Apple dumps Intel and shows Final Cut Pro on new Mac with Apple CPU !

[DLD]

Canon CRL support has always been a plugin for Final Cut Pro. Once that plugin is installed, using CRL in Final Cut Pro is seamless. It imports, plays back, and edits just like any other supported footage type.

A plug-in is a de facto compiler, an in-between solution to enable the actual suit to perform as reasonably well as it can. And so, it may have worked reasonably well in the past with Windows-to-Mac OS in its various iterations. It may not be working as well now on ARM. It may be working even worse in the future. It's all going to be up to Apple now.

And, yes, CRL is a ProRes Raw competitor.

 

[Gary T]

A plug-in is a de facto compiler, an in-between solution to enable the actual suit to perform as reasonably well as it can.

Actually plug-ins, like their host programs, are created by compilers that convert the source code that developers write into a program that is executable.

And that's Apple in a nutshell. It doesn't always play nice with those it considers its rivals. C200 and CRL have been out for three years already. They should be integrated seamlessly. Yet they are not.

So, why should it change going forward? Why should it change when the integration is getting more difficult? It's definitely a caveat emptor situation.

Apple treats Canon the same way they do Red since their codecs have required a plugin for years. There are many codecs out there and the work to optimize each of them and their various iterations is non-trivial. Apple apparently made a decision some time ago to leave that work to the third-party developers who created the codec, allowing Apple to focus on the core MacOS media foundation and FCPX.

Apple strategy has been to make FXPX as attractive as possible to plugin developers. This has resulted in a huge number of plugins being created so I doubt they are going to change anytime soon.

 

[Gary T]

Why Is Apple's M1 Chip So Fast?

This is a pretty readable article for novices, although there is a La Brea Tar Pit at the beginning, called "What is a microprocessor (CPU)?". You may want to skip that section.

Some quotes I've pulled:

---

"The M1 is not a CPU, it is a whole system of multiple chips put into one large silicon package. [...] the M1 contains a wide variety of specialized chips"

"This is part of the reason why a lot of people working on images and video editing with the M1 Macs are seeing such speed improvements. A lot of the tasks they do can run directly on specialized hardware. That is what allows a cheap M1 Mac Mini to encode a large video file without breaking a sweat while an expensive iMac has all its fans going full blast and still cannot keep up."

"Apple’s Unified Memory Architecture tries to solve all these problems without having the disadvantages of old school shared memory."

"So heterogeneous computing is part of the reason but not the sole reason. The fast general-purpose CPU cores on the M1, called Firestorm, are genuinely fast."

"The biggest and meanest Intel and AMD microprocessor have a total of four decoders busy cutting machine code instructions into micro-ops. But this is no match for the M1, which has an absolutely unheard of number of decoders. It has eight decoders. [...] the M1 also has an instruction buffer which is 3x times larger than what is normal in the industry."

---

The article also has some thoughts on why it would be hard for Intel or AMD to come up with an equivalent system.

Yeah, for years Apple's mobile processors have been resting in the lead. In fact one the biggest complaints about IOS is that is that it hasn't kept up the Apple's processors.

Now we know Apple wasn't resting and they weren't trying to build the fastest mobile processor. They were trying to build the fastest processor period.

The idea that all that Apple's competitors can just catch up by flipping a switch is ludicrous. They are all years behind one of the wealthiest companies in the world that already has products in the marketplace.

Apple clearly has a multiyear strategy. If the 10 watt Mac Mini is performing this well I can wait to see how their 500+ Watt desktop performs 2 years from now on the latest Apple Silicon. I expect Apple is going to press their advantage in ways that will be embarrassing to their competitors.

Apple hasn’t disclosed the TDP for the 3.2-GHz M1, but it appears to be in the vicinity of a mere 10 watts.

https://www.wired.com/review/apple-mac-mini-m1-2020/

 

[Clermond]

here's a non scientific test. I recorded 8K 25P clog on the R5, a file of 10:12min 95GB.
I formatted an external 2TB SanDisk SSD, I created a new library with media on the SSD not inside the library.

MacBook Pro 2018 15", i9 32GB RAM, Radeon Pro 560X 4GB, OSX Catalina 10.15.6, FCP 10.5
SanDisk CFexpress 256GB on a SanDisk CFexpress reader
1) import in FCP 10.5: 3:28min
2) card ejected, transcoding to optimize ProRes 422: 52:58min, fan running all the time.

MacBook Pro M1, 13" 16GB, OS 10.15, FCP 10.5
I formatted the same external 2TB SanDisk SSD again,
I created a new library with media on the SSD not inside the library.

1) import in FCP 10.5: 3:51min which suprised me
2) card ejected, transcoding to optimize ProRes 422: 15:10min, no fan .

export / rendering next time

 

[Vik Kamenicky]

here's a non scientific test. I recorded 8K 25P clog on the R5, a file of 10:12min 95GB.
I formatted an external 2TB SanDisk SSD, I created a new library with media on the SSD not inside the library.

MacBook Pro 2018 15", i9 32GB RAM, Radeon Pro 560X 4GB, OSX Catalina 10.15.6, FCP 10.5
SanDisk CFexpress 256GB on a SanDisk CFexpress reader
1) import in FCP 10.5: 3:28min
2) card ejected, transcoding to optimize ProRes 422: 52:58min, fan running all the time.

MacBook Pro M1, 13" 16GB, OS 10.15, FCP 10.5
I formatted the same external 2TB SanDisk SSD again,
I created a new library with media on the SSD not inside the library.

1) import in FCP 10.5: 3:51min which suprised me
2) card ejected, transcoding to optimize ProRes 422: 15:10min, no fan .

export / rendering next time

I think Max from MAX TECH made a test and found out that the M1 Macs struggle with USB3 peripherals, maybe it's a OS limitation/bug and will be fixed. If you attach a TB3 dock and you than attach an USB3 device the speeds are better.

 

[Clermond]

I think Max from MAX TECH made a test and found out that the M1 Macs struggle with USB3 peripherals, maybe it's a OS limitation/bug and will be fixed. If you attach a TB3 dock and you than attach an USB3 device the speeds are better.

I have read that too. I am waiting for the new OWC tb HUB

 

[say_doyster]

Hi Clermond - a completely different question - you say you are running FCP 10.5 on Catalina, but Apple is currently saying that it requires Big Sur. I am still confused by info that I am finding online (I am on FCP 10.4.9 on Mavericks) and would love to know your experience? Sorry to side track, but others may be wondering too?

 

[Clermond]

Hi Clermond - a completely different question - you say you are running FCP 10.5 on Catalina, but Apple is currently saying that it requires Big Sur. I am still confused by info that I am finding online (I am on FCP 10.4.9 on Mavericks) and would love to know your experience? Sorry to side track, but others may be wondering too?

First time I hear that. I just updated via App Store. No issues at all.

 

[say_doyster]

Interesting - thanks for the info.

 

[jb.]

“Struggle” is a little overstated.

USB SSDs like the Samsung T5 and Sandisk Extreme SSD get about 300-325MB/s on an M1 Mac vs 400+MB/s on an Intel Mac.

So they’re still fast, just not as fast as they’re capable of being.

He also said that running them through a Thunderbolt dock or hub removes this limitation... so it seems like a bug.

 

[jb.]

Hi Clermond - a completely different question - you say you are running FCP 10.5 on Catalina, but Apple is currently saying that it requires Big Sur. I am still confused by info that I am finding online (I am on FCP 10.4.9 on Mavericks) and would love to know your experience? Sorry to side track, but others may be wondering too?

Apple is not saying it requires Big Sur. Here is what they say directly from the FCP “What’s New” page:

“The recommended system requirement for Final Cut Pro 10.5 is macOS Big Sur. The minimum system requirement is macOS 10.15.6.”

https://support.apple.com/guide/final-cut-pro/whats-new-in-final-cut-pro-105-ver3daafa3a2/mac

10.5 works fine on Catalina as long as you’re on 10.15.6.

 

[rob norton]

I was told by a certified service technician that the air and the mbp are technically the same except the fan and the slightly brighter display (400 vs 500nits). The difference will be noticeable when it's getting hot. The Pro kicks in the fan and the Air gets throttled. As it may get hot by the environment conditions and the computing stress both you cannot exactly define when the Air gets throttled. At a price difference of 200$ and 100g / 3.53oz I wouldn't even waste a thought at the Air

Would you really be throttling an air just from outside temperature and transferring files?

 

[Clermond]

Would you really be throttling an air just from outside temperature and transferring files?

I didn’t say that. I just said you don’t know when the air goes throttled.

 

[rob norton]

I didn’t say that. I just said you don’t know when the air goes throttled.

Haha I know. Based on this unknown, in your opinion is the m1 air too risky to use purely for high speed data transfers?

After having a PC micro super computer in an online shopping cart, I'm now ditching this plan and strongly leaning towards waiting for a 16" MBP as a main computer.

Would it be ridiculous having an air/13" for transfers/on set/quick work then a 16" for semi-permanent editing that can go anywhere if needed?

I'd hate to delay finishing a project mid-edit because I spilled my iced latte on the main computer when offloading footage.

 

[Clermond]

Haha I know. Based on this unknown, in your opinion is the m1 air too risky to use purely for high speed data transfers?.

I said for me it's no question to go for the maximum if the difference is only 200$ and 100g.
At the moment there's a bug in BigSur M1 USB-C data transfers. You would either have to wait ore go with tb.
my guess is there's no difference in data transfer from Air to Pro

 

[rob norton]

I said for me it's no question to go for the maximum if the difference is only 200$ and 100g.
At the moment there's a bug in BigSur M1 USB-C data transfers. You would either have to wait ore go with tb.
my guess is there's no difference in data transfer from Air to Pro

Fair enough! Thanks for the heads up.

 

[puredrifting]

...then a 16" for semi-permanent editing that can go anywhere if needed?

My laptop is a 27" iMac if the place I have to edit is within driving distance. It's surprisingly easy to bungie a couple of towels around the body and lay it in the trunk to
go anywhere in Southern California. Editing on a single 16" screen, ugh. Editing on a 27" 5k Retina, nice. Of course if I had to fly somwhere to edit, the 16" all the way.
Luckily I havent had to do that for years. I have one NYC agency who always hires me to edit on site at trade shows like E3, back when we had trade shows. Just edited
an EPK package for Macys and Make a Wish Foundation in Orange County. Was a breeze to take my 27 iMac with me and even my 16TB RAID.

 

[joema]

My laptop is a 27" iMac if the place I have to edit is within driving distance. It's surprisingly easy to bungie a couple of towels around the body and lay it in the trunk to
go anywhere in Southern California....

I agree. I've taken my iMac Pro on many road trips and some flying trips. For driving, I formerly used the Apple product cases. There is a brown cardboard shipping case with thin foam padding over the colorful product case which uses styrofoam stand-offs. Apple ships those from China using those cases and they usually arrive OK.

However the product cases are not designed for sustained use and will eventually wear out. For driving trips I then got this Gator Case. It has wheels and a retractable handle, and works great: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...es_g_cpr_im27w_creative_pro_padded_nylon.html

For flying and checking it as baggage, I use this SKB hard case: SKB case: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1463156-REG/skb_3i_2922_imac_iseries_27_imac_case.html

I've never had any problem with damage.

My OWC Thunderbay 4 Mini with 4 x 4TB Evo 860 SSDs fits securely inside the Gator case, including cables and power brick: https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/thunderbay-4-mini/thunderbolt-3

I have co-workers who travel with a MacBook Pro laptop and a 27" external monitor, but their hard cases are just as big as an iMac Pro case. The iMac 27 or iMac Pro is remarkably transportable.

 

[stewhem]

It sounds like, from what you guys are saying, that I'm overly cautious about moving my iMac around. I just imagine all those little electronic bits and all that solder being vibrated for hours on end, and if I'm flying, being loaded (thrown) in and out of an aircraft hold. I've moved my MacPro around in the car, back seat with loads of foam, etc, around it but even then it's fingers crossed time when I switch it on. I never had a problem with it but decided it wan't worth the hassle and bought a macbook pro which stays with me in the cabin when flying. Is there any firm evidence about how delicate/how much stress our electronic babies can take?

 

[Clermond]

My iMac leasing is running out in a few months and I am seriously considering to replace it by a new 16" MBP plus a display like 5K LG. That will depend on the specs and the price though. From what I saw in 3 days of the 13" I am pretty confident that it will be sufficient for what I do. The 13" will stay as a backup in this scenario. I would be very flexible from low profile 13" to dual screen - an in-between a 16" with an iPad as sidecar screen