FORUMS: list search recent posts

Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro Legacy

<< PREVIOUS   •   FAQ   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
William Carr
Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 24, 2012 at 9:08:59 pm

First of all, happy holidays!

I'm often needing to convert PR to h64, and the other way round as well. Compressor in my FCP7 suite is 3.5.3, and sometimes has issues with various h264 in and out.

Is there any benefit to buying Compressor 4 as a standalone converter?
It seems like the benefits to me, sticking with FCP7 for now, might be speed ie: 64-bit processing, and possibly better handling of h264 flavors incoming and outgoing.

Running mid-2010 MBPRO, 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7, 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3

Thoughts?


Return to posts index

Jeff Meyer
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 25, 2012 at 5:13:21 am

I'd sooner invest in more ram. 8gb should run well under $100. You might be able to put 16gb into your laptop. Check 3rd party sources. Apple says 8gb is the max for my laptop, but I'm typing on it now with 16gb installed.


Personally, I use Adobe Media Encoder for H.264 conversions. I find it about two or three times faster than running a Quick Cluster in Compressor, and many more times faster if you're simply submitting jobs to "this computer." Media Encoder is multicore aware, so it makes better use of your hardware. It also encapsulates the H.264 is a multi-platform friendly mpeg container rather than Quicktime. I still use Compressor when converting to ProRes, but for anything else (H.264, XDCAM, MPEG2, etc.) it's Media Encoder. Media Encoder isn't sold separately, it comes bundled with Adobe Creative Suite software.


Return to posts index

William Carr
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 25, 2012 at 6:10:48 am

All good info, thanks Jeff.

The full CS is a bit beyond my budget, perhaps if there is enough work to justify I could "rent" it.

My MBPRO takes up to 8GB RAM as I understand it, and it's always nice to max out so maybe I will.

But I'm Still wondering if the newer Compressor-- at $49-- would make a difference in some way.


Return to posts index


Jeff Meyer
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 25, 2012 at 6:35:35 am

I've never been able to find data one way or the other. I figure it if it were faster Apple would have bragged about, or someone would have documented it. I would check with the folks on the Final Cut X forum. They're far more likely to know.
http://forums.creativecow.net/fcpxtechnique?view=s


Alternatively, you can do a 30 day trial on Creative Suite here to see if the difference will be noticeable on your system:
http://www.adobe.com/downloads/


Return to posts index

William Carr
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 25, 2012 at 6:53:21 am

Good info again, thanks!


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 25, 2012 at 9:45:30 am

I know that Compressor.4 has few options not available in Compressor.3 (like some Mp4 flavors, for instance h264/Mp4) but apart of that I don't know what other differences may have.
As Jeff suggests, ask in the FCPX/FCPX Techniques forum.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index


William Carr
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 25, 2012 at 9:31:16 pm

Thanks, Rafael, I will!


Return to posts index

John Pale
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 26, 2012 at 12:22:45 am

Compressor 4 is still a 32 bit app.

You can actually "rent" adobe CS6 through Creative Cloud. There are monthly rates.


Return to posts index

William Carr
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 26, 2012 at 12:36:07 am

Yes, I know about the "rental" and it's definitely an option, but not so much for me. $49 one time for Compressor 4 vs. $49 per month for CS just to get the conversion component is not viable. If I decide to switch to CS rather than FCPX, the subscription idea is appealing.

But at this point I'm sticking with FCP7 and interested to know the real-world improvements of standalone Compressor 4.X vs. 3.5.3.


Return to posts index


John Pale
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 26, 2012 at 1:13:51 am

There really are none. A few new presets and some interface tweaks. Decent integration with fcpx.

No performance increase that's significant. It's still a 32 bit app.


Return to posts index

William Carr
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 26, 2012 at 2:22:22 am

Oh well, thanks for the info. I will continue with 3.5.3 and a contingent of 3rd party apps like Streamclip, etc.

Thanks!


Return to posts index

Russ Haskell
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 27, 2012 at 5:50:37 pm

Use both versions nearly every day and agree there is no performance gain in C4. It does do MP4 h.264, but it is also more temperamental than C3.5. On the Apple boards there are many C4 issues reported – ranging from launch problems to submit problems to jobs hanging. Seldom hear similar things about C3.5.

Russ


Return to posts index


William Carr
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 27, 2012 at 7:19:24 pm

Thanks, Russ-- much appreciated info. I wanted to hear from a user of both!
I will continue to use 3.5.3 plus the couple of other 3rd party standalones until I can afford to add the CS Media Encoder or other more pricey options.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 30, 2012 at 11:55:40 pm

I agree that more RAM is crucial for any 64-bit application.

Jeff - for ProRes encoding, have you downloaded and installed these? AME ProRes Presets Now you'll get the speed of AME for ProRes too.

Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Jeff Meyer
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 31, 2012 at 3:09:34 am

I've done some ProRes encoding in AME. It's fast, but compared with MXF/XDCAM encoding it feels sluggish. The QT32 component really slows it down.


Return to posts index


Dennis Radeke
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 31, 2012 at 12:08:56 pm

Yeah, the 32bit component does slow it down but I still think it worthwhile and the presets are not too well known for Mac users.


Return to posts index

Jeff Meyer
Re: Standalone Compressor 4 better than 3.5.3?
on Dec 31, 2012 at 12:22:43 pm

Handy indeed. I've built presets fire all my outputs already, but if I had these I wouldn't have had to build them.


Return to posts index

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