Who has enough money to buy a 4K Display or Camcorder... these days the standard HD resolution is 1920x1080 and goes all the way up to the Macbook Pro retina display dimensions... Unless you're a filthy rich movie director not many people will need this due to the fact that content is not being created at those dimensions. Heck websites still follow the 1024 x768 rule, and if they don't they're dynamic for bigger displays but not at the 4K resolution.
This ^^^
is how people deal with future tech.
They complain that it's not average and affordable enough.
I don't know what the consumer requirement for retina or 4K displays are -- but in the video editing and publishing industry 4K is becoming the norm.
I would agree that 4K is becoming "more common" but I think it's an exaggeration to call it "the norm." I do not believe that the majority of work being done in a typical post house is 4K, never mind by the thousands of independent shooter/editors.
Getting back to the topic, Thunderbolt 2 will at least make it possible to get 4K from the disk to the machine more affordably than current methods, but can current Macs even play pro-codec 4K video? Our 2009 Mac Pro can't even play 1080i at pro-level bit rates.
I don't know what the consumer requirement for retina or 4K displays are -- but in the video editing and publishing industry 4K is becoming the norm.
I would agree that 4K is becoming "more common" but I think it's an exaggeration to call it "the norm." I do not believe that the majority of work being done in a typical post house is 4K, never mind by the thousands of independent shooter/editors.
Getting back to the topic, Thunderbolt 2 will at least make it possible to get 4K from the disk to the machine more affordably than current methods, but can current Macs even play pro-codec 4K video? Our 2009 Mac Pro can't even play 1080i at pro-level bit rates.
I have a mostly * loaded 2011 iMac 27"
* I screwed up and ordered only 1GB VRAM instead of 2GB
I have 2 Promise Pegasus 12 daisy chained on 1 ThunderBolt port -- and an old 23" Cinema Display to the other Thunderbolt port (thru adapter).
The Thunderbolt Pegasuses outperform the built-in SSD on the iMac.
I don't have any 4K camera as a source for 4K video...
But, I did locate some 4K footage on the web -- enough to experiment with...
Using FCPX, I can work with the 4K footage quite acceptably on the iMac!
I am retired, so I don't do this for a living -- rather for my own amazement
But, I did locate some 4K footage on the web -- enough to experiment with...
Using FCPX, I can work with the 4K footage quite acceptably on the iMac!
This is footage you found on the web, so I'm assuming already quite heavily compressed, yes? Likely using a codec for which the Mac has hardware decoding? What happens when you have to edit material from a Red or a Canon C-series? I have no doubt the Pegasus can spit out the bits fast enough, I just question whether today's machines have the CPU and GPU grunt necessary to push all those pixels around as they arrive.
But, I did locate some 4K footage on the web -- enough to experiment with...
Using FCPX, I can work with the 4K footage quite acceptably on the iMac!
This is footage you found on the web, so I'm assuming already quite heavily compressed, yes? Likely using a codec for which the Mac has hardware decoding? What happens when you have to edit material from a Red or a Canon C-series? I have no doubt the Pegasus can spit out the bits fast enough, I just question whether today's machines have the CPU and GPU grunt necessary to push all those pixels around as they arrive.
H.264 is optimized for playback, not NLE; it has b-frames, pyramids, and other compression tricks that are a tall order to decode while quickly scrubbing and cutting. That's why FCPX recommends transcoding everything to ProRes; as long as your drives are fast enough, it takes less CPU to edit.
4-5K video is usually transcoded to a proxy for the bulk of editing, then reconnected to the hi-res media for color grading and sfx. With that workflow, you could store an editable version of an entire project on a new-ish MacBook Pro, cut it into an awesome timeline over the course of days or months, and then plug back into the NAS to sync up with the original footage for post.
v5v, don't be that guy. There's more to a professional video workflow than having a superiority complex. Proxies are ideal for uploading dailies to an editor halfway around the world, and for people with more to do than sit at a $4000+ workstation for the entire duration of editing.
1995? So that's when "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" came out!
No, 1995 was the last time I had to deal with offline editing using proxies which were later conformed to the original material. Dragon Tattoo is simply an example of returning to a workflow I thought was long dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos
v5v, don't be that guy. There's more to a professional video workflow than having a superiority complex. Proxies are ideal for uploading dailies to an editor halfway around the world, and for people with more to do than sit at a $4000+ workstation for the entire duration of editing.
Hilarious video, and I get what you're saying, but I assure you my objection is not about superiority. It's about laziness and idiot-proofing.
