tomekk

Any ideas what makes 6d much better in low light than 5dmk3? Can't be pixel count only obviously. @gravitatemediagroup have you compared 6d to 5dmk3 yourself in low light?

yeah, sorry, not better in every aspect but gravitatemediagroup said low light is better than c300?? This would be huge if true but hard to belive.

someone pls confirm 6d better than 5dmk3 cause this seems to be very strange.

 

Each OS has its strengths and weaknesses, it comes down to preference and what you worf flow requires!

 

and it all comes down to budget/economics. Do I want to save 4 grand and spend x days playing with hackintosh? If money earned in x days is far less than 4k then maybe yeah. If I earn far more than 4k in x days then fuck it. etc. etc.

most people go mac because they think it makes them more creative and professional - I love seeing these idiots flaunting thier apple macbook pro's on the train. though not worth 4 times what an equivalent windows based machine costs, an apple is better overall. the hackintosh idea brings the benefits of the apple workflow, to a pricepoint the same as a windows pc. The 'Hassle' isnt really hassle, but more effort.

The argument is that Apple is losing it's edge due to a change in direction and windowns is improving meaning the apple benefits are getting smaller. I still prefer my hackintosh than any other pc. It runs smoother and with less hassle than any pc I have ever owned, from custom builds to off the shelf dells etc

 

Windows will never beat unix in stability/performance. Apple hasn't designed this system. Apple is using PC hardware. Apple is just brilliant marketing nowadays. Just to make things clear.

btw. They're going down. Steve Jobs won't help them anymore. Keep an eye on APPL stock price for a proof. They  won't reach new highs anymore. Probability of this is close to 0% imho.

most people go mac because they think it makes them more creative and professional - I love seeing these idiots flaunting thier apple macbook pro's on the train. though not worth 4 times what an equivalent windows based machine costs, an apple is better overall. the hackintosh idea brings the benefits of the apple workflow, to a pricepoint the same as a windows pc. The 'Hassle' isnt really hassle, but more effort.

The argument is that Apple is losing it's edge due to a change in direction and windowns is improving meaning the apple benefits are getting smaller. I still prefer my hackintosh than any other pc. It runs smoother and with less hassle than any pc I have ever owned, from custom builds to off the shelf dells etc

 

Windows will never beat unix in stability/performance. Apple hasn't designed this system. Just to make things clear.

Mr. Reid
How can you include the BMCC as a contender in 2012 when it's not shipped ??

 

It's his personal opinion ;). His opinions don't have much in common with unbiased approach. He's great cameraman/filmmaker etc., though.

dpr poll.jpg

 

Interesting results of the poll at DPR. A lot of love for Olympus but not much for Sony and Canon.

 

Telling.

 

 Definitely single poll is telling the whole story. Reality check.

I checked amazon/ebay few stores. Can't buy black magic camera anywhere. Hardly 2012 camera - LMAO. Pretty good "stretching the truth" techniques though. ppl will buy it but next time I'd suggest checking what kind of products get "product of the year" label.

what about this one? [url="http://www.ebay.com/sch/tekksavvy/m.html?_nkw=312&_sacat=0&_odkw=&_osacat=0&_trksid=p3911.c0.m270.l1313"]http://www.ebay.com/sch/tekksavvy/m.html?_nkw=312&_sacat=0&_odkw=&_osacat=0&_trksid=p3911.c0.m270.l1313[/url]

 

[url="http://cheesycam.com/312-bi-color-changing-led-light-price-drop/"]http://cheesycam.com/312-bi-color-changing-led-light-price-drop/[/url]

There is no SOLID zoom lenses at your price point unfortunately.

This "mobile card" is only slightly slower than their high end desktop cards. The 680MX absolutely destroys a 560 Ti 1.5GB.

2GB will be plenty to edit BMC footage. Remember, there's a big difference between 2K RAW and 4K RED RAW.

 

Nvidia locks out some "pro" features on their desktop and mobile cards. Some of these features are used for 3D rendering. The non Quadro cards will send these tasks to the CPU.  I don't think any of these tasks have anything to do with editing video, but they might.

 

 

I think high performance video cards are more dynamic in structure than to just theorize that memory makes one better than the other.  for instance a high class 1GB video card supplied with different chips not found on commercial 2gb+ gaming cards have significant roles for editing multi codecs, resolutions, modeling etc...  I can say that I have a workhorse station and Adobe had recommended a Quadro card over the GTX.  I don't care much for the specified science behind it.  I just want to drive and test.  Which I did, so I ditched the GTX 590 for the Quadro 2000 and everything was much sweeter.  CS6 runs beautiful as always.  I can have Colorista II and Magic Bullet (2 plugins) on one clip in Full resolution playback running smooth on the Quadro 2000.  I couldn't get that with the 590.  Aside from the plugins the 590 was a sweet card for sure.

 

[url="http://www.reduser.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-77102.html"]http://www.reduser.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-77102.html[/url] - here is a little bit of discussion about it. For best choice you need to know what's happening behind the scenes. On average though,  most are probably better off buying GF cards.

As for mobile and desktop version: according to this: [url="http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-680mx/specifications"]http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-680mx/specifications[/url] and [url="http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-680/specifications"]http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-680/specifications[/url] looks like 680mx is underclocked version of the desktop card by about 25%...Obviously it doesn't mean you'll notice 25% increase in performance between the two.

^bummer

Just been looking into this a bit and apparently running SLI does not increase the amount of ram. The memory is instead mirrored. In a game it boosts the performance so much because it renders frames alternately so both cards are running the same game and so have the same data in their ram. So it looks for video editing that SLI is not worth it.

 

Well, ok, but the rendering speed is still increased significantly. So it's worth it for performance increase. It's just when u exceed available RAM - performance decreases.

 

hmmm looks like only advantage of quadro is their RAM amount and that's what NVIDIA is limiting on gamers cards. GTX 590 has 3GB. It should easily beat quadro 5000 with 2GB of video RAM IMHO. Quadro 6000 has 6GB so it'll be clear winner once someone needs more than 3GB of video ram. Before it's probably a loser. For anyone interested. You should be checking how much vram you need for your work.

 

tomekk, Do you get paid to try and convince people to not buy Apple products? Because judging by the amount of energy you expend in doing so, you should be. ;-)

 

 

I wish =), looks like as of now I'm just doing it for nothing. Not the most EV+ approach for me, lol. Oh, I'm not trying to convince ppl. Just saying what I think, seriously. PPL can do WHATEVER they want. Including buying Apple's overpriced PC hardware ;).

Tomekk -- If you had $3000 to spend, what CUDA-accelerated video editing workstation and monitor combination would you get?

 

This requires a bit of researching because I haven't been following workstation market for quite a bit (only laptops). If I have spare time or more ppl would like to see this - I'll look around. There are trade offs (6core vs 4core, SLI more memory older card vs faster card less memory etc).

True it is all mobile hardware, not desktop like a Mac Pro or a PC.

 

GTX 680MX is still a nice card though and will run Resolve well enough for basic editing and grading with Blackmagic Cinema Camera footage.

 

That's a brilliant idea! Apple, I'm proud of you one more time! Make a Mac Book PRO which is worse (specs wise) and more expensive (I'm assuming) than iMac which is also laptop (hardware wise) and could be a laptop but instead is not a laptop (poratbility/oficially) which is still more expensive and slower than the most expensive PC-laptop. Genius. Not to mention PCs which are gonna kill iMac like BMCC is killing Canon in video department (yeah, yeah, I know they don't look as COOOOOOOL as iMACs and it's 2012 FOR GODS SAKE, everything should be 0.00001micron thick!!!!! ;))

I've heard from Timescapes (Tom Lowe) that 3GB video ram on the card makes a large difference over 1.5GB or 2GB in editing Red Raw with CUDA. Could be a reason some consumer GTX cards are out performed by a Quadro card.

 

Just make sure you get a 3GB card, 580 or better, will be fine for the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. Budget option is a 560 Ti 1.5GB.

 

Yeah, that's what's pretty obvious as I've stated before. Similarly 4GB video ram makes large difference over 3GB ram and so on (assuming you need more than 3GB of video ram). In his case it's weird because 590 gtx has more RAM than quadro 2000 which I checked and has 1GB.

 

Also probably better to get 2 cards for SLI to get twice the amount of RAM.

I don't know about the new GTX cards, but I had sold my GTX 590 with extra change to spare for a Quadro 2000 and the improvement was 4x better.  I don't know much about the marketing schemes from nVidia but I can care less about the gaming performance.  This just last year running CS5.5 I noticed a significant difference in realtime plugin performance for the 590 and the Quadro 2000.  I'm still gunning a Quadro 2000 atm.  My rig is an Intel i7 990x (extreme) with a 24g RAM board on Win8.  No need atm to upgrade as everything is still running smoothly even with R3D files.  Either I didn't do settings right for the GTX 590 or it's simply not meant for editing.  I trust the Quadro's out of experience.  Not sure about the new generation cards in dynamics for gaming and editing, but I prefer a non gaming card tbh, and I'm pretty sure Apple is trying to target a new generation of gamers as well and follow the PC boat.

 

That's pretty weird. One option is your work needs extreme amounts of RAM. One advantage of quadro vs Geforce is their RAM amount. Can't see how gfx can be slower than quadro in other cases. Rendering depends on CUDA cores and CORE frequency. GFX beats quadro in it by quite a bit. I've done very quick research so here is one of the first links to a CS6 AE benchmark I found:

[url="http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/2/1019643"]http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/2/1019643[/url]

cliffs: gf 680 gtx beats quadro 6000

 

discusscion about quadro vs gf (didn't have time to read it all though, but I'm assuming gfx is better. I would be shocked if not): [url="http://forums.adobe.com/message/4809602"]http://forums.adobe.com/message/4809602[/url]

I've just started turning my PC into a Hackintosh tonight, as fed up with Windows.

 

It is incredibly easy.

 

I bought a 120GB SSD boot drive for 69 euros which is latest Sandforce controller and 500MB/s read / write.

 

I downloaded my copy of Mountain Lion OS X from the App Store on my Mac and made sure the Install file was located in Applications and that I had an SD card formatted to HFS in my USB port.

 

I went here [url="http://www.macbreaker.com/2012/02/how-to-update-mac-os-x-lion-on-your-pc.html"]http://www.macbreaker.com/2012/02/how-to-update-mac-os-x-lion-on-your-pc.html[/url]

 

And am following the steps.

 

Leaving it for now and will report back when finished.

 

My PC is a Dell XPS 8300 off eBay. These are meant to be well suited as Hackintosh machines. The hardware is all compatible.

 

Oh my my, 1 more person potentially getting unblinded ;). If u weren't impacted by my talk, nobody on this forum would. There is a hope.

I make a living editing and working on a Mac, but I have also been considering other PC options as I consider an upgrade. I just want a computer that works. Something that I don't have to fiddle with too much. I already spend all of my time doing that with cameras.

 

Here's why this seems like a good fit for someone who edits professionally (like myself):

[list=1]
[*]I have been advised that there is currently no 6-core PC with Thunderbolt that is optimized for grading RAW in Davinci Resolve 9. It's one or the other. Thunderbolt is going to be invaluable as we push past 1080P. It also allows for a computer to be upgraded externally. If I really wanted to, I could add a second graphics card to the iMac.
[*]After purchasing a high quality 27" monitor, the workstations that I have been looking at would cost more than a new iMac (the $3000 option I have mentioned above).
[*]Finally, my 2007 iMac is still valued at around $800. If in five years I can also sell this iMac for 1/3 of the price I bought it for, then that's a strong consideration as well. I doubt that the same could be said about a PC.
[/list]

For 3D or advanced motion graphics, I think that I PC would probably be a better fit. But for my purposes as an editor, this iMac just seems to make more sense than a PC. I just hope that it can handle 4K if that is really where we'll be in five years.

ad. 1.

a) Your assumption might be correct so my assumption is: as we push past 1080p (notice it's a pretty vague statement so we'd need to be more precise...ialthough, it's fine for now) we'll have motherboards supporting LGA1366 (6core intel cpus) WITH thunderbolt.

b )  Imac you've listed has got 4 cores. Can you even put 6 core cpu there?? If you can, why they don't give this option?? I want it all written on piece of paper and then signed by your advisor ;).

 

ad. 3. see my previous post.

 

ad. 2. when I have more time I might do comparison on that. It's unlikely to me this is the case.

So figure out how much that 2 inch thick machine will be worth used in 1-2 years time and compare it to how much a 1-2 year old Apple laptop sells for, then tell us where's the joke.

 

Let's say I pay 2k for 2inch thick machine and you pay 3k for apple. You pay 1k extra on top of mine ("brand") I pay 1k less. Hardware depreciation is going to be the same on both. Now let's say in 1 year time hardware goes down 50%. Mine is worth 1k$. Your is worth 2k$. Let's say in 2 years time hardware will go 90% down. Mine is worth 200$ yours is worth 1200$. Can you get more money for yours after 2 years? Yes, 1000$ in this example. Are you effectively getting more money when selling after 2 years? No. You were stuck 1k$ from the beginning with the same performance. What's the outcome? You sold yours for 1000$ more to get unstuck and be even on money with me.

I had a question relating to the new iMac too:

 

Does anyone know whether the Nvidia Quadro cards offer any improved performance in resolve over the non-pro cards (GTX) other than clock speed and cores? Does the same apply to mobile(M) cards as well.

On paper the Nvidia 680MX in the new top-end iMac kills the Quadro 4000, which is DaVinci Resolve approved. The 680MX is also cheaper. What's the downside? I know they lock out some 3D developer features, but is their any downside if you are just doing video editing?

 

AFAIR Quadro is the past. Reasearch I've done 1-2 years ago showed that regular cards started killing Quadro cards long time ago in performance. If I recall correctly it's not worth buying quadro these days unless something has changed. Should be easy to verify it with google.

.

Zach, there is no doubt joke can pay your bills. Similar BMCC vs 5DMK3. 5DMK3 is a joke in video mode in comparison to BMCC and still can pay ones bills. Even VIDEO mode of 5DMK3 is a joke when you put it next to the GH2 (assuming you don't need low light and you're not in extra tight spaces).

 

your joke in video mode: C300 vs BMCC, hell, maybe even C500 vs BMCC