FORUMS: list search recent posts

Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 21, 2017 at 2:03:02 pm

When I first start an edit and import a ton of media, I have to wait for thumbnail, filmstrip, and waveform generation. FCPX is virtually unusable during this stage to try to do any editing. Premiere Pro has the same problem, because you frequently have to wait while audio is 'conformed'. On both apps, even on the fastest machines, you are best off just taking a long break and letting the machine do its thing before starting. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in frustration.

However, if I bring in media into Avid Media Composer via AMA (linked, not transcoded), I have instant access to the files with no performance lag due to some sort of background processing. The same was true with FCP "legacy".

So my questions... First, why must we even wait for this? People have been designing NLEs for ages and this seems like an issue that shouldn't even be there in 2017 on a fast machine. Second, is there any way to actually speed this process up in FCPX?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 21, 2017 at 3:27:26 pm

[Oliver Peters] "So my questions... First, why must we even wait for this? People have been designing NLEs for ages and this seems like an issue that shouldn't even be there in 2017 on a fast machine. Second, is there any way to actually speed this process up in FCPX?"

If you find out, please let me know. This slow down seems to go in phases. The latest update made it worse (10.3.4), previous updates made it better (10.3.2).

It seems to be audio related, as importing video only clips allows editing access immediately.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 21, 2017 at 4:06:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It seems to be audio related, as importing video only clips allows editing access immediately."

Really! hadn't looked for that. I'd noticed the slowdown as well.

Still better than waiting for PPro do do it's thing though, which seems to take just as long!


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 21, 2017 at 6:12:23 pm

I will say that was my first experience (OK, second) when trying to use FCX....I opened a project with a LOT of media and it was as slow and stumbly as a drunk looking for a remote control. I couldn't do anything...and really wondered about this "speed' everyone was talking about. It was like this for the better part of a day.

I had the same experience with Premiere. I was handed a drive and opened it and it took pretty much all day to conform the audio, and trying to do anything was..well, that same drunk now trying to put on his shoes. All of those files were made on the original machine, but I was cutting from home, so it redid ALL of them.

And yes, Avid doesn't do any of this...AMA link and nothing needs to be done. Even if it's already transcoded, if you bring that media to another computer and open it...you have the media...there are no separate audio cache files or whatever other sidecar files...so it doesn't do this again.

So yes, that did put a HUGE damper on my second FCX experience. That and...well, so many things, but I'm a track based guy...so I'm biased

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 21, 2017 at 6:38:00 pm

I remember when I did my BMD Intensity Shuttle VS the Canopus ADVC 110 using Premiere Pro and Edius I don't remember Edius having to conform audio. Edius can playback h.264/AVCHD files as good as Premiere Pro because it makes use of Intel's Quick Sync but Pro Res and Red One R3D files it will struggle with. There will always be pros and cons to all editing systems but perhaps at NAB 2018 Adobe will have a much better Premiere Pro to demo.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 21, 2017 at 6:24:02 pm

[Steve Connor] "Still better than waiting for PPro do do it's thing though, which seems to take just as long!"

How is it better if they take the same amount of time? Does FCPX make coffee for you while you wait?


Return to posts index


Tony West
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 21, 2017 at 8:02:07 pm

[Oliver Peters] " is there any way to actually speed this process up in FCPX?"

I just go up to the background task and cancel import.

Everything is already in there and I can get right to cutting. I'm not really sure what's going on with the slow background import. Wasn't doing that before.

I just loaded in 30GBs of footage and can start cutting and I'm on an older mac pro


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 21, 2017 at 8:40:03 pm

Yes same problem and I think it's more sluggish since one of the recent fixes tried to improve the waveform generation.

However, once the files are imported into fcpx (sometimes an overnighter) it has been waaaaay faster and snappier than premiere for us - mostly due to the issues that premiere has when working on projects with large libraries of r3d and high resolution material. Importing one jpeg was bringing premiere to a halt - tech support just advised to make the project smaller or cut it into chunks...not very Pro.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 21, 2017 at 9:14:15 pm

[Tom Sefton] "However, once the files are imported into fcpx (sometimes an overnighter) it has been waaaaay faster and snappier than premiere for us - mostly due to the issues that premiere has when working on projects with large libraries of r3d and high resolution material."

I'd happily trade a slower import time for the responsiveness I get with large projects now, it's a major improvement


Return to posts index


andy patterson
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 12:55:19 am

[Tom Sefton] "However, once the files are imported into fcpx (sometimes an overnighter) it has been waaaaay faster and snappier than premiere for us - mostly due to the issues that premiere has when working on projects with large libraries of r3d and high resolution material. Importing one jpeg was bringing premiere to a halt - tech support just advised to make the project smaller or cut it into chunks...not very Pro."

I do not have that problem with Premiere on the PC side. Having said that why are you even using Premiere if it so awful? The first time I tried FCPX on my Mac Mini it constantly locked up the system. I did not bring that many files or images into FCPX. I think it was just a fluke because as of now FCPX works OK. It is obviously not as quick and peppy as Premiere Pro running on my PC. Having said that FCPX does OK with h.264 at 1902 X 1080. That is al I plan on editing with it.


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 7:52:43 am

Different horses for different courses andy. The CC was the right tool for the job due to the amount of motion graphics that we could quickly relink from Ae.

The project libraries were getting above 4Tb in size with 8 and 6K red footage and some proxy prores files, and each time we imported a new file or just opened the project it slowed to a crawl and took nearly an hour to become functional. Adobe tech support told us to cut the libraries down and just work from proxies, but relinking to the original files became nearly impossible. Admittedly, if we just worked from the prores files, premiere was fine and the new bin locking function is really interesting as it will allow us to work as a team on larger projects.

We edit on nearly all programs - avid, premiere, fcpx and resolve - whichever is the best tool for the job and more often than not with an honest evaluation we are using fcpx and resolve more often.

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 9:23:39 pm

[Tom Sefton] "We edit on nearly all programs - avid, premiere, fcpx and resolve - whichever is the best tool for the job and more often than not with an honest evaluation we are using fcpx and resolve more often."

Have you tried a mediocre PC with 4.0 GHZ i7 Skylake, a GTX 1070 and 32 GB of RAM? Obviously a 500 SSD for the OS would be wise and 6 3 TB HD in a RAID array would be nice.


