Barry_Green said:
Presently the Macs use a microprocessor that was specifically designed from the ground up to do graphics. Therefore, the CPU is more efficient at doing photo graphics, and video graphics at the micro instruction level. Additionally, the author of Premiere Pro is also the author of Final Cut Pro. But FCP has benefitted from the mistakes he made in the Premiere Pro design. Every developer will usually get better at the same product types with time especially when he DOESN't have to continue trying to build new functions on top of poor code.reflex said:
Grrrrr. Having to learn the navigation is very hard for me since being a straight PPro user, but my 1080i files play great. I can even grab the timeline marker and scrub fast forward and back again and my machine keeps up without stutter. If PPro comes up with a solution that is just as good, I'm gonna kick myself in the butt. When is NAB? Grrrrrrr.
Are your talking about their Intel CPUs?SoundMaster said:
MrPolarBare said:
HagerNYC said:Oh great! I just broke a got Avid.
So you are saying that the Power PC processors are built from the ground up for graphics. And that they perform better than Intel and AMD. Then why is Apple bragging about all of their performance boosts they are now getting with Intel? The reason why Apple changed to Intel was because the PowerPC processor overheats, is an energy hog, and is currently unable to get to the 3GHz benchmark. Doesn't sound like a great design to me. Apparently it doesn't sound like a great design to Apple anymore either.SoundMaster said:
reflex said:
SoundMaster said:
For a 1 minute sequence, it takes me 12 minutes to render (720/24P). That is without any color correction though. And that is rendering out as a Quicktime with Avid DV100 codec.adam powell said:
Because thats why Apple is switching to Intel processors.SoundMaster said:
adam powell said:
You are doing what so many of my programmers do and that is extrapolating one statement into your choice of ideas inspite of what was NOT said. I did NOT say that Motorola processors perform BETTER - that is an extrapolation of "efficient graphics" without bothering to understand what is meant by "efficient graphics". And this is a statement about history not present or future. "Efficient graphics" means fewer instructions are required to produce a result. Since the early 70's when I first began building computers the Intel processor was always the processor of choice even though the x86 model was not necessarily the best design. Even in most of my Masters in Electrical Engineering courses we used Intel processors. However, we also briefly studied the Motorola design as well, which by the nature of its instruction set is more efficient at doing graphics. That does not mean it is the BEST processor, the coolest processor, or the most desired processor. Apple went with the Motorola processor because its instruction set was most efficient at performing graphics. Compared to the 8080 processor (the first x86 CPU) the Motorola processor performed a graphic task faster at the same clock speed. That was 1973! Since then processor designs have improved to where there is little difference now in performance. However, Motorola's quality control is still not much better than it was in the early 80's when Motorola sold their Quasar plant to Matsushita Electric. Which is very disappointing. That's part of why Apple is switching to Intel processors. The major reason is what Steve Jobs and Apple has always been about - graphics and education marketing. Once Mac OSs can use Intel microprocessors, then Apple can start cutting into Windows market share, especially in the graphics and education markets where their market strength has always been high.MrPolarBare said:
Raylight is a special codec that translates the HVX200's MXF files into Windows AVI files. It doesn't create a whole new video file. The codec actually creates a wrapper file that basically acts like a translator between any program that accepts AVI files and the source MXF file. Basically it allows you to use your MXF files that you shoot with your HVX200 on almost any windows based video application (Premiere, Vegas, After Effects, etc). If the application can accept Windows AVIs, then it can accept Raylight. The nice thing is that it keeps 100% quality of the original MXF file, since it doesn't replace the MXF file, but just translates it. Sorry if this is confusing...I am trying to describe it as simple as possible..reflex said:
