fbpx
✎ Latest Free FCPX Effects
Bob Correa thanks user 'BenB' in the forum message ' FCPX update to 10.2.3'. 5 years ago
Bob Correa thanks user 'peteramwiggins' in the forum message ' Application Feedback Page'. 5 years ago

Thanks dgwvideo, I did revert to a couple project backups. The problem persisted. The problem affected 25% of the clips so I reimported those clips, all seems ok now.
Read More...

Kitty Weir thanks user 'Bobbyco' in the forum message ' Please explain Rendering'. 5 years ago
Bob Correa replied to the topic 'Please explain Rendering' in the forum. 5 years ago

iKitty2 wrote:

- then once I'm done render all and upload...

Don't bother to render and export (Upload) in two separate steps at this point, just export, that step renders as part of the export process. As BenB points out, render is only to make timeline playback easier. Since you'd be done editing, just let FCPX finish your export with one step.
Read More...

Rather than reinstall, I made copies of a couple other libraries, opened them did some edits, added and adjusted effects, did a short export... it all works. No beach balls, no missing segments, so I'm just going to create a new library and start over.
Read More...

Thanks guys. It appears I have a larger problem. I guess I should try reinstalling FCPX. Then, if needed re-import and review and rate the clips again. It's not that much backtracking. I'm sure it's a FCPX/media import only problem because absolutely everything else on this rMBP is working, including graphics intensive Adobe Lightroom CC.

Per the suggestion, when I transcode to optimize a single clip, seems to fix the problem. so then I select multiple clips, then optimize, I'm stuck, rainbow pizza wheel of death and the process progress is stuck at 0%. I have iStat Menus in my menu bar and I see there is no CPU/HD activity happening.
Read More...

Thank you Ben for the quick reply.
I should've mentioned I did try; deleting preferences, repair permissions previously.
I now followed your steps, including again deleting permissions. I did be sure the All button was checked in the delete render step.

Unfortunately there is no change. The original file is ok within the bundle, the Event and Timeline clips are not.
Read More...

I'm on FCPX 10.2.1 and have had something happen I've not seen before:
I imported clips into the library. I've added portions of said clips to a timeline. I've worked with the timeline successfully on 2 or 3 occasions, but today something isn't right.

The timeline has missing video within some clips, not skipped frames, but black during playback for various ranges of frames. The clip in the timeline, and in the event browser show the problem. If I "Show in Finder" and view the original clip within the bundle, the original source clip is still fine.

I've no idea what's up. Also, I've don't a lot of prep with marking Favorite segments and so on so is there some way to reimport the media maintaining the tagging I"ve done? Maybe force the clips offline, generate Proxy or Optimized media?
Read More...

Bob Correa thanks user 'BenB' in the forum message ' FCPX 10.2 Review'. 5 years ago
Bob Correa replied to the topic 'Rendering/Exportings' in the forum. 6 years ago

delirium trigger wrote:
I need this broken down for me. I have Googled and still find myself confused. Here is the deal;

In your other post, the always articulate and helpful Ronny Courtens, included the below statement in one of his posts. Read it a few times (I'm not at all trying to be insulting to you). If you completely understand what he said, you'll get through the rest of your thoughts in this post pretty good.

"Rendering is done to enhance playback performance on your timeline. Exporting is done to create a video file from your timeline. When you export an un-rendered timeline this will not render your timeline, it will just create the video file."

In the first sentence, Ronny says, timeline. What he's saying is rendering enhances the real-time performance on your Mac as you work in the timeline. Regardless of output format, how long it takes to generate an output file; rendering really has nothing to do with that. It has to do with how well can you preview your edits in real-time while using the editing tools in FCPX. If you apply effects, color grading, generators etc. to your timeline, the Mac's ability to play them back as you preview can become problematic. The fact that your Macs are current generation and high end means you may hardly need to "bother" rendering.



When I am editing in Final Cut Pro am I using the master files? "Optimized," files I mean? Why do I not need to Render them when I'm exporting? On older versions, I had to do this, or the color grade, etc might not even show up.