Return to posts index


Tom Sefton
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 10:44:59 pm

Yes

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 6:30:14 am

[Tom Sefton] "Yes"

There reason why I ask can be seen in the video below. Having said that my system does not get bogged down with JPEG files. What size are your JPEG files? My mediocre PC can edit several hundred 18 & 16 megabyte JPEG files without fail. Even CS 4 could do it. Perhaps Xeon CPUs are not the best option. The Quadro graphics cards have been proven to be inferior to the GeForce graphics cards when using Premiere Pro. For MAYA and 3D Studio MAX things might be different.







Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 4:57:57 pm

We own a lot of macs and a couple of new custom built PCs. There's nothing between the 2013 Mac pros and PCs in terms of speed, but the PCs aren't thunderbolt compatible which is a massive bind because we've got 5 portable raid drives that are all thunderbolt only. Irregardless, we work more on Mac, personally, I prefer everything about working on them. I wouldn't describe myself as an Apple fanboy, but colour me Apple if you want - we work cross platform and my preference is for everything OSX.

Having said that - the new HP Z8 machines look cooooool

I have quite literally zero interest in debating Mac vs PC with you Andy.

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


Return to posts index


andy patterson
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 11:19:02 pm

[Tom Sefton] "I have quite literally zero interest in debating Mac vs PC with you Andy."

Who said anything about debating Mac VS PC? I am just curious to why you are having so many problems with Premiere Pro on the PC side. Aren't you curious as to why your PC is bogging down when editing large JPEG files? If it were happening with FCPX I am sure you would want to find a way to correct the problem. Having said that I have posted two videos below. There were several hundred JPEG files in each project even though I did not use that many images for the final output. Are you saying your computers could not edit the videos bellow? If your system cannot then there is something wrong with your system because mine can. I have never had a problem editing JPEG images with Premiere Pro. Even when using CS 4.0 I could edit large JPEG files.













Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 12:29:10 am

I’ve never really noticed an issue. Are you displaying waveforms in the event? Are you displaying filmstrips? I only show a thumbnail, no waveform. If I need to use the waveform on music or something, I switch to list view. In the timeline I’m usually set to waveform, no filmstrip. But sometimes waveform and filmstrip. I don’t generally optimize or proxy anything. I do a lot of 4K in a 1080 timeline work.

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


Return to posts index

Claude Lyneis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 5:29:24 am

One thing that causes a lot of background work is dumping large size photos into X. For example a dng file out of my Nikon runs 20 MB per photo. I usually run them through Lightroom and export them at about 1 MB jpg before importing them into x. I have never tested how small (MB?) they can be made for a 1080 p file before there is visible degradation in the resulting x video. Anybody have a rule of thumb?


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 7:54:53 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Sep 22, 2017 at 3:59:57 pm

[Claude Lyneis] "Anybody have a rule of thumb?"

It's all about the raster, Claude.

Video is still fixed at 72dpi. So if your master is gonna be HD at 1920x1080 - and you want to be able to do a 2x push - importing it as larger than 3840x2160 at 72dpi is wasted.

If you're doing a 2K or 4K project - the math works the same - but that basic 72dpi raster standard means a 24 megapixel raw DSLR raster is still almost always SERIOUS overkill.

If you want to do a Ken Burns thing and do a 10x zoom to pick a single face out of a graduating class photo - it's OK to do a few big rasters by scanning at 300 or 600 dpi and let that pixel density scale. But as you've discovered - doing 50 photos like that will likely choke X because it's default is not to "dumb down" any raster, but to try to preserve and manipulate every dot you feed it.

How I've come to see it. Good luck.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 7:36:52 am

At the risk of having everyone accuse me of shouting "you're holding it wrong" - a part of the issue might be that you guys are STILL seemingly trying to use X like an old style system.

Know what you can do INSTANTLY - literally right after everything shows up in your Browser? You can start to move your edit forward via all the many database preparation tools X pioneered that do not need ANYTHING to be prepped to function. Including audio travel management, roles assignments, and Reject/Favorite tagging.

Every traditional editor I've ever walked through X has this same bias. They don't think their edit has commenced until they have clips on a timeline. It's maddening since I've been talking about this for six years now.

Removing ALL the crap from your view via Reject saves sometimes whole days later on. It clarifies editorial thinking EXACTLY like a string out - except it's 100 times more flexible.

After Hide REJECT - the shape of your raw materials starts to emerge - telling you precisely where you have options and where you might have content holes.

And it works with the instantly accessible finder text feedback, so nothing needs to "process" before you get working.

Remember - all this with Background Rendering off and nothing to process except waveforms and transcodes if you need them - And THOSE can be stopped at will and re-started to run overnight!

And this stuff also doesn't slow down the most powerful prep of all - keywording - something I'm doing throughout the entire prep process as I go.

After six years on X, I've truly come to see Tagging AS editing. It's a "first cut" in everything but name. Those not comfortable with X thinking just miss this because it happens away from the "timeline" but it's as palpable to me as using a motor to fix an AC rather than starting with magnets and wire and assembling the motor from scratch. Precision range keywording creates useful custom "parts" I can use to build more efficiently with later.

If clients are antsy to see something immediately, I can do exemplars as I identify them - and let them automatically background process during short breaks.

The point is that there is lots and lots of effective edit prep that can take place during the first few days of a typical X pre-edit period that lets me move my edit very much forward - they just don't take place on my timeline.

And in my experience, after a few days on this stuff - Making and syncing Multiclips multi-cams prepped, batch re-naming internal assets for organization, prepping reference clips like Sync and Compounds - 100% of the time all that background stuff like waveforms, transcodes, and ALL those background processes are typically done and I'm ready to CUT .

With that prep properly accomplished, the edit itself is usually pure joy, since everything is sorted, rated, searchable and I feel like any change or request a client lobs at me will just make me grin.

Once again, if you try to drive X using non-magnetic prep thinking and expectations (the "the edit happens only on a timeline) approach) X will probably slow down to about the efficiency of any other NLE.

It's only when you embrace its complete gestalt - that things start to really fly.

My 2 cents.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 8:36:15 am

[Bill Davis] "Once again, if you try to drive X using non-magnetic prep thinking and expectations (the "the edit happens only on a timeline) approach) X will probably slow down to about the efficiency of any other NLE.

