March 25, 2014

1600 Tracks & a 558 Day Timeline?! Maxing Out FCPX on the New Mac Pro

FCPX Mac Pro Maxed OutLate last November, Apple upped the ante with their video editing solutions when they released the long-rumored redesign of the Mac Pro alongside a major update to FCPX, one which was specifically engineered to provide maximum performance in tandem with the new machines. We've already seen some preliminary tests of the performance of this hardware/software combo, and the results were pretty convincing. However, the folks over at fcp.co went above and beyond the previous tests and pushed the new Mac Pro and FCPX to their absolute breaking point. Their results, which are pretty damn crazy, shed quite a bit of light on just how powerful this combo is.

Before we get into the stress-test videos, let's see what kind of hardware and media was used for this test.

fcpdotco_mac_pro

To say that this is one powerful machine is an understatement. However, in order to put this computer and FCPX through their paces, they used the publicly-released 4K ProRes footage from the Blackmagic Production Camera 4K.

So what exactly did the guys at fcp.co do to stress out this beast of a computer? The first test that they performed was one in which they put as many connected clips (the successor to video tracks) into one timeline. In FCP7, 99 tracks was the hard limit, and that would undoubtedly stress the program's 32 bit architecture. However, FCPX has no limit whatsoever on how many connected clips can be in one timeline, and the fcp.co team managed to get 1600 connected clips into one timeline. Yes, you read that correctly, 1600 "tracks" of 4K ProRes.

They scaled this test back to 1000 connected clips, and then made a little screencast of how well the hardware/software combo dealt with the behemoth timeline. Check it out:

Next up, they built a massive project with dimensions of 500,000 pixels by a standard height of 1080, and tried playing, keyframing, and exporting this massive piece of media.

Last but not least, fcp.co attempted to build the longest timeline that they possibly could. Naturally, one would assume that the hard limit would be 24 hours, maybe 36, but once they started building up the timeline with some copious copying and pasting, things started to get crazy. How long of a timeline did they create, you ask? 558 DAYS. THIS TIMELINE WAS A YEAR AND A HALF LONG (sorry about the capslock, I just got a little excited):

Here are the final conclusions from fcp.co about these tests:

It seems that the real limitation is a hardware one, yes FCPX will do 16K, but you have to have the storage bandwidth to supply the huge number of pixels per second. When creating that huge timeline, we used the same clip over and over. Making the same timeline from different shorter clips wouldn't be as easy as we think very large numbers of clips within FCPX will slow the machine down.

---

Stressing Final Cut on the new Mac Pro tells us that Apple's programmers haven't set most of the application's limits based on the needs of editors. Instead of writing code that assumes editors would never need to (or want to) work with 16k footage, connect hundreds of layers or create year-long timelines, developers have in effect said "Hey, as long as you can find hardware fast enough -- Go for it!"

Ultimately, all of these absurd tests prove one thing, Final Cut Pro X is a beastly piece of software under the hood, one that is only limited by the capacity of the hardware and storage that it runs from. In that sense, it is legitimately a future-proofed piece of software, which is no small feat in a technological landscape that is constantly progressing at incredible speeds. As much as I've hated on FCPX in the past (quite a bit), it's difficult not to be impressed with these results.

Make sure you head over to fcp.co to read up on everything that they did to stress out the new Mac Pro and FCPX. It's nothing short of epic.

What do you guys think of these tests and the results? Is it safe to say that FCPX is truly a future-proofed program? Let's hear your thoughts down in the comments!

Link: Pushing Apple's New Mac Pro and Final Cut Pro X to Their Limits -- fcp.co

[via Filmmaker]

Your Comment

62 Comments

Would love to see a similar test with Premiere Pro!

March 25, 2014 at 7:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

+1

March 25, 2014 at 8:44PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
kuk

+1

March 26, 2014 at 1:41AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Archie

It would probably crash

March 26, 2014 at 2:36AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
john jeffries

Glad I have invested so much time in FCPX since day one. Cant wait to get my hands on one of these beasts.