Using proxies requires a more strictly-managed workflow with more room for whoopthies. It adds additional steps to the process and increases file management overhead (the latter already being more fun than a car full of clowns if you use FCPX). Sure, I can cut on my laptop while taking a bus tour of lesser-known downtown landmarks, but sooner or later it's all gotta meet up and play nice. To me that headache time more than offsets the benefit of getting away from the $4000+ workstation and occupies time that I'd rather spend picking at that thing on my knee or looking at pictures of grumpy cat.
If you're fastidious, patient and disciplined enough to work that way, you have my admiration and best wishes. I'll just paint houses or something.
It hasn't really been a hassle. I've been using proxy in FCPX for the last year, and it's not perfect, but overall is much easier than anything I did under FCP7. Especially now that one of the recent X updates enabled the background export queue, because for some reason my Compressor 4 is slower than cold beans.
Maybe I just dove in from necessity, because my current hardware cannot support realtime 4-5K editing.
I really don't understand the upside of TB2 beside 4K displays.
Today we have 2 lanes 10Gbps in Thunderbolt. TB2 combines the 2 lanes to one 20Gbps lane.
So we will see no advantage exempt that we can use an Apple 4K display using TB2. Just because Apple are to lazy to put in a DP connector so that I can use the screen with any computer
So Apple wants me to get 1) a new computer just to get TB2. 2) an Apple 4K display that only support TB2 3) I can't connect it to a PC since there are no TB2 motherboards.
Or I just skip Apple and buy an Asus 4K display that uses DP2. I want to use Apple. That is whats driving me insane!
I really don't understand the upside of TB2 beside 4K displays.
Today we have 2 lanes 10Gbps in Thunderbolt. TB2 combines the 2 lanes to one 20Gbps lane.
It allows peripherals to use twice the bandwidth rather than half going to waste. If you don't need a display attached, you now get 20Gbps instead of 10Gbps.
So we will see no advantage exempt that we can use an Apple 4K display using TB2. Just because Apple are to lazy to put in a DP connector so that I can use the screen with any computer
So Apple wants me to get 1) a new computer just to get TB2. 2) an Apple 4K display that only support TB2 3) I can't connect it to a PC since there are no TB2 motherboards.
Or I just skip Apple and buy an Asus 4K display that uses DP2.
I want to use Apple. That is whats driving me insane!
They haven't announced a 4K display yet and there are no Macs with TB2 either. There should be TB2 PCs shortly after Intel launches it and I expect it will work with Apple's displays like current TB displays:
Adding displayport, HDMI 1.4 or even just making the Thunderbolt connector support a displayport to mini-displayport cable would increase the appeal of the displays but it means the USB and other ports don't work.
ouch, ramp into 2014? I guess no new macbooks or mac pros in 2013 then...
Maybe not Macbooks but the Pixar guy said the Mac Pro was coming in the fall. He had early access to the Mac Pro for testing. On the other hand, Tim said that the product roll out would go into 2014.
I think it will be disappointing if new Retina MBPs don't arrive until 2014 but the Mac Mini and 13" rMBP are waiting for the dual-core chips that aren't out yet (due sometime in Q4 that starts in October).
It's possible that the 15" rMBP and Mac Pros arrive at the October iPad event and the 13" rMBP and Mac Mini get pushed into 2014 but I'd be surprised if they update the rMBPs separately.
[...] the Mac Mini and 13" rMBP are waiting for the dual-core chips that aren't out yet (due sometime in Q4 that starts in October).
Think there's any chance of the mini getting Iris graphics? That and a quad i7 would make for a decent little thousand dollar computer.
I wish the update would happen soon. I'm holding off replacing my 2011 mini just because a refresh is obviously imminent, and chugging along with USB2 and a dual-core is agonizing now...
Think there's any chance of the mini getting Iris graphics? That and a quad i7 would make for a decent little thousand dollar computer.
I wish the update would happen soon. I'm holding off replacing my 2011 mini just because a refresh is obviously imminent, and chugging along with USB2 and a dual-core is agonizing now...
There's a chance they will get Iris but in the higher configs as they cost more. If they only switched CPUs and build costs were the same, Iris could bring as much as $100 price increase.
The move to SSD is inevitable too so I think they may remove the second drive bay and have a PCIe SSD with a single HDD. Single 2.5" HDDs can go up to 2TB now. Servers benefit more from having an SSD than dual HDDs. The entry models may still ship with a single HDD though. Soldered RAM might come too, which would could limit it to 8GB.