It's only when you embrace its complete gestalt - that things start to really fly.
"


Not true at all Bill

[Bill Davis] "Every traditional editor I've ever walked through X has this same bias. They don't think their edit has commenced until they have clips on a timeline. It's maddening since I've been talking about this for six years now.
"


It might be maddening for you Bill, it's a great system that works for you and a lot of people I'm sure, but a LOT of Editors simply don't work that way and FCPX has many speed advantages even if you don't use your "database" style of editing.

[Bill Davis] "Once again, if you try to drive X using non-magnetic prep thinking and expectations (the "the edit happens only on a timeline) approach) X will probably slow down to about the efficiency of any other NLE."

So if you don't use YOUR method it makes FCPX no better than other NLEs?? Rubbish - I hardly use tagging in FCPX and I find it much faster than other NLE's In fact I would argue that the speed of the skimmer and it's ability to get through rushes really quickly can actually negate the need for tagging at all in some edits.

And before Andy chips in, you can do many of the same organisational tasks in Premiere Pro while it's audio conforming as well :)


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 11:10:45 am

[Bill Davis] "Know what you can do INSTANTLY - literally right after everything shows up in your Browser? You can start to move your edit forward via all the many database preparation tools X pioneered that do not need ANYTHING to be prepped to function. Including audio travel management, roles assignments, and Reject/Favorite tagging."

Sorry Bill, but the problem is in the browser. You usually can't effectively review a clip until the processing is done. For example, in list view, I try to toggle down through the clips and in the upper filmstrip viewer often nothing is visible until it's ready. At best it's stuttery. So no, doing something "instantly" just isn't the case with many types of media.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 12:50:54 pm

[Oliver Peters] "You usually can't effectively review a clip until the processing is done. For example, in list view, I try to toggle down through the clips and in the upper filmstrip viewer often nothing is visible until it's ready. At best it's stuttery. "

I'm not seeing this at all on my system.

If I'm in filmstrip mode I can toggle through the clips and see video just fine. No stutter.

I have the waveforms turned off in the browser but if I turn them on I can tell it's taking a while to load them in the browser.

The upside is they load immediately in the timeline, which is funny. I'm not sure why they are ready in the timeline instantly but not in the browser.

The timeline is what counts if I'm in a hurry so it hasn't slowed my work.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 12:57:48 pm

[Tony West] "The upside is they load immediately in the timeline, which is funny. I'm not sure why they are ready in the timeline instantly but not in the browser.
The timeline is what counts if I'm in a hurry so it hasn't slowed my work"


I think you and Bill are going to need to take that one out into the back alley ☺

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 12:53:25 pm

[Bill Davis] "At the risk of having everyone accuse me of shouting "you're holding it wrong" - a part of the issue might be that you guys are STILL seemingly trying to use X like an old style system."

Honestly, Bill. I don’t appreciate the condescension.

The first step to recovery is admitting there’s a problem.

4 heavy FCPX users have said that FCPX is slow upon import. Sometimes I need to start editing right away, doing boring stuff like making window burns, or teasers.

I do organize first, and it sure as hell doesn’t take two whole days to organize, that’s the beauty of FCPX, it goes fast.

I now leave the machine on overnight after I import. It’s the only way to come back to a normal performing NLE. Once that process is done, FCPX performs great, yet there are more beachballs in 10.3.4. Something changed and this has happened before with point releases. Some go faster, some slow down.

It’s OK.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 2:24:33 pm

Cancelling out of background process helps. Of course, then in the list view, the first time you hit a clip it takes a second of so to populate the top filmstrip viewer with images. Still better than when the background process are going. Also that's with waveforms off in the browser. Definitely slower with them on.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 4:23:20 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I now leave the machine on overnight after I import. It’s the only way to come back to a normal performing NLE."

Wow! That sounds like a disaster. I would be ready to through my system out the window.

One thing that I have seen with my own eyes is X acting very different sometimes on the same model computers,
same OS and some footage. So I know it happens.

Just trying to narrow it down a bit. (Apples to Apples)

I'm using mostly XDCAM footage at 1080 around 40GB of at a time, X 10.3.4 OS 10.11.06 I leave footage in place on Import.

My computer is 8 years old so I shouldn't be getting better performance than people with newer Macs. Something is wrong.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 4:38:16 pm

[Tony West] "Just trying to narrow it down a bit. (Apples to Apples)"

Mostly XAVC 300 or 480 at QHD 23.976. Also lots of DJI footage from both drone and Osmo Pro., usually mp4 (those clips usually have no audio).

My projects average between 1 - 4TB of media.

To be clear to Winston, this slow down happens after import while FCPX builds waveforms and thumbs. I never transcode and leave files in place (MXF and mp4). The XAVC footage has 8 channels of audio on it (2-4 active), and if I don’t mute blank channels, performance literally goes down the tubes.

Since there’s so much media, I let the computer cache all the necessary waveforms overnight. During editing, I’ll beachball 3-4 times a day, and this started with 10.3.4. 10.3.3 and 10.3.2 were much better. I agree something is wrong and not quite sure it’s hardware related. This happens on all the machines we have.


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 10:09:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "My projects average between 1 - 4TB of media."

That's a lot of media. I can totally see a how a 4TB project could bog down. No wonder I'm not seeing it. I think the highest I have been is maybe 1TB. I'm surprised that X was ever instantly plowing through that size.

I hope they fix it on the next update.

BTW, what are your thoughts on the quality of the Osmo Pro? I seeing more folks with them.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 10:45:05 pm

[Tony West] "BTW, what are your thoughts on the quality of the Osmo Pro? I seeing more folks with them."

Absolutely killer. Leaps and bounds above the older one.

Here’s a piece we recently finished that uses it a lot. Most of the on field, running with players, and walking in the halls of the school , or waking along with players on the street was shot with it.







Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 12:38:06 am

Awesome work Jeremy.

Powerful and emotional. I was so caught up in the story I almost forgot about the camera hahaha

I love that shot when the coach gives the player five and then you cut to his interview. Just a nice transition.

The Osmo shots fit in well and match the other cameras. I'm sold : )


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 1:03:57 am

[Tony West] "Awesome work Jeremy."

Thanks, sir. Much appreciated. We are proud of this piece. I’m just glad to be a part of a story that sheds positive light on Chicago and the public schools. Chicago needs more stories like this :), and then Peyton Manning got hooked up with it and made it even more awesome.