March 25, 2014 at 7:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gavin

Same here. I just finished my first semester of college in the broadcast department when I got a job at Apple, a few weeks later FCPX was released and I got it for free. I've been editing on it since day one and it has grown a lot over the past 3 years just as I have as an editor.

As other people have said, it's a very fun program to edit in and with the growing plugin market it gets better and better. Two of the best plugins come from CoreMelt and they are SliceX and TrackX which use the same tracking engine as After Effects, only no round tripping because it's all done in FCPX.

It's been a struggle for me the past few years because everyone has really hated on FCPX and the job market has been just as bad, but more and more I see people starting to realize that this is the NLE of the future and this test proves it.

March 26, 2014 at 1:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

9
Reply

This is meaningless. It's about real world performance, not stress testing.

March 25, 2014 at 7:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Alex

And you don't think any of this translates over to real world performance? This is beyond what people would do with it in the real world. This isn't evan as much a stress test as it is a limit test. With all this power available it leaves a lot of creative options open. It's not just about films or videos, I've heard quite a few stories where people have used FCPX for digital signage where they have HUGE screens with odd aspect ratios, so a lot of these tests show what opportunities there are where FCPX can be used for more than just a NLE.

March 26, 2014 at 4:07AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Here are some real world tests I performed with a colleague for an article:

http://www.macprovideo.com/hub/final-cut/final-cut-pro-x-performance-test

The Mac Pro is faster than anything else, except in H.264 encoding, where the consumer CPUs have support for Intel's QuickSync, and the Mac Pro does not.

March 27, 2014 at 12:37AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Outside of FCP, there really isn't a point in using Mac. Nearly all software is designed around Wintel architecture.

June 21, 2014 at 7:13AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

8
Reply
Compguy

That's true. Even Macs are Intel based.

Dunno what the W is doing there though... typo?

:P

June 25, 2014 at 9:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

FCPX and the new mac pro does seem impressive in this test but to get a true sense of whether it is better or worse than other options I would love to see it up against avid and premiere on the same machine and then it against avid and premiere on a same priced windows computer. I have a feeling FCPX and the mac would't look that impressive at the end of these tests.

March 25, 2014 at 7:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Ben

+100 on this. Especially on a similarly priced PC.

March 26, 2014 at 12:08AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply

Avid Media Composer target market is the broadcast and film industry and thus it is limited to broadcast resolutions and frame rates. So you cannot build a sequence higher than HD 1920x1080 and you cannot use frame rates higher than 30 fps (unless you use a smaller resolution like 720p/50). Last time I built a sequence over 13 hours, Avid stopped playing audio. Not sure if this is a limit or just another bug. Also Avid does much too many things in 8 bit, so really not a good online tool.
My guess is Premiere is much less flexible, but it is not what I am editing on.

March 26, 2014 at 2:31AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
J-Cut

Resolution is why left AVID and mostly stick to Premiere or my new favorite Lightworks.

March 27, 2014 at 10:28AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Jorge Cayon

Couple of thoughts. What was the media stored on, and presumably since all the tracks are opaque its only playing back one (large) track at a time?

March 25, 2014 at 7:33PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply

For this test the media was on the internal flash storage.

March 26, 2014 at 4:09AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply

I piled about 114,000 pancakes on my picnic table. It was amaaaaazing.

March 25, 2014 at 7:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Ed

Yeah, that test sounds way more delicious than this one.

March 25, 2014 at 7:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
avatar
Rob Hardy
Founder of Filmmaker Freedom
4545

That stress hardly represents the real-world capabilities of that picnic table. Put some syrup on them and then we'll talk.

March 26, 2014 at 10:06AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply

syrup +1

March 26, 2014 at 6:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
chris

This test was more like putting the same pancake on your picnic table 114,000 times really quickly.

