fearless

About

Username
fearless
Joined
Visits
23
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
45
Badges
0
Posts
134
  • Video: Apple's iMac Pro vs 2013 Mac Pro (Part 2) - photo editing comparison

    Marvin said:
    Mostly the appeal of the headless desktop is the resistance to modern form factors. Having to use an iMac is like being made to drive a Prius instead of a Mustang, it causes an emotional reaction in some people because they have to use it in front of other bros who will laugh at them. It bothers some people because they irrationally think that machines need to look monstrous to behave that way. If Apple made a headless tower starting around $1500-2000 that you could put an Nvidia PCIe GPU in, the highest volume of noise about a pro desktop would disappear but there would nothing more high-end about it than the iMac Pro. Eventually, this road ends with compact form factors like the iMac and Macbook Pro, anything that happens in the interim is temporary.
    Agree with you to a point, but in high end video shops purchasing is driven as much by what's available and possible as by any actual need. The later 5,1 machines from 2010-2012 sold in small numbers precisely because they offered little in the way of a step up - and as I and others know, an 8-core 4,1 can become a 12-core 5,1 with just a CPU swap and a flash. Which stretches a piece of string from 2008 to 2013, when - as we know - things got even slower.

    I and others were constantly disappointed with Apple's Mac Pro roadmap then - always rumours of new machines, always just a tiny bump - that we waited. And waited. If Apple wanted a healthy upgrade cycle from its Pro customers it needed to do more than it did, and the fact that everyone's spewing stats about how fast the iMac Pro is is testament to the fact that the Mac Pro 2013 is an underpowered prosumer can, throttled by a much-vaunted Thermal Core that isn't.

    Most editors and colourists use two screens plus a colour-accurate display (yes I know it might be P3 but a Flanders DM250 it ain't). When Apple made an external TB display it didn't even match an iMac for height - we'd use old Avid manuals to prop up the second display. Give me a couple of DVI Dells please, that at least look like they belong together.

    So it's not about a tidy desk - it's about having a Pro version of an Mac that does PCIe 16x which TB 3 doesn't, that lets you get maximum speed out of 3 or 4 Titan-class CUDA GPUs in a Cubix box, not OpenCL AMDs, that you can buy and improve and buy lots of and reconfigure as you need. @macxpress: no, there's seldom anyone but us in post houses to set these things up. We're not on your corporate upgrade cycles I'm afraid.

    So I hope whoever said there was a modular Mac Pro coming wasn't just using air.
    fastasleep
  • WWDC 2017 keynote rumors: What to expect from Apple -- and what not to

    "Full 4K is 3840 pixels wide, by 2160 pixels tall"

    No it's not. Full 4K is 4096 wide. This is UHD, 4 x HD - the TV version that's "not quite 4K". By all means call it 4K if you want, but FULL 4K it ain't.
    willcropointpolymnia
  • Apple makes updates to Final Cut Pro X & iMovie for Mac

    I wonder if the same good souls who confessed that the 2013 Mac Pro was a fail for high end users, could be induced to apply the same thought to FCP X. I can't use a product where I can't lock tracks or timeline content to stop it sliding like jello. And I still can't send a presentable embedded AAF to a ProTools session that is anything like what a sound mixer might recognise. Sorry to harp on about this for 5 years, but yesterday I had to get content from DaVinci to Motion for a VFX job (am I the only person still using it for motion tracking fixes?) and the path was an XML to FCP7, "Send to Motion..." via Motion 4, then open that project in Motion 5 - won't even look at a raw XML, and even if I'd started in FCP X (which I wouldn't have, because this is on the back of a grade) I couldn't have done this because there's no way to Motion from FCP X.
    Both Motion and FCP are now start-to-finish tools - minus decent audio mixing. Little wonder our facility does more business from Avid, Adobe and FCP 7 sources than FCP X. 

    Having said that, getting a project into Resolve is a very well developed path - if anyone used FCP X for projects they didn't completely finish in some fashion on their laptop.
    dysamoriawilliamlondonking editor the grateh2pspheric