As far as cameras, we had mostly Sonys with F55, F5, a few FS7s. Then we had, GoPro, Osmo Pro, and the older DJI X3 camera still on the drone, although after this shoot, I finally installed the X5 mount so we can use the new Pro camera on the drone.

This project, actually, took a long time to maneuver. We had long 3 or 5 cam multiclips, and waveforms take a long while to build. There’s a TON of media for this little project (I think its over 3TB), and once all the background processes finished, it performed really great, it’s just that first day, or anytime I import lots of media, FCPX is slowww when it comes to playback/editing. Still gets the job done, though. Wouldn’t even think about switching to anything else at the moment.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 5:29:21 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " The XAVC footage has 8 channels of audio on it (2-4 active), and if I don’t mute blank channels, performance literally goes down the tubes."

Ding ding, ding.

IME, lots of used (or unused but still registering) imported audio channels will KILL the time it takes to get to work in FCP X.

I'm currently cutting a project that has 9.5 terabytes of field footage shipped to me on a big drive.
3 camera multicam on ALL the interviews, two of which on each have 4 channels of audio. It was a dog initially - until I went in and took the time to disable everything but the two tracks of audio I actually needed on all those sources.

Then the whole project started to act normally.

X opting for maintaining the most precision possible in audio waveform accuracy - and needing to generate the screen representations of that - is IMO, the number reason X will get bogged down and perform slowly in the initial days of an edit.

Fix that early - and things typically get orders of magnitude more responsive.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 6:45:02 pm

[Bill Davis] "IME, lots of used (or unused but still registering) imported audio channels will KILL the time it takes to get to work in FCP X."

Yet this problem doesn't appear to exist with the *ancient* Media Composer. Why?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 10:17:25 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Yet this problem doesn't appear to exist with the *ancient* Media Composer. Why?"

No clue.

But some folk watching early "electric ignition" cars probably railed against those too - opining that their hand crank model T's never failed to start due to a dead battery.

Point is that over time, smart changes in approach aren't ALWAYS without bumps.

Simpler, seemingly foolproof and effective processes always have there adherents.

Magnifying glass and dry leaves, wooden match, or butane lighter tech. They all start fires.

Pick what you prefer - and have fun burning things up.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 11:53:21 pm

[Bill Davis] "But some folk watching early "electric ignition" cars probably railed against those too - opining that their hand crank model T's never failed to start due to a dead battery."

Really? You can't do better than the "Luddite argument"? ☺

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 7:52:36 pm

[Bill Davis] "IME, lots of used (or unused but still registering) imported audio channels will KILL the time it takes to get to work in FCP X."

And you don't think this is a problem? It's not bandwidth, that's easy, audio is easy. Why is it if I have 2 active and 6 silent channels on a file, it will beachball, but if all 8 channels have audio, it won't beachball?

What is FCPX doing that it is having trouble playing back silence?

[Bill Davis] "Fix that early - and things typically get orders of magnitude more responsive.
"


So we can agree that there's issues beyond being "traditional editors" even though we use FCPX daily?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 9:52:11 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " During editing, I’ll beachball 3-4 times a day, and this started with 10.3.4. 10.3.3 and 10.3.2 were much better. I agree something is wrong and not quite sure it’s hardware related. This happens on all the machines we have."

I'm curious about that, as it's not an experience I'm seeing on our machines with either FCPX or Premiere Pro. My projects are also pretty large and from a variety of sources.

The only big difference in what you've described, is that I transcode the oddball formats first. This would be most mp4 files from DJI, GoPro, A7s, 5D, etc. I'll typically transcode these to ProRes or ProResLT. We don't get that much RED material either, so I'll transcode those, too. My rule-of-thumb is that if it's kind of a broadcast camera, I'll stay native. Otherwise, transcode.

My native files tend to be Alexa and/or Canon C-series clips. Right now we are also cutting inherited content with a lot of Sony F-series camera material (various models) and that's native, too. We do beachball from time to time, but across 7 machines, I would say the average is less than once a day on one of the machines.

Hardware mix includes iMacs, Mac Pro towers, one 2013 Mac Pro, plus 256TB QNAP NAS.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 24, 2017 at 12:55:18 am

[Oliver Peters] "I'm curious about that, as it's not an experience I'm seeing on our machines with either FCPX or Premiere Pro."

It’s all some sort of waveform or video out based or both. Closing the inspector helps (a waveform source), closing the browser helps, minimizing the chiclet size helps, turning off video out helps, same old tricks, but still doesn’t account for why and when.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 24, 2017 at 2:03:35 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "but still doesn’t account for why and when."

Sounds like some sort of RAM leak or something. Does it vary with model of Mac - for example, Mac Pro versus iMac?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 24, 2017 at 2:08:27 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Sounds like some sort of RAM leak or something. Does it vary with model of Mac - for example, Mac Pro versus iMac?
"


Every time this comes up, someone blames the hardware.

Unless all the macs are total pieces of shite, it’s not the hardware. Yes, this happens regardless of vintage or processor type, GPU, or RAM.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 24, 2017 at 3:07:10 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Every time this comes up, someone blames the hardware. "

I'm not exactly sure of what causes RAM leaks in general, but my suggestion was rather that this was software-related.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 24, 2017 at 3:34:26 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[Jeremy Garchow] "Every time this comes up, someone blames the hardware. "

I'm not exactly sure of what causes RAM leaks in general, but my suggestion was rather that this was software-related."


Yeah, RAM leaks are caused by software mismanaging memory allocations, not bad hardware.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 24, 2017 at 5:52:39 am

Why would drawing waveforms slow an NLE? It doesn't on DAWs. 25 years ago the software people writing DAW software realised the bleeding obvious. Accurate waveforms are really important so draw them once but only as a background task. Fairlight for example draws waveforms blindingly fast but always in the background. Drop a polywav into the timeline and play it. Waveforms pop up and quickly but never affecting real time playback.

Reaper is another example of how to draw waveforms quickly without affecting playback and edit performance. Any NLE that can't prioritise performance over waveforms is primitive compared to what has been normal in the DAW world for a couple of decades. And drawing a zero waveform cannot take longer or slow a system unless it is a bug.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 24, 2017 at 1:00:35 pm

[Michael Gissing] "Why would drawing waveforms slow an NLE? It doesn't on DAWs."

That's a very good question. Media Composer used to have huge issues with drawn waveforms (not part of the default timeline view). But that was fixed a couple of years ago as the code was rewritten. However, still not like a DAW.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 24, 2017 at 2:15:03 pm

[Michael Gissing] "Why would drawing waveforms slow an NLE"

I don’t know. Whatever FCPX is doing, some sort of caching, slows it down.

When you reduce the amount of waveforms on the interface, it speeds up. Closing the inspector (which has to load and report a decent amount of data/information every time the play head stops) helps.

The weird thing is , FCPX gets confused on empty audio tracks in files. There is literally no waveform, it should be blank. But for whatever reason, FCPX seems to want to not want to play those back easily. I don’t know why that would be. It has literally been a problem since the release of FCPX.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 24, 2017 at 9:46:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "The weird thing is , FCPX gets confused on empty audio tracks in files. There is literally no waveform, it should be blank. "

Empty tracks are still carrying PCM data and it will have a waveform. It will be a straight line but silence does still contain samples. However generating a straight line from this data should be blindingly fast and no different from a data stream containing varying sample data. Carrying a bug like this for six years is not good for a task that is fairly fundamental.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 24, 2017 at 11:36:18 pm

[Michael Gissing] "Empty tracks are still carrying PCM data and it will have a waveform. It will be a straight line but silence does still contain samples"

Yes, it’s still a file with information, and FCPX has ‘rectified’ waveforms so it looks blank rather than a straight line in the middle of the clip.

Still, why would FCPX playback an 8 channel audio file with 4 active channels and 4 empty channels worse than an 8 active channel audio file? What is it about the empty channels that causes FCPX to not play back instantly? And when the empty channels are muted, the file then plays back instantly?


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 24, 2017 at 11:42:27 pm

"And when the empty channels are muted, the file then plays back instantly?"

Sounds like a bug to me.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 10:50:48 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "So we can agree that there's issues beyond being "traditional editors" even though we use FCPX daily?"

I've never ONCE said that X has "no issues" for any user of any class anywhere.

All I've tried to do is meet negative comments with what I see as "balancing" ones.

Key concept - balancing.

To me, that means a 100% negative post ABOUT X, whether that one post is factual or imaginary - it should be met with one that's 100% positive for balance.

Read both - then the reader gets to make up their own mind.

Have some of mine been totally positive? Sure.
Want me to recall posts that were totally negative about X?
(I bet I could go 50 to 1 in the first years of X and still probably 3 to 1 in my "across the web) reading about X today. )

If I can get the overall "things written about FCP X" to just be closer to neutral, overall, I'll be happy.

People are smart enough to choose for themselves. So long as both sides get aired in a balanced fashion.

It would actually be nice to be able to bitch about the things in X that I think could be improved.

But I'm not holding my breath. Cuz the scale is still not even close to equal, IMO. And adding my water to a still running hose of negatives, only works after the results of the negative flood is quelled and things have dried back to a neutral state.

And overall, we're not even close to that yet, IMO.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 24, 2017 at 12:33:43 am
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on Sep 24, 2017 at 12:35:23 am

[Bill Davis] "Key concept - balancing.

To me, that means a 100% negative post ABOUT X, whether that one post is factual or imaginary - it should be met with one that's 100% positive for balance.

Read both - then the reader gets to make up their own mind."








Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 24, 2017 at 12:57:15 pm

[Bill Davis] "To me, that means a 100% negative post ABOUT X, whether that one post is factual or imaginary - it should be met with one that's 100% positive for balance."

Isn't it more helpful to discuss the actual technical issues involved, rather than merely to throw out random positive, but unrelated comments?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 25, 2017 at 11:10:18 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Isn't it more helpful to discuss the actual technical issues involved, rather than merely to throw out random positive, but unrelated comments?"

Sure. But for YEARS This forum has been awash in constant NEGATIVE but often (IMO) un-related to reality comments about X. So why is THIS the point when we need to change the rules?

When forum newbies still arrive with what seems to be a strong desire to trash every little element of X because it makes them uncomfortable, so why NOT push back?

If the X debate had been mostly factual - I'd have zero issues with it. But it's going to be hard to argue against the fact that the anti-X arguments are STILL as much waged on ignorance and angst as fact in the industry overall.

In some of the discussion places I hang out - I can guarantee that virtually EVERY discussion about X I engage in, a handful of working editors will bring up "the botched launch", and Apple "abandoning the professionals" six years ago.

Ask what they thought (at the time) about about the keywording, its innovative share system, how magnetism speeds 3-point edits, Auditions, or a half dozen other aspects of 1.0 and they don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Then you ask them if they like proxy editing or skimming - they light up - and scowl when you let them know X had that stuff six years ago.

And if you mention Roles, Pro Codec support, Red 8K workflows - they just mutter that nobody "serious" (meaning none of the people like them, of course) would ever think of using X still today - cuz it's just so lame...

So I stand by my strategy.

Total diss met with total praise. More balanced questions met with more balanced responses.

So if someone starts a thread implying that X FAILS in some way - and I think there is another balancing interpretation, you'll hear it.

Past that, explanations and shared expertise when I think I can help.

Simple really.

🙂

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 26, 2017 at 12:13:49 am
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Sep 26, 2017 at 12:24:30 am

[Bill Davis] "Sure. But for YEARS This forum has been awash in constant NEGATIVE but often (IMO) un-related to reality comments about X. So why is THIS the point when we need to change the rules?"

No offense, but it sounds to me like you are stuck in the past. I think the rest of us have moved very far past it at this point. Plus, newbies probably don't even go to the effort of looking past the first or second page of any of these forums.

[Bill Davis] "In some of the discussion places I hang out - I can guarantee that virtually EVERY discussion about X I engage in, a handful of working editors will bring up "the botched launch", and Apple "abandoning the professionals" six years ago. "

I thought you hung out in places that were more pro-X than here. ☺

[Bill Davis] "So if someone starts a thread implying that X FAILS in some way - and I think there is another balancing interpretation, you'll hear it. "

Except that your response didn't relate in the least bit to the topic. And the issue has been corroborated by several others. So it's clearly a real problem. Your response was about organizational workflow and speeding up the efficiency of the edit. The actual problem is system performance during the phase of media import.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 26, 2017 at 2:16:10 am

[Bill Davis] "Simple really."

Except you talk right past the very people using it, that like using it, and want to make it better. Instead of commiseration, we get a lesson on how the extra special database needs to ‘warm up’ before it works quickly? If you think of this particular forum as a professional to professional discussion, and not a total dis fest, then it’s OK to air grievances and swap stories, even if the very tool or machine that we use is discussed and picked apart.

To use an ever present, total totality, and awesome car analogy:

If a bunch of experienced Mercedes mechanics get together, they might wonder why the late model Mercedes exhibits a weird behavior immediately after startup. Conceivably, those experienced mechanics may swap stories and ponder together as a group of professionals, theoretical reasons why Mercedes Inc, the very car company that they build a business around, would design a part or set the computer to limit how fast you can go right after you start the car. Another Mercedes mechanic (you) comes in and says, it takes two days to properly warm up a Mercedes before you can go driving. Would that help a new Mercedes mechanic that joins this discussion, to feel better about being a new Mercedes mechanic?

To be clear, I don’t think we are “totally dissing” FCPX or Apple. We just want the fast car to go faster as soon as we turn the key and we are trying to figure out the issue.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 26, 2017 at 7:33:20 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Would that help a new Mercedes mechanic that joins this discussion, to feel better about being a new Mercedes mechanic?"

Maybe that's my issue.

It feels exactly like you describe. A few mechanics huddled around the coffee machine shooting the s**t with the same old car club buddies.

What this place isn't doing is attracting much of the new X talent springing up globally. .

There are plenty of competing forums for X, and actually most of the ones I spend most of my time in nowadays attract FAR, far, far more professional editors interested in X than typically appear here. That includes the public as well as private sites.

Heck, in one just today, someone asked a pretty complex workflow related question about a popular piece of X related software - and the owner of the company that sells it popped in to answer questions from the dozen interested parties who were participating in the discussion.

It just bums me out that instead of this, my traditional longtime FCP X forum, following X's robust ongoing growth - it's more likely morphing into that neighborhood garage that only the locals much care about.

By rights we could have dozens or even hundreds of new voices participating here.

But we don't.

Oh well.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 26, 2017 at 10:44:38 am

[Bill Davis] "It just bums me out that instead of this, my traditional longtime FCP X forum, following X's robust ongoing growth - it's more likely morphing into that neighborhood garage that only the locals much care about.

By rights we could have dozens or even hundreds of new voices participating here.
"


Having read many of the other forums, apart from the "invite only" ones that only true FCPX believers get invited to, I have to say I'm pretty happy with what goes on here. The only thing that grates really is your constant whingeing about the content of the forum! perhaps it's time you moved on for good, then you wouldn't be so "bummed out" about it.

There's plenty of good discussion both FCPX and non-FCPX related that goes on here, I think you just choose to ONLY concentrate on any posts that point out areas where FCPX could be improved or any slight criticism of it. You also seem to still be referencing the sort of comments that simply don't happen here anymore.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 27, 2017 at 12:09:50 pm

[Bill Davis] "Maybe that's my issue. "

I believe we are now talking about totally separate things. You want this forum to be FCPX Evangelism & Praise. Typically, that is not the service Creative Cow users provide.

Creative Cow is direct user to user help line. It is free, it is come as you are, there's no secret decoder ring, there's no special knock, there's no red velvet rope. All are welcome to share and compare experiences, good, bad, or indifferent. But instead you seem to want to complain about the caliber(?) of posts in this debate forum? Or that Facebook attracts a different audience?

[Bill Davis] "actually most of the ones I spend most of my time in nowadays attract FAR, far, far more professional editors interested in X than typically appear here. "

Again the condescension. Honestly, Bill, take it elsewhere. I don't know what a FAR far far more professional editor is and how they differ from the people that show up here. What does a FAR far far more prefessional editor do that we don't do in terms of editing for a living? Sure, theres editors whose work is more public facing, or who work on big budget movies, or work on some really cool and creative projects, but I don't think it relates to how professional they are, and if you look at who posts here and what they do, you may find there is top tier work that happening here too. So, if the professionalism isn’t enough for you here, please stop telling us there are better places to go.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 27, 2017 at 12:30:28 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Again the condescension. Honestly, Bill, take it elsewhere. I don't know what a FAR far far more professional editor is and how they differ from the people that show up here. "

I was assuming he meant more, as in amount of.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 27, 2017 at 12:35:46 pm

[Steve Connor] "I was assuming he meant more, as in amount of."

Ah. Yes.

Of course! ☺


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 27, 2017 at 4:54:41 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I believe we are now talking about totally separate things. You want this forum to be FCPX Evangelism & Praise.

OK - got it.

You do NOT want this forum to be about FCP X Evangelism and Praise.

And I am the central problem.

Duly noted.

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 9:03:21 pm

[Bill Davis] "You can start to move your edit forward via all the many database preparation tools X pioneered that do not need ANYTHING to be prepped to function."

Not this again : )


[Bill Davis] "Every traditional editor I've ever walked through X has this same bias. They don't think their edit has commenced until they have clips on a timeline. It's maddening since I've been talking about this for six years now."

Why not give us a demo of how proficient FCPX really is as opposed to just talking about it?


[Bill Davis] "Removing ALL the crap from your view via Reject saves sometimes whole days later on. It clarifies editorial thinking EXACTLY like a string out - except it's 100 times more flexible."

As I stated why not do a demo for us?


[Bill Davis] "After Hide REJECT - the shape of your raw materials starts to emerge - telling you precisely where you have options and where you might have content holes."

Once again a demo would be nice.


[Bill Davis] "After six years on X, I've truly come to see Tagging AS editing. It's a "first cut" in everything but name. Those not comfortable with X thinking just miss this because it happens away from the "timeline" but it's as palpable to me as using a motor to fix an AC rather than starting with magnets and wire and assembling the motor from scratch. Precision range keywording creates useful custom "parts" I can use to build more efficiently with later."

I have FCPX and I can create keyword with ranges but I should also add other NLE can create custom built parts of their own.


[Bill Davis] "The point is that there is lots and lots of effective edit prep that can take place during the first few days of a typical X pre-edit period that lets me move my edit very much forward - they just don't take place on my timeline."

You can prep stuff in other NLE as well.


[Bill Davis] "Once again, if you try to drive X using non-magnetic prep thinking and expectations (the "the edit happens only on a timeline) approach) X will probably slow down to about the efficiency of any other NLE."