March 27, 2014 at 1:11AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Paul Watt

jajjaa, yeahh, and watching it happen during 558 days

June 21, 2014 at 3:11AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Oscar

FCPX is the most highly optimized piece of software ever created for the Mac and, now that 98% of the problems have been addressed which people had with it when it was first released, I must say that it is really worth a re-appraisal by anyone who enjoys editing, and even more so by people who don't enjoy it because this program really makes the process something to look forward to as an essential creative moment in the filmmaking process. Most people, once they get over their dislike for it's slightly different approach, realize it's actually a more natural and advanced/evolved style of editing which will make them cringe at the idea of going back to another program... except Resolve.

March 25, 2014 at 8:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Darren

i'm happy for darren and julian, the apple guy. unfortunately for me, i had a business to run. so when apple for all intents and purposes yanked the rug out from under final cut pro, i had no choice but to jump to adobe creative suite.

i am ETERNALLY grateful to apple for forcing my hand. i probably never would have taken the deep dive into all things adobe with apple's help.

and guys: after three years, i'm glad you think fcx has finally grown into a useful tool. unfortunately for me, again, i wasn't able to grind my business to a halt, send all my clients somewhere else, and stop paying my mortgage while apple's little toy editing system grew up into a big toy editing system.

and paulo's right .. there is no guarantee they won't kill this off when they get bored. apple doesn't like professionals, they exist and design for the lowest common denominator. ever notice how every evolving OS has less capabilities each time ? about three times a day i howl at mavericks for missing some logical and convenient feature that previous OS had ..

March 26, 2014 at 11:52AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
sjk

Who said FCPX just now started to be good? Either way, no big loss, those who can't adapt fall into obscurity. See ya.

March 28, 2014 at 2:24AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Travis

I hear people say all the time that Apple doesn't care about the professional. Why would they redesign and release this new MacPro then? Is the target audience for it one of the 'lowest common denominator' or am I missing something? It seems to be clearly targeted at the professional.

March 28, 2014 at 5:17AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
EricSF

You are so right. Apple continuously and almost maliciously screws with people. Get and ipod, buy a dock....whoops we changed the new version so it no longer charges.....OK, I get a new ipod, get a new charging dock.....whoops we changed the pin size now on the latest ipod so you can not use the new one on either of your old docks. They could at least have the common curtesy of including adapters in their over-priced garbage.

My original ipad works wonderful but almost all the new apps will not work on it so they force something to become obsolete, so that you HAVE to buy the overpriced next one.

As for Final Cut, it was becoming a professional thing then they put out X and you can no longer use your previous project files? Are you kidding me? We put 300 hundred hours into a documentary that we are supposed to just never open again?

Apple does some things well but in the end it costs double and they have a blatant disregard for their customers.

@#$% Apple

April 1, 2014 at 5:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
JOhn

+a bunch. I notice not one person who has commented here so far actually has access to one of these machines, (until now.) I have a 12 core with the D700 cards and I, for fun this morning (just finished a very large project) loaded more than 2000 "lanes" of UHD ProRes onto the "timeline" in the same way FCP.CO did and it played. I have CS6 as well as Avid (which I never turn on anymore) and you can guess how this worked out on Premier. It didn't. I am not sure what people are referring to as a "real world" test, but I can tell you that this program, on this machine, works.

March 26, 2014 at 5:32PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
scot

I use FCPX , premiere, FCP7 and Avid from job to job. The more I use FCPX the more it becomes my NLE of choice.

March 25, 2014 at 11:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply

The only show-stopper for me now is the new Mac Pro doesn't seem to be a good point of investment per dollar spent when compared to iMac 27" maximum specs. I mean the latest iMac (around USD1000 cheaper than the ENTRY LEVEL MacPro), you can pretty much the same capability right? Correct me if I am wrong but 4K is also applicable for the iMac and it is smooth too.

