FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Craig Seeman
FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 29, 2017 at 4:05:33 pm

Very interesting results by Max Yuryev.
There's some typo in his graphs so I suspect he was rushing to get this online.

Let the debates begin. The "best" option is certainly debatable given the results and your current source and delivery needs.








Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 29, 2017 at 7:20:49 pm

Would have been nice to see a comparison where footage was optimised to ProRes, or a version editing 1080/4K footage supplied in ProRes/DNxHD via an Atomos/Shogun/Blackmagic recorder (which is very typical).

It does seem as though the Pro machine does what it says on the tin - if you edit material that is typically delivered to Pro shops (Raw or 6K+ resolution), the iMac Pro comes out on top.

I'm not sure if the ambiguity over a promised modular Pro machine and high res monitor from Apple, along with full eGPU support has made me decide to wait and see before buying. Anyone else thinking the same?

Thanks for the link though!

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 29, 2017 at 8:58:37 pm

To add to the interest I'll toss in Barefeats tests as well. He's testing more systems including the Late 2013 Mac Pro and a 2010 old Mac Pro.

IMacPro Running Pro Apps

Low End iMacPro vs MacPros and iMac

Extrapolating iMacPro Vega64 GPU Performance



Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 29, 2017 at 11:49:53 pm

A bit of a tangential question, but I'm in the middle of adding some iMac Pros into an environment with standard iMacs and a 2013 Mac Pro.

A few of these stations also a second, external display, which are repurposed Apple Cinemas with DVI connectors. On the iMacs they work fine connected to the TB2 ports, using a DVI-to-MDP adapter. However, we are trying to figure out how to use these with the iMPs.

We added a TB2-to-USBC adapter, but that doesn't work. Is this an issue of one too many adapters? Does the USBC/TB3 spigot even support an external video signal from a monitor that doesn't specifically have this connection? Or is there a different adapter that we should get that will work?

Anyone run into this yet? If so, suggestions? Thanks.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 3:12:33 am
Last Edited By Craig Seeman on Dec 30, 2017 at 5:29:35 pm

Would USB-C to MiniDisplay do the trick?

This maybe DVI to USB-C


Macworld mentions the above for Monitor to TB3 compatibility but it's actually USB-C

To clarify USB-C is not USB3. USB-C is the same form as Thunderbolt 3 (may work in TB3 ports which act as USB-C ports). I'm sure you know this. The adaptors I'm pointing to are either USB-C or TB3. Unfortunately many product descriptions use unclear language to differentiate.

USB-C devices can work in TB3 ports but only as USB protocol. If one needs TB3 the cable/adaptor must be TB3 (which is a management chip built in).


Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 4:28:29 am

The DisplayPort stuff is multiplexed on top of the USB with custom silicon. I don't think garden variety USB 3 chipsets are going to provide that support. I think the device would have to specifically say that that it's Thunderbolt 3 and/or DisplayPort aware.

To get an idea of the complexities, check this out... ~/combining-usb-type-c-and-displayport-support-in-portable-implementations/

And in looking at the page and datasheet, there's no mention of Thunderbolt 3 anywhere. That's just DisplayPort and HDCP on top of USB3.

By trying to simplify everything down to one electrical connection, they've opened up a new can of worms.


Return to posts index


Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 11:20:41 am

[Oliver Peters] "We added a TB2-to-USBC adapter, but that doesn't work. Is this an issue of one too many adapters? Does the USBC/TB3 spigot even support an external video signal from a monitor that doesn't specifically have this connection? Or is there a different adapter that we should get that will work?"

I am trying to figure out the same thing for my 2017 MBp.

The adapter mentioned below sounds interesting. As a side note, I also bought a HyoerDrive USBC hub, which provides a bit more elegant solution to various adapters hanging off the machine:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MUAEI7J/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?...

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 1:42:14 pm

CS and ST - This is the TB3 port(s) on the iMP I'm referring to, not the USB3.0.

