FORUMS: list search recent posts

The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Craig Seeman
The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 7, 2017 at 12:17:17 am

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/06/imac-xeon-e3-64gb-ram-amd-late-october...

New iMac Late October.
Xeon E3 processor.

And Apple's entry back into monitors may be 8K.

A bigger (taller) Mac Mini.



Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 7, 2017 at 7:54:09 pm

Would the switch to Xeon forego the accelerated h264 encoding?

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 7, 2017 at 8:03:16 pm

That's a big concern of mine and it would negate an important asset that the iMac has in workflow dependent on fast H.264 delivery. I did hear that the next generation Xeons may support hardware accelerated decode/encode of H.264 but not sure if that's what they're aiming for here. The odd thing is otherwise I don't see any significant advantage to using Xeon over i7. There has to be another piece to the puzzle.



Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 7, 2017 at 8:16:44 pm

[Craig Seeman] "The odd thing is otherwise I don't see any significant advantage to using Xeon over i7. There has to be another piece to the puzzle."

ECC RAM? But I agree, Xeon seems a strange choice. I think the best reason to go Xeon is for multi-processor support. In all other cases, I think i7 is the way to go.

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

Craig Seeman
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 7, 2017 at 8:35:36 pm
Last Edited By Craig Seeman on Apr 7, 2017 at 8:37:15 pm

I just don't think ECC RAM would be enough performance incentive much as you describe, given the variety of workflows.

In fact I do wish Apple would take advantage of Xeon's multiprocessor support. I wouldn't expect it in an iMac though but it was one of the disappointments with the Mac Pro. I'd like to see that change.

It'll be interesting when people test the Xeon vs Kaby Lake Quad i7 as they'll probably release one as well.



Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 7, 2017 at 10:00:20 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I just don't think ECC RAM would be enough performance incentive much as you describe"

Usually ECC has a performance penalty for the increased protection against errors. Might be important if you live in higher elevations.


Return to posts index


Roy Pearson
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 8, 2017 at 7:20:03 pm

The rumor suggests the iMac Pro will use a Xeon E3-1285 v6, which would include Quick Sync for encoding/decoding H.264 etc. so no issues there. Actually it could be ideal for video editing.

If you need more than 4 cores you'll step up to the Xeon E5 family which has up to 22 cores, although no Quick Sync because those chips don't include integrated graphics. However this can be handled by other GPUs (for example Nvidia NVENC), so in theory the next Mac Pro could still be great for encoding too. Then on the software side Apple could integrate the GPU encoding into FCPX and Compressor.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 9, 2017 at 1:06:50 pm

Here's the actual transcript from that recent meetings:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/transcript-phil-schiller-craig-federighi-...

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 9, 2017 at 7:26:35 pm

Rereading does bring something of the Apple Mac ecosystem to mind that isn't mentioned directly (and rarely mentioned in the forum I think), the relationship of the sales of one Mac to another for a user.

My guess is that many (most?) Mac Pro users also own another Mac. Likely that's a MacBook Pro for portable use. I imagine some own MacMinis as desktop for lighter use in the home. I wonder how many MacPro users also have iMacs. In my own case I have a few generations of Mac Pros, MacBook Pros' MacMinis but no iMacs. I don't know what the norm is though.

One thing a multi mac user runs into is peripheral compatibility across Macs. One might have accumulated several TB2 peripherals to use interchangeably between Macs. If one busy a new MBP with TB3 you can certainly adapt your TB2 peripherals. If you buy peripherals to take advantage of TB3 it's pretty much an island though.

I'm wonder if they considered how the stagnation of the MacPro had a ripple effect on whether to upgrade other Macs. I certainly think it would impact peripheral makers if people are reluctant to buy the latest (TB3) peripherals since they lack the interchangeability until the user can replace Macs with newer models using the same technology.

Even though the Mac Pro makes up single digits it may impact the uptake of TB3 which is why a more "professional" iMac is that much more important. But for those who'd prefer a Mac Pro there's less incentive to move to TB3 (upgrade other computers) until a TB3 Mac Pro comes to market.



Return to posts index


Lance Bachelder
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 10, 2017 at 5:52:36 pm

A Xeon. ECC based iMac... starting at what 6 grand? There's no reason for a Xeon ECC machine for anything other than high-end CG, CAD and scientific crap. A 10 core i7 as a top choice would be more than enough horsepower...

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Roy Pearson
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 10, 2017 at 6:14:42 pm

Well there aren't any 10-core i7 chips so no choice there, even the Xeon E3s are 4-core only. That's why Apple needs a Mac Pro in their lineup.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 10, 2017 at 6:24:59 pm

[Roy Pearson] "Well there aren't any 10-core i7 chips so no choice there, even the Xeon E3s are 4-core only. That's why Apple needs a Mac Pro in their lineup."

Intel Core i7 Broadwell can have up to ten cores...

Shawn



Return to posts index


Roy Pearson
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 10, 2017 at 7:57:13 pm

Ah you're right I was only looking at the current Skylake lineup, my bad. Looks like Skylake-X will have the 10-core option too... I'm just getting caught up on the confusing Intel product names hah.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 10, 2017 at 9:25:08 pm

Apple always seems to go the expensive is better route. You can build a screaming 8 core AMD workstation right now for under 2 grand. i7 or Ryzen iMac or Mac Pro built around a GTX 1080 or whatever AMD comes out next with would be awesome. But wasting money on ECC RAM and XEON CPU's and Quadro GPU's is just stooopid.

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 10, 2017 at 11:38:27 pm

http://www.diyphotography.net/1600-ryzen-based-pc-double-performance-photos...

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 11, 2017 at 10:12:53 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Apr 11, 2017 at 10:21:09 am

Yeah, this has been making the "told ya so" rounds. As if anyone was saying that the MP is somehow up-to-date.

BUT, for me, the real irony in the whole test is that it doesn't in fact show how horribly underpowered the MP is, but rather how horribly optimized (not!) Adobe software is. Because I can in fact do the exact same operation this "speed test" does in Affinity Photo… guess in what amount of time? Right, in REALTIME. Oops. The "performance discrepancy" theme that unfortunately runs the gamut with Adobe apps, with very few exceptions. And yes, the results of the image are absolutely identical. No cutting corners in terms of quality or what not on Affinity's part, sorry to say.

So before anyone get themselves in a bunch about how horrible their hardware is, they might actually try using software that isn't stuck in the 90's code-wise first? 😏

Oh… and never mind that comparing the two in terms of overall specs (and therefore price) is a bad joke to begin with and just classic click-bait for the sake of unadulterated confirmation bias for the adobePC trolls of the world. Yet another wet dream in their "completely unbiased" 😂 world.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 11, 2017 at 4:55:37 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "So before anyone get themselves in a bunch about how horrible their hardware is, they might actually try using software that isn't stuck in the 90's code-wise first? "

I've been wondering about that actually.

Isn't one point of Adobe going Cloud was to shorten their development cycle and get the code out of the 90s?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 11, 2017 at 11:05:06 pm

[Richard Herd] "Isn't one point of Adobe going Cloud was to shorten their development cycle and get the code out of the 90s?"

I doubt anyone here has any idea whether the underlying code is from the 90s or not. I highly doubt that. Design and concept - maybe - depending on your POV. But actual code - doubtful.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 11, 2017 at 11:06:54 pm

PS: and FWIW, I run FCPX, Premiere and Resolve on a new Mac Pro. FCPX performs better, but not by much. In other cases, Premiere performs better.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 12, 2017 at 7:21:20 am

[Oliver Peters] "whether the underlying code is from the 90s or not."

I didn't mean it quite that literally, no. Let's just call it a little facetious hyperbole. 😏


[Oliver Peters] "In other cases, Premiere performs better."

I'd be very interested in concrete examples.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 12, 2017 at 1:22:31 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I'd be very interested in concrete examples."

I'll skip the operational ones, since those could be project-dependent. And quite frankly, I could argue for either application, and Media Composer, too, depending on specific functions and tasks. But, here are some specific technical issues. The system I mostly use is a 2013 MP with an external BMD UltraStudio Express for i/o. This is nearly unusable with FCPX. Fast JKL playback causes the viewer to freeze on frames. No issues with Premiere or Resolve. This means that if I want to use X, I can only use HDMI (or no external output) since there aren't other i/o options available at this company.

I have multichannel mono audio on files. I cannot hear these in X until I modify them to stereo. Again, an UltraStudio compatibility issue not present in other apps.

I just tested an MP4 import. This was from a folder containing the mixed audio on an additional, separate WAV file. There is a mix on the MP4 file, so the WAV is a backup. Upon import, X brought the MP4 in as video-only, even though it had audio on the file. Presumably it misinterpreted something, because of the fact that a separate WAV file was sitting next to it in the folder.

Loading a large project takes a long time, even though all cache files have been built when first created and files imported. It seems to take a long time to redraw all the waveform files all over again just for the UI. Premiere's equivalent "loading" process is considerably faster and optimized to prioritize media files related to the open sequences.

FCPX currently has a HUGE bug in that it constantly loses UI focus. I'll be working in the timeline and frequently I lose control and have to invoke the timeline or browser commands to gain back focus. This has become a complete showstopper for me when doing fast, first-pass edits in sequences.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 13, 2017 at 8:04:31 am

Sorry, but what does any of that have to do with speed i.e. performance?

I also have no clue how the UltraStudio bug is an Apple one, unless you know (not suspect or allege) something definitive that I don't? Just because it works better in another app doesn't automatically mean it's the apps fault. It's a driver issue, as it has been many MANY times before in BMDs history and specifically with the UltraStudio.


[Oliver Peters] "Loading a large project takes a long time, even though all cache files have been built when first created and files imported…"

Okay. I'll give you that one for prosperity 😛, even though it merely affects startup, not work performance per se. Though since 10.3 I can't say it's even at a level anymore here that it bothers me or somehow slows me down to a degree even worth mentioning. So I don't exactly see that a showstopper by any stretch. Just one of those bugs that, as before, is sure to get fixed in the next couple of updates. Assuming it even is one and not system related, since I wouldn't be too sure.


[Oliver Peters] "FCPX currently has a HUGE bug in that it constantly loses UI focus."

Erm… HUGE?? A "show-stopper"??! Not the least bit hyperbolic, no. 😃

If you want a REAL "showstopper"? Try something like the "flashing timeline thumbnails" bug in Premiere, that actually stopped your show. And it went on for over two years! What the… Though I'm not even sure it's actually been fixed yet, I just haven't seen mention of it in a while, so it could even be three years running. I can't think of a single bug in X, certainly not of that magnitude that survived any where near that long, sorry.

So yeah, every app has bugs. No exceptions. That's nothing new. But that wasn't my question. I mean aside from random niggles and bugs, what are those "other cases" where "Premiere performs better"?

- RK

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 13, 2017 at 10:21:23 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "
[Oliver Peters] "FCPX currently has a HUGE bug in that it constantly loses UI focus."

Erm… HUGE?? A "show-stopper"??! Not the least bit hyperbolic, no. 😃

If you want a REAL "showstopper"? Try something like the "flashing timeline thumbnails" bug in Premiere, that actually stopped your show. And it went on for over two years! What the… Though I'm not even sure it's actually been fixed yet, I just haven't seen mention of it in a while, so it could even be three years running. I can't think of a single bug in X, certainly not of that magnitude that survived any where near that long, sorry."


Please screen capture this bug that brings Premiere Pro to it's knees. I have been using Premiere Pro for over 10 years and I have no clue what you are talking about. Could it be OS X instead of Premiere Pro since I don't experience this on the PC side?

I find your response rather odd. If someone in the Premiere Pro forum has a problem or bug with Premiere I don't ever point out the faults of FCPX. What good would that do? Would it not be best to help find a solution for FCPX (if one exists) rather than bad mouth Premiere Pro?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 13, 2017 at 2:26:55 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I also have no clue how the UltraStudio bug is an Apple one,"

It works well with everything, except FCPX. That makes it an Apple problem. Furthermore, there's some sort of feedback loop going on, because it directly impacts how responsive FCPX itself is. It's not just that video is stuttering or being dropped in the external output. I realize AJA may or may not have the same issue, but I don't have that option.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Try something like the "flashing timeline thumbnails" bug in Premiere, that actually stopped your show"

I have no idea what you are referring to. I've never seen that myself.

[Robin S. Kurz] "I mean aside from random niggles and bugs, what are those "other cases" where "Premiere performs better"?"

You wanted specific examples. I believe I adequately answered the question.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 13, 2017 at 3:33:01 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I realize AJA may or may not have the same issue"

They don't. Therefore: driver.


[Oliver Peters] "I have no idea what you are referring to."

Apparently no one has heard of Google either. 😏 It's an easy search. There are endless threads on the topic. One example: https://adobe.ly/2paRcMh or even a lovely video to go along with it?






[Oliver Peters] "You wanted specific examples. "

I did. Only none of what you wrote, aside from maybe the waveform thing, had anything to do with general use i.e. performance that could be relevant to ALL users of either app. As I said, "niggles and bugs" or rather specific use cases that may apply to you, but say nothing about the performance for any and everyone overall, which is what I was looking for. Unless of course you're saying "FOR ME", in which case, that's fine. Just not what I took it to mean or meant myself.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 13, 2017 at 3:38:26 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Apparently no one has heard of Google either."

It's not a matter of searching. It's simply nothing I've ever encountered, nor seen with any of the other editors using Premiere that I encounter. However, I also never set up the timeline in Premiere with thumbnails.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 13, 2017 at 3:45:39 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "but say nothing about the performance for any and everyone overall, which is what I was looking for"

There's no such thing. Everyone has different use cases and therefore, this gets into operational efficiencies of one versus the other. That's something I purposefully avoided. There are plenty of things that I find to be faster in Premiere for me and most of the other editors I work together with. I'm sure you would dispute any example I presented, so why bother. Likewise, I can also point to specifics where X is faster. It's a rabbit hole argument that's been debated extensively since this forum was opened. So, as I said, I answered the question you asked.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 13, 2017 at 4:01:09 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Apr 13, 2017 at 4:13:22 pm

[Oliver Peters] "It's not a matter of searching. It's simply nothing I've ever encountered, nor seen with any of the other editors using Premiere that I encounter. "

And yet, it's a seven page long thread spanning over two years and, again, only one of many. Go figure.


[Oliver Peters] "There are plenty of things that I find to be faster in Premiere for me and most of the other editors I work together with."

Exactly the thing I was looking for, yes. Which is why I have to wonder why you didn't mention them then.


[Oliver Peters] "I'm sure you would dispute any example I presented"

Bit of a cop-out, don't you think? If they are legitimate points, how could I?


[Oliver Peters] "So, as I said, I answered the question you asked."

I'll just respectfully disagree.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 13, 2017 at 5:26:29 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Exactly the thing I was looking for, yes. Which is why I have to wonder why you didn't mention them then."

I explained why, but I guess I'll take the bait. Here are but a few:

1. Replace edit - I do a lot of commercials with variations to the graphics - version A, version B and so on. This process is considerably faster in Premiere. Swap out one phone number graphic for another simply by highlighting the new clip and choose replace from bin (right click function).

2. Adding filters - in Premiere I can selectively copy & paste individual or groups of effect filters between clips without going through the paste attributes dialogue. So if I have a second color correction filter that I want to apply to some clips, I can copy it and then paste it into the effects control window for the desired clips.

3. Global audio mixing and adding filters to audio tracks - still faster in Premiere even with the Roles function in X.

4. Speed - interpretation. For example, 29.97fps that needs to be played at 23.98fps. In X this requires a speed effect. In Premiere I can "interpret" the footage to be played at 23.98fps. And I can do that for batches of clips.

5. Multicam - I don't want to deal with "through edits" in my multicam clips. I find the Premiere method less convoluted than in X and, therefore, faster.

6. Adding audio fades - I can globally change all audio transitions in 2 steps (highlight cuts & apply default trans) in Premiere.

7. Doing color correction with the Lumetri control is vastly superior to X's color board. No extra plug-in required. Therefore, advanced color correction in Premiere is a faster process.

8. Direct interaction with After Effects compositions isn't really possible with X. There is no true Motion roundtrip for complex, multilayered compositions, so there's really not even a comparison there.

9. Certain camera formats in X require that you first copy the video into the library and do not allow external linking, unless you transcode with another app first. Not an issue with Premiere.

10. The large number of contextual menu and right-click mouse functions in Premiere can be daunting for some; however, these offer a lot of fast and direct control of the UI that simply doesn't exist in X.

As I said, just a few...

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 15, 2017 at 7:13:37 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Oliver Peters] "I'm sure you would dispute any example I presented"

Bit of a cop-out, don't you think? If they are legitimate points, how could I?
"


You generally find a way.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 13, 2017 at 8:42:26 pm

[Oliver Peters] "There are plenty of things that I find to be faster in Premiere for me and most of the other editors I work together with. I'm sure you would dispute any example I presented, so why bother. Likewise, I can also point to specifics where X is faster. It's a rabbit hole argument that's been debated extensively since this forum was opened. So, as I said, I answered the question you asked."

Indeed!


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 14, 2017 at 3:34:48 am

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1663472

You found some people who had a problem. There may have been a total of 100 people who had this problem.

Here is what you should have read.

"I was able to do some testing on a new edit (about 30-40 clips) and it got to a point where the thumbnails were refreshing constantly. I then closed all open apps (iTunes, Safari, IM) and the refresh issue went completely away. I opened the apps back up and the refresh issue instantly came back. I repeated this several times and ran a screen cap: Dropbox - apps-issue.mov

"I isolated the problem to Safari. I tried Chrome (normally not open) and it did refresh once or twice, but not nearly as much as Safari."

That is a Mac OS X issue.

Safari is what caused the issues for some. Perhaps Adobe should drop Premiere Pro from the Mac platform. Having said that you like to find videos and forum threads where a few people are having problems with Premiere Pro. Why didn't you post videos of FCPX users having problems?








[Robin S. Kurz] "I did. Only none of what you wrote, aside from maybe the waveform thing, had anything to do with general use i.e. performance that could be relevant to ALL users of either app. As I said, "niggles and bugs" or rather specific use cases that may apply to you, but say nothing about the performance for any and everyone overall, which is what I was looking for. Unless of course you're saying "FOR ME", in which case, that's fine. Just not what I took it to mean or meant myself."

The supposed timeline thumbnail bug that you mad a big deal out of probably effected less than 100 people. In fact I will ask the obvious question. Has anyone in these forums experienced the timeline thumbnail bug that supposedly brought Premiere Pro to it's knees? From what I can tell Premiere Pro did not actually crash like FCPX did in my video link.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 14, 2017 at 9:40:12 am

[andy patterson] "From what I can tell Premiere Pro did not actually crash like FCPX did in my video link."

From version 10.0.6?

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 14, 2017 at 9:41:25 am

[Scott Witthaus] "From version 10.0.6?"

I know, right? 😂😂


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 14, 2017 at 2:03:14 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Scott Witthaus] "From version 10.0.6?"

I know, right? 😂😂"


That is not the only bug in the history of FCPX. You make bug issues with Premiere Pro (that affect a few people) seem like the end of the world but if FCPX has a bug issue like Oliver pointed out it is BMD who is at fualt. Interesting if someone has issues with Premiere Pro you would never stop to think it could be OS X. Why is that?

Keep in mind I am on a Windows PC so in regards to the bug you made a big deal out of right back at ya 😂😂

Emojis can be fun 😊


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 14, 2017 at 1:45:05 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "[andy patterson] "From what I can tell Premiere Pro did not actually crash like FCPX did in my video link."

From version 10.0.6?"


Do you seriously think that is the only bug FCPX has ever had?

The difference between Premiere Pro users and many FCPX users is the fact that Premiere Pro users do not constantly bad mouth FCPX in order to make Premiere Pro look good. I think some people are in these forums to give honest criticism and feedback. I think others are here only to shake their pom poms for Apple. What good does that do other than become annoying? Having said that constantly bad mouthing Adobe or Premiere Pro is not going to make FCPX any better so why do it? Does it make some of you FCPX user happy when a video editor is having problems with Premiere Pro? I can find YouTube videos of bug issues with FCPX. I can also find discussion forums where people have bug issues with FCPX. Why would I want to post about the bug issues with FCPX when I use Premiere Pro? If I start bad mouthing FCPX is not going to make Premiere Pro any better. I myself hope things get fixed with Oliver's problems when he uses FCPX with third party hardware because I like using 3rd party hardware myself. It may be a bug that is part Apple's fault and partly a BMD driver issue. Who knows for sure but I hope things get resolved soon.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 13, 2017 at 8:36:32 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[Robin S. Kurz] "Try something like the "flashing timeline thumbnails" bug in Premiere, that actually stopped your show"

I have no idea what you are referring to. I've never seen that myself.
"


I have. Not on one of my setups, but on a client setup with the 2015 version. Its intermittent and annoying, and easily gotten rid of by turning off timeline thumbnails. Its long gone as a bug, afaik.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 12, 2017 at 5:55:26 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "a little facetious hyperbole."

Fake news!


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 12, 2017 at 11:02:02 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "BUT, for me, the real irony in the whole test is that it doesn't in fact show how horribly underpowered the MP is, but rather how horribly optimized (not!) Adobe software is. Because I can in fact do the exact same operation this "speed test" does in Affinity Photo… guess in what amount of time? Right, in REALTIME. Oops. The "performance discrepancy" theme that unfortunately runs the gamut with Adobe apps, with very few exceptions. And yes, the results of the image are absolutely identical. No cutting corners in terms of quality or what not on Affinity's part, sorry to say."

Your inept logic is why Apple is loosing some of it's creative customers to MS. Having said that what is your point? Are you saying the AMD computer could not make use of Affinity Photo? The issue is CPU performance not software. Having said that a lot of People do like the Adobe Software the same way you like FCPX. Speed and price are not everything are they? There are very cheap editing software programs for the PCs that can make use of Intel's Quick Sync. In fact they did it before FCPX. If some of these programs that are $49.99 can render 15% faster than FCPX on the same specs you are not going to ditch FCPX for the $49.99 software are you? You are not going to say FCPX is to expensive and has out dated code. Am I correct?

[Robin S. Kurz] "So before anyone get themselves in a bunch about how horrible their hardware is, they might actually try using software that isn't stuck in the 90's code-wise first? 😏"

Apple cannot even come close to Adobe's offerings. Nor can anyone else for that matter.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Oh… and never mind that comparing the two in terms of overall specs (and therefore price) is a bad joke to begin with and just classic click-bait for the sake of unadulterated confirmation bias for the adobePC trolls of the world. Yet another wet dream in their "completely unbiased" 😂 world."

Trolls of the world? Unadulterated confirmation bias? You make it clear that you hate Adobe and love Apple. Someone posted about AMD's new CPU being a better option for some people and you have to use it to bad mouth Adobe. Having said that your response should be "Apple needs to bring their A-Game with the new Mac Pro and iMac. We should have more options". Have you even bothered to think FCPX might perform better with the Ryzen 1700 CPU for $300.00 as opposed to a $1500.00 Xeon CPU? You are way to eager to criticize Adobe when Apple should be criticized as well.

For the record if HP only sold AMD CPUs in their computers I am sure they would get criticized for it. If Dell only sold Intel chips in their computers I am sure they would get criticism as well. What if Apple only sold Intel Chips in there OS X computers? Some people believe Apple is above criticism. I say get real!


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 12, 2017 at 11:45:12 am

[andy patterson] "Apple cannot even come close to Adobe's offerings."

I might offer that Adobe CC has too many offerings and has an issue with focus, consistency and quality control (and this was confirmed by Adobe personnel at SXSW). I would be extremely happy if Apple would focus on seamless movement between FCPX, Motion and Logic. Maybe buy or create a Photoshop alternative. Give me those four that work great together and I (and probably about 80% of editors) would be very satisfied. Just my humble opinion.

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 12, 2017 at 5:58:53 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "an issue with focus, consistency and quality control"

This cannot be overstated loudly enough. Just examining the text tools in AE, PP, AI, and PS ... hello? Can Adobe institutionalize that already? Please.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 12, 2017 at 6:14:44 pm

[Richard Herd] "Can Adobe institutionalize that already?"

That's always a problem when you have disparate teams developing products independently. Audio in Logic and audio in FCPX follow a completely different design philosophy, for example.

In the case of Adobe, they are actually in a multiyear process of making the products more cohesive. For example, there's a lot of integration and consolidation around Premiere. For instance, the bulk of SpeedGrade is now inside Premiere and as a result, SG is essentially dead. It's probably an effort that never stops. In you notice the changes in AE over the past few versions, the rewrites have made it more aligned with Premiere - at least in terms of UI and style.

Regarding text in Premiere, that's a vestige of a former plug-in or add-on app. On the other hand, it's fast and lightweight and has some benefits over PSD files. However, you can certainly use PS as your Premiere Pro titler and many folks do.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 12, 2017 at 6:23:30 pm

[Richard Herd] "[Scott Witthaus] "an issue with focus, consistency and quality control"

This cannot be overstated loudly enough. Just examining the text tools in AE, PP, AI, and PS ... hello? Can Adobe institutionalize that already? Please."


Not trying to defend Adobe... but this is a lot harder than it looks, especially when you have large sections of each user base that don't want them to change a thing. I also think it's easy to overlook the fact that there isn't another suite of creative applications that are designed to work together as well as Adobe's offerings. ☺

Shawn



Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting - CASE IN POINT
on Apr 13, 2017 at 8:45:22 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Apr 13, 2017 at 9:48:12 am

[Scott Witthaus] "issue with focus, consistency and quality control"

Oh god yes. 🙄 The seemingly constant, mindless race for the longest feature list. The number one thing I seem to hear from Adobe users is "Why give me that new feature xyz and not just make the ones it already has work first?"


[Scott Witthaus] "I would be extremely happy if Apple would focus on seamless movement between FCPX, Motion and Logic."

I personally find the integration very seamless, though there's always room for improvement, sure. For one, Motion's integration is exponentially deeper with X than it ever was with 7, as well as that of AE in PPro.


[Scott Witthaus] "Maybe buy or create a Photoshop alternative."

For me that already exists in Affinity's Photo. Only it's actually FAST and you don't have to rent everything you do with it. It can do vastly more than I and probably 95+% of any editor will ever need. But that most likely even applies to something like Pixelmator as well.

Aside from that being a vast market that is already well taken care of and one I think Apple clearly isn't interested in at that level anyway. "Photos" is only in it's infancy, too. I suspect there's a lot to come there, too, though surely no PS replacement.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 11, 2017 at 4:19:21 am

[Lance Bachelder] "Apple always seems to go the expensive is better route. You can build a screaming 8 core AMD workstation right now for under 2 grand. i7 or Ryzen iMac or Mac Pro built around a GTX 1080 or whatever AMD comes out next with would be awesome."

I made mentioned of AMD's Ryzen months ago.

[Lance Bachelder] " But wasting money on ECC RAM and XEON CPU's and Quadro GPU's is just stooopid."

I tend to agree. I can see it as an option but not the only option. Perhaps Intel will start to lower the price of their CPUs. Perhaps the six core Coffee Lake will come in at $360.00 to be competitive. If not a lot of people might switch to AMD. Having said that there is one down side to AMD but that could change in another 7-8 months.







Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 10, 2017 at 6:28:18 pm

[Craig Seeman] "If you buy peripherals to take advantage of TB3 it's pretty much an island though."

Not true actually. As opposed to e.g. various Tbo 1 & 2 adapters, you CAN in fact flip a Tbo 3 adapter around and use it any way around you like. I can hook a Tbo3 RAID up to a Tbo1 machine if I like. Which is one of the many many reasons I'm absolutely in love with Tbo3/USB-C. By far THE most flexible and overall powerful port to date.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 10, 2017 at 6:58:43 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I can hook a Tbo3 RAID up to a Tbo1 machine if I like. "

Sure but then you're not getting TB3 speeds. Maybe I wasn't clear on that point.



Return to posts index

Doug Metz
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 10, 2017 at 10:08:30 pm

[Craig Seeman] "[Robin S. Kurz] "I can hook a Tbo3 RAID up to a Tbo1 machine if I like. "

Sure but then you're not getting TB3 speeds. Maybe I wasn't clear on that point.
"


Sure, but it's still good to know that if I've got a TB1/2 system (and don't want to upgrade just yet), I can still future-proof a bit by purchasing TB3 storage, as needed, in the meantime.

FWIW, I'm using a nMP as my primary, have a 2012 MBP for travel, and a late 2013 27" iMac at home. Looking forward to upgrading the home machine when the 'Pro' models are released...

Doug Metz

Anode


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 11, 2017 at 9:25:18 am

[Doug Metz] " I can still future-proof a bit by purchasing TB3 storage, as needed, in the meantime."

Exactly. Just the savings on CABLES is monstrous in comparison. Or has anyone here ever seen a Tbo1 or 2 cable of any kind for under $20?? I haven't. Not even close. Never mind the low cost and plethora of adapters and hubs if you need them. So the whole notion that there is somehow something wrong or BAD about Apple just putting Tbo3/C ports on the MBP is complete nonsense and utterly backwards imho. But then I only hear that from people that don't even have them to begin with. Go figger. 😏

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 11, 2017 at 8:31:59 am

[Craig Seeman] "Sure but then you're not getting TB3 speeds."

😂… erm, yeah. That's pretty much a given, no? Just as little as I'm getting USB3 speed with my USB3 disk on my USB2 port, FW800 speed with my FW800 disk on my FW400 port etc. etc. etc. But then I never suggested one would or could. Maybe I wasn't clear on that point. 😉

The point was backwards compatibility i.e. your assertion "TB3 it's pretty much an island". It has by far the most "two-way streets" of any port I know of.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 12, 2017 at 3:58:12 pm

Interesting article: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pc-companies-must-sell-to-businesses-or-di...

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 12, 2017 at 7:44:17 pm

Seems to match a lot of what I'm seeing these days. I have to say that after teaching post workshops for a number of years at a local college film program, the general computer literacy I encounter has gone down over the years. Largely the effect of phones as computing devices.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 13, 2017 at 6:45:37 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Seems to match a lot of what I'm seeing these days. I have to say that after teaching post workshops for a number of years at a local college film program, the general computer literacy I encounter has gone down over the years. Largely the effect of phones as computing devices."

Agree. I instruct a night class (FCPX, PPr, Ae and Maya) part-time.
It seems people are not caring much for what they are using as far as tools.
You will get the few that knows their PC/Mac but a ton that just don't care.
I don't mind holding their hands through the process, but as long as they are able to create their vision, I'm good ☺

On another side-note, I honestly dont care if the new XEONS can rip through h264 converts.

I just want my web output to match my damn Resolve grades :P


Return to posts index

Thorsten Achen
Re: The iMac "Pro" rumor looks interesting
on Apr 20, 2017 at 10:58:19 pm

"Maybe buy or create a Photoshop alternative."
Why are you talking about Affinity only? There is also https://macphun.com/luminar which, despite being a bit more expensive, combines all the necessary features for photo editing. Personally for me it's extremely important to be compatible with LR. So, actually, there is no need to invent already existing things, isn't it?

Meow!


Return to posts index

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