MP 7,1 Exercising The Mac

jasonmvp

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
Jun 15, 2015
312
250
Northern VA
For giggles, I've rented a new Canon C500 Mark II and lens from LensRentals.com. This produces some fairly epic 5.9K/60 RAW files that can quickly fill up the CFExpress card if you're not careful. As an example, I recorded a clip that was 40 seconds. It was 10GB in size. Woof.

Anyway, I imported it into Resolve, which immediately gave me all of the RAW editing controls I could have wanted. I adjusted the color/white balance a bit, popped the saturation up a bit, and exported it into a 4K/60 25Mbit/sec h.265 file.

Heh. Immediately, the GPU load went to about 90% and the overall CPU load to about 65%. I was left with a 150M h.265 file that looks pretty OK, ignoring the bad exposure (lighting in my office sucks!) The key point here is that the machine was working to make that happen.

Timeline playback of that RAW file is fairly smooth, with a few drops here and there. Somewhat expected given the amount of data in that RAW file that it's chewing through. I do like that Resolve throws as much of the work as it can to the GPU. But in the end, there are still things the CPU has to do.

Now, can anyone lend me about $18K so I can go buy one of these cameras and an EF lens? Long term loan at 0%? ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZombiePhysicist

AndreeOnline

macrumors 6502
Aug 15, 2014
443
259
Zürich
Just pick up a Blackmagic Design Pocket 6K camera for $2495.

It's a great learning platform for video with a very nice image and a flexible codec.
 

jasonmvp

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
Jun 15, 2015
312
250
Northern VA
Just pick up a Blackmagic Design Pocket 6K camera for $2495.

It's a great learning platform for video with a very nice image and a flexible codec.
Admittedly the BMD Pocket cameras are a lot of camera for very little money. However I'm not as keen on their Super35 limitation, and they didn't spend much time on the auto-focus. The cinema stance of "Don't use auto-focus!" is just silly, specially when companies like Canon have near-faultless AF. So I'd prefer something that has AF.
 

AndreeOnline

macrumors 6502
Aug 15, 2014
443
259
Zürich
However I'm not as keen on their Super35 limitation, and they didn't spend much time on the auto-focus.
I know what you mean and basically sympathise. Been a Canon shooter most of my time: 5DmkII, 5DmkIII, C100, Canon 1Dc, 1Dx mkII. Sprinkle that with some XC10 too.

My statement was pretty general—and perhaps not only directed at you.

But if someone is interested in cinematic techniques and post production, I find the P6K to be incredible value for money. The image is high resolution and well resolved. Clean. The codec is basically perfect: easy on the system with all the important qualities that raw offer, but non of the overhead. There might be something equal, but nothing better—in any price class.

I always loved to use a LCDVF with my Canon gear and staying nimble. I've got a prototype for the P6K and its a game changer for that camera, since the screen while nice indoors is too weak outside. I can often shoot on a monopod with the loupe (documentary style), and this way manual focus is superior to AF in 85% of cases. But I understand that for other types of shooting styles AF is invaluable. And I certainly wouldn't mind having it as an additional tool in the P6K.
- - Post merged: - -

Keep hearing how sad the upgrade is for the price.
Why?
Was this question regarding the P6K, or the C500 mkII?
 

awkward_eagle

macrumors member
Feb 5, 2020
68
28
Canon's raw video codec is highly compressed and is generally inefficient to decode. I personally prefer Blackmagic's raw codec and overall image as it more closely matches the look of an Arri Alexa with a codec that plays back a lot easier. Blackmagic cameras also have internal ProRes recording which is used a lot more in the industry than people think, particularly with Arri and Red cameras. Having used raw from a variety of camera manufacturers, raw is only necessary if you really have a use for it. The higher bitrate flavors of ProRes can be keyed and graded just as easily without the overhead of raw decoding. ProRes 4444 is my default capture codec.

Autofocus is always nice for run-and-gun and Canon's is by far the best, but there's a reason Focus Puller is an occupation when dealing with larger productions. "Cinema" is a style historically executed manually with full control of the captured image. It's not to be confused with Youtube, commercials, or music videos. Of course, there's always overlap. There's a reason Blackmagic's cameras have "cinema" in the name.

Not to say Canon doesn't make good cameras. They do. Aside from the C700, the industry doesn't reguard the rest of their cameras as true cinema cameras. While Blackmagic cameras haven't overthrown Arri, Red, and Sony in terms of large production market share, the style they're designed to be shot with is unmistakably aligned with cinema.

As for the S35 sensor size, most movies are shot in this format. For a while the only two groups shooting full frame were DSLR users and huge productions shooting IMAX or 70mm. This is changing with the release of the Alexa 65 and LF, Red's Monstro, and Sony's Venice. But even then it's still mostly S35. This is what makes the Pocket 6K and Ursa Mini Pro such good cameras if what you're going for is the traditional "cinematic look", paired with the right lenses of course.
 

jasonmvp

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
Jun 15, 2015
312
250
Northern VA
Autofocus is always nice for run-and-gun and Canon's is by far the best, but there's a reason Focus Puller is an occupation

rest of bloviation cut
I'm aware of this, but it doesn't actually matter. I'm not purchasing a BMD camera as I'm not interested. Full stop. :)
 

awkward_eagle

macrumors member
Feb 5, 2020
68
28
I'm aware of this, but it doesn't actually matter. I'm not purchasing a BMD camera as I'm not interested. Full stop. :)
Not saying you should get a BMD camera, only that it's a good value and overall good camera. My personal preference is the Sony Venice. I'd shoot on almost anything else to avoid Canons raw codec. Good camera but awful codec. Using an external recorder would at least make their awesome autofocus worth while.
 

jasonmvp

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
Jun 15, 2015
312
250
Northern VA
I've updated post #6 with a new link; I repaired the aspect ratio so that it fits properly into 16:9.

And as a fun gag, I loaded one of the Canon RAW files into Premiere Pro. Ha. Ha. HA! It imported in a flash. But the moment I started trying to play it back, all 32 virtual cores on the Mac went straight to 100% and... well... it didn't play back so well. Heh.
 

jasonmvp

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
Jun 15, 2015
312
250
Northern VA
Fast-forward a month. I completed my 47th orbit around the sun a few days ago, and decided to thoroughly spoil myself. Through the "kindness" (HAAAHAHAHAHA) of Canon Financial Services: I now have a C500 Mark II of my very own. A very expensive birthday present to get oneself, specially with no hope of ever making money with it. It is, at the end of the day, an spendy toy.

Kinda like the Mac Pro. ;-)

Anyway, I did some more editing in Resolve, and it occurs to me that a second Vega II would be hugely beneficial. Not so much in the overall encoding aspect of course. But the general rendering, color grading, etc that Resolve does. With my one GPU screaming along at +90% during 5.9K playback in Resolve, I imagine a second GPU would help quite a bit.

But given the recent expensive expenditures, I don't really have the discretionary funds for another MPX module.
 

OkiRun

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2019
608
327
Japan
Fast-forward a month. I completed my 47th orbit around the sun a few days ago, and decided to thoroughly spoil myself. Through the "kindness" (HAAAHAHAHAHA) of Canon Financial Services: I now have a C500 Mark II of my very own. A very expensive birthday present to get oneself, specially with no hope of ever making money with it. It is, at the end of the day, an spendy toy.

Kinda like the Mac Pro. ;-)

Anyway, I did some more editing in Resolve, and it occurs to me that a second Vega II would be hugely beneficial. Not so much in the overall encoding aspect of course. But the general rendering, color grading, etc that Resolve does. With my one GPU screaming along at +90% during 5.9K playback in Resolve, I imagine a second GPU would help quite a bit.

But given the recent expensive expenditures, I don't really have the discretionary funds for another MPX module.
Thanks for confirming my initial 7.1 setup decision! And I agree with your analysis. 😅
 

jasonmvp

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
Jun 15, 2015
312
250
Northern VA
Thanks for confirming my initial 7.1 setup decision!
The curious thing is whether two Vega II cards would perform the same, better, or worse with Resolve than the Vega II Duo would. Obviously the problem with the Duo is that the two chips are battling over PCI-E bandwidth. But the advantage of it is that you retain more available PCI-E slots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OkiRun
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.