The TB3 port use the same connector as USB-C. The adapter that was purchased is an Apple adapter that appears to be TB2-to-TB3 (USB-C connector on the TB3 end). We are going DVI-to-MDP first (using an Apple adapter - the MDP connector and signal is plug-compatible with TB2) and then daisy-chained to that is the TB2-to-TB3 adapter to get us into the USB-C/TB3 ports on the iMP. My suspicion is that this is one too many adapters or they are the wrong type.

For the time being we've repurposed those displays to the regular iMacs where they work fine. The only one right now that I'm trying to connect to one iMac Pro is a Dell that was using a DisplayPort to MiniDisplayPort cable. It also doesn't work on the iMPs with this Apple adapter. My fear is that the only external displays that work may be the LGs that Apple sells. I hope not.

https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKN62/lg-ultrafine-5k-display?fnode=4c

We are going to try to get another cable for the Dell - maybe HDMI to TB3 - before we give up.

SW - the DP here has one of those docks. The first one he had broke right away and he had to get a second one. I prefer the OWC docks, but they require external power, which makes them tied primarily to office use. So the side-mounted ones are good for fast, portable connectivity.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 5:15:05 pm

How about this Display Port to TB3
You'd need DVI to Display Port (full not Mini)



Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 8:45:25 pm

Seems like it could work. The HP has regular DP output, so they would just need a DP to DP cable. I'll pass it along. We'll see, Thanks.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 10:05:56 pm

[Oliver Peters] "SW - the DP here has one of those docks. The first one he had broke right away and he had to get a second one. I prefer the OWC docks, but they require external power, which makes them tied primarily to office use. So the side-mounted ones are good for fast, portable connectivity."

Agreed. I certainly do not leave it attached when not needing it. Too easy to catch it on something and snap it off.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 31, 2017 at 3:56:03 pm

Not to beat a dead horse, but according to the benchmarks here - "Low End iMac Pro versus two Mac Pros and one iMac 5K" - an old cheese grater tower with a Radeon Vegas GPU (cMP 12c Vega64) beats the pants off the trash can nMpro in the GPU tests and is about even in the CPU tests. Yet more proof of what a terrible piece of crap the nMpro was and is and why an upgradable design is so valuable.

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


Return to posts index


andy patterson
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 4:23:13 am
Last Edited By andy patterson on Dec 30, 2017 at 6:23:00 am

That is almost exactly what I would expect. FCPX has an advantage over Premiere Pro when editing h.264/AVCHD. Once you use any other codec FCPX has no advantage over Premiere Pro and in fact can perform worse. I would have expected the iMac to play back Red One R3D files at full resolution and also playback at 8K R3D files in better performance mode. There are PC for $1,200.00 that can playback 4 R3D files at full resolution. Does this mean FCPX has an old and outdated code base? I kid I kid : )

Never under estimate the power of Intel's Quick Sync or a $1,200.00 gaming PC.

The PC below could playback 4K R3D files at full resolution using Premiere Pro as well as 8K R3D files. I admit you might need to drop down to 1/4 resolution for playback of 8K R3D files but the image quality would still look awesome.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100...


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 3:55:14 pm

[andy patterson] "Never under estimate the power of Intel's Quick Sync or a $1,200.00 gaming PC.

The PC below could playback 4K R3D files at full resolution using Premiere Pro as well as 8K R3D files. I admit you might need to drop down to 1/4 resolution for playback of 8K R3D files but the image quality would still look awesome.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100....."


we know already, how could we not - you've posted it on every thread in the last couple weeks.

Please stop trying to turn everything into a PC/MAC debate. People in the market for an Imac Pro at 5,000+ are clearly not looking for a 1200 gaming PC whether it can outperform the IMACP or not.


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 4:02:35 pm

This.

iMac vs iMac pro, and for some reason there is still an angle to post about buying an off the shelf gaming pc.

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


Return to posts index


andy patterson
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 10:04:27 pm

[Tom Sefton] "iMac vs iMac pro, and for some reason there is still an angle to post about buying an off the shelf gaming pc."

The context is more FCPX VS Premiere Pro. FCPX cannot play back 4K R3D files at full resolution without dropping frames using a 2017 iMac. I thought Premiere Pro had the old and laggy code base and FCPX was custom crafted for the iMac. I think we can put that myth to rest.

I know it is fun to say Premiere Pro has an old and outdated code case but reality says otherwise : )


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 31, 2017 at 1:27:51 am

[andy patterson] "FCPX cannot play back 4K R3D files at full resolution without dropping frames using a 2017 iMac."

Uh it can and it does using a 2015 Imac so I'm not sure what your talking about, the 2017 should handle it with ease. Obviously each person's setups will have different variables affecting playback (drive speed being the biggest factor IMO) but it's definitely doable and NO Im not going to make you a video of it.

Premiere Pro can play back the same clips as well, but in actual editing on a timeline I have to drop resolution to 1/4 to get smooth playback of my sequence so take that whats its worth.

At the end of the day it's very insignificant to me whether my computer can play back 4k+ natively anyways because I dont cut with native media so I have a feeling this 2015 Imca is going to last me a very long time.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 31, 2017 at 6:47:18 am

[Neil Goodman] "Uh it can and it does using a 2015 Imac so I'm not sure what your talking about, the 2017 should handle it with ease. Obviously each person's setups will have different variables affecting playback (drive speed being the biggest factor IMO) but it's definitely doable and NO Im not going to make you a video of it."

I agree except you don't see Premiere Pro user saying FCPX uses old laggy coding. Edius has no GPU acceleration so spending $800.00 on an 8 core CPU would be better than spending $350.00 on a CPU and $450.00 on a GPU. That is why for some people FCPX works better on their Mac Pro but for others Premiere Pro works better. I have always said they both work just fine.


[Neil Goodman] "Premiere Pro can play back the same clips as well, but in actual editing on a timeline I have to drop resolution to 1/4 to get smooth playback of my sequence so take that whats its worth."

It depends on the system. You stated that yourself already. When using AVCHD FCPX does have an advantage over Premiere Pro but not Edius. FCPX also has an advantage over Premiere Pro more often than not when using a laptop. Once you get a $1,200.00 desktop PC Premiere Pro might have an advantage. Do you know why that is?



[Neil Goodman] "At the end of the day it's very insignificant to me whether my computer can play back 4k+ natively anyways because I dont cut with native media so I have a feeling this 2015 Imca is going to last me a very long time."

I am not saying your system does not work. I am saying people over hype FCPX and the Apple products. My PC is using an old Haswell CPU clocked at 3.4 GHZ. It can play 6 layers of native AVCHD1080P with color correction at full resolution and 8 layers of Red One files at 1/4 resolution. My system can play back a single native 4K R3D file at full resolution without dropping frames. I say it does not drop frames because they playback is smooth. The drop frame indicator will go on after about 15 seconds of play. The bottom line is you would never notice it dropped a frame or two if I let it play for 5 minutes. Having said that my CPU and GPU are working extremely hard to play it back at full resolution so I set playback to 1/4 resolution. I don't doubt I could playback 8 layers of 8K R3D files if I drop down to 1/8 resolution.

I guess what I am asking is if FCPX can playback 4K R3D files on a $8,000.00 iMac Pro at full resolution without dropping frames should I be impressed? Wouldn't the fact that Premiere Pro can playback 4K R3D files at full resolution on a $1,400.00 gaming PC seem more impressive? Keep in mind many people claim you need an $8000.00 HP workstation to edit native AVCHD or R3D files using Premiere Pro. That statement is not true but many people insist it is and they also insist Premiere Pro uses old and sluggish coding even though reality says differently. It is OK to like FCPX and the Apple products but I myself don't over hype them nor should anyone else.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 31, 2017 at 6:54:27 pm

[andy patterson] "I agree except you don't see Premiere Pro user saying FCPX uses old laggy coding."