March 26, 2014 at 1:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply

Not at all. You can't upgrade anything in an iMac except for the RAM, which maxes out at 32GB (the Mac Pro as of now goes to 128GB if you get 3rd party sticks)...the CPU is consumer grade (i7) versus the mac pro's server grade cpu..the graphics in the iMac isnt bad, 780m with 4gb of ram but the Mac Pro has dual graphics cards standard. SSD's are the same, both pci-e interface so you get 800mb/second which is nice but you'd be editing off external raids anyway

The iMac is cheap and practical but it's not a Mac pro by any means. Every essential part in the mac pro is removable and upgradable. the iMac is all soldered on except for the ram

March 26, 2014 at 2:40AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
john jeffries

I think the MacPro is going to have a much longer lifespan than an iMac. The one thing people don't talk about is how the computer hardware is sealed inside the machine where dust can't get in. Instead of fans blowing air through the machine like on the old MacPro or iMac, the new MacPro uses the thermal core to cool things. In the long run this means WAY less dust getting into the computer and causing problems.

You could buy a baseline MacPro right now and it will still be a powerful machine for years to come. 4K is no problem, 8K probably won't be a problem either. It's got Thunderbolt 2, USB 3, PCIe Flash storage, top of the line GPU and I'm sure all the other little parts are top of the line as well. This machine will get more bang for its buck than an iMac.

March 26, 2014 at 4:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

I am just wondering which MacPro to get. There is a huge price gap between 6 core and 8 core. Also the flash storage adds to the price. Will 512 GB do if I use external hard drives or will 1 TB add significantly to the performance of fcpx?

March 26, 2014 at 6:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

So, how much is this MacPro rig, as specc'ed out?

March 26, 2014 at 5:45AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DLD

a billion dollars

March 26, 2014 at 8:18AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Joe

One million billion dollars! (Does Dr Evil finger)

March 26, 2014 at 8:41AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Thanks, Frau Farbissina. Anyhow, on B&H, such a rig would run around $7K. The highest priced Mac Pros run as high as $10K.

March 26, 2014 at 12:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
DLD

After the dead of FCP7 I moved to Premiere Pro and Adobe CC, I am very happy with all. ;) why to move again ? I work with epic 5k images, pro res and animation .mov and dslr h264 on a fiber channel server with 5 more Mac Pro, works like a charm. No problems no crashes! Remember that Apple have kill SHAKE, COLOR and FCP. And who can be guaranted that Apple will not kill FCPX ?

March 26, 2014 at 10:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Paulo Emilio

Adobe learned from the Apple FCP7->X move and will hopefully continue to improve Premiere (without "revolutionizing" it) ;)

June 21, 2014 at 2:10AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
VIsualexport

Ugh. Even in the face of such stress tests I won't trade the beloved and surprinsingly (only for ignorants) powerful interface of Sony Vegas Pro.

Yeah. I said it. Sony Vegas Pro. Not a lot of talk here about it. Before you dismiss this post, think about it Y'all think you know NLE's. FCP, Avid and Premiere. Avid, Premiere and FCP. Premiere, FCP and Avid. Because they're the "industry standard". Bull. It's about the right tool for the job, and most of the people who come here are videographers, and infie filmmakers, and they have NO clue how much they could be helped by Vegas's performance, extremely versatile and friendly sound editing capabilities, and ease of use (not to be mistaken with lack of functions!!)

And no, I don't work for Sony, I'm just getting tired of the general superficial point of view on NLEs. I was a Premiere guy long ago(still use it if the client demands it, and the pay is really, really good), since like 2002, and ever since I tried Vegas for the first time in 2005, I was HOOKED. I used it to make commercials, music videos, corporate videos, and several short films which included a lot of foley work, done right inside Vegas, including a 30-minute short who had no production audio whatsoever (foley challenge), and was 100% post work. It screened in the cinema and people said it had far superior sound than most interntional award winning films from our country (Romania). And I have no sound training whatsoever.

