fbpx
✎ Latest Free FCPX Effects

audio from the monitoring solution brings problem with gui not in sync though, how do you edit with that? Or do you just live/edit with 2 frames out of sync of gui/sound/bcast monitor?
Read More...

also to be precise, im talking 2-3 frames delay

not much but noticable for editing
Read More...

Blackmagic Mini Display Monitor, thunderbolt connection
Read More...

Hi

I am wondering how are people editing on their machines with broadcast monitoring devices. These introduce lag and as FCPX doesnt have desktop delay, either there is fcpx GUI or the broadcast monitor delayed.

When working alone I can just use TV as second monitor but thats just preview
1. that doesnt say anything about the quality and color of output even on calibrated display (RGB vs YUV)
2. A/V introduces slight delay too, so i just have to use second display for viewers
3. not proper dealing with various fps (PAL land, cant say for NTSC) in gui viewers, as displays are 60Hz

Would rather prefer robust workstation setup as with all other NLEs where your gui, your output monitoring are in sync, although there is slight delay when u push keys. Ofc no lag anywere is preffered but not sure its possible.

Looking for tips and advice on your setups or workflows of dealing with these
Read More...

Jakub Vomacka replied to the topic 'BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark' in the forum. 2 years ago

very very interesting findings
Read More...

Jakub Vomacka thanks user 'joema' in the forum message ' BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark'. 2 years ago
Chris thanks user 'qbe' in the forum message ' BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark'. 4 years ago
Jakub Vomacka replied to the topic 'BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark' in the forum. 4 years ago

fcpchris: what gpu did you use before?

BruceX is basicaly a gpu test, there is very little in terms of cpu testing and disk speed
Read More...

Jakub Vomacka replied to the topic 'BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark' in the forum. 4 years ago

nikos69 wrote:

Hello... Can you please do the test without background rendering enabled? Thanks :evil:
udayan.tvm wrote:
GPU: Radeon RX480

TIME to Prores 422: 8 seconds

Not sure how to understand your evil smiley...

You are not doing the test the way its supposed to be done. Its written in the original post how you are supposed to run it. You are skipping step 2 (labeled as step 3 by mistake in original post)

You HAVE background rendering enabled in that video. FCPX is prerendering the project. You have to turn background render OFF in preferences and redo the test if you want the results to be comparable to other results...

Anyway, timing the background render time to 12-13 seconds. Sierra seems to slow down rendering times. I have info from other sites, that 280x results have gone back up to 28-34s (depends on setups) from 15-17. So we do have aproximate results of 480 of 13-14s including the export time to disk i guess (if you have SSDs)
Read More...

Jakub Vomacka replied to the topic 'BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark' in the forum. 4 years ago

Can you please do the test without background rendering enabled? Thanks
Read More...

Jakub Vomacka replied to the topic 'DTD Validation Failed' in the forum. 4 years ago

I dont want to revive this old thread, but maybe this helps someone.

So I had this problem too but when looking at the problem shots in XML, I already had them in Library, but in different Event and adding didnt help and match frame took me to different Event inside this Library.

Way faster solution for me, was to copy the Project to a new Library and exporting XML from the new Library.
Read More...

Jakub Vomacka replied to the topic 'BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark' in the forum. 4 years ago

Can everybody please note version of system and version of FCPX. As you see, there is big step up in performance between Yosemite and El Capitan. We dont know yet for Sierra. This info is very important. Soon we are going to have results from three different operating systems.

I would suggest a little table to fill in:

GPU:
CPU:
RAM:
HDD: (used for export)
macOS version:
FCPX version:

TIME to Prores 422:

thanks in advance
Read More...

Jakub Vomacka replied to the topic 'BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark' in the forum. 5 years ago

verstaerker wrote:

as i'm considering a new iMac anyways i wonder if it's really worth the i7 and M395X i planned

thank to barefeats, its easy for you to decide
you can see some benchmarks here: barefeats.com/imac5k15.html (concerning different 2015 models and graphics)
and here: barefeats.com/imac5k13.html (compared to older model and D300 MP)

btw BruceX test done there took 17,8 sec on top spec 2015 Imac, which seems reasonable. At this time, no imac can be faster than dual D700 (except for h264, which is different story). It is simply not possible yet, hardware wise.

OpenCL perfomance (Luxmark)
m395x - 1868
2xD700 - 3528

the new Imac with 395x is trully a very fast machine, enough for editing. Some things are just gonna take more time though. I own hackintosh which can do 2400 in Luxmark and i can stack multiple effects and view them at highest quality without render. The only time you probably would feel the power of mac pro is when exporting the final show, or working on complex stuff.
Read More...

Jakub Vomacka replied to the topic 'BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark' in the forum. 5 years ago

hmm, this would be faster than mac pro with dual 700. are you sure the result is correct? If yes it would be great news but something smells fishy here.
Read More...

Jakub Vomacka replied to the topic 'BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark' in the forum. 5 years ago

anyone tried the benchmark in fcpx 10.2?

wondering if it makes sense to upgrade to yosemite because of that...
Read More...

Jakub Vomacka replied to the topic 'BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark' in the forum. 5 years ago

b) Two exact cards are needed for faster rendering

Also, more cores is nice for fcpx, but overall higher cpu speed is better for whole system responsiveness. Not all programs are "many cores aware". More cores and higher mhz is best of course.

when i had x58 hack, the cpu would overlock to 3.6Ghz easily, maybe you can oc while getting more cores (don't know if your client has mac or hack)
Read More...

Chris thanks user 'qbe' in the forum message ' BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark'. 5 years ago
Jakub Vomacka replied to the topic 'BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark' in the forum. 5 years ago

fcpchris wrote:

Does anyone know whether flashing a card like this with the Mac EFI results in any further speed improvement?

unless you change GPU and memory frequency, no, it wouldn't help you much apart from boot screens

your time seems rather high, i wonder if its because of your CPU...
Read More...