But you said that it cant. now you agree? OK.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 31, 2017 at 7:36:59 pm

[Neil Goodman] "[andy patterson] "I agree except you don't see Premiere Pro user saying FCPX uses old laggy coding."

But you said that it cant. now you agree? OK."



In the video below (at 16:45) Max Yuryev states that the 2017 iMac cannot playback the 4.5K clip at full resolution without dropping frames. That is not to say a more expensive 2017 iMac could not play it back without dropping frames. I took your word for it that some 2017 iMacs can play it back without dropping frames.

OK? : )







Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 31, 2017 at 10:52:03 am

Bullshit. It can.

This isn’t an fcpx vs premiere debate. This post is a look at Apple hardware. The forum isn’t fcpx vs Adobe.

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 31, 2017 at 8:06:52 pm

[Tom Sefton] "This isn’t an fcpx vs premiere debate. This post is a look at Apple hardware. The forum isn’t fcpx vs Adobe."

This is the Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates forum. Anything computer related gets discussed in this forum. Having said that what kind of post would you expect in a forum call Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates? Should we post about breast feeding or how to change a spark plug? What are you expecting in a forum called Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates?

There is a person ranting about Windows in another post in this forum. Is ranting about Windows OK? Are you bothered to hear what the PC side has to offer? The fact that a $1,800.00 gaming PC running Premiere Pro can out perform FCPX using a $2,800.00 iMac is good info for anyone contemplating between FCPX, Avid or Premiere Pro? For the record that kind of information is exactly what should be posted in this forum. No one is saying FCPX has old and laggy code like they have said about Premiere Pro. The post is about the new iMac Pro but this forum is open to debate. Learn to deal with it.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 9:51:50 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Please stop trying to turn everything into a PC/MAC debate. People in the market for an Imac Pro at 5,000+ are clearly not looking for a 1200 gaming PC whether it can outperform the IMACP or not."

I was commenting on FCPX VS Premiere Pro not Mac VS PC. Remember Premiere Pro has an old laggy code base : )


Return to posts index

Webb Deneys
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 4:49:36 pm

I would like to see the comparison for best quality h.264 output which I believe is not supported by quick sync. Or is that just me - it feels wrong to produce ‘quick low quality’ h.264 from all that Red footage...


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 9:27:20 pm

Why? Editorial decision making has totally different requirements from VFX or design work.

Why not allow tens of thousands of the world’s editors to get to work efficiently on lower Rez proxies - particularly if re-connecting to your higher Rez footage pools for finishing is as easy as throwing a switch?

Needing to access and transport big full Rez datastreams for editorial purposes is becoming more and more an optional workflow - not a necessity.

The actual editing is expressing choices against image and sound flows. The image quality just has to be clean enough to make viable decisions - not so maximized that it requires throwing unnecessary money at every rig you buy.

Times have changed.

My 2 cents.

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


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 11:11:17 pm

“Why not allow tens of thousands of the world’s editors to get to work efficiently on lower Rez proxies”

However, the proxy workflow overall is an inefficient use of an editor’s time.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 30, 2017 at 11:50:51 pm

[greg janza] "However, the proxy workflow overall is an inefficient use of an editor’s time."

In what way?

For my work, the speed of working with proxies until the shape of the cut is determined - particularly knowing that I can play with scene order, juxtaposition and move things that "feel adjacent" into that type of adjacency on a whim, and instantly undo or re-rearrange them - seems like something I'd be very hard pressed to give up.

A solid proxy workflow encourages that type of experimentation.

I spent so many years seeing my timelines as assemblies tied to RENDER files that went offline if I moved anything out to place - to have the freedom to move anything anywhere without penalty is one of the greatest joys of modern editing.

That's the way I see it anyway.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 31, 2017 at 12:57:15 am

"[greg janza] "However, the proxy workflow overall is an inefficient use of an editor’s time."

Proxy workflows make complete sense depending on the project, the source material, how much time you have in post, and the system and storage you're working from. I just created proxies for a couple of projects and gave them to our producer to do story edits. She doesn't need the 3.2k files to that, and will likely be cutting on a laptop or older iMac off a single USB drive. So proxy makes total sense there.

When I was cutting longer projects on Avid we always did proxy workflow because it was fast, easy, and made editing a lot smoother and responsive. Then we'd export for color, relink to the camera originals, and master from those. Now that I'm on FCPX I don't use proxies as much, in part because FCPX doesn't have actual background transcoding or a good proxy workflow with third party created proxies (like through Resolve), but if you have time to just set it up to run overnight it can be a huge timesaver in the long run because there's so much less lag on your system when editing.

[Bill Davis] "I spent so many years seeing my timelines as assemblies tied to RENDER files that went offline if I moved anything out to place - to have the freedom to move anything anywhere without penalty is one of the greatest joys of modern editing."

You should have tried other NLEs. They didn't all have that problem. :-)

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 31, 2017 at 1:26:34 am

[Michael Hancock] "You should have tried other NLEs. They didn't all have that problem. :-)"

Yep, an FCP "legacy" problem.

FWIW - I'm working a lot with shared storage and 4K files. We (the editors) have collectively all decided that going forward, proxy workflow is the way to go. Yes, there's extra time required to transcode proxies, but the ultimate time savings for more fluid editing is more than enough to offset it. Besides, you can often let the proxies cook overnight.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Claude Lyneis
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Jan 1, 2018 at 4:11:57 am

The discussion of using Proxies to edit 4k projects in FCPX is especially relevant for me. I have a new CANON XF400 camera which has a 4 k 150 Mb/s mode. I did a few sample projects using proxies and FCPX and it basically works using my Mid 11 27 inch mac. I am planning to go up to a loaded iMac, but probably not to an IMac Pro. This would give me a 5k screen, faster graphics and processor, USB-C and Thunderbolt 3 ports, although not as many as the iMac Pro supports.

I did a 50 second 4k project with my old iMac and was surprised to see that to compress it to 1080 p for the internet took about 25 minutes. This process was only using one core as far as I could see.

Do you think I will be OK with a loaded 27 inch iMac?


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 31, 2017 at 1:19:06 am

[Bill Davis] particularly knowing that I can play with scene order, juxtaposition and move things that "feel adjacent" into that type of adjacency on a whim, and instantly undo or re-rearrange them - seems like something I'd be very hard pressed to give up.

A solid proxy workflow encourages that type of experimentation. "


How out of curiosity is that limited to using proxies?

That just sounds like non linear editing to me with or without proxy. No matter the media whether it be pro res 4444, h264/5 proxy, or blackmagic raw - its all manipulated in the same way. The media doesn't affect experimentation or enhance creativity.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 31, 2017 at 9:59:25 am

[Bill Davis] "For my work, the speed of working with proxies until the shape of the cut is determined - particularly knowing that I can play with scene order, juxtaposition and move things that "feel adjacent" into that type of adjacency on a whim, and instantly undo or re-rearrange them - seems like something I'd be very hard pressed to give up."

I can do all that without needing to use proxy files on a $850.00 PC using Premiere Pro. For collaboration projects proxies can be useful.

[Bill Davis] "A solid proxy workflow encourages that type of experimentation."

So does working with camera raw files using Premiere Pro. Don't get me wrong I know FCPX can work with raw files in real-time if you use an iMac Pro vs an Apple Mac Book.


[Bill Davis] "I spent so many years seeing my timelines as assemblies tied to RENDER files that went offline if I moved anything out to place - to have the freedom to move anything anywhere without penalty is one of the greatest joys of modern editing.

That's the way I see it anyway."


The days of yesteryear are a thing of the past.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 31, 2017 at 4:34:30 pm

“In what way?”