Try doing that in Premiere. Oh, Premiere wasn't designed for that? Sure. That's okay. If you have several departments specialized on different tasks who work for you and everything is all division of labor and you have a streamlined, optimized workflow, sure. But let's face it, chances are you don't. I dare say that I can do almost (fi not) everything that can be done in Premiere or FCP in Vegas, faster and better.

The point is use what works best for you. Stop giving into this "industry standard" bull. Sorry for the rant.

March 26, 2014 at 11:45AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Cosmin Gurau

if all would follow the "industry standard" I would have a original NASA screwdriver in my toolbox ;-)

but its more about my own compatibility with productions studios.
In my city its either Apple or Adobe.
What should I do? show up in the cutting room, with my skills of a NLE that is not used there?

June 21, 2014 at 2:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
VIsualexport

This is the most foolish test I have ever seen. The macpro is supposed to be a 4k computer while not let's see how it handles 10layers of red dragon footage sony f65 BMCC raw and F55 raw with mutiple effects on that time line. This was like the test which topgear did when they took the buggati to its maximum speed nobody need those. This is just clear deception. How about it handling 6k noise reduction that's real world just plain bullshit. As for the mac and pc thing while saying the mac is beta than the pc is an opinion, the PC absolutely destroys the mac when it comes to specs and the reliability question, we all know they are equal since like 4yrs ago. Infact the only reason the mac seem like news is becos intel stagnated the x79 platform now the x99 is coming out ddr4 memory, pci expres 4, thunderbolt and an 8 core that you can literally overclock to 5ghz not talk of maswell which should have minmum of 8gig for it high end graphics card. Premier pro cc has and does all I need. Just finshed a feature where I had both red 5k, bmcc raw and sony f55 raw on same time line no transcoding, I love my premier pro also it comunicates with reslove well also. We want the mac folks to bring real world codecs espically those sturborn ones then we would be talking.

March 26, 2014 at 12:09PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
JustCalMeDBoss

These NLE wars in the comments are silly. All you need to edit is a blade and some glue. I've used final cut, avid, and premiere -Besides personal preference, they really are all the same. Looking down on someone for cutting on something other than what the masses hail as the professional best is ridiculous. Edit with what you have.

March 26, 2014 at 1:54PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
stephen

this is ridiculous, I've been doing this in sony vegas three years ago with a modest machine, which is new here?

March 26, 2014 at 2:09PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
James

Man, that trash can is so cool!

March 26, 2014 at 2:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Ryan Maelhorn

Sounds great, but these are a small fortune. If I could afford one, I could probably just afford an editor.

Bigger question, which I can't find an answer to anywhere...

What are the limitations of what I can do on a 2013 13" Macbook pro?
Is the 2012 15" model with the dual cards still outperforming the newer low end mode?

What is the best option under $1500 now?

March 26, 2014 at 2:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
bbt

The 13" models don't have dedicated graphics cards which pretty much renders them useless for any serious editing work. They also don't have quad core processors which, again, makes them useless.

For 1500 you can get a refurbished 15" model which should be fine for most editing tasks

March 26, 2014 at 2:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
john jeffries

"For 1500 you can get a refurbished 15″ model "

Only the 2012 modell. The new 15" refurbs are still $1600.

I know there are people pushing their Macbook Airs to do some FCP work, and I've always managed to do heavy lifting on low end models somehow. I'd love to get real world opinions on what limitations to expect though.

March 26, 2014 at 5:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
bbt

I for one never "hated" fcpx, It just didn't do what I needed it to do when it first came out. It's a lot better now but just based on how Apple operates, I look at it as a utility that Apple will one day drop support for and do something new. Right now, we are in the stage of it getting better and better and I'm ok with that. I will probably become accustomed to always using at least two programs. FCPX and Adobe(depending on what I'm trying to accomplish).

