C200: Editing system for the C200

Fahnon said:
I was about to add a GTX 1080 to my Mac Pro 5,1, but after reading all this I'm thinking I might want to bump the up to the 1080 TI version. Do y'all think it's worth the extra cash for 4K realtime editing?
Click to expand...

I'm a fan of staying on topic, but I also have a 12 core Mac Pro. I had a 1080 Ti installed for a short period of time. It was great in Resolve (this was 12.5 and MacOS Sierra). I did have some question marks regarding OpenCL support back then and eventually I returned it to wait for Vega. The drivers for High Sierra are out now (but CUDA isn't out yet) and I think it's a good card for Resolve. I'm the guy behind the now pretty popular 'Pixla's Mod' that gives you additional power from the Mac Pro's PSU for power hungry gfx cards.

If you want to continue the discussion, I suggest a new thread or that we discuss it over on Macrumors Mac Pro forum. As Mac Pro users, we are the minority after all.

More general questions: why do you want to edit in 4k? Do you have monitors to support that? I have a dual 2650x1440 setup and my 4k footage shows up at 55% in a 4k timeline. That means lots of wasted resources. Obviously I do check some critical things at 1:1 pixels in a 4k timeline, but I feel 90% of work can be done in 2k, no problem.

EDIT: And when I say 55% I mean when I play footage back in 'Full Screen Viewer' mode — the one that shows playback controls in Resolve.
 
Last edited:
Fahnon said:
I was about to add a GTX 1080 to my Mac Pro 5,1, but after reading all this I'm thinking I might want to bump the up to the 1080 TI version. Do y'all think it's worth the extra cash for 4K realtime editing?

I already have 16gb of ram, 12 cores and am adding a fast SSD, so the graphics card is the only question mark...

(Hope I'm not derailing as this thread is about editing systems)
Click to expand...

So 16gb of RAM seems a bit light to when working with 4K. What apps do you use in your pipeline and are you also trying to optimize your final render? Do you typically run multiple apps including a browser while editing? I find my browser is one of the worst memory hogs on my systems.

Did you get the 3.46GHZ Xeons? If so they are maxed out and should stack up pretty well. Every test I have seen has had that shown that CPU doing really well with 4K editing and color correction when combined with the suitable GPU and storage. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any test done with Cinema RAW Light but the RED results might extrapolate fairly well.

The 1080 Ti tested much faster than the 1080 in every evaluation I have seen. There is a link below a couple of Barefeats articles where he tested both cards. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any test done with Cinema RAW Light but the RED results might extrapolate fairly well. I am not sure if this test was done on the Resolve beta so the relative performance might be different today.

Of course a faster card might not speed things up for you. It depends on what your bottlenecks are at that moment. I have buddy who is a professional colorist who sometimes has dozens of nodes on a clip when working in Resolve. He often has a separate node for each persons eye in the shot and needs a multi-GPU system to get real time performance. I know other people who only use 2 or 3 nodes who can get by with a single wimpier card. I personally do a quite a bit of noise reduction so GPU performance is pretty important for me. I work in Final Cut Pro X with Neatvideo and plan to update to a dual GPU system soon.

I'm not sure how much faith I would put in a single SSD. A good SSD's IOPs will always crush a single hard drive but when reading multiple files. I have seen sustained throughput drop off dramatically in Final Cut Pro X when a single SSD was trying to write and read at the same time and couldn't keep up. I would seriously think about a RAID of some sort.

http://barefeats.com/mvc_pascal.html
http://barefeats.com/cmp_pascal.html

Just saw the note about the other thread and I'm happy to continue there.
 
Gary T said:
I haven't been able to find any test done with Cinema RAW Light but the RED results might extrapolate fairly well.
Click to expand...

Like I've been saying... it's about that extrapolation...

On my 3.46GHz 12 core Mac Pro, playing back .CRM files tax the CPUs with 450%. 5k RED at half or full resolution premium tax them at 2350%. Quite a big difference.

At this point, Resolve doesn't offer the full raw support for .CRM as it does for .R3D (such as color profiles and per file debayer) but they are nice to work with nonetheless.
 
AndreeOnline said:
Like I've been saying... it's about that extrapolation...

On my 3.46GHz 12 core Mac Pro, playing back .CRM files tax the CPUs with 450%. 5k RED at half or full resolution premium tax them at 2350%. Quite a big difference.

At this point, Resolve doesn't offer the full raw support for .CRM as it does for .R3D (such as color profiles and per file debayer) but they are nice to work with nonetheless.
Click to expand...

I did say might. Unfortunately as I said I haven't been able to find any similar tests with Cinema RAW Light since it's so new.

It's great to hear that .CRM files have such a low CPU load. That makes me reconsider the latest iMac a possible workstation since I have no plans to work with RED footage. Did you find similar utilization transcoding in CRD?
 
Gary T said:
I did say might.
Click to expand...

Yes you did. I didn't mean for my reply to come across in a 'point my finger, told you so' manner. But it's a good example where logical thinking—such as taking what we know from one raw format and applying that to another… a less known quantity, perhaps—won't give you the right answers.

But it's notable that both .r3d and .dng from Blackmagic's cameras give us access actual raw data, whereas .crm currently doesn't enjoy this. It begs the question if .crm at some point gets deeper integration, will performance be the same or does that come with a performance cost?

I have a few .crm files that I downloaded, but I'm honestly not quite sure what I'm looking at in terms of gammas and color space. I can't open them in Canon's software as standalone files... I think the software expects the complete folder structure from the memory card...
 
So I have narrowed down my choices between two systems. I would love if anyone could let me know if it is worth getting the more expensive one as I plan to shoot RAW as much as possbible.

SYSTEM 1(CHEAPER)
-Intel Core i7-6850K 3.6 GHz Six-Core
-ASUS X99-A II LGA 2011-v3 ATX Motherboard
-48GB 2666 RAM
-Nvidia GTX 1070 8GB
-PSU 750WATT

SYSTEM 2(MORE EXPENSIVE)
-Intel Core i7 7820X 3.6GHz (4.3/4.5GHz Turbo) 8 Core
-NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB
-X299 MOTHERBOARD(Not sure which model yet)
-64GB 3200 RAM
-1250 watt PSU

Like I stated before will be using Premiere mainly, along with resolve and After effects.
 
It is not about fondness, but more about what can get you the best performance for your money. I will get back with a few suggestions.
 
Thank you! Yeah I plan to shooy raw a lot, use premiere and after effects togehter possibly element 3d for vfx stuff.

Davinci to color grade as well until premiere can natively use the files. Prefer to work in 4k time line in at least half if not full res in premiere without having to pre render everything. Really appreciate the help. Willing to bump to 2k IF needed.

Just hate going to edit and having to think about how im going to be able to playback in real time and it njst constraints my creativity when stuff runs slow or im pre rendering every single change i make in a edit.
 
I literally based my entire build off that information. I took the cheapest of each PC component listed on that page to form my (EXPENSIVE) build from the bottom of page 3 of this thread.
 
Hello,

My first thought was to look at the new i7 8700k as it is very close in performance, has Quicksync and is a little cheaper. But, you sacrifice PCI-e lanes with this platform. Basically you can get a 4 lane NVMe dirve, a 16 lane Graphics card and maybe have 4 lanes left over for another card like a Blackmagic Intensity 4k for video preview. Pretty tight but might be fine with your hardware needs.

I see it as a three choice race at the low end:

i7 8700
i7 7820x
Ryzen 1800x

I think you are fine with a 750-850w power supply as long as it is a good one (Gold or Silver 80) Stick with the base memory speeds listed for the motherboard. Graphics cards are tough these days as the Bitcoiners have driven up the prices through the roof. Bad time to buy but you need a good one for Premiere. 1070/1080 are the best options depending on price. As suggested, a two or three disc RAID 0 would give you nice storage amounts with good sustained transfer speeds. This is depended upon how much you shoot and how long the projects are. If you are shooting 30 second commercials then you have different needs than long form documentaries. I use RAID 0 as I always back the footage up upon transfer form the cards to a 2nd hard drive that sits on the shelf. So the RAID 0 is not the only copy when I am working. Motherboards brands - Asus or Gigabyte.

Hope this can help out a bit. I would go to Newegg and build some different wish list systems then compare the final costs. Make the wish lists public and maybe we can take a look at them.
 
Right now I am sitting at

Intel 7800x 6 Core
MSI X299 SLI PLUS LGA 2066 Intel X299 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 ATX Intel Motherboard
G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 2400 + 16GB total = 48gb Ram
750watt GOLD PSU
For video card I may keep my 8gb Radeon R9 for the time being?

Second option is this

AMD RYZEN 7 1800X 8-Core 3.6 GHz (4.0 GHz Turbo) AM4 Desktop Processor CPU, CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) C16 Desktop Memory Kit ($750)

+ 32gb of Ram for $300

and this should leave money for a NVidia GPU or I can continue to use my Radeon.
 
Last edited:
Bump on this topic, really indecisive now after reading a bunch on the threadripper by amd. I have to current builds that I can not decide on. One Intel and one AMD with about a 350 price difference with the amd being more expensive but possibly worth it? I do want to get into more VFX and 3D stuff as well which is why I am considering the 16 core thread ripper. Here is both my current builds. I am going to keep using my current radeon 390 8gb GPU at the moment.


THREADRIPPER BUILD
https://pcpartpicker.com/user/peter917/saved/sHVWXL

INTEL BUILD
https://pcpartpicker.com/user/peter917/saved/bs6D8d
 
Are there any Premiere Threadripper reviews or comparisons to the Intel i9 parts? Ryzen seemed to like Premiere so Threadripper might be a good choice since it is essentially two Ryzen 1800's glued together :)
 
Bassman2003 said:
Are there any Premiere Threadripper reviews or comparisons to the Intel i9 parts? Ryzen seemed to like Premiere so Threadripper might be a good choice since it is essentially two Ryzen 1800's glued together :)
Click to expand...

Puget Systems did a review of Threadripper vs Skylake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top