When you factor in that most raids now are large enough to handle multiple 4k projects, it’s much easier to copy the raw media to a raid and then start working instead of adding in the time consuming extra step of proxy creation. The one caveat being that your system needs to be fast enough to handle 4k full res playback.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Claude Lyneis
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Jan 2, 2018 at 7:13:48 pm

[greg janza] "When you factor in that most raids now are large enough to handle multiple 4k projects, it’s much easier to copy the raw media to a raid and then start working instead of adding in the time consuming extra step of proxy creation. The one caveat being that your system needs to be fast enough to handle 4k full res playback."

Since 4k is where I am going, is there a good way to know how to configure a new 27" iMac to meet the 4k full res playback criterion?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Jan 2, 2018 at 7:56:59 pm

[Claude Lyneis] "Since 4k is where I am going, is there a good way to know how to configure a new 27" iMac to meet the 4k full res playback criterion?"

Depends on the media format (codec), what type of storage and how it's connected. Do you intend to optimize or work with proxies? Generally get the top of the line of everything, except you can stick with a 1TB SSD and use other storage for media and docs.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Jan 2, 2018 at 7:58:00 pm

Claude, I can only tell you what has worked well for me. I primarily work with Sony FS7 XAVC files at 240mbps.

On my PC system, I'm using an Nvidia GeForce GTX 970, an i7-5820k CPU with 32 gigs ram. My media lives on an OWC Thunderbay Thunderbolt2 raid which connects to my PC through an Akitio TB2 to TB3 adapter. With this setup I am able to work without issue in full res with Luts attached with all of my 4k media.

I guess with your imac you'll need to know what the data rate is for your media and then determine if your media drives are fast enough. in addition you'll need to determine if your graphics card is powerful enough to make use of OpenGL. All of this may require doing some tests on your system with 4k footage.

If you have the right components there's no reason why you can't work smoothly with 4k media and avoid the very time-consuming proxy creation workflow.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Dec 31, 2017 at 1:15:09 am

[greg janza] "However, the proxy workflow overall is an inefficient use of an editor’s time."

Unless your in Avid, where you don't actually have to "make" proxies at all. It's literally just a button press now as of v8 and your working in 1/4 or 1/16 resolution proxies at literally the flick of switch.

I'm not sure what kind of voodoo is going on under the hood but it works and allows me to play back and do rough edits of 8k r3d clips on 2015 Imac. Going back to full res is just another press of the button. No time needed.

And..if those resolutions aren't cutting it for you for whatever reason, you can make lower res proxies in the actual background and they wont pause baking while you do other work or pull selects from the clips.

They really took background process and proxy workflows to the next level this year with the v8 update. Otherwise I agree - Letting files bake over night isnt always a viable option and these days all my assits have time to do for me is make proxies for our Premiere Pro projects.


Return to posts index

Neil Sadwelkar
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Jan 1, 2018 at 4:55:56 am

This debate on proxy or not, seems based on shooting certain camera types. If your shoot is Arriraw, and its a feature length project (50-100 TB original media) then proxy is not an option, its compulsory.

Also, one of the lesser known features of FCP X 10.4 is that it can work with proxies generated by another app. Just came across this in an article ('Some of the Lesser-Known New Features in Final Cut Pro 10.4') on fcp dot co.

-----------------------------------
Neil Sadwelkar
neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com
twitter: fcpguru
FCP Editor, Edit systems consultant
Mumbai India


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX comparison '17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
on Jan 2, 2018 at 1:25:25 pm

[Neil Sadwelkar] "Also, one of the lesser known features of FCP X 10.4 is that it can work with proxies generated by another app. Just came across this in an article ('Some of the Lesser-Known New Features in Final Cut Pro 10.4') on fcp dot co."

Here is the link: http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/news/2027-some-of-the-lesserknown-new-featu.....

I posted this on the general FCPX forum.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2018 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]