March 26, 2014 at 4:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

10
Reply

I notice not one person who has commented here so far actually has access to one of these machines, (until now.) I have a 12 core with the D700 cards and I, for fun this morning (just finished a very large project) loaded more than 2000 “lanes” of UHD ProRes onto the “timeline” in the same way FCP.CO did and it played. I have CS6 as well as Avid (which I never turn on anymore) and you can guess how this worked out on Premier. It didn’t. I am not sure what people are referring to as a “real world” test, but I can tell you that this program, on this machine, works.

March 26, 2014 at 6:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
scot

It's amazing what Macs can do for three times the money.

March 27, 2014 at 5:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Ryan Maelhorn

This would be the perfect time to link the equivalent PC for 1/3 the price. We'll be waiting.

March 28, 2014 at 2:25AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Travis

Wait fot the x99 platform launching in june-july with and overclockable 8core ddr4, pci expres 4 and thunderbolt. Like I said the only reason the macpro seems special is because intel stagnated the x79 platform

March 28, 2014 at 7:28AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
JustCalMeDBoss

I believe in progression, I believe in pushing the limits and I really love having new powerful tools to tell stories in original ways.

For me, even when FCPX first launched with all of its problems, I was still very excited by its potential. It was clear Apple were on to something big. When you are completely re-inventing something from the ground up (How Apple came about in the first place), you have to learn to walk again before you can run. I admire Apple for being so bold, taking risks and having the vision to see so far into the future. You can't deny how truly astounding and revolutionary this stuff is and it's only going to get better.

You can't stop change so why fight it? Learn to adapt, remain flexible and open to all possibilities. Success never lasts forever. One day Apple will be no more and someone else will lead. It's not about loyalty to a company, it's about supporting innovation and vision that helps you to do better.

March 27, 2014 at 6:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Very well said. This point has been belabored before, but no matter what the peanut gallery says about a PC there are several reasons why they could not build a suitable Hackintosh for 1/3 the price. The processors in this machine are server class processors. The RAM is ECC and if you don't know what that means look it up. Rendering out a $30K project as I did yesterday requires accuracy. Gaming doesn't. The D700 Graphics cards cost $3K each and there are two of them. AND, there is Intel's Thunderbolt, which a very important part of the recipe if you are using fast RAIDs like the Pegasus R6 or R8s. Again, there are thousands of solutions for thousands of problems but if you haven't used this machine, then you really don't know what you are talking about. That said, there is plenty of room for other kinds of computers for lots of other tasks. For my use, this machine has been a very long awaited answer.

March 28, 2014 at 10:17AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
scot

NFS inserted that link to graphics cards, which clearly ain't the right ones!

March 28, 2014 at 10:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
scot

100% agree!

June 21, 2014 at 10:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Eric

@Benjamin- Premiere Pro will have a hard time to do the same test like this with the new Mac Pro. It's because, they are using track base timeline. Unlike the FCPX 10.1.1,is using the magnetic trackless timeline. These are too easy for editors to connect a bunch of clips with the magnetic timeline compare to track base timeline.

June 21, 2014 at 2:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Eric

I'm so glad that real world tasks doesn't need 1000 layers, 500,000 pixel compositions and 558 day timelines.
If I was Final Cut I would start by admiting png sequence files or other sort of sequence files.

I'll stick with Premiere Pro, Nvidia, CUDA and Mercury Engine. And by the way, Nvidia Quadro K6000, not even supported by MAC

June 21, 2014 at 3:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Oscar

That's cute... It still needs a better way to move files back and forth from After Effects, better Audio Mastering Tools or better integration with Logic X. And like the other video showed, a better way to publish projects because Compressor is still kinda fickle.

June 21, 2014 at 1:44PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Sean

Every weekend i used to pay a quick visit this site,
as i wish for enjoyment, as this this website conations truly good funny stuff too.

August 19, 2014 at 12:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply