using JKL commands. Testing both Premiere CC 2017 and FCPX 10.3.2 back-to-back on the same iMac shows Premiere is not only a lot slower at H264 export but it burns a lot more CPU cycles just playing content or moving around the timeline."

Have you tried using Premiere Pro with a PC? I will put my PC against your iMac.

[Joe Marler] "I think Adobe started minimally supporting Quick Sync on Windows but not on Macs. Why Adobe has been so slow to support Quick Sync and why still no Mac support, I have no idea."

I don't think Adobe supports Quick Sync. There is a plugin I believe. I think Adobe was concerned about quality over speed and they wanted the same experience for the XEON and i7 computers.

[Joe Marler] "Until Adobe can figure this out, FCPX will retain a significant performance advantage over Premiere when editing, timeline rendering or exporting H264 media on a MacBook."

Once again have you tried using Premiere Pro on a PC?

[Joe Marler] "It would be interesting to test H264 export performance and timeline CPU utilization on both Premiere and FCPX on the same Mac Pro, which uses Xeon. That would eliminate Quick Sync and would be a more pure software efficiency comparison."

It has been done and Premiere Pro wins a few and FCPX wins a few. Having said that I will put my system against a $3,000.00 Mac Pro.


[Joe Marler] "espite the better efficiency and performance of FCPX, for some common workflows it doesn't make a huge difference. E.g, 4k H264 is now very widespread and even FCPX isn't fast enough (despite Quick Sync) to smoothly edit 4k H264 multicam on the fastest iMac made -- you have to generate proxy files. Premiere also now has proxy support and like FCPX, once proxy files are generated, multicam 4k H264 is lightning fast. So what's the difference from a performance standpoint if they both require proxy and they are both fast after generating those?"

Can you email me the 4K files? I am not saying I can play them with out trans coding but I would like to try it. Can your iMac play 5 layers of the native Red One R3D files with multiple effects applied? My PC can do it with ease. Some one stated their older Mac Pro did multi-cam better than the new Mac Pro when using Premiere Pro. The video below shows my PC doing multi-cam with Red One R3D 4K files. Having said that are you trying to watch 4K at full resolution?







Return to posts index


Joe Marler
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 10:34:50 pm

[andy patterson] "Have you tried using Premiere Pro with a PC? I will put my PC against your iMac"

I have used Premiere since CS4 and have obviously tested this many times on a PC. There is no question that a top-spec iMac can export H264 a lot faster than Premiere on either the same Mac hardware or a comparable PC -- and maybe any PC. In theory Premiere on a multi-socket PC with enough cores might eventually beat FCPX on a 4Ghz iMac at exporting to H264, but it would take a lot of cores. If Adobe ever truly supports Quick Sync or the other hardware-accelerated transcoding methods like NVENC or VCE, that would make a difference.

[andy patterson] "...I don't think Adobe supports Quick Sync. There is a plugin I believe. I think Adobe was concerned about quality over speed and they wanted the same experience for the XEON and i7 computers."

This is a quote from Adobe's Premiere CC 2015.3 feature list: "...initial support for Apple Metal and accelerated H.264 decode on Windows using Intel Quick Sync Video." There was a tiny footnote somewhere (which I can't find right now) which said "Windows only". However if Adobe is using Quick Sync, they aren't doing a very good job of it. https://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/features.html

[andy patterson] "...Can you email me the 4K files? I am not saying I can play them with out trans coding but I would like to try it. Can your iMac play 5 layers of the native Red One R3D files with multiple effects applied?"

These aren't special 4k H264 files -- they are from various cameras including Panasonic AG-DVX200, Sony A7RII, GoPro Hero5, DJI Phantom 4 Pro, etc. They all behave similarly on FCPX vs Premiere. They are too big to send but you can download sample files from those cameras from Vimeo or many other places. Just create a 3-camera 4k multicam, enable multicam playback, set the monitor to 1/4 res, then use JKL to scrub back and forth on the timeline. Re playing 5 layers of Red One with multiple effects -- I have no idea and have no current need to investigate that.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 23, 2017 at 3:15:56 am

[Joe Marler] "I have used Premiere since CS4 and have obviously tested this many times on a PC. There is no question that a top-spec iMac can export H264 a lot faster than Premiere on either the same Mac hardware or a comparable PC -- and maybe any PC. In theory Premiere on a multi-socket PC with enough cores might eventually beat FCPX on a 4Ghz iMac at exporting to H264, but it would take a lot of cores. If Adobe ever truly supports Quick Sync or the other hardware-accelerated transcoding methods like NVENC or VCE, that would make a difference."

I am not talking about export. I am talking about playback. Once again FCPX uses Quick Sync on export Premiere Pro does not.

[Joe Marler] "[andy patterson] "...I don't think Adobe supports Quick Sync. There is a plugin I believe. I think Adobe was concerned about quality over speed and they wanted the same experience for the XEON and i7 computers."

This is a quote from Adobe's Premiere CC 2015.3 feature list: "...initial support for Apple Metal and accelerated H.264 decode on Windows using Intel Quick Sync Video." There was a tiny footnote somewhere (which I can't find right now) which said "Windows only". However if Adobe is using Quick Sync, they aren't doing a very good job of it. https://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/features.html"


I think you are confusing decoding for encoding. Apple will use Metal, Windows will use Intel's Quikc Sync. Below is what is on Adobe's website. I think it is for real-time playback not rendering.

"Enhanced performance and stability

Apply more real-time effects and reduce dropped frames across your devices with initial support for Apple Metal and accelerated H.264 decode on Windows using Intel Quick Sync Video".

[Joe Marler] "These aren't special 4k H264 files -- they are from various cameras including Panasonic AG-DVX200, Sony A7RII, GoPro Hero5, DJI Phantom 4 Pro, etc. They all behave similarly on FCPX vs Premiere. They are too big to send but you can download sample files from those cameras from Vimeo or many other places. Just create a 3-camera 4k multicam, enable multicam playback, set the monitor to 1/4 res, then use JKL to scrub back and forth on the timeline. Re playing 5 layers of Red One with multiple effects -- I have no idea and have no current need to investigate that."

What if Premiere Pro plays Red One R3D files smoother than FCPX in muliti-cam? That was kind of my point because not everyone will make use of H.264. Having said that could the JKL keys in multi-cam be a bug?


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 11:32:12 pm

I have run FCPX on a 2014 MBP Retina 13" with 16GB Ram, and it runs reasonably well when using native files from a Canon 70D and a Sony A7sii, and works beautifully with ProRes HQ files.

EVERYTHING runs like gangbusters on my 2016 iMac 5K Retina w/32GB, and Sharing directly or Send to Compressor are both very speedy outputs.

Interestingly, I have a friend with a 2015 MacPro, and he claims he has such slow output through Compressor that he avoids using multi-pass and opts for single pass compression.

I'm sure something is wrong with his setup, but I noticed the anecdotal comment here about MacPro out-performed by the iMac.

Doug D


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 2:20:15 pm

Bill -

I'm looking at the graph and I've looked at the video and I still don't see the 10X you mentioned. The Dell rendered the short file in 18:51, the 2016 MBP rendered it in 5:13 - that's 3.5X better. The FCPX render doesn't matter because it was using different settings and is not a comparable item. 3.5X faster is a major wow, but I don't see how you get 10X out of those numbers. Unless your talking about X being 10X better than Adobe on a MBP, which of course begs the question, why would anyone bother to do that? Adobe is infinitely better than X on a Dell, since X is single system only, so maybe you can throw that onto your graph as well. Still 3.5X faster is a major wow.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 2:41:56 pm

But Herb, even if the renders were actually ten times faster, would that boost an editor's productivity by 10X?

I would say that if the job were only rendering then that might be true, but alas most editors actually edit and do a whole of storytelling.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los Angeles


David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 3:37:52 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "even if the renders were actually ten times faster, would that boost an editor's productivity by 10X?"

I spend 1.5 weeks working on an episode before I export my first rough cut, so speeding up the render would barely affect me at all, especially since I output ProRes and then let AME handle any h264 I need in the background (it's actually handled automatically by a second system networked to the first and using a watchfolder.) Since my deliverables are ProRes, and I'm' guessing this whole Quick-sync thing is only for h264, it would have little effect on my workflow.

But if your deliverables are h264 and you can speed up the process by a factor of 10, then that's impressive. It's even impressive if you can ramp up the speed by a factor of 3.5.

It does show the advantage of having the OS tuned for the NLE, but again it's Apple's vision of the future - cutting video on a laptop, tune everything for Youtube, appeal to the audience watching video on their iPhone. Nothing in that description applies to what I do.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 21, 2017 at 6:09:21 pm

The video only covers rendering out timelines? Hardly call that definitive proof of productivity improvements, rendering out versions is such a tiny part of the whole edit process.

Would love to see someone do a video covering the whole edit process on both systems. I know from my experience that FCPX is certainly quicker on my 2013 MBP than PPro is but I don't edit on PC laptops


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 21, 2017 at 6:19:34 pm

[Steve Connor] "The video only covers rendering out timelines? Hardly call that definitive proof of productivity improvements, rendering out versions is such a tiny part of the whole edit process."

I agree. There is much more to editing than rendering. FCPX can render faster with a laptop than with a Mac Pro to h.264 because FCPX uses Intel's Quick Sync. The Xeons CPUs do not have Quick Sync.

[Steve Connor] "Would love to see someone do a video covering the whole edit process on both systems. I know from my experience that FCPX is certainly quicker on my 2013 MBP than PPro is but I don't edit on PC laptops"

I don't use a laptop either. When using a Mac Pro Premiere can render faster than FCPX on some tests.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 21, 2017 at 8:50:40 pm

This might also prove that Apple only really cares about how it's hardware works with it's NLE...and doesn't care at all about performance with other NLEs. Which I guess is fine for them, as FCX sells a lot more copies than Avid and PPro. But does show a general "we really don't care to play well with others" attitude.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 21, 2017 at 9:01:49 pm

[Shane Ross] "But does show a general "we really don't care to play well with others" attitude."

Well, certainly not as long as some of those others are demanding adherence to traditions like OMF compatibility - things that were foundationally useful in their time, but are now getting so VERY long in the tooth.

Things are supposed to IMPROVE over time.

A descriptive language from the 1990s may simply not be good enough to go past the 2015s - unless the goal is to freeze industry practices at that point.

And there are many, I suspect, unwilling to trade historic compatibility for future advancement.

Time will tell.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 21, 2017 at 10:55:10 pm

[Bill Davis] "Well, certainly not as long as some of those others are demanding adherence to traditions like OMF compatibility"

Avid did move on...to AAF.

[Bill Davis] "Things are supposed to IMPROVE over time. "

And they are... slower than some like, because this gigantic machine that is high end workflows is a big ship that turns slowly. And changing things that work doesn't make sense to a lot of people, even if "this is better!" So...what we have works, and works great, why change for the sake of change? But I guess that's the dinosaur in me talking. At one point Avid took TOO LONG to change, and often resisted. Apple and FCP Legacy changed that, and they are now getting more on track. YAY COMPETITION!

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 21, 2017 at 9:12:25 pm

Not so sure your argument is a winning argument Shane - frankly, if Apple can optimize their hardware and software to make the combination work together in a more effective way, that's just good business.

Meanwhile, Bill's declaring that faster renders create a 10X increase in productivity is like suggesting that if you drive to the office 10X faster your entire workday will gain a 10X increase in productivity.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los Angeles


David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 21, 2017 at 9:23:05 pm

What I wrote:

"But running X on a modern Mac Laptop - and the productivity boost appears to be as much as 10X!"

What David thought I wrote:

"But running X on a modern Mac Laptop - and the productivity -- in EVERY aspect of your operation, from finding clients to planning, shooting, audio sweetening, rendering, mastering, delivery, including everything you do on your timeline which includes deciding which cuts to make where - and, of course billing, right through tucking your kids in at night and packing for your next vacation - will get a guaranteed! -- boost (which) appears to be as much as 10X!

How did I ever imagine thats NOT actually what I wrote.

😜

(this is fun!)

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 21, 2017 at 11:25:44 pm
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Feb 21, 2017 at 11:44:40 pm

The export times between PPro and X have been posted a lot over the last few years so while I'm not surprised that X is faster (as it has been in all the other online videos I've seen) though the difference in the speed always makes me wonder if the tests were setup appropriately. Not saying that they weren't, but with differences like that my gut reaction is always to second guess the results at first.

IMO Apple hardware complaints seem to fall into one of two camps. Apple-centric complains (ex. long hardware upgrade cycles, too narrow of performance gaps between product lines, etc.,) and cross platform complains (PCs are faster, more expandable, etc.,). This vid was mostly a cross platform comparison but ends with a bit of an Apple-centric tease (the 2015 MPB vs the 2016 MPB).

What I do find interesting are comparisons of MBPs to iMacs to nMPs. Typically I think people expect pretty distinct good, better, best type results but in reality the results are surprising close/mixed. There is always a point of diminishing returns on the cost/speed scale, but it's surprising how quickly that point is reached in a Mac environment. Are the lower-end machines punching above their weight or are the higher-end machines underperforming?

I think another interesting variable would be to throw a couple of hackintoshes into the mix. One of the counter points to complaints about the age of the Mac Pro is that components haven't changed very much, so why not put a modern, top-end Hack against a nMP? Booting a Mac into Windows might be easier to accomplish the same type of test, but I don't know if there are any performance penalties (ex. less optimized drivers) while running Windows on a Mac.

Many times Bill has commented on how smooth X is on his laptop compared to his desktop and I would not be surprised if Apple is 'tuning' X for MBPs and iMacs because those are the mass market machines. That's what sells (especially laptops). And if you are cynical enough you could theorize that this is the self-fulling prophecy that Apple uses to kill the Mac pro (why optimize apps for a MacPro if no one is buying it, why buy a MacPro if apps aren't optimized for it).


EDIT: I know lots of things get tossed around in here, but I think the political insults are unnecessary. Points can easily be made w/o them.

EDIT #2:
[Bill Davis] "For some reason, no positive X post will EVER go unchallenged here.
😊"


No post on any NLE goes unchallenged here, and that's the great thing about being here.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 12:57:28 am

OK, so I watched the video and there are some obvious things. Apple is using slower RAM than the Dell and the Dell uses an NVIDIA GPU, so Premiere can take advantage of CUDA there. He primarily compares renders times, which I'm not so sure is all that important in the grand scheme of things.

The 4K playback test is more interesting to me. I'm surprised that the Dell had so much trouble with the 4K timeline in Premiere. It echoes what I've seen on my own 2015 MBP. 4K in Premiere doesn't play smoothly. It's very smooth in FCPX. Seems like there are some performance optimization issues, which maybe Apple is doing a better job at than Adobe.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 1:03:37 am

I've seen a few vids claiming their hackintosh (running i7) costs under a grand and outperforms a MacPro by 20%.

_______________________________________________________________________
http://BretFX.com FCP X Plugins & Templates for Editors & Motion Graphics Artists


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 1:06:32 am

As someone who made a Hackintosh, yup, mine outperforms the MacPro in many areas...but is SLIGHTLY slower in the processor realm. But that's because the MP have the Dual Xenons and I'm running an i7. But it's not much slower. And this machine cost me $1600.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 1:10:37 am

Shouldn't a modern i7 outperform a lower end NMP in almost every way? Playback of h264 should be better, export of h264 should be insanely better and the GPU should be better in the hackintosh.

_______________________________________________________________________
http://BretFX.com FCP X Plugins & Templates for Editors & Motion Graphics Artists


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 1:29:45 am

OK, my Hack did better than the 6 core nMP, but not as good as the top of the line 12-Core.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 2:49:03 am

[Andrew Kimery] "The export times between PPro and X have been posted a lot over the last few years so while I'm not surprised that X is faster (as it has been in all the other online videos I've seen) though the difference in the speed always makes me wonder if the tests were setup appropriately. Not saying that they weren't, but with differences like that my gut reaction is always to second guess the results at first."

I imagine the settings are about the same. FCPX is using Intel's Quick sync for h.264 renders. There are software titles for the PC that can use Intel's Quikc Sync.

[Andrew Kimery] "I think another interesting variable would be to throw a couple of hackintoshes into the mix. One of the counter points to complaints about the age of the Mac Pro is that components haven't changed very much, so why not put a modern, top-end Hack against a nMP? Booting a Mac into Windows might be easier to accomplish the same type of test, but I don't know if there are any performance penalties (ex. less optimized drivers) while running Windows on a Mac."

There are bench marks of the iMac rendering 10X faster than the Mac Pro. As I stated it is because of Intel's Quick Sync feature in the i7 CPUs. The Xeon CPU do not have Intel's Quick Sync feature.

Keep in mind the Mac Pro can probably playback more layers of the Red One R3D codec in real-time than a Macbook Pro. The Mac Pro will also probably render to HDV, MJPEG and the Cineform codec faster than an iMac.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 1:49:33 pm

[Shane Ross] "This might also prove that Apple only really cares about how it's hardware works with it's NLE...and doesn't care at all about performance with other NLEs. Which I guess is fine for them, as FCX sells a lot more copies than Avid and PPro. But does show a general "we really don't care to play well with others" attitude."

Not necessarily. Could be Adobe's lack of interest in improving performance over new "features". It clearly is an advantage to Apple to have the resources of OS development, but Adobe knows that and can respond accordingly. The fact of the matter is, we don't know.

--------------------------
Brett Sherman
One Man Band (If it's video related I'll do it!)
I work for an institution that probably does not want to be associated with my babblings here.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 3:56:04 pm

[andy patterson] "I imagine the settings are about the same. FCPX is using Intel's Quick sync for h.264 renders. There are software titles for the PC that can use Intel's Quikc Sync. "

Do you happen to know why Adobe doesn't support Quick Sync in the same way? I've tried googling it, but haven't come up with any info (other than people asking if/when Adobe will support it). I've found third party encoding plugins that support it and work with Premiere Pro, but they are Windows-only.


[Brett Sherman] "Not necessarily. Could be Adobe's lack of interest in improving performance over new "features". It clearly is an advantage to Apple to have the resources of OS development, but Adobe knows that and can respond accordingly. The fact of the matter is, we don't know."

Adobe also has to worry about being cross platform which typically necessitates running well on everything, but being optimized for nothing.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 4:29:10 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Do you happen to know why Adobe doesn't support Quick Sync in the same way? I've tried googling it, but haven't come up with any info (other than people asking if/when Adobe will support it). I've found third party encoding plugins that support it and work with Premiere Pro, but they are Windows-only."

I think they felt as though the quality would not be as good. I think Quick Sync will only work with single pass renders. My system renders pretty fast with a mediocre GTX 1060 and a mediocre 3.4 GHZ Haswell Quad Core CPU. I imagine what a GTX 1080 and 8 Core CPU will do. AMD will be launching 8 core CPU for under $500.00 in a week or two.

[Andrew Kimery] "Adobe also has to worry about being cross platform which typically necessitates running well on everything, but being optimized for nothing."

That does make things harder for Adobe. If I were Adobe I think I would drop support for Apple (in two years from now). PCs are not evil : )


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 4:52:50 pm

[andy patterson] "I think they felt as though the quality would not be as good. I think Quick Sync will only work with single pass renders. My system renders pretty fast with a mediocre GTX 1060 and a mediocre 3.4 GHZ Haswell Quad Core CPU. "

Possibly. From what I've Googled, Quick Sync gets improvements with each new CPU generation from Intel and the Kaby lake CPUs will be able to handle 10-bit video so the quality seems to increasing a lot with each update.

[andy patterson] "That does make things harder for Adobe. If I were Adobe I think I would drop support for Apple (in two years from now). PCs are not evil : )"

That probably wouldn't go well as I'd bet the majority of Adobe's base are Apple users. Even if Adobe went Windows-only it wouldn't solve their problem of having to support a nearly infinite combination of hardware, drivers, chipsets, etc.,.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 6:07:51 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Feb 22, 2017 at 6:09:32 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "That probably wouldn't go well as I'd bet the majority of Adobe's base are Apple users."

I don't know if I would take that bet. ☺ I could possibly see the base for dedicated Photoshop and Illustrator users (designers and photographers) skewing a bit more towards OSX, but I would be surprised if motion designers, compositors, 3D/VFX artists, video editors, etc., were as Mac centric as their print/design/photography counterparts. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I feel like there's been a steady stream of 3D, VFX and mograph artists switching to Windows PCs as they continue to offer more and better performance per dollar than any offerings from Apple. I could be completely wrong, but I would be really curious to know what the actual numbers are.

Shawn



Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 6:40:59 pm

[Shawn Miller] "I don't know if I would take that bet. ☺ I could possibly see the base for dedicated Photoshop and Illustrator users (designers and photographers) skewing a bit more towards OSX, but I would be surprised if motion designers, compositors, 3D/VFX artists, video editors, etc., were as Mac centric as their print/design/photography counterparts. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I feel like there's been a steady stream of 3D, VFX and mograph artists switching to Windows PCs as they continue to offer more and better performance per dollar than any offerings from Apple. I could be completely wrong, but I would be really curious to know what the actual numbers are."

Adobe products seem to favor the PC according to the benchmarks. Adobe could just say to the Apple users the PC works just fine and we will no longer support Apple. Having said that I could use the CC on a Mac easy enough but as I have stated Adobe seems to work better on the PC. Adobe should go PC only and let the performance get even better.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 6:52:02 pm

[andy patterson] "Adobe should go PC only and let the performance get even better."

They've been there before and it was not a winning strategy.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 7:57:54 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[andy patterson] "Adobe should go PC only and let the performance get even better."

They've been there before and it was not a winning strategy."


Actually it was at the time. When Apple opted to start using Intel CPUs Adobe decided to give it another go with Premiere Pro on the Mac. Sales were higher than expected so they have kept supporting both Mac and PC. If Apple opted for Motorola CPUs next week I am sure Adobe we have do decided if it is worth it or not.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 7:06:58 pm

[Shawn Miller] "I don't know if I would take that bet. ☺ I could possibly see the base for dedicated Photoshop and Illustrator users (designers and photographers) skewing a bit more towards OSX, but I would be surprised if motion designers, compositors, 3D/VFX artists, video editors, etc., were as Mac centric as their print/design/photography counterparts. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I feel like there's been a steady stream of 3D, VFX and mograph artists switching to Windows PCs as they continue to offer more and better performance per dollar than any offerings from Apple. I could be completely wrong, but I would be really curious to know what the actual numbers are."

Editing, at least in my experience, is very Mac-centric. I'm over 15yrs in and between CA and IN I've seen maybe 5 or 6 PC-based NLEs in use. Maybe the shift to PCs will keep happening naturally (depending on what Apple does), but if Adobe just killed Mac support out of the blue it would go very, very poorly for them.

[andy patterson] "Adobe could just say to the Apple users the PC works just fine and we will no longer support Apple."

Adobe tried that with PPro and came back to the Mac because a huge part of the editing community is on the Mac. Avid merely hinted that they might try that and there was a near riot from their Mac user base.

I've thought about switching a lot in the past couple of years, but as a freelancer in LA I move around a lot and it's just easier to have a Mac because almost everyone else has a Mac. Switching would be more of a headache than it's worth to me. If anything I'll do a Hack before I go Windows. Again, not because I have anything against Windows, but just because I work in a Mac-centric part of the industry in a Mac-centric city.

[andy patterson] "Adobe should go PC only and let the performance get even better."

It doesn't work like that. Apple can wring out a performance boost because they control both the hardware and the software. Adobe can't wring out a performance boost by going PC-only because they still have to support millions of possible PC configurations. Now if Adobe went Mac-only then they might be able to better optimize their software for Mac hardware because Macs have very few variables compared to PCs. Or Adobe could build their own Adobe-brand PCs and optimize their software for their machines, but I don't see that happening either. ;)


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 7:49:29 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "[Shawn Miller] "I don't know if I would take that bet. ☺ I could possibly see the base for dedicated Photoshop and Illustrator users (designers and photographers) skewing a bit more towards OSX, but I would be surprised if motion designers, compositors, 3D/VFX artists, video editors, etc., were as Mac centric as their print/design/photography counterparts. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I feel like there's been a steady stream of 3D, VFX and mograph artists switching to Windows PCs as they continue to offer more and better performance per dollar than any offerings from Apple. I could be completely wrong, but I would be really curious to know what the actual numbers are."

Editing, at least in my experience, is very Mac-centric. I'm over 15yrs in and between CA and IN I've seen maybe 5 or 6 PC-based NLEs in use. Maybe the shift to PCs will keep happening naturally (depending on what Apple does), but if Adobe just killed Mac support out of the blue it would go very, very poorly for them."


I do wonder about that though - is it industry , strata or geography? I've been banging around in corporate and indie film production for about as long, and in my corner of the creative universe (event, corporate, indie, local, etc)... editors aren't nearly as OS centric. I think I've only been required to use a Mac twice in my whole career... and that was at Microsoft. ☺ Like I said though, I don't have any real numbers to support my beliefs, but I would be interested in knowing what the breakdown is.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 8:08:54 pm

[Shawn Miller] " I've been banging around in corporate and indie film production for about as long, and in my corner of the creative universe (event, corporate, indie, local, etc)... editors aren't nearly as OS centric. I think I've only been required to use a Mac twice in my whole career... and that was at Microsoft. ☺ Like I said though, I don't have any real numbers to support my beliefs, but I would be interested in knowing what the breakdown is. "

and in my corner of the industry I haven't seen hardly any shops using PC's at all, I haven't edited on a PC based NLE for at least a decade


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 8:19:45 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Feb 22, 2017 at 8:22:44 pm

[Steve Connor] "[Shawn Miller] " I've been banging around in corporate and indie film production for about as long, and in my corner of the creative universe (event, corporate, indie, local, etc)... editors aren't nearly as OS centric. I think I've only been required to use a Mac twice in my whole career... and that was at Microsoft. ☺ Like I said though, I don't have any real numbers to support my beliefs, but I would be interested in knowing what the breakdown is. "

and in my corner of the industry I haven't seen hardly any shops using PC's at all, I haven't edited on a PC based NLE for at least a decade"


I don't doubt that - what kind of work do you mostly do? As kind of an interesting side note, of the people that I know who do the same kind of work as I do, hardly anyone uses Vegas (anymore), Avid or FCPX, and the split between Premiere Pro and FCP Classic seems to be 70/30ish (probably less for FCPc, now that I think about it). It makes me wonder how the conversation might be different on the Premiere Pro forum.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 8:29:10 pm
Last Edited By Steve Connor on Feb 22, 2017 at 8:31:24 pm

[Shawn Miller] "I don't doubt that - what kind of work do you mostly do?"

A few years ago it was Documentary but it's mostly Corporate and Web now with occasional music Vid and short films


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 8:46:15 pm

[Steve Connor] "[Shawn Miller] "I don't doubt that - what kind of work do you mostly do?"

A few years ago it was Documentary but it's mostly Corporate and Web now"


That is interesting - I wonder what explains the differences we're seeing in OS preference... region maybe?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 23, 2017 at 6:53:36 am

[Shawn Miller] "That is interesting - I wonder what explains the differences we're seeing in OS preference... region maybe?"

I mainly do doc/unscripted as well as larger web/digital companies. Especially in LA a lot of the work is directly or indirectly connected to TV and film (and broadcast/film is Mac-country in LA) so I think that has something to do with it. You are either working on a TV/film project or you are working with people that have worked on TV/film projects and bring their workflow with them. Or you have no connection to TV/film, but you aspire to work in TV/film so you mimic their workflows as best you can in order to become knowledgable about them.

But even when I was in Indiana it was Mac-centric for audio and video post production. Corporate guys seemed to be mainly PC and I always assumed that had something to do with their clients and/or IT departments being PC-centric (birds of a feather and all that). Plus (real or imagined) there is always the 'Apple tax'.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 23, 2017 at 5:40:45 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "

[Shawn Miller] "That is interesting - I wonder what explains the differences we're seeing in OS preference... region maybe?"

I mainly do doc/unscripted as well as larger web/digital companies. Especially in LA a lot of the work is directly or indirectly connected to TV and film (and broadcast/film is Mac-country in LA) so I think that has something to do with it. You are either working on a TV/film project or you are working with people that have worked on TV/film projects and bring their workflow with them. Or you have no connection to TV/film, but you aspire to work in TV/film so you mimic their workflows as best you can in order to become knowledgable about them."


I don't know very many people who fit that description... not locally. ☺ Of the corporate producers I know, about half of them are on Windows and the other half is on OSX. As (maybe) a curious side note, it seems like the more they lean toward 3D/VFX/mograph work (AE, C4D, Max), the more likely they seem to be on Windows, I've also seen a number of people switching in the last few years as they move from FCP, or consider hardware upgrades.

[Andrew Kimery] "
But even when I was in Indiana it was Mac-centric for audio and video post production. Corporate guys seemed to be mainly PC and I always assumed that had something to do with their clients and/or IT departments being PC-centric (birds of a feather and all that). Plus (real or imagined) there is always the 'Apple tax'."


This makes sense to me. It used to be that IT departments in general dictated what kind of machine you did your work on - getting anything other than what was available from an approved vendor could be challenging. It's not so much that way anymore, but probably explains things to some extent. Even in my company, a lot of the designers are Mac centric, but the folks who do more 3D and mograph work are pretty evenly split.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 24, 2017 at 6:48:30 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Of the corporate producers I know, about half of them are on Windows and the other half is on OSX. As (maybe) a curious side note, it seems like the more they lean toward 3D/VFX/mograph work (AE, C4D, Max), the more likely they seem to be on Windows, I've also seen a number of people switching in the last few years as they move from FCP, or consider hardware upgrades.
"


Over the last 10yrs or so there certainly seems to have been an influx of Macs into the 'no one ever got fired for buying IBM' world. For 3D and animation work I too generally think of that as PC dominated. Which makes since because a render farm of PCs can be cheaper and faster than a render farm of Macs and PCs have a lot more flexibility when it comes to GPUs, drivers, etc.,. I mean, it's only been in the last few years (I think since 10.9) that you could put pretty much any GPU in a Mac as opposed to only Mac-specific GPUs. AFAIK even now non-Mac GPUs still don't fully function if installed on a Mac (you lose the boot screen which means no access to pre-boot features like Safe Mode, selecting a different boot drive, etc.,).


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 24, 2017 at 7:37:36 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "[Shawn Miller] "Of the corporate producers I know, about half of them are on Windows and the other half is on OSX. As (maybe) a curious side note, it seems like the more they lean toward 3D/VFX/mograph work (AE, C4D, Max), the more likely they seem to be on Windows, I've also seen a number of people switching in the last few years as they move from FCP, or consider hardware upgrades.
"

Over the last 10yrs or so there certainly seems to have been an influx of Macs into the 'no one ever got fired for buying IBM' world. For 3D and animation work I too generally think of that as PC dominated. Which makes since because a render farm of PCs can be cheaper and faster than a render farm of Macs and PCs have a lot more flexibility when it comes to GPUs, drivers, etc.,. I mean, it's only been in the last few years (I think since 10.9) that you could put pretty much any GPU in a Mac as opposed to only Mac-specific GPUs. AFAIK even now non-Mac GPUs still don't fully function if installed on a Mac (you lose the boot screen which means no access to pre-boot features like Safe Mode, selecting a different boot drive, etc.,)."


Good points all, I didn't know that non-Mac GPUs behaved any differently on the newer versions of the Mac OS. What's really kind of interesting and exiting in the world of 3D right now is the rise of powerful, inexpensive renderers that can give you fast previews of your work. With enough CPU or GPU power, you can now limit the number of times that you have to render out previews before sending out to a render farm - and this is where I'm seeing more 3D artists switch to Windows... they want faster previews, and Apple just isn't offering the hardware that will let them do that.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 24, 2017 at 7:39:31 pm

[Shawn Miller] "and this is where I'm seeing more 3D artists switch to Windows... they want faster previews, and Apple just isn't offering the hardware that will let them do that.
"


Nor will they ever, I suspect


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 24, 2017 at 7:51:43 pm

[Steve Connor] "[Shawn Miller] "and this is where I'm seeing more 3D artists switch to Windows... they want faster previews, and Apple just isn't offering the hardware that will let them do that.
"

Nor will they ever, I suspect"


That's too bad... I would like to have an Apple workstation in my setup at some point. You're probably right though, they don't seem all that interested in building the kind of machine that would be useful to me. ☹

Shawn



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 24, 2017 at 7:55:02 pm

[Shawn Miller] "You're probably right though, they don't seem all that interested in building the kind of machine that would be useful to me. ☹"

and Bill will no doubt tell us what a great move by Apple that is


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 24, 2017 at 8:10:49 pm

[Steve Connor] "and Bill will no doubt tell us what a great move by Apple that is"

Nope.