You are only using "Optimized" files if you checked the Optimize box at import, otherwise you've imported the native camera format from your device. This original source video, while not optimized, is compatible and capable of playback in the timeline.



Why is it now, that I can color grade, add affects, have background rendering off, go to export, and it export it with all the grades and affects? This may sound like a stupid question but now I'm starting to think I had the wrong idea of what rendering even was.

Because, you've added those effects and FCPX understands that you expect those to be a part of the output file. Rendering is about having real time playback performance so you can accurately judge the impact of your edits. Export is about creating a separate new file from your timeline which is capable of playback with 100% accuracy, representing all of your edits.



Both of my MacBooks are the most powerful MacBooks they sell. I never run into any issues with, "Background rendering," turned off. In fact, I can use Logic Pro X, mix down the audio and master it, while having Final Cut Pro X opened. I do however, use optimized media.

This is great for you. Many people are using older Macs that benefit from or simply must do rendering in order to accurately make and preview Project timeline edits.



When it exports, is there a disadvantage in exporting, 'Optimized media,' over original. I know to turn, 'proxy,' media off before exporting.

No.


I want the highest quality export available, however, I also want one's that will fit on YouTube. I do own the latest version of compressor.

YouTube will always transcode whatever source you give it, even with YT specific settings, so upload the best quality export you can, YT will make it work. :S



So, to sum this up; Break down real easily what is happening when I render, why I no longer need to, and am I just looking at preview files instead of the real thing? Also, am I exporting preview files or the real thing?

Sum Up: Rendering is applying all of your edits to temporary files on your HD by generating the frames need to represent the edit decisions you have made in your timeline.

You won't need to render much because you have the latest Macs, but if you're trying to playback something from your timeline and it's sputtering...render that area. But, whether you do or don't render your export will be the same.

If you've got Proxy media you're looking at previews, otherwise it's the real thing. If you've switched from Proxy before Exporting, you're exporting the real thing.


When you play back something that has edits in the timeline and is not rendered, each video frame is being processed real time based on your edit decisions. This can mean lots of extra CPU cycles every time you tap the spacebar. Whereas, if you have rendered heavily edited areas first, those CPU cycles are only needed once to generate the render file. Then when you playback the timeline, you'll simply be displaying frames of video that already have your artistic choices applied. So at that point it's like watching a movie in QuickTime :cheer:
Read More...

Bob Correa replied to the topic '13 vs 15 inch, would love some help!' in the forum. 6 years ago

"Could you guys explain to me, other than improved speed/usability (considering that a luxury),"

Speed, and especially usability are not luxuries. If you are self employed, time is your money. If you work for someone else, time is their money. Usability is everything!

Poor performance and usability impacts creativity too.
Most often a cook with good equipment will create a better meal than a chef with bad equipment. And the cook will be happier in the end.



"Does the 13-inch really hinder use in some way, or is it more a matter of just having some extra patience?!"[/quote]

YES.
Read More...

Bob Correa replied to the topic 'Can anyone clarify SSD questions for me?' in the forum. 6 years ago

Hi Gcavy1, welcome to the forums.

I no longer have my mid 2010 15" MBP, but I did similar with it that you're asking about here.The performance was greatly improved, primarily for exporting and general system responsiveness. Transcoding was not improved noticeably. This is because transcoding primarily relies on the GPU.

To answer your questions:
Re: #1 Yes, install an SSD as a boot drive. You can use your existing HDD as an additional internal. You might consider upgrading that disk to a 7200 RPM spindle drive, Makes a difference.
Re: #2 I'm not sure if it matters on your model (early, late 2011??) but for most MB Pro models the SATA III is at the DVD connection as well.
Re: #3 The external drive might be a problem at exporting as it's only USB 2. You should use Firewire 800.
Re: #4 Not so much. Again, rendering is mostly a GPU function and you can't change that about your 2011 MBP. before I mentioned a 7200 RPM drive, but if you have budget there are a couple other advantages if all SSD. 1, there would be slight improvement over any spinning disk. 2, you would have a quieter machine with no vibration except the fan. 3, the fan runs less with no spinning drives in my experience. Plus, with short YouTube videos your primary objective perhaps you can live with the capacities of more affordable SSDs, they are getting cheaper all the time now.

