Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › Technique › Editing › Compressor 4 and FCP X take longer than previous versions
- This topic has 3 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by Anonymous.
February 28, 2012 at 8:18 PM #49521AnonymousInactive
I use FCP 6.06 and Compressor 3.0.5
I export an hour long 1080i60 video it takes 20 minutes.
and only an hour to compress it into an h.264 codec…
Then I bought FCP X and Compressor 4.
to do the same exact export and compression on the same computer, it takes 3 times as long to export and 3 times as long to compress…
Does anyone have any idea why THE PROGRAMS would vary in HOW THEY GIVE ME MY FINAL PRODUCT??? Why do they do this?
February 29, 2012 at 2:24 AM #202721RobParticipant
Same thing happened when people transitioned from FCS2 to FCS. They noticed Compressor 3.5 was slower than Compressor 3.
Sorry, I don’t have an answer for ya. All I know is Apple is dropping the ball. First, FCP X tossed a lot of pros under the bus. Now we’re coming up on 2 years since they updated the Mac Pro…
May 11, 2012 at 7:19 PM #202722RobertParticipant
I will agree that Apple probably had the worst execution of a product launch in history. But a lot has changed over the past six months and most of what you’ve read about is not true any more. They do support external monitors, they do have multi-cam editing, it is very stable now, and they’ve put so much of the features from Motion into FCPX that unless I need to do some motion tracking or other motion intensive graphics, I don’t use it anymore. It’s not a pro-sumer app. It’s an app that tons of people who know 7 tried to sit down and use it without proper training. (like my Acura now that just requires me to push a button to start. Those guys would be complaining about the missing key hole)
I noticed in earlier posts you hadn’t sat down and used the product, just relied on other reviews. I’ve been using FCP since the version 5 days. I own an independent films studio, and we’ve upgraded to FCPX and are thrilled with it. The media management features are some of the best in the business and the magnetic timeline is brilliant. I’ve seen reviews here that said it acted unpredictably…(read “I don’t know how it works) I know exactly what its doing. A project I did in FCP 7 that took 2.5 hours to complete was done in 20 minutes with FCPX. The audio filters section sports no less than 46 separate control panels giving you every possible option for tweaking your sound, music, foley, etc. It handles 7.1 surround mixing. I teach at a local film school and every single person that has sat down with me for 20 minutes becomes a believer. All I’m saying is that I respect your opinion and have enjoyed reading your other posts. I’m hoping you might pause and consider the opinions of editors who are experts at FCPX, not just experts of another, completely different product. They should have called it anything else except FCP – that’s where the confusion started. And what I’m raving about is the latest release 10.0.4, which brought it into the pro world again.
May 11, 2012 at 8:45 PM #202723RobParticipant
You’re right. I never used it and I’ve been going off what I’ve read from others. If the NLE is up to speed and ready for professional use now, great. If it gets your job done, keep using it. I mean, that’s what it’s all about, right? It’s just a tool…
I’ve gotten past FCPX’s shortcomings. I’m more annoyed about the attitude Apple seems to have. They don’t seem to care about pro users, and that’s fine. But I’m not going to rely on them if that’s the case…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.