Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

FCP7 so dam slow in HD!!!

R

rei101

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Dec 24, 2011
976
1
I am doing a full HD render of 2 minutes, just some mp4 GoPro cameras and is taking about an hour to render. All I added was one layer with the logo on a corner (a bug). No color correction or anything.

I am using a iMac 3.4 i7 4 cores with 32 GB of ram, flash drive and thunderbold external regular drive.

In the activity monitor I am using probably 20% of 3 cores.

But damn!!! it is impossible to edit HD in FCP7! I may have to jump to FCPX it seems or Premiere.
 
It is very possible to edit HD easily in FCP 7 ... IF your footage is in a native format. FCP 7 does not work with MP4 files natively so everything has to be rendered. And if you make any changes (filters, transitions, etc.) you'll have to render again.

The proper workflow is to convert non-native footage to a native format (ProRess 422 for example). You can use Compressor to handle the conversion. Once you import the proper format into an FCP project, things should be a lot smoother assuming you Mac is up to the task and the footage is stored on a HDD with a connection speed that will handle the data rate (SATA, eSATA, FW800, Thunderbolt are all fine - USB 2.0 won't cut it).

-DH
 
People have been editing HD in FCP Legacy for over a decade so let's examine your workflow.

rei101 said:
I am doing a full HD render of 2 minutes, just some mp4 GoPro cameras and is taking about an hour to render.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's a major show stopper right there. The only HD codecs you should be working with in FCP 7 are ProRes, DVCPro HD, HDV and the XDCAM family of codecs. Since the MP4 footage from GoPro is none of those you should transcode it to ProRes. Here's a link from GoPro outlining one way to convert their MP4s.

I am using a iMac 3.4 i7 4 cores with 32 GB of ram, flash drive and thunderbold external regular drive.

In the activity monitor I am using probably 20% of 3 cores.
Click to expand...

FCP 7 isn't multicore aware and can only access 4gigs of RAM (the core code base is from the 90's after all).
 
If you have a Go Pro, then go pro with the editing, leave the stone age behind where it belongs, for $300 you can be editing pain free.. Unless you actually enjoy the pain of editing and rendering and wasting time and electricity waiting for endless renders...

And no Premiere is not the option, they are having a world of hurt with various flavours of Pro-res..
Worst case situation, handbrake the footage, spend time doing tests, find the best setup for you, what I use might not work for you, I did my own tests and found a method that I find efficient.
 
Destroysall said:
This would be my recommendation. I personally love Premiere due to it being easily translated with other Adobe software. Cheers.
Click to expand...

H.264 (which is the codec inside the .mp4 container) is not an editing codec. It is a delivery codec.

As Lethal mentioned, transcode the footage to an editing codec and go from there. It is the proper and best workflow.

Premiere and FCP X will still need time to render and more processing power to work with these files, but can work with them natively.
 
Gopro footage is highly compressed. For every frame that's being displayed, video players/editors have to reference data from multiple frames behind and ahead to decode the data in the current frame.

It's not FCP7 that's dragging you down. Follow the recommendations of a couple of these responses and convert your gopro footage to ProRes. I've transcoded days of gopro footage to prores proxy using the new Mac pro, and the highest transcode speed I've ever gotten was only 22fps.
 
JustinePaula said:
If you have a Go Pro, then go pro with the editing, leave the stone age behind where it belongs, for $300 you can be editing pain free.. Unless you actually enjoy the pain of editing and rendering and wasting time and electricity waiting for endless renders...

And no Premiere is not the option, they are having a world of hurt with various flavours of Pro-res..
Worst case situation, handbrake the footage, spend time doing tests, find the best setup for you, what I use might not work for you, I did my own tests and found a method that I find efficient.
Click to expand...

World of hurt? I am a finishing/creative editor at a post studio in Detroit.. I use premiere every day.. I crank away on all sorts of formats, ESPECIALLY pro res.. with no hiccups.

Also.. If FCP7 isnt pro, and in your eyes either is Premiere.. then what is? Avid? Ok I agree.. FCPX.. fine.. sort of.. Its funny because we have an award winning editor editing right now down the hall on a GMC campaign of 8 spots + web content.. using FCP7.. I will be doing the finishing in Nuke, and conforming in Premiere for final delivery.

As for the OPs issue.. transcode that h.264 footage to pro res, no need for HQ.. Normal APR, even APR LT will work.. FCP will process it much faster.. H.264 is a processor intensive codec to create, and equally intense to decompress when rendering effects.

And others have stated, FCP 7 isnt multi threaded, nor will use more then 4 gbs of ram.. but HD drive speed will help.
 
The title of this post is FCP7 so damn slow in HD.

When FCP7 was coded HD was a distant dream, we had just come into the 16bit coding world, DV was the best there was, who thought 4GB Ram would not be enough...hahahahha, looking back and thinking I will never fill a 20GB hard drive...

With the complexity of pro res written today for AV foundation in Apple and the equivalent in Windows systems, how can you expect classic to understand and translate and playback a codec it has no idea existed at the last update 7.0.3 of Final Cut 7?

What I do not know is what exactly the OP means by HD, that could be anything that is not by definition 4:3 aspect ratio 576 interlaced lines in the UK, or 480 interlaced lines in the USA.

Yes Classic was updated to handle a narrow range of high definition video, not above 1080 lines...

The fact is simple, FCP7 with it 4GB RAM memory limit, limits it's usefulness to older devices, the fact it still works on Mavericks, or Yosemite is fortunate and quite frankly undeserved, it has no place on a 64bit device, with 32GB RAM, when you can only access 4 of them, 28 GB remain useless.

Why are you resisting upgrading? Look I was the same, when X was released, I bought the 10.0.0 release and I thought what a load of reindeer #2 this is, imovie pro!! I hated it, but then I started to notice a trend, in fact it became more than a trend, a torrent of sorts, the good torrent..

Every day a new tutorial or website for X was updating or coming online, and you know what I cannot find any really good or in fact current websites or tutorials on Premiere or Avid that is younger than 2012...

If X is so bad, what is the reason for so many tutorials on FCPX?
 
JustinePaula said:
The title of this post is FCP7 so damn slow in HD.

When FCP7 was coded HD was a distant dream, we had just come into the 16bit coding world, DV was the best there was, who thought 4GB Ram would not be enough...hahahahha, looking back and thinking I will never fill a 20GB hard drive...

With the complexity of pro res written today for AV foundation in Apple and the equivalent in Windows systems, how can you expect classic to understand and translate and playback a codec it has no idea existed at the last update 7.0.3 of Final Cut 7?

What I do not know is what exactly the OP means by HD, that could be anything that is not by definition 4:3 aspect ratio 576 interlaced lines in the UK, or 480 interlaced lines in the USA.

Yes Classic was updated to handle a narrow range of high definition video, not above 1080 lines...
Click to expand...

Yet Classic has been able to edit HD since version 2 or 3 (though it had to be uncompressed HD at the time) and starting it version 4 it was able to handle compressed HD (DVCProHD). ProRes first appeared with FCP 6 and was designed to be the best codec to use with FCP (you would get performance gains using ProRes in a ProRes timeline that you wouldn't get when editing other codecs natively).

FCP's rendering engine (RT Extreme) has always worked with a limited set of codecs (and this is pretty common for NLEs) so if you used a 'blessed' codec (DV, HDV, DVCProHD, ProRes, XDCAM, etc.,) you would get real-time effects/performance where as if you didn't use a blessed codec (Windows Media, MPEG, MP4, etc.,). you would have to render everything.

HD, by definition, is 1280x720 (progressive, at select frame rates) and 1920x1080 (interlaced or progressive, at select frame rates). The ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) is a the organization that sets the standards (kinda like SMPTE).
 
JustinePaula said:
If X is so bad, what is the reason for so many tutorials on FCPX?
Click to expand...

Its not that its bad. Its not the same workflow/setup that NLE editors have been working with for years. Can it do the job? yes.

Many people, myself/company included, have decided not to transition to X because it involves a new workflow. We have invested a lot of money in servers and networking so don't feel that a change is necessary. We have AVID, FCP 7, and Premiere Pro running smoothly and can have an editor decide which tool is best for their project.

All in all, the software is just a tool. An editor still needs to learn the craft and once they have those skills he/she can make the best educated decision on what tool works best.
 
why is someone spouting off about FCP classic? this is about FCP7.

I edited for years on FCP7, SD, HD.. AND 2k.

People must understand they dont HAVE to upgrade.. FCPX is not a logical upgrade from FCP.. its a whole different workflow. To me a logical upgrade would be premiere.. which has a similar interface, supports the same codecs (and more).. Avid is great too if you can learn it.

Also, you must realize that projects may have to remain in FCP7, for legacy reasons, and if the person or facilty has invested in the workflow. My old facilty is still editing in FCP7.. in full HD glory.. and last year they pulled in 1.6 mil in gross billings.. not bad for a 7 person shop.


Back to the question.. can the OP respond to our questions so we can help out?
 
FCP classic is any pre modern linear track based editing done on either a windows or mac based system. The idea of having video tracks stacked going up vertically and audio tracks going down vertically on the screen.

Final Cut Pro X, with it's radical new approach is a bitter pill for many to swallow it seems, but once you adjust, then you cannot help seeing how could you do this or that on a classic system.

Combined with the classic stacked track based system is the insane idea of hostage taken by the twin evil sisters Adobe and Avid.. Do you get what you pay for?
 
JustinePaula said:
FCP classic is any pre modern linear track based editing done on either a windows or mac based system. The idea of having video tracks stacked going up vertically and audio tracks going down vertically on the screen.

Final Cut Pro X, with it's radical new approach is a bitter pill for many to swallow it seems, but once you adjust, then you cannot help seeing how could you do this or that on a classic system.

Combined with the classic stacked track based system is the insane idea of hostage taken by the twin evil sisters Adobe and Avid.. Do you get what you pay for?
Click to expand...

What are you babbling on about? FCP = Final Cut Pro. The term "classic" in this thread is just how people are referring to any version of it pre-FCPX. Glad you seem to be enjoying FCPX, but you're not making a lick of sense here.
 
JustinePaula said:
The idea of having video tracks stacked going up vertically and audio tracks going down vertically on the screen.

Final Cut Pro X, with it's radical new approach is a bitter pill for many to swallow it seems, but once you adjust, then you cannot help seeing how could you do this or that on a classic system.
Click to expand...

A radical new approach to stacks of video going up and stacks of audio going down...;)

whatis_timeline_gallery1.jpg
 
Pretty sure FCPX edits in this magical way of video on top, audio on the bottom.

Why would you call FCP classic "any pre modern linear track based editing done on either a windows or mac based system. "

Please define "pre modern".. so before FCPX came out, everything else was in the stoneage?

Have you used FCP-1? it edits with video on top, and audio on the bottom.. which is how FCPX operates.. and Avid, and Premiere, and sony vegas..


this thread has officialy been hi-jacked with your pro FCPX rhetoric.. Meanwhile the original OP has vanished.

Hey look! My weird evil Premiere uses video on top, audio on the bottom! How on earth will I get this commercial on air in time!!
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-12-16 at 12.47.47 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-12-16 at 12.47.47 PM.png
    73.3 KB · Views: 156
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back