One last thought, if you can bump the ram to 16, do it. Although I suspect your model caps at 8GB.
Read More...

Bob Correa replied to the topic 'MBP 13 Mid 2010 for FCPX?' in the forum. 6 years ago

Yes, it will work. I had a mid-2010 15" MB Pro. It worked, AVCHD generally had to be optimized, or better proxy for editing. I would just export overnight.
Read More...

Bob Correa replied to the topic 'MBP 13 Mid 2010 for FCPX?' in the forum. 6 years ago

For adding your clips and images to the timeline more RAM in the MB Pro is good. Transcoding time is probably about equal between the two machines. The 4000 in the Mini is better than the base graphics in the MB Pro, but the MB Pro has the additional discrete GPU.

One thought, if you are importing a lot of photos, and if they are RAW files from your Canon, that can be the problem you have. You would only want to import images of higher resolution than your Project timeline if you want to zoom in on photos using Ken Burns effect. Even if you do want to use very high res stills, at least convert them to png or jpg.

Also, are you using the latest FCPX, 10.1.4?
Read More...

Bob Correa replied to the topic 'MBP 13 Mid 2010 for FCPX?' in the forum. 6 years ago

Hi RobMINI, welcome to the forum.

Honestly, don't do it. That MB Pro is a dead end with FCPX. You won't gain any improved performance levels and
as OS X and FCPX continue to be optimized, such optimization is based on current generation GPU/CPU and OS X technology. For the most part this means not much improvement in 2+ year old hardware, even less for 4 years+ years old.

If the "basic" Mac Mini means you only have 4 GB of RAM, it wouldn't cost too much to bump it up to 16 GB RAM. That will hep in (during) editing your Projects. But more RAM won't help much with importing or exporting, transcoding the GoPro footage though. You need good discrete graphics processors to handle this, and it can't be added to the Mac Mini.

Now if you want or need a laptop rather than the Mac Mini, that could make a difference, but then you really should consider waiting a bit to grow your budget to try and buy a newer model MB Pro.
Read More...

Bob Correa replied to the topic 'External HD USB 3 7200rpm vs. Thunderbolt 5400rpm' in the forum. 6 years ago

BenB wrote:

The 2TB is 5200rpm, due to heat issues, so stay away from that one. Most bus powered drives larger than 1tB are going to be 5400rpm due to power consumption and heat issues.

I'll say from experience, even SD short projects on any 5400rpm drive will eventually drive you crazy. Spend the extra few bucks.


Well, that's interesting, even slower. Also I did not know the variations based on larger capacities.
Read More...

Bob Correa replied to the topic 'External HD USB 3 7200rpm vs. Thunderbolt 5400rpm' in the forum. 6 years ago

No, those WD drives are not 7200 RPM.

If you're on a tight budget, consider this. Get WD now and use for your editing, as you grow then buy better drives for editing and relegate this WD to backup. You have thought about and included backup in the budget, right :woohoo:

The overall length of your projects isn't so much the problem, it is more about the source footage. AVCHD H.264 is very disk intensive, for example. So depending on how much color correcting, adding Effects, layering generators, etc. you do then the slower the drive becomes an issue. That said, when you import your clips, if you transcode to Proxy or Optimized (ProRes) then disk I/O will effectively improve. Since you're getting the good modern rMBP and talking about "short" Projects, the time hit probably wouldn't be too bad.

If you're willing to scout around I would imagine you might find a 7200 RPM spindle HD that's just USB3 for a better price. But if you need to just get going, I contend the 5400 will get you started. That dual interface OWC drive is just not the right fit for you
Read More...