Memory Swap Freezes Mac During FCPX Exports

[Internet Enzyme]

I began an export of a final cut project, and I watched my internal storage go from 50 gb to 20 gb remaining in a few minutes, with an export fail from final cut resulting. I know this is not permanent storage loss, as the swap file disappears upon long periods of ram inactivity or reboots, but this is insane. Is macOS' memory management supposed to be like this? I'm running macOS 10.13.5 Beta, so maybe that's the problem. But just look at that screenshot. There are like 30 swap files that are each 1 gb on my ****ing computer!

 

[casperes1996]

If the project was sufficiently big, this is to be expected.
You can delete generated project files, like rendered media and optimized media to get storage space easily.

 

[MSastre]

How full is your system drive? Version of FCP X and OS? It's always a good idea to have at least 10-20% of freespace on your main drive.

 

[Internet Enzyme]

How full is your system drive? Version of FCP X and OS? It's always a good idea to have at least 10-20% of freespace on your main drive.

The internal drive is 128gb. I had 50 gb of free space. It filledup 30gb, failed, and as I expected I gained all the space back after not using my computer for a while. I eventually got the export to work, with 60gb (!) of free space required. The final export was only 1.3 GB. Im running the latest version of fcpx 10.4.1, with mac os 10.13.5 beta
[doublepost=1523941960][/doublepost]

If the project was sufficiently big, this is to be expected.
You can delete generated project files, like rendered media and optimized media to get storage space easily.

With final cut, i turned off background render, never render clips, and do not create and proxy or optimized media. So this is all just on camera clips that i use for editing. Also, the final file was only 1.3 gb, being 2 minutes long with a bitrate of 100mbps

 

[casperes1996]

With final cut, i turned off background render, never render clips, and do not create and proxy or optimized media. So this is all just on camera clips that i use for editing. Also, the final file was only 1.3 gb, being 2 minutes long with a bitrate of 100mbps

In that case it’s quite unusual indeed. My personal longest project, a documentary around 40 minutes of full hd at PAL25FPS, used yo about 12GB of virtual ram after a long editing session when I exported it. That was with rendered files though which reduces the ram and processing required at the cost of storage. But still, your situation seems odd. What were your expor settings? And what camera do you use?

 

[Internet Enzyme]

In that case it’s quite unusual indeed. My personal longest project, a documentary around 40 minutes of full hd at PAL25FPS, used yo about 12GB of virtual ram after a long editing session when I exported it. That was with rendered files though which reduces the ram and processing required at the cost of storage. But still, your situation seems odd. What were your expor settings? And what camera do you use?

My export was through a compressor preset that targets an h.264 high level 100mbps 3840 x 1600 export. My camera is a Sony A6300 that shoots some pretty basic 4K 100mbps 4:2:0 8 bit XAVC-S

 

[casperes1996]

My export was through a compressor preset that targets an h.264 high level 100mbps 3840 x 1600 export. My camera is a Sony A6300 that shoots some pretty basic 4K 100mbps 4:2:0 8 bit XAVC-S

100Mbps and 4k will undoubtably be tougher to work with than my 1080p 25Mbps delivery, however, mine was as I said 40 minutes, so should still take up substantially more RAM.

3840x1600 is a funny frame size though.
Did you upsample your chromasubsampling before pulling it into FCPX by the way? That may help you in future. If you create 4:2:2 upsampled files FCPX will have an easier time working with the footage. As far as I know, when FCPX is told to export (to any format, but in this case to h.264, it first decodes the source media and creates a ProRes file - the ProRes render files can only be 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, so if it's 4:2:0, it will first have to upsample the chroma and then create the h.264 from that, and perhaps that process used up more RAM? I don't know, but I'm pulling at possibilities.

I may also be wrong that FCPX makes the ProRes render files when you don't use optimised media - I've never actually not worked with optimised media.... Well, at least not for any longer projects that I've thought about exports for.

 

[Internet Enzyme]

I use the 2.4:1 frame size because i find embedding some raster letterboxed png ontop of a 1.77:1 timeline to be a very imperfect and weak solution. I dont use optimized or proxy files because of the aforementioned space issue. What you say with chroma upsampling is definitely intriguing but it seems as if this is just a bug with the beta version of mac os or final cut

 

[casperes1996]

I use the 2.4:1 frame size because i find embedding some raster letterboxed png ontop of a 1.77:1 timeline to be a very imperfect and weak solution. I dont use optimized or proxy files because of the aforementioned space issue. What you say with chroma upsampling is definitely intriguing but it seems as if this is just a bug with the beta version of mac os or final cut

It probably is just a bug yes.

Regarding frame size, I agree that just applying a letterbox image isn't a good solution, and you should aim for the frame size you want to deliver for. I must admit I've used Alex4D's LetterBox effect in the past though, just for convenience. Important to remember to place that effect before your colour grades though, so you don't end up with a coloured letterbox.....
Regardless 2.4:1 isn't a standard aspect ratio to my knowledge, is it?

 

[Internet Enzyme]

It probably is just a bug yes.

Regarding frame size, I agree that just applying a letterbox image isn't a good solution, and you should aim for the frame size you want to deliver for. I must admit I've used Alex4D's LetterBox effect in the past though, just for convenience. Important to remember to place that effect before your colour grades though, so you don't end up with a coloured letterbox.....
Regardless 2.4:1 isn't a standard aspect ratio to my knowledge, is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format#2.35,_2.39_or_2.40

I just choose 2.4:1 because it divides into a nice and perfect whole number

 

[casperes1996]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format#2.35,_2.39_or_2.40

I just choose 2.4:1 because it divides into a nice and perfect whole number

Thanks for the info

 

[Internet Enzyme]

Wow. I'm surprised. With FCPX 10.4.2, the issue has been fixed!