Why not do a demo and see if someone else has a better technique? You always say you want to learn. Perhaps you use a grappling style when a striking technique might prove to be just as efficient.


[Bill Davis] "It's only when you embrace its complete gestalt - that things start to really fly."

There is also many obstacles with FCPX as well.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 3:57:10 pm

[Oliver Peters] "When I first start an edit and import a ton of media, I have to wait for thumbnail, filmstrip, and waveform generation. FCPX is virtually unusable during this stage to try to do any editing"

So Oliver, is this lead paragraph under the original post "accurate" - or is it your intention to tell the legions of people who might not have ANY experience with X, that it's an "unusable" system for working with "a ton of media" because that's the pretty explicit impression from your writing here.

"Unusable?" Really?

Cuz I "use" it during the import phase every day.

Just a week ago I was shipped a 10 terabyte drive filled to the brim with 4K Multicam interviews - various cameras and codecs - and had absolutely no issues turning out heavily edited targeted timecode window dubs for client review in a day.

How can I get my work done so easily - when in virtually every one of your posts here - the impression you are leaving is that you're struggling mightily to get even the simplest things done fluidly?

THAT is what pushes me to feel there could be something "not understood" about your X workflows.

It just seems weird that tens of thousands of us can get this tool to work highly productively, day in and day out, yet all you seem to experience (or at least post about) regarding X, is extreme frustration.

Pardon me for trying to explain the workflows that I typically employ - that might reduce your angst - I thought it might help.

And also pardon me for reacting snippily. But terms like "unusable" applied to, processes that I find perfectly "useable" every day - just seems highly disconnected from the reality I experience.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 4:14:37 pm

[Bill Davis] " is this lead paragraph under the original post "accurate" "

Accurate.

[Bill Davis] ""Unusable?" Really?"

You are missing the operative qualifier: during this stage.

[Bill Davis] "and had absolutely no issues turning out heavily edited"

How soon after import were you able to review footage without waiting on system performance? What codec?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 5:52:14 pm

Instantly, but I don't "review" so much in the sense of skimming large swaths of stuff just to satisfy my curiosity about it.

Instead, I start with day one and immediately start my REJECT pass, pretty universally.

That reject pass IS my review. I'll go through EVERY frame of the content. Most at 4 or 8x speed during the typically large "this is crap" sections and start REJECTiNG all that crap.

Slowing to 2x or 4x when "candidate" footage appears. (So I can monitor audio to watch for useful stuff)

When in the "useful" sections, I typically bucket it into either unrated, or FAVORITE (if i see gold) and then instantly go back to REJECTING more obvious crap.

This "reductive review" of the entire body of field footage is something I see as carving massive amounts of complexity out of every minute of work I'lll do from that point on - so it's where I typically live for the first few days of the edit.

And since I'm spending time "working" the footage from the first minutes it arrives on my machine - in ALL those small pauses, breaks and delays that come up in a typical work session - the auto render kicks back in and essentially my computer is working "ahead" of me on waveforms and all the audio processes - so I'm never slowed down.

I understand that everyone's preferred workflow is different. And some might feel the need to have everything "touchable" from the first minute - but TO ME - that defeats the way X can be operated most efficiently.

One issue is that this workflow can be interfered with if you get large batches of footage in a raster or encoding that your machine just can't handle efficiency. And that's a real concern. It's likely why 10 editors will be working a project just fine - but another one will be struggling. The way the footage was captured may be making it vastly more challenging to work - and steps may need to be taken to fix that before you go too far into prep.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm currently working with a drive that was drop shipped to me that contains 9.5 terabytes of project files - two out of three cameras were Ninja recorded and set to MXF with 4 channel audio - even tho there's only actually audio on 2 of the 4.

In my first hour of work (and with a client that wanted to "see a bit" ASAP, I did some window dubs that took WAY longer to handle than I expected. That experience sent me looking at the attached audio. Seeing those empty track was a red flag. I batch disabled them - and it was a HUGE difference in throughput efficiency.

X in that way is like every other piece of software I've every used. You have to understand the idiosyncrasies of your system to make it sing.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 8:18:22 pm

[Bill Davis] "As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm currently working with a drive that was drop shipped to me that contains 9.5 terabytes of project files - two out of three cameras were Ninja recorded and set to MXF with 4 channel audio - even tho there's only actually audio on 2 of the 4."

That does seem to be the common denominator - waveforms and numbers of tracks. Definitely something that needs to be fixed. FWIW - it's far worse if your media is coming from networked storage. Setting the import to ignore silent tracks doesn't seem to help much.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 11:19:04 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Setting the import to ignore silent tracks doesn't seem to help much."

Why would it?

In digital cloning, the most efficient process will always be bit for bit copy of the original digital file without any change.

Asking the software to "un-mux audio, separate two out of four or six audio samples, then digitize ONLY the rest" would probably be massively more processing work than simply the "see a bit - clone a bit" thing it does now.

In X, once that signal is parsed by the database, it's trivial to go in and just tell it to disable "all but tracks one and two."

It's just a metadata adjustment that you can batch apply to 1000 clips in two seconds.

Much smarter the way they do it, IMO.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 23, 2017 at 11:51:55 pm

[Bill Davis] "In digital cloning, the most efficient process will always be bit for bit copy of the original digital file without any change."

What cloning? No media is being copied.

[Bill Davis] "Asking the software to "un-mux audio, separate two out of four or six audio samples, then digitize ONLY the rest" would probably be massively more processing work than simply the "see a bit - clone a bit" thing it does now. "

So what you are acknowledging is that this setting in the import window is essentially useless, since all of the tracks - silent or not - still have to be analyzed.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 25, 2017 at 11:22:10 pm

[Oliver Peters] "So what you are acknowledging is that this setting in the import window is essentially useless, since all of the tracks - silent or not - still have to be analyzed."

Like much of X, import options are contextual.

So the "import window" controls more or less - depending on the incoming configuration, codec, wrapper and file types it is presented.

You know that.

If a file has 8 audio tracks muxed in the digital file, like for example a MultiCam BlackMagic Terrenex/Atom output, I know of NO system that will unpack that and let you pick and choose your audio tracks for import.

As you also know well, Oliver, EACH hardware manufacturer controls how their digital streams flow and are packetized.

So "useless" for one editor - becomes "mission critical" for another.

Simple as that.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 26, 2017 at 12:21:59 am

[Bill Davis] "So the "import window" controls more or less - depending on the incoming configuration, codec, wrapper and file types it is presented.
You know that. "


Actually, no. On the face of it, I don't understand what you are trying to say in this sentence.

[Bill Davis] "I know of NO system that will unpack that and let you pick and choose your audio tracks for import."

I agree, however, that's not what the import window dialogue implies. But I guess, yes, if it's part of the "analyze and fix" section it's an after-import function. One would think that analysis would happen before the file is available to be used, but obviously not. I just feel than an answer spelling that out would be more helpful than another FCPX sales pitch. Like others mentioned to cancel out of background functions and to turn off browser waveforms. Those suggestion do, in fact, help.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 26, 2017 at 7:41:49 am

[Oliver Peters] "Actually, no. On the face of it, I don't understand what you are trying to say in this sentence."

Merely that if X recognizes the volume structure and codec of an import candidate - it lets you pre edit via selection before you import - IF the source volume is one X can parse.

If it doesn't, then you can be constrained to capturing entire whole files as you noted, but it's conditional.

Right volume structure, you can do targeted footage "pruning" on import. Unsupported volume structure, and all you can do is grab the whole digital enchilada.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 26, 2017 at 11:06:35 am
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Sep 26, 2017 at 11:13:43 am

[Bill Davis] "Right volume structure, you can do targeted footage "pruning" on import. Unsupported volume structure, and all you can do is grab the whole digital enchilada"

I’m sorry to be obtuse, but that answer is even more confusing than the earlier one. It also appears to contradict what you said before. My take now is that a file is imported and THEN analysed. In that analysis a waveform cache is created and silent tracks are hidden, but not removed. This all happens AFTER the file is actually imported - either an actual import/copy or just a link. Analysis doesn’t actually happen before or during import.

And BTW - what do you mean by volume structure? We’re talking about media files from an internal or external drive. For example, Alexa ProRes files that have been cooied to a RAID first before importing.

Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 26, 2017 at 6:32:13 pm

[Oliver Peters] "My take now is that a file is imported and THEN analysed."

The analysis stage is optional and user triggered.

[Oliver Peters] "In that analysis a waveform cache is created and silent tracks are hidden, but not removed. This all happens AFTER the file is actually imported - either an actual import/copy or just a link. Analysis doesn’t actually happen before or during import."


The "import" process as I understand it in x is composed of two "stages". First, the metadata is grabbed which makes pure metadata manipulation editing possible. This enables the "get to work NOW" aspects of X.

Concurrently, the digital footage data is copied in. That process is subject to user decision forks, depending on whether it's managed, or referenced, local or remote.

But regardless, eventually a cohesive "pool" (or "pools" if you're doing optimized or proxy) of sequestered digital content is created.

It is in how you elect to create these - that I was discussing.

You can create a pool of a single entire card volume. Or, if your footage storage media has a volume structure X understands, you can limit the digitalization to importing only a subsection of the whole storage volume that you specify at time of import.

Is that clearer?

Whether waveform generation applies to everything, or just SOME things - is entirely dependent on the POOL X sees that the user specifies for import.

Basically, in your workflow - are you presented with the "interim stage" of being able to click on a card file - and RANGE SELECT only what you WISH to import - or are you constrained by the "volume structure" of your footage type, so you are just having to grab EVERYTHING as a video file with a dozen audio files.

The answer has a ton to do with the amount of work you'll have to do later.

But in NEITHER is it possible to extract only certain audio tracks.

And as I understand it, this applies to ALL NLEs - not just X.

Correct me if you think I'm wrong and let me know what system actually allows you to "break into" modern digital video storage volumes and carve out specific digital things like "channels" from during the ingest process.

That would be awesome. But I've never heard of any system that can do that.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 26, 2017 at 10:54:11 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Sep 26, 2017 at 10:55:15 pm

[Bill Davis] "Is that clearer? "

Well, I understand the answer, but I'm not sure your analogy of 'pools' is really very accurate. For example "leave in place". But, I'll just let it drop, because I don't think we are getting anywhere. Essentially I got the answer before - don't use any of the analyze section in the import menu and turn off waveform displays. Then cancel out background processes if you want to start editing right away. But thank you for taking the effort to spell out your thought process on the matter. I appreciate it.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 27, 2017 at 3:43:03 am

[Oliver Peters] "But thank you for taking the effort to spell out your thought process on the matter. I appreciate it."

No problem.

I kinda formulated the "pools" metaphor as a reaction to explaining the X proxy workflow back when it was introduced at the X debut in 2011.

Talking about the "instant switch" from optimized to proxy and back - seemed to make the most sense by describing entirely identical "pools" of content - each in a different compression/codec - and when you switched between them, all the software does is swap the footage pointers between the structurally identical pools.

It seemed to help people make sense of why it worked like it did.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

Winston A. Cely
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 4:06:53 pm

I think I'm confused as to what speed problem is going on.... I haven't seen anything with any of my students computers on import, and believe me, if there's a problem a class full of high schoolers will find the darn thing. LOL

Let me get this straight, when you have selected your clips in the Import Window and click import, you can't view any of the clips without stuttering occurring? And this is somehow related to FCPX generating new waveforms?

Sorry, I've re-read a number of posts to try and get this straight, so I can inform my students and we can avoid any problems with importing.

Our collective experience has been, once we hit the import selected button, the clips are immediately available to edit, other than the fact that you have the progress dots reminding you that the footage isn't technically finished importing. We know that you can proceed with the edit, but we usually don't because the import background task stops every time you move your curser over the footage.

Winston A. Cely
Editor/Owner | Della St. Media, LLC

17" MacBook Pro | 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7
4 GB RAM | Final Cut Studio 3 | FCPX | Motion 5 | Compressor 4

"If you can talk brilliantly enough about a subject, you can create the consoling illusion it has been mastered." - Stanley Kubrick


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Background processes are an impediment to starting the edit
on Sep 22, 2017 at 9:12:58 pm

Keep in mind if you are editing h.264/AVCHD/MPEG4 Intel's Quick Sync will help for rendering and playback. An iMac with a Kaby Lake CPU would probably handle playback of 4K AVCHD better than an octo core Xeon. People will probably get different results depending on the computer system and video codecs being used


Return to posts index

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