I'm sure It SUCKS for the fraction at the top of the industry that needs that type of capability.

But not every car maker competes in the space that the guys building NHRA dragsters do.

That's just how the world works.

BTW, isn't it interesting that the new electric cars are WAY faster "off the line" than the vast majority of gas powered vehicles? May be something to learn from that. Or not. Who really knows?

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 24, 2017 at 8:23:55 pm

[Bill Davis] "BTW, isn't it interesting that the new electric cars are WAY faster "off the line" than the vast majority of gas powered vehicles? May be something to learn from that. Or not. Who really knows?"

Not really, the gas powered cars will soon be passing the electric cars afterwards :)


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 24, 2017 at 8:53:42 pm

[Bill Davis] "[Steve Connor] "and Bill will no doubt tell us what a great move by Apple that is"

Nope.

I'm sure It SUCKS for the fraction at the top of the industry that needs that type of capability."


That's the thing though - we're not just talking about the top of the industry. The kind of artists I'm talking about span the media creation landscape from no budget, indie filmmakers to teams of top end motion graphics and VFX folks.

[Bill Davis] "
But not every car maker competes in the space that the guys building NHRA dragsters do."


What keeps Apple from offering more powerful GPUs and CPUs in the workstations they do make though? That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the offerings of other PC integrators...

Shawn



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 26, 2017 at 4:59:04 am

[Shawn Miller] "What keeps Apple from offering more powerful GPUs and CPUs in the workstations they do make though? That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the offerings of other PC integrators...
"


I suspect maybe the cultural impact of the famous "4 quadrants" drawing Steve Jobs did about keeping the company focus on making fewer products, but making them as excellent as possible?

Purely speculation on my part.

But the fact that those famously "under spec'd and under RAM'd" Touchbar MacBook Pros are crushing some higher spec'd competitors in open comparative performance tests speak to the value of looking beyond the easy answers.

At one level (how much RAM is on board, etc.) they maybe shouldn't work as well as they do - yet they actually DO work really, really well.

Maybe the path to satisfaction isn't always more choice, but being given a choice that just works better than the other alternatives?

Again, just guessing.

; )

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 26, 2017 at 9:28:30 am

[Bill Davis] "[Shawn Miller] "What keeps Apple from offering more powerful GPUs and CPUs in the workstations they do make though? That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the offerings of other PC integrators...
"

I suspect maybe the cultural impact of the famous "4 quadrants" drawing Steve Jobs did about keeping the company focus on making fewer products, but making them as excellent as possible?"


Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense to me. How would Apple be losing focus by updating the CPUs and GPUs in the Mac Pro?

[Bill Davis] "
But the fact that those famously "under spec'd and under RAM'd" Touchbar MacBook Pros are crushing some higher spec'd competitors in open comparative performance tests speak to the value of looking beyond the easy answers."


Crushing which competitors (not all of them I presume)... doing what? And... weren't we talking about workstations? ☺

[Bill Davis] "Maybe the path to satisfaction isn't always more choice, but being given a choice that just works better than the other alternatives?"

Sure, and for many - the choice that "just works" is a machine with faster GPUs and newer, faster, multiple CPUs. ☺

Shawn



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 26, 2017 at 5:28:23 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense to me. How would Apple be losing focus by updating the CPUs and GPUs in the Mac Pro?
"


Managing a much wider array of retail SKUs would just be the beginning. Optimizing the App code for half a dozen CPUs and GPUs with different designs, strengths and weaknesses could easily turn into an unnecessary hassle. One strength of the Apple approach is that you're pretty well assured that if it's an Apple system, everything will be pre-tested to work smoothly as a system (presuming no non-spec anomalies - which ALL computer parts are subject to.)



[Shawn Miller] "Crushing which competitors (not all of them I presume)... doing what? And... weren't we talking about workstations? ☺
"


I'd cite editing magnetically for expanded storyline construction efficiency and stuff like the render speed advantages many have reported because the Mac OS, Hardware and Software is properly optimized for an All Apple workflow.

[Shawn Miller] "Sure, and for many - the choice that "just works" is a machine with faster GPUs and newer, faster, multiple CPUs. ☺
"


I'm not convinced the "workstation" tag is long for this world. Not with the push towards modularization of components such as outboard GPUs making their way towards us due to modern fast I/O pipes. Who knows, really what the future will bring us? If I were a betting guy, I'd probably bet AGAINST the focus remaining on single box "workstation" development in the future. I'd bet more on modular components attached to "at will" - as the location and tasks demand. Your I/O module might look like a laptop with some on-board storage and a utility screen, but if you're at the "office" you connect to assets including perhaps more CPU or GPU power, nicer displays, and a fatter pipe.

When you leave that situation, you keep the keyboard and personal device with decent memory and the core capabilities you need, until you attach it to the network at work, or in the clients space, where you leverage THAT array of peripheral assets to work with.

The "workstation" becomes kinda irrelevant in that scenario.

It's been broken down and distributed with dedicated modules doing what USED to be housed in the workstation better and faster?

Just thinking out loud here.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 27, 2017 at 12:13:58 am
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Feb 27, 2017 at 5:39:14 pm

[Bill Davis] "
Managing a much wider array of retail SKUs would just be the beginning. Optimizing the App code for half a dozen CPUs and GPUs with different designs, strengths and weaknesses could easily turn into an unnecessary hassle. One strength of the Apple approach is that you're pretty well assured that if it's an Apple system, everything will be pre-tested to work smoothly as a system (presuming no non-spec anomalies - which ALL computer parts are subject to.)"


Who said anything about offering a wide range of CPUs and GPUs? Apple could still limit their offerings to two builds... just with better hardware. I find it strange that you wouldn't want that.

[Bill Davis] "[Shawn Miller] "Crushing which competitors (not all of them I presume)... doing what? And... weren't we talking about workstations? ☺"

I'd cite editing magnetically for expanded storyline construction efficiency and stuff like the render speed advantages many have reported because the Mac OS, Hardware and Software is properly optimized for an All Apple workflow. "


So... what does that do for 3D, VFX and motion graphics artists who need faster computers? That was what we were talking about wasn't it?

[Bill Davis] "I'm not convinced the "workstation" tag is long for this world. Not with the push towards modularization of components such as outboard GPUs making their way towards us due to modern fast I/O pipes. Who knows, really what the future will bring us? If I were a betting guy, I'd probably bet AGAINST the focus remaining on single box "workstation" development in the future. I'd bet more on modular components attached to "at will" - as the location and tasks demand. Your I/O module might look like a laptop with some on-board storage and a utility screen, but if you're at the "office" you connect to assets including perhaps more CPU or GPU power, nicer displays, and a fatter pipe."

None of this precludes the need for fast workstations today.

[Bill Davis] "The "workstation" becomes kinda irrelevant in that scenario. "

Right... and if that becomes the reality, we'll make our choices accordingly, just like we do today. ☺

Shawn



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 27, 2017 at 1:23:47 am

[Bill Davis] "If I were a betting guy, I'd probably bet AGAINST the focus remaining on single box "workstation" development in the future. I'd bet more on modular components attached to "at will" - as the location and tasks demand. Your I/O module might look like a laptop with some on-board storage and a utility screen, but if you're at the "office" you connect to assets including perhaps more CPU or GPU power, nicer displays, and a fatter pipe.
"


That works in theory, but is unreliable in actual practice. For example, a MBP with an external chassis with GPU is touchy at best. The better bet is cloud processing, which is already done in the VFX world.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 27, 2017 at 6:10:28 pm

[Oliver Peters] "

[Bill Davis] "If I were a betting guy, I'd probably bet AGAINST the focus remaining on single box "workstation" development in the future. I'd bet more on modular components attached to "at will" - as the location and tasks demand. Your I/O module might look like a laptop with some on-board storage and a utility screen, but if you're at the "office" you connect to assets including perhaps more CPU or GPU power, nicer displays, and a fatter pipe.
"

That works in theory, but is unreliable in actual practice. For example, a MBP with an external chassis with GPU is touchy at best. The better bet is cloud processing, which is already done in the VFX world."


Not quite yet. Cloud rendering is only viable for final gather renders - you upload your finished 3D application project file, then a service renders that project out and sends the finished frames back to you. Otoy has been working on cloud processing for Octane, but the technology/service probably won't be mainstream for a while (if ever). I'm not confident that we'll see enough meaningful advances in bandwidth speed and reliability to make application cloud processing a reality.







Lastly, won't running compute hungry applications in the cloud necessarily mean subscription? How does everyone feel about that?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 24, 2017 at 8:21:45 pm

[Shawn Miller] "What's really kind of interesting and exiting in the world of 3D right now is the rise of powerful, inexpensive renderers that can give you fast previews of your work. With enough CPU or GPU power, you can now limit the number of times that you have to render out previews"

I'll second that. It makes a massive productivity difference in a 3D workflow.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 8:47:43 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "[andy patterson] "Adobe could just say to the Apple users the PC works just fine and we will no longer support Apple."

Adobe tried that with PPro and came back to the Mac because a huge part of the editing community is on the Mac. Avid merely hinted that they might try that and there was a near riot from their Mac user base."


Premiere Pro was only brought back to the Mac because Apple opted for Intel CPUs. If Apple opted for Motorola next week Adobe would have to decide if it is worth it or not. Adobe already has to worry about Open CL and CUDA both. I think they should stick to one or the other. I would hate to have them write for the instruction set of a non X86 CPU on top of that.

[Andrew Kimery] "I've thought about switching a lot in the past couple of years, but as a freelancer in LA I move around a lot and it's just easier to have a Mac because almost everyone else has a Mac. Switching would be more of a headache than it's worth to me. If anything I'll do a Hack before I go Windows. Again, not because I have anything against Windows, but just because I work in a Mac-centric part of the industry in a Mac-centric city."

Switching would be super easy if you use Premiere Pro because every Adobe user would be forced to do it. You also would not have the option to go Hackintosh if they quit support for OS X. I highly doubt Adobe would do it but it would make things easier for them.

[Andrew Kimery] "[andy patterson] "Adobe should go PC only and let the performance get even better."

It doesn't work like that. Apple can wring out a performance boost because they control both the hardware and the software."


Apple uses 3rd party hardware from Intel, AMD and Nvidia the same as my DIY PC. Some of the transitions and filters have been taken out of Premiere Pro on the PC side because they could not implement them on the Mac OS. As seen from the benchmark Adobe prefers PCs not Macs. Apple obviously cannot wring out a performance boost. I am willing to bet my DIY Windows system could slightly outperform an iMac with similar specs. What if Premiere Pro gets a boost in performance from the new AMD CPUs?

[Andrew Kimery] "Adobe can't wring out a performance boost by going PC-only because they still have to support millions of possible PC configurations."

Actually if it was not for Apple Adobe could have kept supporting CUDA only. All PC vendors offer Nvidia but Apple does not offer Nvidia in the Mac Pro.

[Andrew Kimery] " Now if Adobe went Mac-only then they might be able to better optimize their software for Mac hardware because Macs have very few variables compared to PCs."

It is the CPU and GPU that the programmers must worry about. Not hard drives and RAM.

[Andrew Kimery] "Or Adobe could build their own Adobe-brand PCs and optimize their software for their machines, but I don't see that happening either. ;)"

They would still be writing for Windows, Intel and Nvidia so it would work on any PC with those components or are you suggesting Adobe actually be like SGI and make their own CPU, GPU and OS? I could see Adobe writing their own OS and forcing everyone to their new OS platform called Adobe Alpha. Maybe they should have their own OS. I think Adobe is big enough to do it but I doubt they would.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 23, 2017 at 6:45:42 am

[andy patterson] "Premiere Pro was only brought back to the Mac because Apple opted for Intel CPUs. If Apple opted for Motorola next week Adobe would have to decide if it is worth it or not. Adobe already has to worry about Open CL and CUDA both. I think they should stick to one or the other. I would hate to have them write for the instruction set of a non X86 CPU on top of that. "

I partly agree with you. Many of Adobe's programs started on the Mac and then went to PC and, AFAIK, Premiere is the only one of Adobe's major programs that went from cross-platform to PC-only. Adobe went PC-only with Premiere because between Avid and FCP they had no significant market share on the Mac side (it was more about ROI than technical hurdles of being cross-platform). If Apple stayed PPC then Adobe probably would've stayed away until FCP 7 was killed. That's the opening Adobe needed for PPro and if a Mac vesion didn't already exist you would've seen them create one and ship it in record time.

[andy patterson] "Switching would be super easy if you use Premiere Pro because every Adobe user would be forced to do it. You also would not have the option to go Hackintosh if they quit support for OS X. I highly doubt Adobe would do it but it would make things easier for them.
"


I'm not just a Premiere user though so the switch would not be super easy. Trust me, I've thought about it a lot and once in a blue moon I work with someone that's on a PC and there's always bumps in the road that you don't experience if everyone is all Mac or all PC (and for my needs I might as well consider LA to be all-Mac). I haven't reached my tipping point yet.

I used to build PCs so I'm not afraid of Windows, it's just easier being on a Mac in my situation.

[andy patterson] "What if Premiere Pro gets a boost in performance from the new AMD CPUs?
.
.
.
Actually if it was not for Apple Adobe could have kept supporting CUDA only. All PC vendors offer Nvidia but Apple does not offer Nvidia in the Mac Pro.
.
.
.
It is the CPU and GPU that the programmers must worry about. Not hard drives and RAM.
"


That's my point about more variables in PC hardware vs Mac hardware. Even if Adobe picked Nvidia GPUs and Intel CPUs to focus on (leaving out Intel GPUs, AMD CPUs and AMD GPUs) which CPUs and GPUs are they going to pick? Are they going to pick reference or non-reference GPUs? What if computer makes like Dell and HP focus on a different roadmaps? What if AMD CPUs and/or GPUs are a better value? Don't you think customers will be mad that Adobe only supports a tiny handful of PC parts?

It's in Adobe's best interests to support as much hardware as is feasible so they aren't alienating good sized chunks of their user base (and potential user base). I think a good example of this is that Adobe's Mercury engine used to be CUDA only on select Nvidia GPUs. Then it went to a wider selection of Nvidia GPUs. Then they started supporting any GPU with at least 1gig of RAM and OpenCL was thrown into the mix as well.


[andy patterson] "They would still be writing for Windows, Intel and Nvidia so it would work on any PC with those components or are you suggesting Adobe actually be like SGI and make their own CPU, GPU and OS"

If Adobe picked one build of Windows, one Intel CPU, one Nvidia GPU and one Mobo and wrote a custom version of PPro (or whatever app) exclusively for those components they could get a sizable performance boost compared to running the 'works everywhere' version of PPro on the same hardware.

It's like console gaming vs PC gaming. An Xbox One is basically a low spec PC running Windows but the games on it can look and perform better than PC games on a similarly spec'd PC because the devs can focus on getting the most of a specific set of components. And the longer into the console's lifecycle you get the better the games look because the devs have had that much more time to how to optimize their games for the hardware. Contrast that to PC gaming where the older your computer gets the more it struggles to play newer games (forcing you to turn the quality sliders down).


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 23, 2017 at 10:57:34 am

[Andrew Kimery] "That's my point about more variables in PC hardware vs Mac hardware. Even if Adobe picked Nvidia GPUs and Intel CPUs to focus on (leaving out Intel GPUs, AMD CPUs and AMD GPUs) which CPUs and GPUs are they going to pick?"

There is no point in leaving out AMD CPUs since they support the x86 architecture. It is not like AMD has a Sun Micro Systems Spark II CPU. At this point you can do more with CUDA but I think it would be wise to drop them both in another 4 years and go all software only.

[Andrew Kimery] " What if computer makes like Dell and HP focus on a different roadmaps?"