If they stick with the dual HDD setup and intend to hit the same price points, I expect the entry model with dual-i5 with 4600 graphics and quad-i7 with 4600 graphics. The following CPUs:
They currently have a CPU upgrade priced at $100 more even though Intel charges the same for both so instead of that, I could see them offering an Iris Pro CPU. Either the 4750HQ or 4850HQ:
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkdefender
Who has enough money to buy a 4K Display or Camcorder... these days the standard HD resolution is 1920x1080 and goes all the way up to the Macbook Pro retina display dimensions... Unless you're a filthy rich movie director not many people will need this due to the fact that content is not being created at those dimensions. Heck websites still follow the 1024 x768 rule, and if they don't they're dynamic for bigger displays but not at the 4K resolution.
This ^^^
is how people deal with future tech.
They complain that it's not average and affordable enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I don't know what the consumer requirement for retina or 4K displays are -- but in the video editing and publishing industry 4K is becoming the norm.
I would agree that 4K is becoming "more common" but I think it's an exaggeration to call it "the norm." I do not believe that the majority of work being done in a typical post house is 4K, never mind by the thousands of independent shooter/editors.
Getting back to the topic, Thunderbolt 2 will at least make it possible to get 4K from the disk to the machine more affordably than current methods, but can current Macs even play pro-codec 4K video? Our 2009 Mac Pro can't even play 1080i at pro-level bit rates.
I have a mostly * loaded 2011 iMac 27"
* I screwed up and ordered only 1GB VRAM instead of 2GB
I have 2 Promise Pegasus 12 daisy chained on 1 ThunderBolt port -- and an old 23" Cinema Display to the other Thunderbolt port (thru adapter).
The Thunderbolt Pegasuses outperform the built-in SSD on the iMac.
I don't have any 4K camera as a source for 4K video...
But, I did locate some 4K footage on the web -- enough to experiment with...
Using FCPX, I can work with the 4K footage quite acceptably on the iMac!
I am retired, so I don't do this for a living -- rather for my own amazement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
But, I did locate some 4K footage on the web -- enough to experiment with...
Using FCPX, I can work with the 4K footage quite acceptably on the iMac!
This is footage you found on the web, so I'm assuming already quite heavily compressed, yes? Likely using a codec for which the Mac has hardware decoding? What happens when you have to edit material from a Red or a Canon C-series? I have no doubt the Pegasus can spit out the bits fast enough, I just question whether today's machines have the CPU and GPU grunt necessary to push all those pixels around as they arrive.
Although, can't agree with some of the posters here, it's a nice read. Will get back with more detail on my points. Btw, I'm Iona and new here
v5v
Dick Applebaum
But, I did locate some 4K footage on the web -- enough to experiment with...
Using FCPX, I can work with the 4K footage quite acceptably on the iMac!
This is footage you found on the web, so I'm assuming already quite heavily compressed, yes? Likely using a codec for which the Mac has hardware decoding? What happens when you have to edit material from a Red or a Canon C-series? I have no doubt the Pegasus can spit out the bits fast enough, I just question whether today's machines have the CPU and GPU grunt necessary to push all those pixels around as they arrive.
H.264 is optimized for playback, not NLE; it has b-frames, pyramids, and other compression tricks that are a tall order to decode while quickly scrubbing and cutting. That's why FCPX recommends transcoding everything to ProRes; as long as your drives are fast enough, it takes less CPU to edit.
4-5K video is usually transcoded to a proxy for the bulk of editing, then reconnected to the hi-res media for color grading and sfx. With that workflow, you could store an editable version of an entire project on a new-ish MacBook Pro, cut it into an awesome timeline over the course of days or months, and then plug back into the NAS to sync up with the original footage for post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos
4-5K video is usually transcoded to a proxy for the bulk of editing, then reconnected to the hi-res media for color grading and sfx.
Oh yay. Proxy again, huh? Welcome back, 1995.
v5v
Vorsos
4-5K video is usually transcoded to a proxy for the bulk of editing, then reconnected to the hi-res media for color grading and sfx.
Oh yay. Proxy again, huh? Welcome back, 1995.
1995? So that's when "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" came out!
Michael Cioni talks 4K workflow and FCP proxies for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
v5v, don't be that guy. There's more to a professional video workflow than having a superiority complex. Proxies are ideal for uploading dailies to an editor halfway around the world, and for people with more to do than sit at a $4000+ workstation for the entire duration of editing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos
1995? So that's when "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" came out!
No, 1995 was the last time I had to deal with offline editing using proxies which were later conformed to the original material. Dragon Tattoo is simply an example of returning to a workflow I thought was long dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos
v5v, don't be that guy. There's more to a professional video workflow than having a superiority complex. Proxies are ideal for uploading dailies to an editor halfway around the world, and for people with more to do than sit at a $4000+ workstation for the entire duration of editing.
Hilarious video, and I get what you're saying, but I assure you my objection is not about superiority. It's about laziness and idiot-proofing.
Using proxies requires a more strictly-managed workflow with more room for whoopthies. It adds additional steps to the process and increases file management overhead (the latter already being more fun than a car full of clowns if you use FCPX). Sure, I can cut on my laptop while taking a bus tour of lesser-known downtown landmarks, but sooner or later it's all gotta meet up and play nice. To me that headache time more than offsets the benefit of getting away from the $4000+ workstation and occupies time that I'd rather spend picking at that thing on my knee or looking at pictures of grumpy cat.
If you're fastidious, patient and disciplined enough to work that way, you have my admiration and best wishes. I'll just paint houses or something.
It hasn't really been a hassle. I've been using proxy in FCPX for the last year, and it's not perfect, but overall is much easier than anything I did under FCP7. Especially now that one of the recent X updates enabled the background export queue, because for some reason my Compressor 4 is slower than cold beans.
Maybe I just dove in from necessity, because my current hardware cannot support realtime 4-5K editing.
Today we have 2 lanes 10Gbps in Thunderbolt. TB2 combines the 2 lanes to one 20Gbps lane.
So we will see no advantage exempt that we can use an Apple 4K display using TB2. Just because Apple are to lazy to put in a DP connector so that I can use the screen with any computer
So Apple wants me to get 1) a new computer just to get TB2. 2) an Apple 4K display that only support TB2 3) I can't connect it to a PC since there are no TB2 motherboards.
Or I just skip Apple and buy an Asus 4K display that uses DP2.
I want to use Apple. That is whats driving me insane!
It allows peripherals to use twice the bandwidth rather than half going to waste. If you don't need a display attached, you now get 20Gbps instead of 10Gbps.
They haven't announced a 4K display yet and there are no Macs with TB2 either. There should be TB2 PCs shortly after Intel launches it and I expect it will work with Apple's displays like current TB displays:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5829/a-first-look-at-thunderbolt-on-windows-with-msis-z77agd80/2
Adding displayport, HDMI 1.4 or even just making the Thunderbolt connector support a displayport to mini-displayport cable would increase the appeal of the displays but it means the USB and other ports don't work.
Maybe not Macbooks but the Pixar guy said the Mac Pro was coming in the fall. He had early access to the Mac Pro for testing. On the other hand, Tim said that the product roll out would go into 2014.
I think it will be disappointing if new Retina MBPs don't arrive until 2014 but the Mac Mini and 13" rMBP are waiting for the dual-core chips that aren't out yet (due sometime in Q4 that starts in October).
It's possible that the 15" rMBP and Mac Pros arrive at the October iPad event and the 13" rMBP and Mac Mini get pushed into 2014 but I'd be surprised if they update the rMBPs separately.
[...] the Mac Mini and 13" rMBP are waiting for the dual-core chips that aren't out yet (due sometime in Q4 that starts in October).
Think there's any chance of the mini getting Iris graphics? That and a quad i7 would make for a decent little thousand dollar computer.
I wish the update would happen soon. I'm holding off replacing my 2011 mini just because a refresh is obviously imminent, and chugging along with USB2 and a dual-core is agonizing now...
There's a chance they will get Iris but in the higher configs as they cost more. If they only switched CPUs and build costs were the same, Iris could bring as much as $100 price increase.
The move to SSD is inevitable too so I think they may remove the second drive bay and have a PCIe SSD with a single HDD. Single 2.5" HDDs can go up to 2TB now. Servers benefit more from having an SSD than dual HDDs. The entry models may still ship with a single HDD though. Soldered RAM might come too, which would could limit it to 8GB.
If they stick with the dual HDD setup and intend to hit the same price points, I expect the entry model with dual-i5 with 4600 graphics and quad-i7 with 4600 graphics. The following CPUs:
http://ark.intel.com/products/76348/Intel-Core-i5-4200M-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/75128/Intel-Core-i7-4800MQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz
They currently have a CPU upgrade priced at $100 more even though Intel charges the same for both so instead of that, I could see them offering an Iris Pro CPU. Either the 4750HQ or 4850HQ:
http://ark.intel.com/products/76087/Intel-Core-i7-4750HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/76086/Intel-Core-i7-4850HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz
This could be a BTO option on the $799 model and would be $100 upgrade. That would be a nice machine for $899.