Why would you think either one is going to start using Motorola, Spark II or a DEC Alpha chip?

[Andrew Kimery] "What if AMD CPUs and/or GPUs are a better value? Don't you think customers will be mad that Adobe only supports a tiny handful of PC parts?"

That has been my point in almost every thread. AMD does have an 8 Core CPUs for under $500.00. That is why I said Adobe may want to stop support for CUDA and Open CL in 2021. You may be able to get a 16 core CPU for $399.9 by then. I don't think you understand that Intel and AMD manufacture x86 (IBM) compatible CPUs.

[Andrew Kimery] "It's in Adobe's best interests to support as much hardware as is feasible so they aren't alienating good sized chunks of their user base (and potential user base)"

Not really. If in the year 2022 all Intel CPUs and AMD CPUs can play 10 layers of 8K video with multiple effects the dedicated GPU may become a thing of the past. I don't doubt it will eventually happen.

[Andrew Kimery] " I think a good example of this is that Adobe's Mercury engine used to be CUDA only on select Nvidia GPUs."

There was always support for any CUDA card with at least 1 GB of RAM and 100 CUDA cores. You had to manually add your card to the list but it would work. In fact there were less bugs back then. Keep in mind the bugs affect all the Nvidia cards when they happen. Things got worse once Open CL was added.


[Andrew Kimery] "If Adobe picked one build of Windows, one Intel CPU, one Nvidia GPU and one Mobo and wrote a custom version of PPro (or whatever app) exclusively for those components they could get a sizable performance boost compared to running the 'works everywhere' version of PPro on the same hardware."

That would be like saying Adobe must write for the AMD Ryzen CPU the i3 and the i5 CPU separately and only support the Zotac GTX 1080 and not the GTX 1060. It doesn't work that way. Granted trying to make the CC work with Windows 95 and an Intel Pentium 4 CPU would be a challenge.

[Andrew Kimery] "It's like console gaming vs PC gaming. An Xbox One is basically a low spec PC running Windows but the games on it can look and perform better than PC games on a similarly spec'd PC because the devs can focus on getting the most of a specific set of components."

Actually there are PC gamers playing XBOX games at 4K instead of 1080 and they can also get more FPS than an XBOX. That is not to say the XBOX does not work good.

[Andrew Kimery] "And the longer into the console's lifecycle you get the better the games look because the devs have had that much more time to how to optimize their games for the hardware. Contrast that to PC gaming where the older your computer gets the more it struggles to play newer games (forcing you to turn the quality sliders down)."

You are saying an XBOX 360 from 5 years ago can play the newest games as good as a brand new XBOX ONE? If not then consoles become obsolete as well.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 23, 2017 at 11:48:48 pm

I think we've gotten into the weeds a bit and are talking past each other. Long story short, I just disagree with your statement that if Adobe dropped Mac support and went PC-only that somehow performance would increase remarkably. I think the hurdles created by so many hardware and software variables on the PC side dwarf the hurdles created by maintaining MacOS compatibility.

I'm aware that AMD and Intel both produce x86 CPUs, I'm also aware of how differences in things like chipsets, drivers, and firmware in various PC components can have ripple effects that cause performances issues/bugs in Configuration A but not in Configuration B even though both meet the recommended system requirements. Adobe could 'go narrow' and severely limit the range of hardware and software it supports in an attempt to get meaningful performance boosts at the cost of broad compatibility, but I think that would be a penny wise/pound foolish tactic. IMO a large part of Adobe's general appeal is that the software is incredibly accessible from a device standpoint. Mac or PC, laptop or desk, Android or iOS... Adobe's solutions are there regardless of your choice of mainstream computing platform.

In 5 or 6 years though, who knows. That's eons in tech time, but I do think Adobe likes being ubiquitous.

[andy patterson] "Actually there are PC gamers playing XBOX games at 4K instead of 1080 and they can also get more FPS than an XBOX. That is not to say the XBOX does not work good.
"


A more apples to apples hardware comparison with optimized vs non-optimized software was what I getting at. Those PC gamers aren't playing 4K games on PCs that have the similar hardware specs as an Xbox One (which by PC gaming standards are pathetic).


[andy patterson] "You are saying an XBOX 360 from 5 years ago can play the newest games as good as a brand new XBOX ONE?"

No, I'm saying the games that come out near the end of a console's lifecycle generally look and perform much better than games that came out in the beginning of a console's lifecycle because devs learn how to better optimize for a fixed hardware platform.

For example, the Xbox 360 came out in 2005 but one of the best looking games for the 360 was Crysis 3 which came out in 2013. Contrast that with a PC where its gaming performance goes down over time, not up. Trying to play an FPS from 2013 on a middle of the road PC from 2005 won't be pretty (assuming the game will even launch). For another example, the PS3 was much more powerful than the PS2 but many early PS3 games didn't look remarkably better than late cycle PS2 games because the devs had 'mastered' the PS2 but were still figuring out how to take advantage of the PS3's hardware.

When you can optimize the software to the hardware then you can get better performance than using unoptimized software on the same hardware. Video games are just an easy example to illustrate this point.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 24, 2017 at 3:53:56 am

[Andrew Kimery] "I think we've gotten into the weeds a bit and are talking past each other. Long story short, I just disagree with your statement that if Adobe dropped Mac support and went PC-only that somehow performance would increase remarkably."

I am glad you disagree because I never made that statement. I stated it would be easier for Adobe (the programmers) to only support one OS and one GPU platform. CS 5.5 was bug free for the most part. I never said anything about performance increasing remarkably. Not even once. You wrote the following below about performance in which I disagreed.

[Andrew Kimery] "If Adobe picked one build of Windows, one Intel CPU, one Nvidia GPU and one Mobo and wrote a custom version of PPro (or whatever app) exclusively for those components they could get a sizable performance boost compared to running the 'works everywhere' version of PPro on the same hardware."

As I stated you don't write software exclusively for an i7 VS an i3 CPU.

[Andrew Kimery] "I think the hurdles created by so many hardware and software variables on the PC side dwarf the hurdles created by maintaining MacOS compatibility."

They all do add up. Sony Vegas only has to worry about Windows. FCPX only has to worry about Apple computers.

[Andrew Kimery] "I'm aware that AMD and Intel both produce x86 CPUs, I'm also aware of how differences in things like chipsets, drivers, and firmware in various PC components can have ripple effects that cause performances issues/bugs in Configuration A but not in Configuration B even though both meet the recommended system requirements."

The chipsets, RAM and Hard drives don't require Adobe (the programmers) to write exclusive for Western Digital Hard Drives or Crucial RAM. A bad mother board is a bad mother board. No argument there.

[Andrew Kimery] "Adobe could 'go narrow' and severely limit the range of hardware and software it supports in an attempt to get meaningful performance boosts at the cost of broad compatibility, but I think that would be a penny wise/pound foolish tactic."

As I sated you are implying Adobe would get a performance boost by excursively using only a Sky Lake Quad Core i7 , Zotac GTX 1070, Corsair Power Supply and Crucial RAM. I am saying that would not be the case. Some one would pop in an 8 Core AMD and blow it out of the water. I want options as far as hardware goes. What I am saying is opt for Windows and CUDA only. All I can say is that prior to supporting Open CL everything worked great. The introduction of Open CL created bugs. I have several videos of bugs that are there now but did not in exist in CS 5.5. I will admit if Adobe opted for Windows and Open CL exclusively the bugs issue might get corrected. My point is stick with one or the other.

[Andrew Kimery] "IMO a large part of Adobe's general appeal is that the software is incredibly accessible from a device standpoint. Mac or PC, laptop or desk, Android or iOS... Adobe's solutions are there regardless of your choice of mainstream computing platform."

No Argument.

[Andrew Kimery] "When you can optimize the software to the hardware then you can get better performance than using unoptimized software on the same hardware. Video games are just an easy example to illustrate this point."

No argument but as I stated you don't write code for Crucial RAM VS PNY RAM or an i5 VS an I7. Having said that I do think supporting only CUDA or only supporting open CL would make things much easier for Adobe and result in less bugs. Supporting only Mac or PC would make things easier as well. On the other hand only supporting Intel or AMD would not make much sense. I think we may agree on somethings and disagree on others. None the less this thread has been interesting.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 28, 2017 at 8:14:20 am

[andy patterson] "I am glad you disagree because I never made that statement. I stated it would be easier for Adobe (the programmers) to only support one OS and one GPU platform. CS 5.5 was bug free for the most part. "

You make the statement every time you say you want Adobe to only support Windows and Nvidia because you think that will lead to better performance (i.e. fewer bugs, Adobe coders not being stretched as thin, etc.,).


[andy patterson] "As I stated you don't write software exclusively for an i7 VS an i3 CPU. "

But you could write software that takes advantage of Quick Sync, and Quick Sync is only available on some CPUs.

My point is about looking at computers holistically. For example, different CPUs can have different motherboards which can have different chipsets, drivers, firmware, etc., which means greater potential for miscommunication with the OS which means greater potential for miscommunication with Adobe's software. That's three totally different companies trying to work in concert (four or more if you start filling up PCI slots or plugging in peripherals) compared to Apple which oversees it's hardware, OS, and first party software under one (soon to be round) roof.

[andy patterson] "As I sated you are implying Adobe would get a performance boost by excursively using only a Sky Lake Quad Core i7 , Zotac GTX 1070, Corsair Power Supply and Crucial RAM. I am saying that would not be the case. Some one would pop in an 8 Core AMD and blow it out of the water. "

Hardware is the constant and software is the variable in this situation. Hypothetically, let's say Adobe makes two versions of PPro. One version is what we have today and it supports MacOS, Windows, OpenCL and CUDA. The other version is tailored for only Windows and CUDA. Both versions on installed on a Windows PC with a GTX 1070 card. Which version do you think runs better on that PC?


[andy patterson] " I want options as far as hardware goes. What I am saying is opt for Windows and CUDA only. "

That seems a bit contradictory. 😉


[andy patterson] "None the less this thread has been interesting."

Agreed. :)


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 7:15:12 pm

[andy patterson] "
Adobe products seem to favor the PC according to the benchmarks. "


I think the performance discrepancies on Adobe software (between Windows and OSX) have more to do with Apple's hardware. FWIW, every cross platform, power hungry creative software application that I can think of runs faster on Windows and Linux computers when equipped with faster hardware (Resolve, Maya, 3DS Max, Cinema 4D, Renderman, Maxwell, Arnold, Octane, etc.).

[andy patterson] "
Adobe could just say to the Apple users the PC works just fine and we will no longer support Apple. Having said that I could use the CC on a Mac easy enough but as I have stated Adobe seems to work better on the PC. Adobe should go PC only and let the performance get even better."


I'm a PC user, but I would hate to see that happen. I think being a cross platform software/services provider makes Adobe a stronger company and helps to make their products better. I also like having a landscape where creative professionals have choices - I want Apple to offer more powerful computers for less money, I want to see Adobe extend the Creative Cloud applications to Linux, and I want BMD to stop giving Resolve and Fusion away for free... of course none of that will happen, but I think those would be good things for the creative community in general. Like I said, I'm a PC user, but I want Apple to give me serious reasons to consider their platform, and once I'm there, I want more than just their applications to choose from. ☺

Shawn



Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 10:00:57 pm

[andy patterson] "I think they felt as though the quality would not be as good. I think Quick Sync will only work with single pass renders. My system renders pretty fast with a mediocre GTX 1060 and a mediocre 3.4 GHZ Haswell Quad Core CPU. I imagine what a GTX 1080 and 8 Core CPU will do. AMD will be launching 8 core CPU for under $500.00 in a week or two. "

Several years ago, some felt that hardware transcoding had significant image quality issues. This 2012 article was titled "The Wretched State of GPU Transcoding": https://www.extremetech.com/computing/128681-the-wretched-state-of-gpu-tran...

It also misleadingly lumped Quick Sync into that group, even though it's not technically GPU transcoding. Rather Quick Sync is "fixed function" logic, like an ASIC. It requires resources from Intel's on-chip GPU, which is why it's not in most Xeons -- Intel would have to put the entire GPU in Xeon just to get Quick Sync. Why they designed it that way, I don't know. But from an API or algorithm standpoint, Quick Sync and the GPU are different.

Back in 2012, Quick Sync and related software were less refined. Today I cannot easily tell the difference between a single-pass H264 export from FCPX (which uses Quick Sync) vs a multi-pass export (which does not). In 10.3.1, Apple even changed the export default to "Faster Encode", IOW single-pass, and it's not sticky -- if you want multi-pass encoding you have to select this each time. They seem confident about the quality of single-pass encoding.

So the state of Quick Sync transcoding has definitely changed and the current quality level of single-pass encoding seems very high -- at least from FCPX.

True GPU transcoding is a misleading term since no long-GOP encoding method (H264, H265, VP9, etc) can be greatly accelerated using traditional GPU methods. The core algorithm is inherently sequential and not amenable to the fine-grain parallelization a GPU can provide. More recently GPU vendors have added separate proprietary fixed-function logic to their GPUs, conceptually similar to Quick Sync. nVidia's is NVENC and AMD's is VCE. However these each have multiple versions with varying capability and if software used those APIs it would be vendor-specific and version-specific. IOW if Adobe wrote to NVENC ver. 4, that would only work on those cards which are in some PCs and not on any current Apple computer.

Each GOP can be processed in parallel, but examination of typical GOP sizes shows they are pretty large, so there aren't enough GOPs in most files to harness thousands of lightweight GPU threads. However if doing purely software transcoding, each CPU core can simultaneously handle a separate GOP, but there aren't usually enough cores, although the more cores the better. This is why all CPU cores are pegged when encoding to H264, even though the intra-GOP encoding algorithm is sequential -- each core is processing a separate GOP.

This might partially explain why Adobe has been so slow at adopting Quick Sync or other hardware-assisted transcoding but I'm guessing there is a deeper explanation which nobody yet knows.

Intel has a PCIE card called Visual Compute Accelerator (VCA) containing three quad-core Xeon E3 chips, which is intended for server-side media transcoding. So some Xeons do have Quick Sync, but only 4-core versions -- not useful to a workstation. However in theory you could put a VCA in a high-end workstation and if the software supported it, you'd have tremendous transcoding performance: http://www.intelserveredge.com/intelvca/ It is $2,500 but that's no more than some high-end nVidia Quadro cards.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 23, 2017 at 6:46:12 am

Thanks for the extra info, Joe.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 12:57:29 am

You shouldn't be rendering to h264.

_______________________________________________________________________
http://BretFX.com FCP X Plugins & Templates for Editors & Motion Graphics Artists


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 3:54:45 pm

I like to say I edit "with" a laptop, not "on" a laptop. I can go for days without ever opening my MBP. From the bag to the desk and then back to the bag. At the office or at home pretty much the same thing. Not saying I couldn't, just saying I don't.

Rendering times aren't that important in my overall workflow. Dynamic linking Photoshop and Illustrator files, Live Text templates from After Effects and sending a timeline with however much audio I have in it directly to Audition with video and then exporting the finished product from there is where I see my real productivity boosts.

I like and use FCPX for certain things, but the Adobe workflow saves me a ton of time no matter what machine I'm on.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 4:33:36 pm

[Paul Neumann] "Rendering times aren't that important in my overall workflow. Dynamic linking Photoshop and Illustrator files, Live Text templates from After Effects and sending a timeline with however much audio I have in it directly to Audition with video and then exporting the finished product from there is where I see my real productivity boosts."

I agree. Rendering is a very small part of video editing and the Adobe products work well together.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 4:36:04 pm

Famously: When the tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.
On all sides.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Santiago Martí
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 5:28:00 pm

I thought Radeon Pro 460 had 4 Gb of ram. Other than that, one could notice that last year Dell, at half the price is 3 times faster than the new MBP running PPro.
I'd like to see the new Dell and a Razer in the same test, and Da Vinci's Resolve too.

Santiago Martí
http://www.robotrojo.com.ar
Red Epic Dragon, Sony FS7, Sony a7S, Red Pro Primes, Adobe CC, Assimilate Scratch


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 5:36:48 pm

[Santiago Martí] "I thought Radeon Pro 460 had 4 Gb of ram"

You are correct; the 460 has 4gig.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 5:41:02 pm

[Bill Davis] "Famously: When the tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.
On all sides."


I think FCPX is a good program but I am not that impressed by FCPX making use of Intel's Quick Sync. Keep in mind the Mac Pro has a Xeon Processors (no Quick Sync). Also when the new Mac Pro launched at $3,000.00 it could not play the native Red One Codec at full resolution using FCPX but there were PCs for $3,000 that could do it using Premiere Pro. For the record I will put my $800.00 PC with Premiere Pro against your Apple laptop using FCPX to see which one can play more layers of the native Red One R3D codec. Are you up for it Bill? You can feel free to bring a hammer, nails, screw driver and a torque wrench : )


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 22, 2017 at 11:03:10 pm

Hi Bill -
let me ask you a simple question -
in the past Apple worked hard to make sure that all the "other manufacturers" (you know, AVID, Adobe, AJA, Blackmagic, Matrox, etc.) all worked wonderfully with Apple products, and in fact they did - which is how they created this legacy of "Apple only".

SO - since FCP-X works so wonderfully, and people like you now think that AVID, Adobe, Blackmagic Davinici Resolve, Autodesk, AJA, Blackmagic, Maxon Cinema 4D, Nvidia, etc. are all kind of unimportant in the "big picture" of the FCP-X world -
do you think that it is IMPORTANT that Apple recognizes third party manufacturers, and helps support OTHER companies besides Apple ProApps, to allow OTHER companies to run on Apple Hardware - or is your opinion, is this UNIMPORTANT, as "who needs any of this other stuff - Apple does everything" -

So all I need from you is "yes, it's important that Apple lets other companies get their stuff to work at optimum performance" or "no, Apple does everything, so why bother with these other companies" -

yes, or no ?

bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 23, 2017 at 5:40:14 pm

[Bob Zelin] "Hi Bill -
let me ask you a simple question -
in the past Apple worked hard to make sure that all the "other manufacturers" (you know, AVID, Adobe, AJA, Blackmagic, Matrox, etc.) all worked wonderfully with Apple products, and in fact they did - which is how they created this legacy of "Apple only".
"


My answer is Yes, it's important to work with other approaches.

However.

(ah, the "devil friendly details" that typically screw up seemingly simple binary choices!)

That also puts a reasonable burden on ALL vendors to similarly KEEP THE PACE OF THEIR INNOVATION UP.

If they do, then it makes sense for ANY company to try to accommodate their development in order to benefit all consumers as the entire industry moves forward.

It's ALSO inevitable that in today's business climate, more and more companies will try to LOCK IN customers to their particular vision of where the industry is going.

So you have to pick a vision.

IF any vendor decides (for whatever reason) that their best business plan is to SLOW migration to new thinking and instead try to grow their businesses, not by providing the BEST solutions, but relying largely on the solutions they developed for different eras and different technological landscapes, I believe they are willingly prioritizing things OTHER than moving the game forward.

The race is getting faster. It's HARDER to keep up nowadays. It's a global race. Any 10,000 editors - anywhere around the world - are now competing with 1 million other editors doing at least somewhat similar work. That is NOT how it used to be. There likely weren't 1 million people editing ANY type of video a few brief decades ago. In the future, there will be multiple millions of people editing content going forward.

Some will be well served to use the approaches of the past. But I believe many, MANY more will be far better served if the industry continues to grow and evolve as a whole.

What's preventing editing tomorrow from looking like editing yesterday is NOT the tools. It's the tasks.

The tasks are evolving.

So the tools have to evolve as well.

If a company wants to evolve their tools along side their competitors, then I suspect they WILL find willing partners in ALL levels of the industry. If they are NOT willing to evolve their tools won't they drag down the pace of innovation? Or is it better to narrow the scope of innovation to ONLY the innovation that benefits a specific CLASS of editor?

I can list at least a dozen fundamental changes Apple made with X that were forward looking. Can you name the same for recent changes to the other NLE approaches you're citing?

Not saying Apple is alone in this, BTW. You cited BlackMagic as an example.

If BlackMagic can handle an FCPXML in Resolve - why can't Adobes Lumitri accept the same FCPXML? You tell me.

Is that the fault of IP Laws? Apple? BlackMagic? Adobe? or just the way that the game MUST be played today for reasons that have nothing to do with the software and EVERYTHING to do with how digital business is conducted in the digital era?

The ground is shifting faster than ever. Thats the singular reality none of us can deny.

Happy to hear your thoughts.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 23, 2017 at 6:08:50 pm

[Bill Davis] "If BlackMagic can handle an FCPXML in Resolve - why can't Adobes Lumitri accept the same FCPXML? You tell me. "

Huh??????!!!!! You do know Resolve is a full application, while Lumetri is effectively only a plug-in. Right? Lumetri by itself can't accept any sort of list - same as Hawaiki, Colorista, etc. I understand what you are saying, but this isn't the best example.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 23, 2017 at 7:55:45 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Huh??????!!!!! You do know Resolve is a full application, while Lumetri is effectively only a plug-in. Right? Lumetri by itself can't accept any sort of list - same as Hawaiki, Colorista, etc. I understand what you are saying, but this isn't the best example."

Fair point, Oliver.

Then perhaps a fairer question is if why can't Lumetri take in information from Color Finale any more than Color Finale can take in information in from Lumetri?

Bob's point seems to have been that it's a noble goal for everyone to accommodate everyone elses approaches so as to enhance cross-platform workflows.

He's asking for Apple to "open up" to alternative programs needs.

So in that context, I'd simply ask what the other NLEs have done to "open up" to X's evolutionary workflows?

Are there "accommodations" built into AVID or Premiere Pro to accommodate the way X works? Or is this just a matter of "you MUST accommodate us", regardless of whether that slows down the propagation of the ideas that have made Apple products more effective and efficient for their own users?

I'd be happy to hear examples of other NLEs accommodating anything significant that Apple has pioneered in X. I can easily point to the other companies ADOPTING efficiency concepts X has been using for 6 years like the proxy workflow and skimming and folding those into their own software as their hardware has developed to accommodated them. Are their not equivalent concepts that those other programs pioneered that X has incorporated. Perhapst I'm just woefully ignorant of them. So, help me out. What are the most recent and most effective ones? How has AVID or Premiere Pro singularly evolved to move the industry forward?

And does what you can cite tell us anything about the direction that, say "Adobe innovation" is headed compared to the direction Apple Innovation is headed? Or is innovation simply NOT important anymore. Is the editing industry "done" with where it needs to go?

If the argument is that it's important to promote inter-action and sharing across the industry, is it still OK if what's being asked for is exclusively ONE WAY accommodation?

Just asking.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 23, 2017 at 8:04:05 pm

[Bill Davis] "He's asking for Apple to "open up" to alternative programs needs.
"


Yes, their Hardware and OS platform, has nothing to do with what other NLE Software Companies do with their interchange.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 23, 2017 at 8:14:30 pm

My bad.

The first few paragraphs of Bob's post seems to be about EVERYTHING Apple.

I didn't focus on the one time he mentioned Hardware in the last 3rd of his post.

But it begs the question: Is it's similarly Apple's responsibility to insure compatibility across hardware approaches?

Hasn't that ALWAYS been a Apple hallmark?

Apple seems to make systems it feels are are cohesive and optimized for it's OWN ecosystem. THAT is our their first priority. Secondary to that, they will attempt to keep things open - but NOT, it seems to me, at the expense of performance or value to the customers that directly support them.

I'm not sure how the doing anything else makes sense.

Or again, is it your view that Apple sublimates what they can do with their own systems - in order to be compatible with another companies systems?

Seems to me APPLE stockholders might have some issues with that.

FWIW.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 23, 2017 at 8:14:32 pm

[Bill Davis] "I'd be happy to hear examples of other NLEs accommodating anything significant that Apple has pioneered in X."

Adobe and others expend huge amounts of development time trying to keep abreast of the vagaries of Apple's OS updates.

I use vagaries as a euphemism there.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 23, 2017 at 8:23:02 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Adobe and others expend huge amounts of development time trying to keep abreast of the vagaries of Apple's OS updates.

I use vagaries as a euphemism there."


Oh I ABSOLUTELY agree with this Simon,

Heck, I'm the guy that had to jettison 8 months of work at the 10.2 transition when they changed the look of the FCP X interface and re-start everything in my own tiny XinTwo initiative. So I'm acutely aware that the downside of rapid development is that people who depend on the software working and looking ONE WAY can get snapped, big time.

But even tho it set me back directly. I had to suck it up and understand that what I get in exchange for the setback is software that moves forward faster than if they prioritized compatibility over innovation. And I have to live with that.

And so it goes.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 23, 2017 at 9:14:02 pm

[Bill Davis] "I had to suck it up"

With respect, your "suck it up time" is insignificant compared to the effort that developers have to put in to adapt to whatever curve balls Apple decide to send down.

All of us here are used to having to adapt to changes in the applications that we use, but developers have a much more arduous job.

It's frustrating to have to run to stay in the same place, which is what adapting to OS changes involves most of the time.

The chances are that Adobe would be doing much more interesting work if they didn't have to dodge and weave to accommodate the latest Apple whim.

At times, you wonder if Apple don't deliberately make it difficult for the opposition ... or is that too cynical?

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 1:58:16 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "With respect, your "suck it up time" is insignificant compared to the effort that developers have to put in to adapt to whatever curve balls Apple decide to send down."

OK.

I get it now.

For non-developer folk like me, whatever issues I have are "insignificant" so they apparently shouldn't matter much to anyone EXCEPT me.

Check.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 1:00:25 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Feb 24, 2017 at 1:04:33 pm

Sorry, Bill, I didn't mean to sound dismissive. Of course, it's a pain that Apple messed you up and I'm sorry to hear that your time was wasted.

I meant that big changes to the OS have costs for anyone developing for the Mac and these are largely opportunity costs - while you are accommodating the changes, you are not developing new features, improving old ones, or fixing bugs.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?"
on Feb 23, 2017 at 8:40:56 pm

[Bill Davis] "Then perhaps a fairer question is if why can't Lumetri take in information from Color Finale any more than Color Finale can take in information in from Lumetri?"

Unfortunately none of the color correction tools talk to each other, because they all do their color math differently. A CDL is the main way color info gets transferred. But CDL values only address a limited number of handles compared with the full controls that most advanced apps and filters offer.

[Bill Davis] "Are there "accommodations" built into AVID or Premiere Pro to accommodate the way X works?"

I would say no, not X specifically. However, prior to X there was at least some attempt at interchange with FCP 'legacy' - at least on Adobe's part. Avid has tended to be the outlier, mainly because they've dominated the markets that were most concerned about interchange. Thus, people had to conform to Avid and not so much the other way around. Another side of that is that Avid has participated in standards bodies and designed accordingly. Apple usually hasn't. Of course, it could be countered that the standards that were developed, were built around Avid, such as OMF and later AAF.

[Bill Davis] "I'd be happy to hear examples of other NLEs accommodating anything significant that Apple has pioneered in X"

Well, not X specifically, but there's certainly been a lot of effort to natively support ProRes. That's pretty significant.

[Bill Davis] "Are their not equivalent concepts that those other programs pioneered that X has incorporated. "

No. What did you have in mind? For example, Avid offers ScriptSync/Script Integration and PhraseFind, which are unique to Avid. Nothing like that in X. Adobe and Avid both offer media management with trimming (like FCP 'legacy') - can't do that in X. The way you can deal with 60i footage with 3:2 pulldown and turn that back into true 24p media is also superior in Media Composer. It would be nice to have that in X.

[Bill Davis] "If the argument is that it's important to promote inter-action and sharing across the industry, is it still OK if what's being asked for is exclusively ONE WAY accommodation?"

I don't know if that's a fair statement. Apple has offered FCPXML and left all outside integration to third party developers. I think that's a smart approach for them - and cost effective - but, it is a bit of a "take it or leave it" attitude.

OTOH, it does let them focus on getting it right without developing something that works so-so. We all know they could have done in-house, exactly what Intelligent Assistance, Automatic Duck, Blackmagic Design and others have done. And we now know that when they said it wasn't possible, that wasn't exactly the truth. However, none of those solutions are perfect and Apple probably didn't want to put its name on something that might have issues.

In fairness to Apple, these teams do talk to each other and do work behind the scenes. So there's not quite as much of a wall between Apple and Adobe and/or Avid as the general user might think. Trust me, I'm not necessarily arguing Bob's position, but it is more difficult to work with X in a mixed environment. You get great results when everything is set-up as being X-centric, but not so much when you have to deal with different NLEs, different server/SAN structures, etc.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 4:37:14 am

[Bill Davis] "I can easily point to the other companies ADOPTING efficiency concepts X has been using for 6 years like the proxy workflow and skimming and folding those into their own software as their hardware has developed to accommodated them. Are their not equivalent concepts that those other programs pioneered that X has incorporated. Perhapst I'm just woefully ignorant of them. So, help me out. What are the most recent and most effective ones? How has AVID or Premiere Pro singularly evolved to move the industry forward?"

Really Bill?

Fast introduced back ground rendering ten years prior to the release of FCPX with the Fast Red, Silver and Purple systems. Fast was sold to Pinnacle and Pinnacle combined CPU acceleration with GPU acceleration back in 2003.

Premiere had 64 bit and GPU acceleration prior to FCPX. Adobe also had the concept of Keyword and Keyword Collections in Adobe's Bridge 5 years Prior to the Release of FCPX.

There were software programs that used Intel's Quick Sync prior to FCPX.

It is great that you find FCPX much better than FCP 7 but you know what Bill? Premiere Pro CS 5.0 was much better than FCP 7 as well. Having said that you were not going to try anything other than FCP.

You said it yourself Bill you are woefully ignorant consider I already posted about Fast and Pinnacle in another thread you participated in. It might be wise to start reading my posts don't ya think?

I think I also made you hip to Intel's Quick Sync but what thanks do I get? You kind of accused us of attacking you.

Having said that above is the info you were looking for Bill. Start using it wisely.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 11:46:53 am

[andy patterson] "Premiere Pro CS 5.0 was much better than FCP 7"

You seriously mean this?

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 12:43:59 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "[andy patterson] "Premiere Pro CS 5.0 was much better than FCP 7"

You seriously mean this?"


Stretching credibility to the limits I think :)


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 12:53:35 pm

[Steve Connor] "Stretching credibility to the limits I think :)"

Isn't that what this forum is for?

;-)

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 2:18:31 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Steve Connor] "Stretching credibility to the limits I think :)"

Isn't that what this forum is for?"


I would tend to agree but I think my responses are more than credible.

I do wonder if some of the people that claim to edit on FCPX, Premiere Pro and Avid actually do? I have my reasons for doubting such claims.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 2:20:09 pm

I enjoy reading your extremely informative posts, Andy. Please don't be discouraged.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 2:14:43 pm

[Steve Connor] "[Scott Witthaus] "[andy patterson] "Premiere Pro CS 5.0 was much better than FCP 7"

You seriously mean this?"

Stretching credibility to the limits I think :)"


You could make a snide remark or you could actually read my response and educate yourself : )

I could also mention Panasonic's News Byte NLE but why bother? Having said that I don't doubt there are other people here who have used some obscure NLE that may have had innovative features. I myself would love to hear about them.

Would you want to edit native ACVHD using FCP 7 while I use Premiere Pro CS 5? See my point? If according to Bill Davis encoding to h.264 will make FCPX 10 times faster than Premiere Pro wouldn't editing native AVCHD make Premiere Pro 1000 times faster than FCP 7. I want to let you know I am being silly although there is some truth in what I said. Wouldn't you agree?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 3:20:03 pm

[andy patterson] "Having said that I don't doubt there are other people here who have used some obscure NLE that may have had innovative features. I myself would love to hear about them. "

Incite - on that you could edit while capturing at the same time.

[andy patterson] "Would you want to edit native ACVHD using FCP 7 while I use Premiere Pro CS 5? "

No, I had that choice but I chose to transcode and use the very excellent FCP7 instead of using the unreliable dog that was CS5 :)


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 5:53:03 pm

[Steve Connor] "[andy patterson] "Would you want to edit native ACVHD using FCP 7 while I use Premiere Pro CS 5? "

No, I had that choice but I chose to transcode and use the very excellent FCP7 instead of using the unreliable dog that was CS5 :)"


Don't let anyone ever tell you you chose wisely. I have used FCP 7.

Having said that wanna race? You can use FCP 7 and I'll use PP CS 5.0. While you are transcoding I will be editing : )


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 6:08:37 pm

[andy patterson] "Don't let anyone ever tell you you chose wisely. I have used FCP 7.

Having said that wanna race? You can use FCP 7 and I'll use PP CS 5.0. While you are transcoding I will be editing : )
"


Yep CS5, it was SOOO great that it was widely used across the Industry and there were LOADS of Freelance jobs around for it, whereas that FCP7 that you think isn't a wise choice was hardly used and there was NO Freelance work for it.

But you feel free have a race, because that's what Editing is - a race!


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 6:32:55 pm

[Steve Connor] "[andy patterson] "Don't let anyone ever tell you you chose wisely. I have used FCP 7.

Having said that wanna race? You can use FCP 7 and I'll use PP CS 5.0. While you are transcoding I will be editing : )
"

Yep CS5, it was SOOO great that it was widely used across the Industry and there were LOADS of Freelance jobs around for it, whereas that FCP7 that you think isn't a wise choice was hardly used and there was NO Freelance work for it.

But you feel free have a race, because that's what Editing is - a race!"


I think it depended on where you tended to work and what kind of jobs you were looking for. When I was freelancing, there were plenty of jobs that called for knowledge of Premiere - most of those weren't pure editing jobs, but I did have to know it to work. I think it's easy to underestimate how many people were using Premiere for paid work back in those days... but we were working nonetheless. I imagine that sounds crazy to an audience of FCP users.☺

Lastly, everything you're saying about PPro CS5 could be said about Motion today... does that mean it's not a good or useful application? ☺

Shawn



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 6:37:10 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Lastly, everything you're saying about PPro CS5 could be said about Motion today... does that mean it's not a good or useful application?"

The statement under scrutiny is that Ppro5 was a better editing AP than FCP7. Nobody is arguing that Ppro was useless, just that an unqualified "better" does not accurately describe it in comparison to FCP7.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 6:37:49 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Lastly, everything you're saying about PPro CS5 could be said about Motion today"

Apart that it isn't a great NLE ☺ Motion is, at least, reliable. CS5 certainly wasn't for a long time


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 7:13:26 pm

[Steve Connor] "[Shawn Miller] "Lastly, everything you're saying about PPro CS5 could be said about Motion today"

Apart that it isn't a great NLE ☺ Motion is, at least, reliable. ""


lol - okay, I'll concede that Motion is a crappy NLE. My guess though, is that if you put the question to a number of advanced AE users who tried to use Motion the same way they use After Effects, you might get a different answer.

[Steve Connor]"CS5 certainly wasn't for a long time"

I never really had major problems with any of the CS applications, but I do understand that others did... just as some people have show stopping issues with CC now.. I don't... but I know that others do. ☺

Shawn



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 7:50:47 pm

[Shawn Miller] "lol - okay, I'll concede that Motion is a crappy NLE. My guess though, is that if you put the question to a number of advanced AE users who tried to use Motion the same way they use After Effects, you might get a different answer."

Wow does THAT sound familiar.

Term Swap ahead...

"My guess though, is that if you put the question to a number of advanced Premiere Pro users who tried to use FCPX in the same way they use Premiere Pro, you might get a different answer."

Two DIFFERENT programs - designed around different concepts.

AE is a decades old, highly regarded and highly developed standalone program that before subscriptions, was sold at a relatively high price to specialists.

Motion was similar UNTIL the X change.

Now the Apple landscape is significantly different. Part of the Motion code was sucked directly into X as the titler and graphics management engine. Another part of it is STILL what it was originally, but it's now largely seen as a $49 add-on to X that leverages much of it's "standalone" history to include a ton of advanced capabilities - but it's no longer being developed primarily as a stand-alone motion graphics package.

Today it fits perfectly in the Apple vision. X is the HUB of content creation in the Apple ecosystem. Motion, and Comperssor are satellites that leverage additional capabilities into X - but only for those that need those capabilities.

Apple no longer really positions Motion as the monolithic application as it used to.

For Apple the FOCUS of content creation has been X from day one. For Adobe, the FOCUS is a suite of a dozen plus separate entities that all exist outside any central hub - and only link up when the user of one program needs to exchange with another.

FCP X is surely different - it's focus is currently still on single seat video editing acting as the HUB application for everything else - a position that I don't think Premiere Pro will ever occupy in the Adobe Universe.

That's not a criticism, it's merely a fact.

Premiere Pro is one application in a suite of many. FCP X is the main focus of the Apple video software world. Nothing competes directly for attention or resources unless you spin that telephones or maybe cars do that. But the pace of X development over the past 6 years kinda disproves that much of anything has been diverted whatever is necessary for robust on-going development.

Both Premiere Pro and FCP X have shown that their next great challenge is moving beyond single seat and into collaborative workflows.

Adobe Anywhere telegraphs this.
Roles in X does the same thing (in my opinion.)

But they are WAY different approaches, to my mind.

FWIW.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 25, 2017 at 7:45:15 am

[Bill Davis] "For Apple the FOCUS of content creation has been X from day one. For Adobe, the FOCUS is a suite of a dozen plus separate entities that all exist outside any central hub - and only link up when the user of one program needs to exchange with another."

You can create content for the printing production and the web with FCPX? I admit Premiere Pro cannot be used for printing production and web webdesign.

[Bill Davis] "FCP X is surely different - it's focus is currently still on single seat video editing acting as the HUB application for everything else - a position that I don't think Premiere Pro will ever occupy in the Adobe Universe."

Can you please demonstrate FCPX being used as the HUB for webdesign? Adobe's CC is a multimedia solution for web design, printing production as well as audio and video production. Premiere Pro cannot do it all but neither can FCPX as far as I now.

[Bill Davis] "That's not a criticism, it's merely a fact."

It is your opinion Bill. Having said that what does FCPX do that Premiere Pro does not?

I think it would be wise to say Apple is more focused on audio and video production where Adobe offers a complete multimedia solution. At one time Final Cut Studio users though FCS would get a unified GUI for all the FCS programs (like Adobe's CS) and complete integration between programs (like Adobe's CS). Some thought "FCP 8" would import native files from Color. That never happened because Apple thought it would be to hard and to costly to implement. Apple took the easy way out. That is not to say financial it was not a success.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 25, 2017 at 2:39:12 pm

[Bill Davis] "FCP X is surely different - it's focus is currently still on single seat video editing acting as the HUB application for everything else - a position that I don't think Premiere Pro will ever occupy in the Adobe Universe. "

Huh? Let's limit the discussion to video editors. Photoshop, Illustrator, Audition, After Effects, Prelude and AME all service Premiere with Premiere as the center of that hub. How is that not the same?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 25, 2017 at 2:45:34 pm

[Bill Davis] "FCP X is surely different - it's focus is currently still on single seat video editing acting as the HUB application for everything else "

I'm not sure experts in the field like the great Ronny Courtens would agree with this very narrow definition.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 26, 2017 at 4:39:49 am

Simon.

That comment was in the specific context of comparing how I see X working against what I understand about the Adobe approach of preferring separate monolithic Apps for everything.

I thought that was clear.

Just as MOST Premiere editors host the software locally, most X editors do as well.

I've known Ronny for years and am fully aware of the amazing things he and Eric Altman and Sam Mestman and the LumaForge teams do in creating facility-wide adaptations of multi-seat X editing around the world.

It's great stuff and I'm pretty sure he believes, as I do - that the X future is bright in this area.

But I think you're doing the Apples and Oranges thing here.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 25, 2017 at 4:25:51 am

[Steve Connor] "Yep CS5, it was SOOO great that it was widely used across the Industry and there were LOADS of Freelance jobs around for it, whereas that FCP7 that you think isn't a wise choice was hardly used and there was NO Freelance work for it."

You are using the old argumentum ad populum. It is a fallacy. Actually Edius was used heavily for Broadcast in the Asian countries back in the FCP 4,5,6 and 7 days. Does that make Eduis better than FCP 7? It doesn't matter if the program is widely used or not. What matters if it can speed up the editing process.

If background rendering and GPU acceleration speeds up the editing process of FCPX VS FCP 7 as FCPX users claim then wouldn't logic dictate that Liquid Edition would have been better than FCPX? See my point? I am using critical thinking where you opted to use a logical fallacy : )

[Steve Connor] "But you feel free have a race, because that's what Editing is - a race!"

Most comments are directly related to Bill's post just in case you cannot figure it out. If FCPX can encode h.264 faster than Premiere Pro that is really really really awesome in the eyes of FCPX users. On the other hand if PP CS 5.0 makes transcoding h.264 obsolete that isn't a big deal. See my point?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 6:14:15 pm

[andy patterson] "While you are transcoding I will be editing : )"

After taking at eternity to generate peak files of course


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 6:20:49 pm

[Steve Connor] "After taking at eternity to generate peak files of course"

I did leave peak file generation out of my list of Adobe innovations. I apologize for my oversight.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 1:57:50 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "[andy patterson] "Premiere Pro CS 5.0 was much better than FCP 7"

You seriously mean this?"


I'm a serious as Chaka Chan naked : )

For the record even Premiere Pro CS 4.0 could edit AVCHD natively with a Core 2 Quad. Many FCP 7 user at the time (2009) said AVCHD is not a professional codec to edit with. Remember those days Scott? Funny how once FCPX allowed for the native editing of AVCHD FCP users changed their mind about AVCHD. Why do you think that is Scott? AVCHD/H.264 is obviously awesome to Bill Davis because Intel's Quick Sync (h.264 encoding) is the star of this thread. If Premiere made use of Quick Sync and FCPX did not I am willing to bet FCPX user would continue to say h.246 is not a professional format. Professional or not it is a common video codec. For the record Premiere Pro CS 4 could also edit native Red One R3D files.

FCPX didn't invent metadata, mixing video formats, Quick Sync, GPU acceleration, background rendering or 64 bit. That is why a lot of people were not all that impressed with FCPX when it launched. I had GPU acceleration and background rendering back in 2003. Not to mention almost all PC editing software could mix video formats. FCP users did not find background rendering and GPU acceleration amazing, innovative or revolutionary when Pinnacle implemented them in 2003 and I didn't find them innovative, revolutionary or amazing when Apple introduced them in 2011. Why would I? I didn't ever hype up Pinnacle for having those features. I am not saying FCPX is not a good program or that FCPX does not have some cool features. I am saying Apple took ideas from other software programs as much as anyone else. Bill asked a question and I simply supplied the correct answers.

[Bill Davis] "I can easily point to the other companies ADOPTING efficiency concepts X has been using for 6 years like the proxy workflow and skimming and folding those into their own software as their hardware has developed to accommodated them. Are their not equivalent concepts that those other programs pioneered that X has incorporated. Perhapst I'm just woefully ignorant of them. So, help me out. What are the most recent and most effective ones? How has AVID or Premiere Pro singularly evolved to move the industry forward?"

If you FCPX users like background rendering, mixing video formats, GPU acceleration wouldn't Pinnacle's Liquid Edition also have been better than FCP 7 or can only other Apple product be better than FCP 7? Pinnacles Liquid Edition could edit multiple layer of HVD back in 2005 but I cannot say if it could edit multiple layers of h.264/AVCDH. Avid Killed it prior to h.264/AVCHD becoming popular. Where would Liquid be today? Who knows?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 4:20:26 pm

[andy patterson] "For the record even Premiere Pro CS 4.0 could edit AVCHD natively with a Core 2 Quad. "

So what. PPro 4 was a horrid piece of software. It didn't begin to compete with FCP till version 6, which was still about a mile behind. It wasn't until the CC versions began that a broadcast editor could begin to work with Ppro without pulling their hair out. I say that as someone who started working with Ppro ver1. The fact that it could handle a couple of codec's natively that FCP7 couldn't in no way justifies this sentence of yours :

"Premiere Pro CS 5.0 was much better than FCP 7 as well."

Only true if the entirety of your workflow was ingesting and exporting AVCHD. If you had to do any actual, you know, editing, that statement is absurd.

Currently I work with Ppro CC and I'm quite happy with it, but lets leave the hyperbole out of this discussion.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 5:10:04 pm
Last Edited By Steve Connor on Feb 24, 2017 at 5:11:12 pm

[Herb Sevush] ""Premiere Pro CS 5.0 was much better than FCP 7 as well."

Only true if the entirety of your workflow was ingesting and exporting AVCHD. If you had to do any actual, you know, editing, that statement is absurd."


He's the first Editor I've EVER heard make that statement

I've Edited with Premiere since before it was Premiere Pro and it was horrid all the way to the early CC versions


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 25, 2017 at 6:15:24 am

[Herb Sevush] "[andy patterson] "For the record even Premiere Pro CS 4.0 could edit AVCHD natively with a Core 2 Quad. "

So what. PPro 4 was a horrid piece of software. It didn't begin to compete with FCP till version 6, which was still about a mile behind"


I included CS 4 and the mention of AVCHD because they very star of this thread is FCPX encoding AVCHD/h.264 10 times faster than Premiere Pro and thus speeding up the workflow. Having said that if you went back to 2010 when Premiere Pro could edit native AVCHD FCP 7 users would state AVCHD/h.264 is not a professional codec and should not be used. Transcode to Pro Res. Once FCPX could edit native AVCHD then it was cool to edit and export native AVCHD/h.264. Doesn't that kind of correlate to this thread? In other words if Premiere Pro CC made use of Quick Sync and FCPX did not perhaps FCPX user would still say h.264 is not a professional codec. Do you kind of see my point? I just simply flipped the table of the Quick Sync paradigm. I should add I don't think PP CS 5.0 editing AVCHD better that FCP 7 is a big deal but CS 5.0 edit all the codecs better than FCP 7. Actually PP CS 5.0 had better real-time playback then Premiere Pro CC 2017. The introduction of Open CL introduced slow downs because Adobe has to make the Mercury Playback Engine work with CUDA and Open CL.

[Herb Sevush] "It wasn't until the CC versions began that a broadcast editor could begin to work with Ppro without pulling their hair out."

Could you elaborate a little? I think The Tonight Show used PP prior to CS 6.0. There were several other places listed on Adobe's website using PP prior to CS 6.0 for broadcast TV shows.

[Herb Sevush] "The fact that it could handle a couple of codec's natively that FCP7 couldn't in no way justifies this sentence of yours :"

My post should make it clear to FCPX users who think FCPX is so much better than Premiere Pro because it can encode h.264 10 times faster may not be accurate. I kind of turned the tables to Bill's FCPX Vs Premiere Pro paradigm. Keep in mind CS 5.0 edit all the codecs better than FCP 7 not just one or two. I only listed two. As I stated prior CS 5.0 had better playback performance than CC 2017. I think you got to caught up in the AVCHD/h.264 paradigm and forgot that CS 5.0 can edit more than just a few codecs. As I stated I mentioned AVCHD/h.264 as a gag. Bill Davis used Intel's Quick Sync as proof that FCPX is better than Premiere Pro. Do you kind of see my point now? I was flipping the table to Bill's FCPX Vs Premiere Pro paradigm.

[Herb Sevush] "Only true if the entirety of your workflow was ingesting and exporting AVCHD. If you had to do any actual, you know, editing, that statement is absurd."

Once again you are focusing on AVCHD/h.264 even more than Bill Davis. I would never think that editing h.264/AVCHD would make one NLE better than another. You should now me better than that. My point was that in 2010 FCP 7 users looked down on h.264/AVCHD. Now h.264/AVCHD is the star of the show. Once again I don't think AVCHD/h.264 is a big deal. Bill Davis does. I was simply flipping the table on the paradigm. I was pulling gag. Having said that PP CS 5 and even CS 4.0 did not just edit AVCHD faster than FCP 7 it edited all the codecs better than FCP 7. The Red One R3D, HDV, MJPEG, AVCHD etc. I know many people that switched form FCP 7 to Premiere Pro CS 5.5 (CS 5.0 same thing). All of them stated they loved Premiere Pro. They all stated Premiere Pro was slick compared to FCPX. They loved the Mercury Playback Engine. I admit their editing needs were probably different than yours.

[Herb Sevush] "Currently I work with Ppro CC and I'm quite happy with it, but lets leave the hyperbole out of this discussion."

I was merely turning the tables to Bill's FCPX paradigm although for most editors CS 5.0 was better than FCP 7. Walter Biscardi from the Creative Cow switched to CS 5.5. I am not saying FCP 7 was not a better option for a select few. As I sated what exactly did FCP 7 do that Premiere Pro CS 5.0 did not do?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 6:06:53 pm

[Bill Davis] " I can easily point to the other companies ADOPTING efficiency concepts X has been using for 6 years like the proxy workflow and skimming and folding those into their own software as their hardware has developed to accommodated them. "

This is controversial. FCPX is the first NLE I know of to integrate a basic MAM system, and the timeline structure is unique, but proxies and skimming are questionable claims.

FCP X's media management system is very, very similar to Smoke's:
FCPX native media = Smoke's soft-imported media
FCPX optimized media = Smoke's hard-imported, cached (or "stonified") media
FCPX proxy = Smoke's proxy

Smoke has had proxies since 2003 [link], and background processing (including proxy generation) since 2006 [link]. Smoke/Flame proxies are like a setting or a mode, not separate media which needs to be relinked; FCPX proxies works much the same way.

Smoke/Flame have also had what FCP users used to call "picon scrubbing" as a major feature of daily workflow since dinosaurs roamed the earth. This is not quite the skimmer nor hover scrub, but it might well be their dad. Additionally, Dennis Radeke has stated here [link]:
"Hover Scrub and the FCPX Skimming feature were developed in tandem and released at basically the same time. Great ideas can be thought of and explored by multiple people and companies at the same time. I think of Tesla and Edison with electricity. Many different people were working on early flight as well.... I could go on."

All that said, I'd agree with you that Apple has the best skimming implementation by a big margin.


[Bill Davis] "How has AVID or Premiere Pro singularly evolved to move the industry forward? "

I'd have to let others speak for Avid, but Adobe has done quite a lot to move the industry forward.

First, there's the whole "suite" concept. Adobe's products work together and their offerings extend way beyond video. You can produce an entire campaign across multiple media and channels, using Adobe products the whole way though.

There's Creative Cloud. I know a lot of folks here are opposed to subscription pricing, but this is a major game changer for small and large agencies alike that makes costs both predictable and scalable and makes it easier to stay up-to-date.

There are the other services Adobe offers, like TypeKit, Stock, Marketing Cloud. I'm really curious to see what Adobe Sensei (Adobe's new machine learning platform) will bring.

Premiere specific advancements? Adobe didn't invent multi-format editorial or GPU acceleration, but they certainly popularized both. Then there's dynamic link, VR support, the panels architecture, HDR support, touch/gesture support in the UI, integration with the Premiere Clip mobile app, Adobe Story integration, Cloud features like Libraries and Team Projects, marketing integrations over social media...

Apple and Adobe are both innovating and moving the industry forward, but they have very different approaches.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 7:21:00 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'd have to let others speak for Avid, but Adobe has done quite a lot to move the industry forward.

First, there's the whole "suite" concept. Adobe's products work together and their offerings extend way beyond video. You can produce an entire campaign across multiple media and channels, using Adobe products the whole way though.

There's Creative Cloud. I know a lot of folks here are opposed to subscription pricing, but this is a major game changer for small and large agencies alike that makes costs both predictable and scalable and makes it easier to stay up-to-date.

There are the other services Adobe offers, like TypeKit, Stock, Marketing Cloud. I'm really curious to see what Adobe Sensei (Adobe's new machine learning platform) will bring."


Your Smoke, et al - comments are fair. But I'd counter that features at the highest end of the industry don't benefit many - and it's only when somebody comes along to offer the same thing at a fraction of the price that the benefit of the new ideas takes on real market power. But, again, it's a fair point.

As to the next group of "features" you list, I'd simply ask, how can this be seen as moving the "industry" forward, if the ONLY way you can get access to any of this is to use Adobe products? Is that "industry innovation" or just one company's product development goals.

Basically, where is the adoption of this model (or even significant aspects of it) beyond Adobe's offerings? I don't see AVID or Apple, or BlackMagic or anyone else looking to build a broad array of software modules in an "all rental" model.

Maybe Affinity will do so over time? But right now, they seem to feel that just selling software the regular way is enough of a business model to serve their customers.

I'd ask, can you move an "industry" forward, if the concepts you are promoting don't actually spread across the industry?

Also, Walter, you mentioned skimming vs hover scrub earlier. X had skimming on it's introduction in 2011. IIRC, Premiere Pro didn't incorporate haver scrub until 3-5 years later - or am I mistaken about that? Do you recall when PPro released hover scrub?

As to the innovative features of the product itself, dynamic link is a winner. Obviously, it again only works inside the CC suite, but I understand it provides tremendous user benefits, so good on that.

I'm having a bit of difficulties with the rest because in VR and HDR , it seems I have all of that available to me as well - just done in the Apple fashion of external modules from 3rd party vendors rather than bolted into the software in a fashion where editors that may not have any need for the capabilities, get lumped in a pool paying for their development anyway. Touch (actually multi-touch) is an iOS strength so I'm not worried about that for editing. My laptop trackpad enables that for me when doing primary editing, and I suspect that the Apple ecosystem will continue to merge MacOS and iOS and touch will be an ever increasing part of my life going forward as well.

Everything else, again, seems like features that ONLY apply to the Adobe way. I don't see those things as being "industry influencers" - but maybe I'll prove to be entirely wrong.

Maybe in the coming years, BlackMagic, AVID (if it survives) and even Apple will all switch to doing their best to control a single cloud-locked experience for editors, rather than via a simpler system of encouraging ownership of creative enabling programs - designed to be controlled exclusively by the end user without need for ongoing payment.

Hope not though.

Not my style.

I would argue that the largest "innovation" Adobe has brought to the table so far hasn't been any feature or even concept, but rather the "subscription" model.

It's changed things the most. And also, as you know, worries me the most.

What's next?

Subscription grocery stores? Subscription gas stations?
Actually, one of the doctors in my area just tried that. He was highly rated, so he suddenly moved to a "conceriege" doctor model via office subscriptions. If you don't pay a monthly or yearly "retainer", you can't get any medical care in his practice. THAT felt AWFULLY scary to me. What if THAT model catches on across the medical industry? Pay when you're well, or you don't get to pay when you're sick. Yikes.

I don't actually see customers clamoring for MORE monthly subscription models in other categories beyond software. Or am I missing something and the tide is sweeping in that direction out there?.

Fun to speculate. And thanks for being a reasoned voice here, always.

; )

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 7:47:22 pm

[Bill Davis] "I'd ask, can you move an "industry" forward, if the concepts you are promoting don't actually spread across the industry?"

What exactly has "spread across the industry" from FCPX?

Hoover scrub? As has been pointed out X might have the best implementation but not the first. PPro had it within a year of FCPX's release, which gives credence to the notion that they were working on it simultaneously.

Magnetic Timeline? Auditions? Roles? Keyword Ranges? - They are innovative, but they are as unique to X after 6 years as dynamic link is to Adobe.

So how has X "advanced the industry" to use your definition?

As for subscriptions - It doesn't seem to bother you that Lumberjack is subscription only, so why single out Adobe in this matter?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 8:05:57 pm

[Herb Sevush] "So how has X "advanced the industry" to use your definition?"

Maybe it's just my perceptions.

I got skimming six years ago. A year or two back, it showed up in Premiere Pro.
I got a robust "proxy workflow with a click" in X ALSO six years ago. A year or so back, I was reading everyone on the Premiere Pro boards lifted their virtual cups to their new "proxy workflows!"

So I'm probably just over projecting, foolishly. Never mind.

As to subscriptions, Lumberjack does subscriptions just like Lynda.com does them.

You want to subscribe, click here. You want to Unsubscribe, click here. Use it as you like, when you like, stop when you like any time you like. Simple.

That has NOT been my experience with ADOBE subscriptions.

Not in any way, shape or form.

Even with Lumberjack, I might not have full and complete access to something I've left on their website as to an on-going "in progress" edit - but EVERYTHING on my X timeline that results from the rental continues to function perfectly with no further payment.

So I can get locked out of NONE of my own intellectual property. Only the service I was subscribing to. To me that's a fair approach.

Just yesterday, somebody claimed that it's now easier to dive in and dive out of Premiere Pro on a pay as you go, monthly basis. (tho, sadly, not my Lightroom/ Photoshop subscription🙁) I may investigate that. But it doesn't solve the issue that if I use my rental to do anything OTHER than to translate content - if I actually use Premiere Pro to CREATE a timeline and put energy into perfecting it - and then stop paying - that creative effort all gets locked away from me.

Not cool, IMHO.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 8:17:00 pm

[Bill Davis] "I actually use Premiere Pro to CREATE a timeline and put energy into perfecting it - and then stop paying - that creative effort all gets locked away from me. "

Yep, you lose access to the rushes, any master files you've made, any EDL's you've outputted it's terrible!

Thing is, anyone who's a Professional using CC, carries on paying the subscription, because it's NOT a very large amount at all, easily written of against tax and billed in an hour a month!


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 9:39:17 pm

[Bill Davis] "I got skimming six years ago. A year or two back, it showed up in Premiere Pro."

No matter how many times you say this, it still remains factually incorrect. Skimming was in Ppro by April of 2012, within a year of the X release, because it was being worked on concurrently. X got there first, but influenced nothing.

[Bill Davis] "I got a robust "proxy workflow with a click" in X ALSO six years ago"

Proxy workflows go back decades. Every time a new format (now 4K) shows up, with it's heavy i/o demands, proxy workflows come back. Then disk speeds and capacity catches up, and proxy workflows die. Apple has influenced nothing in this realm since it predates the original FCP, let alone FCPX.

And I'll get back to the main point. Nobody at the time of it's release said - Wow, revolutionary, FCPX has proxy workflows, let's throw everything out and start all over because this is something great.

The things that made X innovative were the magnetic timeline, roles, keyword ranges, & auditions. You've posted about how keywording has changed your editing life for the better, we get constant postings about how the magnetic timeline speeds up editing, Charlie Austin posts about how roles have dramatically improved his versioning requirements - these were the innovative tools unique to X at the time of release and are still unavailable in any other NLE to this day. FCPX made it's statement and the rest of "the industry" has ignored it, at least up to this time. That isn't a value judgement by the way, it is just a factual description.

[Bill Davis] "So I'm probably just over projecting, foolishly. Never mind."

Bill you have, by your own admission, zero experience or interest in NLEs that don't start with the letters FCP. You're entitled to your opinion, but they are based on a singularly narrow viewpoint. You are the proverbial blind man describing an elephant after touching his tail.

[Bill Davis] "Even with Lumberjack, I might not have full and complete access to something I've left on their website as to an on-going "in progress" edit - but EVERYTHING on my X timeline that results from the rental continues to function perfectly with no further payment."

And now we are splitting hairs. I don't like subscriptions, I avoid them whenever I can. When I can't, I use them. Either you own something or you don't. If I drop my PPro subscription I still have every piece of media I have ever created with it, I have the timelines and projects that I can open on someone else's system, I have whatever XMLs I decided to export. Just like with Lumberjack what I don't have is the ability to use it right now. Which I can get back on a monthly basis whenever I pay up.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 24, 2017 at 11:07:45 pm

[Bill Davis] "Do you recall when PPro released hover scrub?"

2012.

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/premiere-pro-hover-scrub/

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 26, 2017 at 4:12:35 am

So a year later Premiere had a skimmer-like capability in what I presume was the rough equivelent of the X Event Browser?

I don't remember seeing it IN THE TIMELINE (where the editor presumably does the vast majority of their actual editing in a traditional NLE.)

I know Premiere Pro has feature parity via "hover scrub" in the actual Timeline now. Right?

Did that also appear in 2012 and I just missed it?

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 26, 2017 at 5:10:09 am

[Bill Davis] "So a year later Premiere had a skimmer-like capability in what I presume was the rough equivelent of the X Event Browser?

I don't remember seeing it IN THE TIMELINE (where the editor presumably does the vast majority of their actual editing in a traditional NLE.)

I know Premiere Pro has feature parity via "hover scrub" in the actual Timeline now. Right?

Did that also appear in 2012 and I just missed it?"


Bill you do realize Premiere Pro had GPU acceleration, 64 bit and good metadata capabilities prior to the release of FCPX don't you?

Keep in mind upon release FCPX had no broadcast monitor support, no native Red One R3D support, no multi-cam editor and a bunch of other features were missing form FCPX when it was first released. Having said that FCPX has gotten better. I know you claim you started using FCPX from day one. Keep in mind some people could not. Not because the the GUI of FCPX was different but because it couldn't support their work flow. Why make such a big deal out of the hover scrub? Also stating FCPX was a total rewrite of the program does not cut the mustard. Premiere Pro 1.0 was a total rewrite of the code form Premiere 6.5 but it did not lack any features in fact it had more. The bottom line is FCPX was released premature because Apple did not have another 14 months to wait to include all the features that most NLE already had. Apple had to release it as is because Premiere was starting to get recognized once Premiere Pro went 64 bit with GPU acceleration.

I guess it is cool you had hover scrub but you didn't have multi-cam, broadcast monitor support or support for R3D files when FCPX was first released. Which feature listed above is the most important? I think that would depend on who is using it wouldn't you agree?

I think FCPX is a good program but the level of cheer leading amazes me at times. FCPX, Avid, Premiere, Sony Veagas etc all have incorporated features form other companies. I don't necessarily consider it copying or stealing. I consider it all part of software evolution.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 26, 2017 at 1:28:51 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Feb 26, 2017 at 1:56:37 pm

[Bill Davis] "I don't remember seeing it IN THE TIMELINE (where the editor presumably does the vast majority of their actual editing in a traditional NLE.) I know Premiere Pro has feature parity via "hover scrub" in the actual Timeline now. Right?"

You're moving the goal posts by adding the timeline stipulation. Premiere offers standard scrubbing in the timeline, as it always has.

As an aside, I would suggest that as fun as FCPX skimming can be for the editor, it's completely disconcerting for any client in the back of the room. All you see is a flash of images out of context. I often find myself turning it off when dealing with a client-involved session.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 26, 2017 at 3:32:35 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I often find myself turning it off when dealing with a client-involved session."

Having to hit that one key (S) must really throw everyone for a loop!! Horrible burden.

😜

[scnr]


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 26, 2017 at 5:50:04 pm

[Oliver Peters] "You're moving the goal posts by adding the timeline stipulation. Premiere offers standard scrubbing in the timeline, as it always has"

We'll have to disagree on that. Moving the goalposts, not Premiere "standard scrubbing" which I'm afraid I remain ignorant about. Perhaps you can help me by explaining how it works compared to how scrubbing works in X?

For me skimming has ALWAYS been a "storyline thing" at heart.

My "skimming in the storyline" to "skimming in the browser" ratio has to be 100 to 1 - or more.

In the Event, I use nearly 100% keyboard commands to markup and tag stuff at the Event level in X. I rarely skim things using JKL transport nearly exclusively. It's just faster than mousing around. And my content is rejected and tagged, I have little reason to skim anything at that stage againt. In fact, you could easily argue that this is precisely what keywords are DESIGNED to do in X - make the need for asset skimming in the event far less necessary.

I'm sure it's just a difference in conditioning and orientation.

I'm also sure, now that I think about it, there are likely lots of people still skimming assets in FCP X. I wonder if the people doing this have ever considered that once again, they are sorta making X work slower (even with SKIMMING available!) by trying to match their prior "bin" conditioning, rather than learning more about how X is designed to work?

Skimming ANYTHING in the Event Browser is VASTLY slower than having the asset you're seeking pre-defined by a keyword range. Don't get me wrong, as an exploratory process I'm all for skimming and randomly exploration of footage "at will"- and X does that just as well as all the other NLEs - BUT - in X it's NOT the optimal way to bring content to into your storylines. I find organization via keywords and instant range addition to the timeline via keystroke beats it by a country mile for efficiency.

Oh well.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 27, 2017 at 1:20:18 am

[Bill Davis] "Premiere "standard scrubbing" which I'm afraid I remain ignorant about. Perhaps you can help me by explaining how it works compared to how scrubbing works in X?"

Are you pulling my leg, or are you seriously asking me what scrubbing is? After all, it's been in NLEs since day one and generally works the same way in most. Hold down the mouse button and move the cursor/playhead across the timeline. Same as in FCP7.

Of course, if doesn't work at all right in X. If I turn off skimming, in order to scrub, I lose the ability to hear audio when I scrub. If I try to scrub in the event, it wants to set a range. It then won't let you scrub within that range, because it thinks you want to drag it to the timeline. Clearly they designed X for skimming and broke scrubbing in the process.

[Bill Davis] "I'm also sure, now that I think about it, there are likely lots of people still skimming assets in FCP X. I wonder if the people doing this have ever considered that once again, they are sorta making X work slower (even with SKIMMING available!) by trying to match their prior "bin" conditioning, rather than learning more about how X is designed to work?"

Aren't you making a value judgement based on how you think it should work, not how it actually works? That's like saying list versus filmstrip is "wrong" or vice versa.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 27, 2017 at 8:38:02 am

[Oliver Peters] "Clearly they designed X for skimming and broke scrubbing in the process."

Or they simply recognized that there is absolutely nothing about scrubbing that trumps skimming.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 28, 2017 at 5:07:42 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Feb 28, 2017 at 5:10:50 am

[Oliver Peters] "[Bill Davis] "Premiere "standard scrubbing" which I'm afraid I remain ignorant about. Perhaps you can help me by explaining how it works compared to how scrubbing works in X?"

Are you pulling my leg, or are you seriously asking me what scrubbing is? After all, it's been in NLEs since day one and generally works the same way in most. Hold down the mouse button and move the cursor/playhead across the timeline. Same as in FCP7.

Of course, if doesn't work at all right in X. If I turn off skimming, in order to scrub, I lose the ability to hear audio when I scrub. If I try to scrub in the event, it wants to set a range. It then won't let you scrub within that range, because it thinks you want to drag it to the timeline. Clearly they designed X for skimming and broke scrubbing in the process."


I'm sorry.

i must be describing this badly. Since there may be folks reading this without the years of experience you have,
let me try to be more clear.

I'm talking about the behavior that has existed in FCP X since day one - to wit: the use of the cursor to either scrub (JKL or mouse control of the playhead) or skim (mouse or trackpad indicator hovering separate from the cursor location) across the content at will - in a fashion that lets you monitor the underlying content in order to easily target a specific frame location. In X, that's obviously done partly by visual cues, but also with pitch shifted audio content. And it works the same whether you're exploring an Event or working in a Primary or Secondary - or audio content in the Timeline.

THAT to me describes scrubbing and skimming as FCP X enables it.

It's the overall softwares interface to allow the user to rapidly assess content and target specific frames for operations.

I'm trying to understand how the functions might (or might not) DIFFER in it's implementation in Premiere Pro from how I've been using it in Final Cut Pro X for the past six years.

That's all.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 28, 2017 at 3:23:34 pm

[Bill Davis] "I'm talking about the behavior that has existed in FCP X since day one .....
......I'm trying to understand how the functions might (or might not) DIFFER in it's implementation in Premiere Pro from how I've been using it in Final Cut Pro X for the past six years.
"


Hmm, I thought I had explained it. At the risk of being pedantic, JKL playback is not the same as skimming or scrubbing, but never mind. Premiere's scrubbing works like FCP7's scrubbing. Essentially this is the same as FCPX skimming (not clip skimming), except that you have to hold down the mouse button in Premiere. Then drag left or right in the (source or record) viewer time bar or the timeline window. This displays the changing frame and/or audio under the playhead/cursor as you move it.

Premiere's "hovering scrubbing" lets you "skim" through a clip in the browser when set to frame view. You don't have to hold down the mouse button. It doesn't play audio and it only updates the frame in that viewer icon. However, you can make the frame sizes in the browser as big as you like. Primarily it gives you the function of quickly identifying what's the full footage within any given clip.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 28, 2017 at 5:35:10 pm

Thanks for that, Oliver.

It helps me understand the similarities and differences more clearly.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 28, 2017 at 11:49:15 am

[Bill Davis] "I'd simply ask, how can this be seen as moving the "industry" forward, if the ONLY way you can get access to any of this is to use Adobe products? Is that "industry innovation" or just one company's product development goals. "

I assumed in this conversation that "moving the industry forward" was like advancing the state of the art: making something possible or practical, for the first time. I think the most interesting advancements in our space are largely proprietary, whether they're Apple's magnetic timeline or Adobe's marketing integrations.


[Bill Davis] "I'm having a bit of difficulties with the rest because in VR and HDR , it seems I have all of that available to me as well - just done in the Apple fashion of external modules from 3rd party vendors rather than bolted into the software in a fashion where editors that may not have any need for the capabilities, get lumped in a pool paying for their development anyway."

1) I'm all for third-party development. I'm convinced that After Effects is only where it is today because of it's vibrant third-party ecosystem. But there are still limits to third-party extension, and there's still a need for ongoing first-party development. First-party integrations can be deep, because they can obviously extend the application's architecture. Third-party integrations are often shallower, because they must fit into an existing architecture that was not designed for the feature they're adding.

2) Don't forget that the features you love in your own favorite apps might be viewed by others as bolt-ons they didn't need and had to pay for anyway. It's really hard to draw the line.


[Bill Davis] "I would argue that the largest "innovation" Adobe has brought to the table so far hasn't been any feature or even concept, but rather the "subscription" model. It's changed things the most. And also, as you know, worries me the most. ... I don't actually see customers clamoring for MORE monthly subscription models in other categories beyond software. Or am I missing something and the tide is sweeping in that direction out there?"

Isn't XinTwo subscription-based?

Ordinary desktop software (product alone) is unplugged. It can't benefit from network effects, from cloud computing, or from real-time analytics. Product with services opens up all kinds of new possibilities, and subscription is probably the most viable model that allows products to be built with/around services. I want to see where this goes.


[Oliver Peters] "In addition, I would also argue that the origin of the modern proxy concept goes to Avid Media Composer with its offline/online edit workflow. This included the ability to work with low-res and high-res linked media as the same time. Certainly not as elegant was the forked media system FCPX has today, but definitely there earlier as a concept and with a practical application. Also quite possibly Montage even before that."

I'm sure you're correct. My point is definitely not that Autodesk/Discreet was first, but rather the design of the FCPX media system was shipping in Smoke five to eight years before FCPX's release. I know "great artists steal" and all, but FCPX did not innovate the push-button original/native/proxy managed media system.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 28, 2017 at 6:20:37 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Isn't XinTwo subscription-based?"

It definitely will be.

But my experiences with Adobes implementation of subscriptions is precisely why I've made sure that the subscription model we use is EVERY BIT as easy to stop for our customers as it is to start.

I'll will be extremely grateful if somebody subscribes for even a single month. And if they then feel they've learned what they needed - if they wish to opt out of the service - that's their right. At the same price everyone pays.

My partner is in charge of the entire back end including plumbing in the payment system while I'm focused on the content, but he knows how I feel about this.

Again, I've never said a bad thing about what I characterize as "non-fishook" subscription services like Lynda.com.

You sign up, pay until you feel you wish to stop. Then STOP. Fair.

Lynda has never made it difficult for me to stop a subscription. Not once.

On the other hand, I spent yet another hour on the phone with Adobe a few months back trying for the third time to get them to cancel at least ONE of my duplicate Photo subscriptions. It's still hitting my credit card as of yesterday.

I know it's my own damn fault. I should be more relentless in getting what I want. But who has time.

I know I've spent 15 minutes interacting with the forum on-line and I should probably have spent that time on the phone with Adobe billing instead - but I feel good when I spend time chatting with people here - and I feel TERRIBLE when I spend hours on hold trying to get my credit card billing untangled within the Adobe system.

It's my fault, I guess.

And so it goes.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 28, 2017 at 6:22:57 pm

[Bill Davis] "hours on hold trying to get my credit card billing untangled within the Adobe system.

It's my fault, I guess.
"


Yep, use PayPal next time, much easier to "switch off"


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 28, 2017 at 7:05:26 pm

[Bill Davis] "You sign up, pay until you feel you wish to stop. Then STOP. Fair. "

Yeps. Because that model isn't the least bit comparable to what Adobe and others are pulling off in broad daylight. Since in the case of Lynda etc. you don't get a permanent block installed into your brain barring you from utilizing everything you've learned up that point (at least I hope not). If you've forgotten everything or not e.g. downloaded before you stopped paying, your bad. Exact same goes for any course you may have taken in school/collage (which are, at least here, all FREE anyway), no?? Or does someone expect to have an automatic, lifelong subscription to every teacher they ever had, for just having taken a course with them for a semester? Stupid question, right?

Well let's see… with Adobe et al? You pay, you create, you use… and whammo! The day you decide to stop paying or, for whatever reason, simply CAN'T pay anymore, you are affectively locked out of your own work. Bra-vo! Think about that for just 3 seconds. Everything (at least in most cases, such as PPro, InDesign, Audition etc. etc. etc. etc.) past that moment is beyond your reach, period. If you need access… you effectively pay ransom money for said work to access it.

No idea on what planet or by which logic that actually figures out to being a sensible, let alone reasonable business model. Other than for Adobe of course, duh! Brilliant deal! They've got you firmly by the creative maracas! 👍🏼

For anyone else? Mindblowingly stupid in my book. At least for any straight thinking adult and not some "ooooh, all THAT for 'just 50 bucks'??!" kid. In which case I don't give a flying poon how long any feature list is or if it kicks the pants off of everything else on the planet… which it doesn't. The rudest awakening of them all in the end.

Factually nothing that could ever happen to me with Final Cut Pro X or any other non-Ponzi model of that kind. Simple. And if Apple ever introduced any such model for X, I'd work my way all the way down to Movie Maker if I had to or would simply become a pro-level basket weaver before I bought into such nonsense.

- RK


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 28, 2017 at 8:29:57 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "For anyone else? Mindblowingly stupid in my book. At least for any straight thinking adult and not some "ooooh, all THAT for 'just 50 bucks'??!" kid. In which case I don't give a flying poon how long any feature list is or if it kicks the pants off of everything else on the planet… which it doesn't. The rudest awakening of them all in the end.

Factually nothing that could ever happen to me with Final Cut Pro X or any other non-Ponzi model of that kind. Simple. And if Apple ever introduced any such model for X, I'd work my way all the way down to Movie Maker if I had to or would simply become a pro-level basket weaver before I bought into such nonsense."


Brilliant Robin, Glad you can do without it, however a lot of us "straight thinking Adults" NEED Adobe products in our workflow for various reasons. Would I rather it wasn't subscription only? Yes, but it isn't so I pay for it.

What you think is "mindblowingly stupid" sadly is a necessity for an awful lot of other people's workflows. Happy for you that you can CHOOSe not to use it


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Mar 1, 2017 at 11:48:47 am

[Steve Connor] "What you think is "mindblowingly stupid" sadly is a necessity for an awful lot of other people's workflows. Happy for you that you can CHOOSe not to use it"

Exactly. My personal opinion, nothing more. It's an unacceptable concept for me, therefore I don't buy into it. And again, it's not Adobe exclusive either, which is the worst part if you ask me, more and more are jumping on that bandwagon. Adobe were just the obvious example in this context, but it applies to any and everyone with the same "service".

Also, I don't know of anything that Adobe offers that I can't get elsewhere. Rarely very expensive (<$100, one time), often times even FREE. Even if a certain level of integration with each other is a strongpoint, sure. But everything is a give and take. I for one consider the "I have to have [insert Adobe app here] as a necessity!" a very common and way too easily accepted logical fallacy that clearly caters well to Adobe… good for them! But ultimately, to each his own, right? 😉

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Mar 1, 2017 at 1:14:18 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] " I for one consider the "I have to have [insert Adobe app here] as a necessity!" a very common and way too easily accepted logical fallacy that clearly caters well to Adobe… good for them! But ultimately, to each his own, right? 😉"

Yep, unless your clients supply you After Effects and Premiere Projects to work on or work with and then that choice goes away!


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Mar 1, 2017 at 6:15:46 pm

[Steve Connor] "unless your clients supply you After Effects and Premiere Projects to work on or work with"

That of course not being the scenario I was referring to.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 25, 2017 at 8:06:31 am

Interesting info about Smoke/Flame. Perhaps we will get more information about other NLE.

[Walter Soyka] "There's Creative Cloud. I know a lot of folks here are opposed to subscription pricing, but this is a major game changer for small and large agencies alike that makes costs both predictable and scalable and makes it easier to stay up-to-date."

I don't mind the concept. It is the price. We pay more and get less. For $14.95 it would be awesome.

[Walter Soyka] "Premiere specific advancements? Adobe didn't invent multi-format editorial or GPU acceleration, but they certainly popularized both. Then there's dynamic link, VR support, the panels architecture, HDR support, touch/gesture support in the UI, integration with the Premiere Clip mobile app, Adobe Story integration, Cloud features like Libraries and Team Projects, marketing integrations over social media..."

I have mentioned some of those feature to Bill as well but I don't think he really cares. I think he only wants to glorify FCPX. I feel others just want to glorify FCPX as well rather than sharing information about NLE.

[Walter Soyka] "Apple and Adobe are both innovating and moving the industry forward, but they have very different approaches."

I agree and I think Avid should get some credit. I first started editing on an $80,000.00 Media Composer back in 1998. I think Premiere Pro is better as of now but I am not going to bad mouth Avid. Avid had top of the line systems back in 1998 but things change. I don't like the fact that Avid killed Pinnacle's Liquid Edition but there are pros and cons to all companies. I wish Adobe would bring back the CS but that is not going to happen.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 25, 2017 at 2:46:20 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Smoke/Flame proxies are like a setting or a mode, not separate media which needs to be relinked; FCPX proxies works much the same way."

In addition, I would also argue that the origin of the modern proxy concept goes to Avid Media Composer with its offline/online edit workflow. This included the ability to work with low-res and high-res linked media as the same time. Certainly not as elegant was the forked media system FCPX has today, but definitely there earlier as a concept and with a practical application. Also quite possibly Montage even before that.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" @Bill Davis
on Feb 25, 2017 at 7:31:21 pm

[Oliver Peters] "In addition, I would also argue that the origin of the modern proxy concept goes to Avid Media Composer with its offline/online edit workflow. This included the ability to work with low-res and high-res linked media as the same time. Certainly not as elegant was the forked media system FCPX has today, but definitely there earlier as a concept and with a practical application. Also quite possibly Montage even before that.
"


Not to mention Avid's new way implemented in v7 i believe is a one click proxy system and you have a choice of resolutions to choose from, so while FCPX might have gotten there first with the one click - I think Avid took it a step further. Sure it still doesn't have hover scrub but they've been updating the program like mad lately and adding super useful features that Editors have been asking for, and lately it seems like there listening. The program is running smoother than ever on all types of hardware and us DIVAS who have used the program since the jump are stoked.


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 22, 2017 at 11:51:40 pm

What is your workflow/delivery specs for a final product on Vimeo and sometimes YouTube? For HD, not 4K.

Doug D


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 26, 2017 at 3:15:43 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "even if the renders were actually ten times faster"

I'm sorry… if? Which part of the tests are you not clear on? Let us help.


[Steve Connor] "Would love to see someone do a video covering the whole edit process on both systems."

One of my personal favorites with one ever reoccurring task in "the whole editing process":







Obviously exchanging FCP 7 with PPRo would yield the exact same result. Check the time and do the math… there are a plethora of other examples.

And btw: rendering is far from just done on export, sorry. The example of export is merely the easiest to quantify in a comparison of this kind.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: MacBook Pros "underpowered?" Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
on Feb 26, 2017 at 7:45:21 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Obviously exchanging FCP 7 with PPRo would yield the exact same result. Check the time and do the math… there are a plethora of other examples."

The original post was about FCPX and Intel's Quick Sync. Who stated Premiere Pro CC is better than FCPX as of now? Can you show how FCPX can allow for speeding up collaborations like Adobe Anywhere? Why not demonstrate FCPX's alternative to Adobe's Anywhere? I don't doubt the Apple alternative is much better but I would like to see a demonstration first.


Return to posts index

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